Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"Friends don't steal friends' identities, do they?"

Identity Thief is neither as gut-bustingly funny as it should have been nor as bad as it's been made out to be. Directed by Seth Gordon (Horrible Bosses) and written by Craig Mazin (The Hangover: Part II), the movie is fundamentally a comedic showcase for its two leads: sublime straight man Jason Bateman and up-and-coming comedy dynamo Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids). Although the flick has a few good laughs here and there, it's an aggressively forgettable affair, with its simple premise becoming overcomplicated and overextended. It's not that the movie is bad per se; it's just lazy, and flawed scripting often spoils the fun.

A happy family man who finally catches a major career break, Sandy Patterson (Bateman) finds his life turned upside down when his identity is stolen by Florida resident Diana (McCarthy), who racks up thousands of dollars of debt in Sandy's name. When Sandy's job is threatened as a result of Diana's activities, he has no choice but to go after the criminal himself, especially with the police proving to be of little help. Leaving his wife (Amanda Peet) and daughters behind, Sandy flies from his Denver home to Florida, hoping to find the scam artist and convince her to return home with him to face the music. Diana doesn't plan to go down without a fight or three, but she finds herself teaming up with Sandy when she's pursued by a pair of criminal enforcers (Genesis Rodriguez and T.I.) and a skiptracer (Robert Patrick).

Identity Thief runs too long at around 110 minutes, with Mazin and Gordon padding out the simple premise with unnecessary sub-plots that spoil the fun. The story threads of the enforcers and the bounty hunter ultimately lead nowhere, only proving to be a perfunctory obstacle popping up at inconvenient times for the protagonists. Plus, at one stage, Sandy engages in illegal activities with Diana, which takes the story to unnecessarily dark places and puts Sandy in the grey area of morality. The beauty of Planes, Trains & Automobiles is its simplicity and momentum, and it runs a brisk 90 minutes. By comparison, Identity Thief just keeps going and going, and the plot complications cause more frustrations than laughs. It's too callous and heavy-handed. Worse, Mazin's screenplay has no plausible underpinnings supporting it - it presents questionable depictions of how police detectives operate, how the corporate world works, and the operations of credit card agencies. Nothing rings true; it feels like a pure fantasy, and the film assumes we're too ignorant to realise the difference. And Diana steals Sandy's identity using the oldest scam trick in the book; only an idiot would fall for it.

Although there are a few quality laughs here and there, Identity Thief ultimately comes up short in the comedy department. Many of the jokes either fall flat or are completely witless, relying purely on crude dialogue to get laughs. One especially awful recurring joke is characters constantly referencing the fact that Sandy is a woman's name. I guess none of the characters have heard of Sandy Collins or Sandy Koufax. Hence, when everyone makes snide comments about Sandy's name, it seems forced and ignorant. To his credit, Gordon does an admirable job of steering the picture between the comedic and the dramatic, exhibiting a degree of heart that feels surprisingly earned. Nevertheless, the ethics behind Identity Thief are questionable, asking us to sympathise with Diana due to her troubled history. Mazin's script tries to make excuses for blatant criminal behaviour, which doesn't sit right. I mean, Diana's fraudulent activities destroy lives; just because she had a rough upbringing doesn't mean she can be forgiven for stealing thousands upon thousands of dollars.

Although McCarthy has featured in films and television shows for over a decade, her breakout role in 2011's Bridesmaids catapulted the actress into the spotlight. And for good reason; she's on fire here, denoting one of the biggest strengths of Identity Thief that keep the film watchable throughout its rougher patches. She nails the humorous aspects of the character, and she handles the dramatic elements skilfully as well. As for Bateman, he simply plays Jason Bateman, the proverbial straight man. While Bateman doesn't exactly stretch his abilities here, he's always an amiable and believable presence on-screen. The coupling of Bateman and McCarthy is a brilliant one, which is why it's such a shame that the material doesn't serve them better.

With a talented comedic director at the helm and a pair of capable comic leads, Identity Thief had the potential to be the comedy highlight of 2013. Instead, it's mildly amusing from time to time but ultimately underwhelming and rarely outright hilarious. The movie will probably please the target market, though, who come looking for an easy-going, switch-off-your-brain comedy. But it will be forgotten almost immediately, whereas classic comedies like Planes, Trains & Automobiles are still remembered decades on.

5.7/10

"You have just said goodbye to oxygen. You silly, stupid cop. You refused me. I offer you the keys to a kingdom and you tell me you're an officer of the law? I AM THE LAW! ME!"

Arriving the year after Tim Burton's Batman set the box office on fire, 1990's Dick Tracy was Disney's attempt at kick-starting their own comic book film franchise. The House of Mouse pulled out all the stops, relentlessly feeding the hype machine and marketing the hell out of the picture. Although it proved to be somewhat of a disappointment for the studio, Dick Tracy is delightfully enjoyable all these years on, a colourful adaptation of the comic strip of the same name by Chester Gould. What the film lacks in gripping storytelling, it makes up in memorable visuals, strong filmmaking and tremendous star power, and the result is a real hoot. Dick Tracy really was ahead of its time as well, and it's difficult not to be impressed with the visual fireworks on display considering the primitive tools at the disposal of director/star Warren Beatty at the time.

A police detective sporting a yellow overcoat and fedora, Dick Tracy (Beatty) splits his attention between cleaning up the streets and wooing his girlfriend, Tess Trueheart (Glenne Headly). Into his life soon steps The Kid (Charlie Korsmo), an orphan boy saved from the streets by Tracy. Meanwhile, ruthless crime boss Big Boy Caprice (Al Pacino) is positioning himself to rule the city with his gang of outlandish goons. Looking to take down Caprice, Tracy becomes distracted by Breathless Mahoney (Madonna), a sexy nightclub singer owned by the violent gangster. Amid all this, a new menace emerges known as The Blank, whose allegiances are ambiguous.

Gould started the Dick Tracy newspaper comic in 1931, and the strip is still being published today. Tracy is a character who communicates with other police via wristwatch walkie-talkies, and he pursues a cavalcade of eccentric villains of peculiar appearance. All of these characteristics carry over into the movie with a screenplay by Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr. (Top Gun). The film pays meticulous attention to fan service, cramming in as many characters from the comic as possible to pleasing effect. The only real problem with Dick Tracy is the story, which is completely nondescript and clichéd. It's a typical tale of a powerful gangster looking to rule the city while law enforcement works to prevent such a goal. Additionally, the script baulks from exploring Tracy the person; we see him fight crime, but we never find out his motivations or past.

From a technical standpoint, Dick Tracy is a home run. The production values are immaculate; shots burst with colourful sets, detailed costumes and period-specific cars and props. The action sequences are consistently strong, as well. There are not many shootouts, but the stuff that is present is of a high standard. The film also made headlines in 1990 for its unique visual approach in bringing the comic strip to the big screen. Beatty and his crew restrict the film's colour palette to seven colours, each of which is the same shade. It gives the picture a look that's unique to this day, and it recreates the comic strip faithfully. Additionally, the visuals mix live-action material with hand-drawn matte paintings, giving it a slightly cartoonish appearance that makes it look even more unique. Beatty and cinematographer Vittorio Storaro limit camera movement as much as possible, too, aiming to make the film feel like a series of still panels. Going one step further, the outrageous bad guys are covered in extensive prosthetics to recreate the look of the comic's characters. Also impressive is Danny Elfman's flavoursome score, as well as the inclusion of several original songs written by Broadway legend Stephen Sondheim. Dick Tracy was nominated for seven Oscars, ultimately winning in the categories of make-up, art direction and original song.

Beatty has copped a bit of criticism for his portrayal of Tracy. He's not exactly the first person one imagines for such a role, but Beatty's performance is solid; he presents a perfectly serviceable interpretation of the hero cop. Likewise, Pacino is frequently belittled for his scenery-chewing turn as Caprice, which actually earned a very controversial Oscar nomination. It's not exactly a skilful performance, but Pacino is a hoot, hilariously cheesy and over-the-top. The supporting cast is huge and completely star-studded, with appearances from the likes of James Caan, Dick Van Duke, Paul Sorvino, William Forsythe, Charles Durning, and many more. Beatty must have called in every single favour he could. Madonna is also here, while Dustin Hoffman plays Mumbles, a character ideally suited to the actor's abilities. Hoffman takes the role and runs with it; he's very entertaining.

Before Beatty nabbed the director's chair, Walter Hill was apparently close to filming his take on the comic book character. Beatty ultimately stopped Hill due to the filmmaker's violent vision, which is frankly somewhat disappointing as it'd be interesting to see what Hill could have made of this material (it would've likely been R-rated and thematically thoughtful). Nevertheless, Beatty's film is a lot of fun despite its flaws, and it's a shame that it has become so obscure. Indeed, no sequel ever came, the film didn't inspire much of a cult following, and no other Dick Tracy projects (movie or TV) have been made as of 2013. Looking at it today, it's a garish product of its era that deserves a wider audience. Given that comic book adaptations aspire to be realistic and gritty these days, it's refreshing to watch Beatty's Dick Tracy, which is light-hearted and stands by the roots of its source material.

7.7/10

"Those who do evil to others - the killers, the rapists, psychos, sadists - you will come to know me well. Frank Castle is dead. Call me... The Punisher."

Superhero films have become a major trend in the 21st Century, with Marvel and DC comic book properties transforming into lavish CGI-driven blockbusters concerning fanciful protagonists. Although 2004's The Punisher is based on a Marvel character, this big-screen adventure is a far cry from the PG-13 antics of Spider-Man or X-Men. Written and directed by Jonathan Hensleigh, this is a vicious vigilante action film, closer to Dirty Harry and Death Wish than Fantastic Four. How refreshing it is to have a brutal anti-hero in this era of comic book do-gooders, and it's nice to behold an R-rated Marvel movie punctuated with brutal action sequences that has the balls to be something other than family-friendly eye candy. The Punisher underperformed at the box office (even despite its modest budget), but it's a cracker of a film. Fun, gritty and highly entertaining, it's a satisfying actioner deserving of a wider audience.

A Gulf War veteran, Frank Castle (Thomas Jane) is an undercover federal officer working on a case involving illegal guns. When the police move in to break up the deal, a firefight results in the death of Bobby Saint (James Carpinello), the son of mobster Howard Saint (John Travolta). When Howard learns of his son's death, he vows revenge against Castle, sending his men to wipe out the officer's entire family during a family reunion. Surviving the assault while the rest of his relatives, including his wife and child, are slaughtered, Castle spends several months recovering and plans to dish out vigilante justice against Howard Saint. Building an arsenal, Castle begins to dispense punishment to those who wronged him with the help of his oddball neighbours (including Ben Foster, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos and John Pinette).

The Punisher was the directorial debut for Hensleigh, who carved a career for himself writing action movies like Die Hard With a Vengeance and Armageddon. Hensleigh worked on the script with Michael France, who co-wrote other Marvel films like Ang Lee's Hulk and 2005's Fantastic Four. Hensleigh's experience in the action-adventure genre serves him well here, dialling down over-the-top superhero movie theatrics in favour of a more grounded big-screen adventure for Marvel's brutal vigilante. Castle is from the "everyday heroes" mould like John McClane and Paul Kersey, as he's portrayed as a mortal who bleeds and cares, and who relies on guts and brains to dispatch his enemies. Castle does not fly or spin webs, nor does he have the bank account of Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne. The only problem with Hensleigh's film is that it baulks from being as relentlessly dark as its source material. I mean, a torture scene involves Popsicles, and Castle's neighbours are played too broadly. The adaptation is enjoyable for what it is, but Hensleigh should have gone the whole hog. (See the 2012 short The Punisher: Dirty Laundry by Jane himself for a better cinematic representation of the character.)

Just as the titular character is the antithesis of his Marvel superhero counterparts, The Punisher is a different type of Marvel flick in terms of tone and technique. Hensleigh relies on practical effects as much as possible here, with little in the way of CGI. Hence, there are real stunts, real car crashes, real explosions, and practical blood squibs. The action sequences are all impressive here, coherently assembled and vehemently R-rated. Considering Hensleigh was reportedly working on a scant $33 million budget, The Punisher is quite an achievement, although even the filmmaker himself laments the fact that the production lacked suitable funds to make the movie all that it could have been.

One would imagine the likes of The Rock or Vin Diesel in the role of The Punisher, but Jane is an ideal pick. A huge fan of the character, Jane prepared extensively for the role, working for several months to build muscle and learn proper military firearms techniques. He nails the character's stoic, badass demeanour, and he handles the character's vulnerable side with ease. Travolta, meanwhile, hams it up as Howard Saint with a scenery-chewing performance that wouldn't look out of place in Dick Tracy. Digging into the supporting cast, Roy Scheider (Jaws) has a small part as Castle's doomed father, and professional wrestler Kevin Nash also pops in for a vicious brawl that denotes one of the picture's highlights.

There isn't much originality or depth to The Punisher, not to mention the film is a little on the long side, and perhaps there should've been more actual punishing. Nevertheless, this is a solid effort by all involved, and a badass revenge action film that easily provides a fun evening of popcorn entertainment. It's a nicely-produced B-movie that plays out like a spaghetti western or an 80s-era revenge action film that Charles Bronson or Arnold Schwarzenegger might have starred in. The definitive Punisher feature film has yet to be made, but this is a valiant effort.

7.7/10

"At last, mankind has returned."

Imagine if someone at Disney wrote a Jack and the Beanstalk animated movie at some point in the 1990s employing all of the company's trademark staples but decided to shelve the project. Now imagine that someone dusted off the screenplay two decades later amid the fairy tale reboot craze and decided to transform it into a live-action blockbuster. The result would resemble 2013's Jack the Giant Slayer, a misguided fantasy epic and a total waste of time. Directed by Bryan Singer, the movie was meant to be released in June 2012 but was delayed about nine months for unclear reasons and underwent a title change from Jack the Giant Killer to the less vicious Jack the Giant Slayer. Although it's an attractive-looking big-budget movie, it only sporadically springs to life, and the film seems confused about what it wants to be.

As a child, farm boy Jack (Nicholas Hoult) was read bedtime stories about monks who used magic beans to grow beanstalks in an attempt to meet God. Instead of reaching the heavens, however, the monks encountered a land of bloodthirsty giants with an eye towards conquering humanity. As an adult, Jack struggles to make ends meet, now living with his disparaging uncle. While looking to sell a horse in town, Jack is given magic beans by a nervous monk. That night, Jack is visited by Princess Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson), a rebellious young woman who wants to explore the world before she goes through with her arranged marriage to Roderick (Stanley Tucci). But a rainstorm triggers the growing power of one of the beans, lifting the princess into the clouds. Hoping to rescue Isabelle, Jack joins the king's rescue efforts led by royal guard Elmont (Ewan McGregor). Climbing beyond the clouds, the crew enter the land of the giants, who become determined to climb down the beanstalk and face off against humans once again.

Jack the Giant Slayer is a complete mess. Due to its initial title and a few incidental plot details, it looks as if the movie was at one stage intended to be a remake of the 1962 flick Jack the Giant Killer, an adaptation of the Celtic legend of the same name. But Singer's film takes most of its cues from the classic story Jack and the Beanstalk, another piece of literature that just happens to also involve giants and a protagonist named Jack. The mishmash is peculiar, to say the least. Additionally, it looks like Giant Slayer started life as a gritty fairytale reboot in the vein of Snow White and the Huntsman and Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters. But it looks as if the studio stepped in, likely in the late stages of production, to demand that the film be rejigged to be a soft kiddie fantasy adventure (probably the reason for the film's extensive delay and the title change). Hence, the giants here are aggressive and bite off a lot of human heads, yet we never see any of it, with awkward cutaways hiding the carnage and blood oddly lacking. The result is, in a word, bewildering.

The schizophrenic tone is a huge issue, as Singer mounts battle scenes and gruesome giant killings but also tries to play to the Shrek audience with silly slapstick humour and deaths happening off-screen. This type of mash-up can work in the right hands (Peter Jackson and Sam Raimi can do this stuff while unconscious), but it's just a mess in the hands of this team. To Singer's credit, Jack the Giant Slayer is handsomely mounted; the huge $195 million budget was put to good use as the production values are mightily impressive, though the CGI for the giants is an oddly mixed bag. The world of the giants is an impressive creation; it's an island floating in mid-air, and a lot of thought and detail went into its creation. The movie works in parts, as set pieces shine here and there, but it fails to hold together as a coherent whole. The picture eventually climaxes with a large-scale battle pitting the humans against giant soldiers. It's an enjoyable enough sequence sold with solid effects, but it's a complete rip-off of the Minas Tirith siege from The Lord of the Rings. And Peter Jackson did a far better job.

All of the actors seem to be on different wavelengths. Hoult and Tomlinson play it completely straight, but Tucci leans towards outright camp, and McGregor apparently believes he is in The Princess Bride. Meanwhile, as the King, Ian McShane looks fresh from Lord of the Rings auditions. Admittedly, though, the actors are all good enough, especially McGregor, who's very watchable as Elmont. Also worth a mention is Bill Nighy, instantly recognisable as the voice of one of the giants. It would seem that Nighy just recycled his Davey Jones voice here.

Although Jack the Giant Slayer is periodically enjoyable in the moment, it's forgettable to the max, the very definition of humdrum blockbuster entertainment. And that's disappointing, because it could've worked if Singer's crew had committed to one tone. If it was a DreamWorks animated adventure like How to Train Your Dragon, it could've been mature and imaginative. And if it was a gritty fantasy adventure, it could've been a compelling movie. But the final product is indecisive, not to mention it runs far too long at almost two hours. Slow-paced and plodding when it should be light on its feet, it lacks the charm and multi-tiered appeal of all the best family films. Suddenly, Singer's return to the X-Men franchise is worrying.

5.1/10

"That's the trouble with the world, Sarah darlin'. People got different ideas concernin' what they want out of life."

The third instalment in director George A. Romero's undead franchise, 1985's Day of the Dead was intended to be the Gone with the Wind of zombie movies, with an ambitious story and epic scope. However, the budget was slashed from $7 million to $3.5 million by nervous financiers concerned about the film's gory content, with Romero hesitant to conform to the limitations of an R rating (how quaint, looking back), and with executive producer Salah M. Hassanein unwilling to fund an unrated film. The screenplay was therefore rewritten in line with the budget cuts, in the process compromising Romero's initial vision. Even though Day of the Dead is not a genuinely epic zombie extravaganza, the finished film is nevertheless hard to dislike. Although the scope is restricted, ample funds were available for the special effects - and consequently, this is a vehemently old-school, insanely violent horror film with the most impressive zombie make-up of its era, while the script is beset with thoughtful thematic content.

Picking up an unspecified time after 1978's Dawn of the Dead, the zombie infestation has only intensified and grown - for every living human on the planet, there are four hundred thousand zombies. Day of the Dead finds a number of survivors in an underground Floridian bunker, where scientists cohabitate with armed military personnel. The science team, led by Dr. Logan (Richard Liberty) and including Dr. Sarah Bowman (Lori Cardille), is conducting experiments on undead bodies in the hope of finding a cure, or at least another way to deal with the growing zombie numbers. However, the soldiers, led by the antagonistic Captain Rhodes (Joseph Pilato), are becoming impatient, and sanity levels are rapidly declining due to the confined space and ostensible lack of hope for the future.

Although zombie movies are usually brainless endeavours, Romero creates cautionary fables about societal malaises, buttressing the material with satire. Night of the Living Dead concentrated on the unrest emerging from the civil rights movement, and reflected the era’s growing fear of invasion by foreign forces. Dawn satirised materialism, viewing crass commercialism as a mindless escape from reality and a new drug of choice. Day of the Dead, meanwhile, is a product of the Regan era, with Romero setting his sights on the military and creating a doomsday prediction of life in the not-too-distant future. The tone here is darker and more dour than its predecessors, disposing of the almost slapstick feel that permeated Dawn of the Dead. Due to the budget cuts, Day mostly takes place within the labyrinthine underground facility, similar to Dawn's shopping mall setting. However, the mood here is more hopeless and the zombies are not the only threat, as the human characters begin to turn on one another. Romero posits that although some humans may still be alive during a zombie apocalypse, the undead still win if they destroy the soul of humanity.

Day of the Dead is backed by conceptual intelligence, but it is still an entertaining movie driven by visceral bloodshed and gore, with Romero never skimping on the nasty details. Without a doubt, this is make-up and special effects artist Tom Savini's artistic masterpiece. Savini is a long-time special effects champion, and he lets his war-scarred imagination run wild here (he was a combat photographer in Vietnam). As a result, Day of the Dead is viciously gory, with an unsettling attention to anatomical detail - we get a person's face being torn off by the eyelid, a head being cut in half with a shovel, and zombie fingers prying open living humans to pull out the gooey viscera inside. The zombies themselves look outstanding too, exhibiting convincing deterioration and decay. Additionally, some of the zombies are missing limbs, while another is entirely cut open on an operation table. Other elements of the special effects still impress to this day, including the terrific practical blood squibs. Furthermore, Romero's direction is expectedly competent, driving the mayhem and staging the action set-pieces with a sure hand. If there is a shortcoming, it's the synth score by John Harrison, which noticeably dates the film. Romero's vision needed a stronger musical accompaniment.

Admittedly, the characters inhabiting Day of the Dead are not exactly likeable or sympathetic; virtually everybody here is an over-the-top cartoon, from the mad doctor to the insane, trigger-happy soldiers. But aside from the sheer entertainment value of these caricatures, it is a credible portrayal of this type of situation - with the world in a post-apocalyptic state, the only people left alive are either rational or crazy. Pilato is the standout in terms of acting; his character of Captain Rhodes is memorably unhinged and rich in personality, yet he is also arguably the film's real hero. After all, he is right about the futility of surgery to "domesticate" the zombies, and the facility's security is ultimately threatened because of the scientists. Rhodes is mad and unsentimental, but that is precisely why he survived for so long. Meanwhile, Cardille is a strong and charismatic female lead, while solid support is provided by Terry Alexander as the rational helicopter pilot. Gary Howard Klar also warrants a mention; he's over-the-top and fun as one of the crazed soldiers. But perhaps the strongest performer here is Sherman Howard as Bub, a zombie in the process of becoming domesticated through scientific experiments. Howard looks like a brainless zombie at first glance, yet he also nails the role's more complex nuances. It's a quality performance, making Bub the most sympathetic character in the film.

Due to the screenplay changes necessitated by budget cuts, Day of the Dead is a polarising film that is seen as either a fan favourite or a missed opportunity. The movie certainly struggled to find its audience when released in 1985, with disappointing box office to boot, but it found second life on home video. Although it's lamentable that Romero could not accomplish his original vision, Day of the Dead is great for what it is: another bold portrayal of the zombie apocalypse that's creepy, frightening and gory. Romero's view of humanity here is detached and cynical, the film is full of scenery-chewing lunatics, and Savini's special make-up effects remain simply astonishing to this day. It adds up to another masterpiece in this reviewer's mind, though Day of the Dead is not for all tastes.

7.7/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.5/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2/10

"Depression is the inability to construct a future."

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.9/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.1/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.5/10