Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"We'd love to help you take those letters to Santa."

Before the Muppets received a glorious theatrical resurrection in 2011, the beloved felt characters were left to languish in the doldrums for a long time, featuring in below-par television movies and specials that tested the true patience of Muppet fans. A Muppets Christmas: Letters to Santa, an hour-long holiday special which aired on ABC in late 2008, is frankly tragic to watch. Watered down, flat and far too corny, the movie is a trembling step down from both The Muppet Christmas Carol and the unexpectedly enjoyable It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas. It has its moments, but the enterprise is aimed squarely at young kids, and fails to do much to keep anyone else interested. Gone is the wit and genuine heart of the early Muppet pictures, and in its place is syrupy, vanilla formula.

It's Christmas Eve, and the Muppet troupe - including Kermit (Whitmire), Miss Piggy (Jacobson), Fozzie Bear (also Jacobson), Rizzo (Whitmire again) and Gonzo (Goelz) - are at the post office to finish their errands before jetting off to their respective holiday destinations. Gonzo gets a little too curious inside the post office, though, sparking outright mayhem, and he ends up forgetting to mail a handful of Santa letters. Determined to get them to the jolly fat man before it's too late, Gonzo persuades the Muppet crew to travel to the North Pole and personally deliver the letters to Santa. Unsurprisingly, the journey is fraught with mishaps, the troupe get mixed up in an array of hijinks, they encounter a variety of B-list celebrities, and everyone learns the true meaning of Christmas. How trite and obvious can you get?

Kirk Thatcher was a smart choice to take charge of the production, as his first Muppet outing was the surprisingly strong It's A Very Merry Muppet Christmas. Alas, the magic and charm of that special is unaccounted for here; this picture's look reeks of its TV origins, with lifeless production design and drab photography. The location shots in New York City are impressive, but the interior sets and all the North Pole stuff makes the film look like a sitcom. The "kiddie" vibe pervading Letters to Santa is its worst sin. Yes, the Muppets is for kids, but they should not pander to kids. Muppet movies are often played with a degree of straightness to give the adults something to latch onto, but this special is full of winking gags and self-consciously funny moments, closer to Sesame Street than The Muppet Movie. Most of the performers (notoriously Nathan Lane) seem in on the joke and look to be enjoying themselves too much, which is exactly why the film doesn't work. The Muppet performers are good enough here, but they seem positively lost with this disappointing script, left to deliver flat jokes for the sake of collecting a paycheque.

Catchy original songs are a staple of Muppet movies, but Letters to Santa hopelessly fails on this front. Despite the input of Muppet musical veteran Paul Williams, the songs here are mediocre at best, unbearably mushy at worst. Not to mention, the Muppets' satiric legacy is lost here, and the movie lacks any type of moral conflict. Admittedly, Letters to Santa does pick up for its finale. The sentimentality is initially too much to bear, but things ultimately get better, reinforcing the Christmas spirit and providing a handful of nice moments. Although it still feels like a sitcom, it's enjoyable enough, and may leave you with a nice fuzzy feeling inside. However, the special closes with an unnecessarily prolonged 10-minute end credit reel, beginning with outtakes before proceeding onto a music video, followed by more outtakes. Evidently the makers wanted to close the door with a smile, but to this extent is overkill. Save this stuff for the DVD extras, please.

All in all, it's hard to walk away satisfied with A Muppets Christmas: Letters to Santa. Young kids may enjoy the film, but long-time Muppet fans will be bored and disillusioned. Even the roster of guest stars is disappointing; New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is useless since kids won't even know who he is (and international folks will be left in the dark), Uma Thurman gratingly overacts, Nathan Lane seems to have forgotten how to sell a joke, and the film fails to take advantage of Jane Krakowski's comedic potential. The obnoxiously kid-friendly vibe of Letters to Santa cements it as an ardently worthless entry in the Muppet canon, and it's impossible to recommend this one to Muppet fans, who will likely wind up heartbroken.

4.8/10

"It is our job to protect the children of the world. For as long as they believe in us, we will guard them with our lives..."

Movie-goers have understandably grown weary of holiday-themed motion pictures released during the lead-up to Christmas, a time when studios believe that audiences are in the mood for cheap and nasty festive distractions aimed at the lowest common denominator. Rise of the Guardians, however, is a completely different beast, as indicated by the fact that it's executive produced by Guillermo del Toro. Based on the Guardians of Childhood book series by William Joyce, Rise of the Guardians boasts a premise bound to make every screenwriter in Hollywood wonder how they didn't think of it first: uniting holiday icons and childhood folklore figures for an Avengers-style team-up movie. The resultant picture is a magnificent fantasy experience permeated with imagination which reworks familiar icons in a satisfying fashion. It carries a harder edge than expected, yet it's entirely suitable for children, with its adventurous plot giving rise to excitement aplenty. The flick could have been a numbing kiddie fare, but it's much more audacious.

Rise of the Guardians posits that - in addition to carrying out their respective duties - Santa Claus (Baldwin), the Easter Bunny (Jackman), the Tooth Fairy (Fisher), and sleeping agent the Sandman comprise an elite team of magical warriors who work together to battle the forces of evil who threaten the innocence of the world's children. The all-powerful moon presides over the team of esteemed Guardians, and brings suitable threats to their attention. The Guardians' arch nemesis, boogieman Pitch Black (Law), re-emerges from the darkness, seeking the chance to thwart all the goodness in the world and claim power over the minds of children across the globe. To stop Pitch's devious plan, Jack Frost (Pine) is extended an invitation to join the group. A loner with no knowledge about his past who has developed into a flippant troublemaker, Frost is hesitant to join the Guardians, but agrees to help overthrow Pitch when he learns that the boogieman may hold the key to his missing identity. As war wages between the forces of good and evil, and as children's belief in the mystical icons begins to fluctuate, the Guardians come into contact with a young boy named Jamie (Goyo), who unwaveringly believes in them and whose faith helps to fuel the team's endeavours.

The title of Rise of the Guardians is actually a tad misleading (not to mention hopelessly generic), as the Guardians rose to prominence long before this story takes place. A lot of the film's whimsical charm is derived from the marvellous re-imaginings of these fantastical icons: Santa (known as North here) is portrayed as a muscled Russian behemoth with "Naughty" and "Nice" tattooed on his forearms; the Easter Bunny is a badass Aussie warrior with a boomerang; the Tooth Fairy a hummingbird-esque nymph; Jack Frost is a slacker teen; and the Sandman is a quirky mute who communicates via objects he manufactures in gold sand above his head. The dynamics between the group are remarkable, with the screenwriters manufacturing in-jokes and bestowing each team member with quirks and personalities, not to mention each of them possess an inherent competitive streak that's most notably glimpsed in a side-splitting montage of the team taking care of a night of tooth collecting. If there's a disappointment in terms of the characters, it's Pitch, who looks like some type of generic emo rather than a sinister entity. Granted, Pitch had to be kid-friendly, but look at The Nightmare Before Christmas.

Amid the group dynamics, the picture required a strong central anchor. Jack Frost fulfils this need; he represents an emotional entry point for the audience, with the film essentially providing Jack's origin tale. As he has no memory of his life predating his turn towards immortality, Jack yearns to find his centre and understand where he came from. It's a formulaic concept, to be sure, but it bestows the picture with humanity, and everything gels thanks to the smart script by Pulitzer Prize winner David Lindsay-Abaire. Moreover, Rise of the Guardians does a wonderful job with its mythology - the film makes it clear that the existence of these fantastical figures is reliant on children around the world believing in them. It's a solid idea, and the reinforcement of the film's central message is far more successful than Robert Zemeckis' drab misfire The Polar Express. Guardians eventually culminates with a marvellous finale that will warm your heart and leave you smiling, all without resorting to cheap manipulation or opting for the lazy way out.

Guillermo del Toro's influence is all over the visual design of the feature. Guardians looks positively gorgeous, and each frame bursts with colourful imagination. The flick features unique character designs, a selection of vibrant backgrounds, and lively photography thanks to the input of famed cinematographer Roger Deakins. The film is packed with awe-inspiring moments of whimsy and several breathtaking flights of fancy, not to mention visual humour courtesy of Santa's amusing minions. Whenever the movie cuts loose with action, the results are spectacular, displaying heightened creativity in its depiction of the protagonists' combat abilities. Who knew the Sandman was the one you really don't want to mess with?

Vocal performances are spot-on right across the board, with each actor injecting their role with an agreeable personality. Hugh Jackman is perhaps the best, giving the Easter Bunny a very funny Aussie twang. Jude Law is the most instantly recognisable performer here, and he's great as Pitch, belying the character's weak design by making him dark, mysterious and even charismatic. As Jack Frost, Chris Pine is a solid leading man, boyishly charming and believable as a devil-may-care slacker. Meanwhile, Alec Baldwin is a good fit for North. His Russian accent is just believable enough, and the esteemed performer additionally gives the role a degree of welcome gravitas. Rounding out the main players is Isla Fisher, who makes for an adorable Tooth Fairy.

From start to finish, Rise of the Guardians is absolutely wonderful, a superlative fantasy adventure packed with action, a terrific sense of humour and extravagant animated imagination. The best family movies are those which appeal to varying demographics, and this picture succeeds in that regard. Kids will adore the fast pace and the eye candy, teens will have a blast due to all the action and comedy, and adults will appreciate the film's depth and originality. Sure, it would've been nice to find out more about the other Guardians, and the film doesn't supplement the spectacle with much emotion, but it feels mean-spirited to point out the minor foibles of this otherwise extraordinary effort, especially in a market dominated by the likes of Ice Age 4 and The Smurfs. It's a shame the movie was not better rewarded at the box office, as I'd love to see the Guardians return for duty again someday, and I'd love to see them joined by a few new friends.

8.2/10

"Have any of you heard it? The heartbreak of a parent who's lost a child... When a parent's heart breaks, the sound can travel for miles. So I really need to say this to you. Be as nice to Gang-du as you can. Don't scold him, okay?"

Korean cinema is often highly regarded by critics and film buffs alike, as South Korean filmmakers produce horror films and action-thrillers with more verve and creativity than their Hollywood counterparts. 2006's The Host is South Korea's attempt at an epic monster movie in the vein of Godzilla and King Kong. Directed and co-written by the Oscar-winning Bong Joon-ho (Memories of Murder), The Host does not disappoint, with the Koreans successfully nailing yet another genre. Despite a comparatively paltry $11 million production budget, this is a superlative monster movie, and its production values are only a few notches below a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster. Consistently thrilling and involving, The Host benefits from competent storytelling, engaging character drama, strong creature effects and top-flight filmmaking from top to bottom. It succeeds as a straight-up monster movie due to the many exhilarating and edge-of-your-seat sequences involving the creature, yet the film also works as a familial drama, examining the breakdown of a dysfunctional family in a time of great crisis.

A dim-witted family man, Gang-du (Song Kang-ho) runs a concession stand along the Han River with his father and young daughter. A nearby U.S. military base dumping toxic chemicals into the river over several years results in the creation of a ferocious amphibious creature that suddenly emerges from the Han River to begin a vicious rampage. After slaughtering multiple people, the beast flees and returns to its lair carrying Gang-du's daughter, Hyun-seo (Go Ah-sung), for future consumption. Gang-du naturally assumes the worst, and his family comes to his aid to grieve Hyun-seo's presumed death. However, word surfaces that Gang-du's daughter is, in fact, alive in captivity and being held somewhere in the concrete storm drains feeding into the Han River. Though the authorities quarantine Gang-du due to an apparent virus threat, he escapes and works with his family to bring the girl back home safely.

The Host does ask you to briefly suspend your disbelief to accept the plot. After the creature rises, we watch as it ruthlessly slaughters several people, devouring some and leaving others to die of blood loss, before snatching young Hyun-seo and taking her back to its lair alive. One imagines that she should have drowned due to the beast's constant submersion under the water, or at least received whiplash as a result of being carried around like a ragdoll. Luckily, beyond this hard-to-swallow contrivance, The Host is a top-notch flick mixing monster movie theatrics with moments of black humour, outright slapstick and biting satire. However, the humour is not a dumb distraction, as it feels like an organic extension of the characters' personalities. When Gang-du's family sprawls all over the floor, writhing around in clumsy hysteria over Hyun-seo's apparent death, it is simultaneously poignant and hilarious. Joon-ho competently navigates the challenging tonal changes, which is also a testament to the excellent performances from a capable cast.

To Joon-ho's credit, he wastes little time before diving into the tour de force set piece involving the monster's first attack along the Han River. Especially with an R rating in place that allows for shocking bloodletting, it's an astounding sequence, and it is so unnerving and riveting due to how plausible it seems. Indeed, Joon-ho dials down the theatrics to create a scarily brutal attack guaranteed to send chills down your spine. Momentum unfortunately slows down following this initial rampage, and the film runs too long at almost two hours, but there are far more strong moments than weak scenes. The attack scenes throughout the picture are absolutely killer, with cinematographer Kim Hyung-koo using exceptionally crisp and steady framing to capture the mayhem, allowing for maximum visibility to let us properly marvel at the abilities of this beast. The climax, in particular, is a stunner - a competently orchestrated showdown that is astonishing and emotionally affecting in equal measure. The creature design by Weta Workshop is commendable, and the special effects by American production house The Orphanage (The Day After Tomorrow, Superman Returns) are quite good, even if the beast is not always entirely convincing. Sometimes, the CGI looks too obvious, but Joon-ho's direction is strong enough to belie such shortcomings.

Song Kang-ho (Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance) is hugely effective as the bumbling Gang-du. He's a terrific comedic presence, but his love for his daughter always shines through. Moreover, the actor impeccably sells the character's transformation from a slacker father to a mature parent. It's refreshing for The Host to feature a dysfunctional family battling the beast rather than a selection of soldiers or scientists. Speaking of which, The Host is an unorthodox creature feature that outright rejects Western mentalities: Joon-ho shows the monster in full view early into the film, the characters take precedence over action, no characters are safe, and the downbeat ending is unexpected. As a result, the film is a breath of fresh air within a genre that has grown stale of late.

There are political and satirical undertones throughout The Host, as Joon-ho drew inspiration for the movie from a widely-reported scandal involving the dumping of formaldehyde down drains running into the Han River. In the film, American soldiers combat the creature using the chemist agent known as "Agent Yellow," an obvious reference to the infamous Agent Orange from the Vietnam War. Indeed, Joon-ho openly admits that this movie is a metaphor and a political commentary about the United States. The Host is not perfect due to its occasionally rickety digital effects and a few patches of wobbly pacing, but it perpetually retains a quirky charm. It contains several standout action sequences, yet the film also follows the time-honoured Spielbergian formula of a dysfunctional family that must come together in an hour of crisis. If you like monster movies, seek out The Host as soon as possible.

7.7/10

"A man that is born of woman hath but a short time to live and is full of misery. He cometh up and is cut down like a flower.'"

Was another adaptation of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol really necessary, especially with several excellent retellings already available on home video? The answer is probably not, but that didn't prevent this 1999 made-for-TV iteration of A Christmas Carol from being made. Patrick Stewart spent years performing a successful one-man version of the story on stage, thus it was logical to preserve Stewart's interpretation of the infamous Ebenezer Scrooge on film. Luckily, the resultant picture does possess a certain charm, and it manages to encapsulate the magic of Dickens' enduring classic. However, this A Christmas Carol is a very workmanlike adaptation; not awful or unwatchable but certainly unremarkable, as it lacks a unique spin to distinguish it from hundreds of other adaptations. Sure, we have Patrick Stewart at the centre of it all, but everything else is too ordinary.

Set in Victorian London in the 1800s, Ebenezer Scrooge (Stewart) is a bitter, miserly businessman whose number one priority is making money. A solitary curmudgeon, Scrooge resides in a huge house he's too cheap to cheat, and the community both fears and loathes him. Seven years prior, Scrooge's business partner Jacob Marley (Lloyd) died, leaving just Scrooge and his poor, long-suffering assistant Bob Cratchit (Grant). Christmas is a holiday that Scrooge particularly despises, and he's appalled by the notion of Cratchit taking the entire day off without his wages being affected. But on one Christmas Eve, Scrooge is haunted by the ghost of Jacob Marley who warns Scrooge that he will be visited by three spirits - the Ghost of Christmas Past (Grey), the Ghost of Christmas Present (Barrit) and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come - who aim to show Scrooge the error of his ways and offer him a chance at redemption.

A Christmas Carol has been done to death, and was well-trodden territory before this version went into production. It's therefore difficult to put a fresh spin on the material, and 1999's A Christmas Carol barely even tries; the story is told in a straightforward fashion, with no audacious twists or turns. To be fair, though, there is a bit more lead-up preceding the supernatural journey, with an opening scene depicting Marley's outdoor funeral being the most notable inclusion. What's also nice about this version is that it utilises a seldom-used portion of Dickens' original text: the Ghost of Christmas Present showing Scrooge people around the world who live under miserable conditions but still find time for Christmas. However, not everything works; the slang term "joshing" is used, even though the word was likely not used in the 19th Century. Plus, Scrooge's sister is named Fan in the source material, but here she's known as Fran for some reason.

Directed by David Hugh Jones, this A Christmas Carol was produced for the TNT cable channel under the auspices of Hallmark Entertainment. While production values are decent and the attention to period detail is above-average for a television movie, a lot of interiors and street scenes look too stagey, as if the filmmakers shot on back-lots rather than a lived-in town. At least pacing is smooth and Jones' direction is respectable. However, one of the film's biggest downfalls is its depiction of the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. Sequences involving this spectre should be sinister and chilling, yet the spirit here looks more like a Jawa from Star Wars, sapping any sense of threat from these scenes. Also, during the aforementioned globe-trotting scene, Scrooge and Ghost of Christmas Present travel to different locations via a tornado. The tornado is a horrid device which should have been scrapped in pre-production, let alone kept in post-production with its dismal special effects.

If viewers can separate Patrick Stewart from his portrayal of Captain Picard in Star Trek, they should easily be able to accept the actor as Ebenezer Scrooge. Stewart first played the character in 1988, and has frequently performed his show around the holiday season in the decades since. The actor has an astute understanding of Scrooge, and he makes for an excellent curmudgeon, believably gruff at the beginning of the story and convincingly changed by the end. The supporting cast isn't bad. Dominic West is credible as Scrooge's nephew Fred, while Richard E. Grant is a wonderful Bob Cratchit. The spirits, though, are a tad underwhelming.

It's difficult to review further retellings of A Christmas Carol. The terrific 1951 version with Alastair Sim is universally revered, and we've also had the excellent TV movie with George C. Scott (this reviewer's favourite iteration of the story), a brilliant but underrated animated movie from the early '70s which brought back Sim as Scrooge, a modern retelling with Bill Murray, and lots more. In comparison, 1999's A Christmas Carol is just okay. It's not the worst version you will ever see, and it would probably have more merit if it was not preceded by so many other Christmas Carol retellings. Nevertheless, there are far better versions of this story out there.

6.2/10

"He opened a gateway, you know? Friedkin did. He took the real world and the spirit world and he mashed them together."

Although it was greeted with a mixed reception, Grave Encounters developed into something of an underground internet sensation, with the trailer racking up an astonishing 25 million views to date on YouTube. Masterminded by The Vicious Brothers, Grave Encounters was a creepy spin on the found footage subgenre, providing plenty of thrills and an engaging narrative. Its cult following guaranteed a sequel, which was hastily thrown together and released scarcely a year after its predecessor. Written by The Vicious Brothers but directed by newcomer John Poliquin, Grave Encounters 2 does carry a certain degree of merit, but it ultimately underwhelms. It exhibits promise in its conceptual framework, yet the flick crumbles as it approaches the finish line, introducing idiotic ideas and ill-advisedly leaving room for another sequel.

In a commendable masterstroke, Grave Encounters 2 swiftly establishes itself as being part of our reality in its opening sequence. The film begins with a montage of clips showing YouTube video bloggers reviewing the first film. One of the vloggers is nerdy film student Alex Wright (Harmon), who's less than impressed with the flick. Alex is a wishful budding filmmaker who hopes to be the next Craven or Carpenter, and believes that every current horror film is pure junk. In response to his review, a YouTube user known as "Death Awaits" sends Alex a series of anonymous messages implying that the events of Grave Encounters are genuine. Curious, Alex digs deeper and deeper into the mystery, becoming increasingly convinced that the film is in fact comprised of real found footage. Having been given the location of the haunted asylum from the movie, Alex spearheads a road trip to investigate, recruiting a few fellow film students - including close friend Trevor (Playfair) and love interest Jennifer (Lapp) - to join him. Alex is prepared, too, bringing an array of filmmaking equipment to document anything and everything that transpires.

Using YouTube clips to open the film was a terrific creative decision, but the subsequent first act is tedious, moving at a mercilessly slow pace through uninvolving scenes of character interaction. Naturally, the aim was to build up to the return to the haunted asylum and develop the central characters along the way, yet intention is not the same thing as achievement. An early party scene is borderline unwatchable, and Alex's growing fascination with Grave Encounters fails to gain as much traction as it should have done. It's also unbelievable that the characters would film as much of their personal lives as shown here - it's simply too convenient. With that said, though, the brilliance of this sequel's plot cannot be overstated. Grave Encounters 2 is exceedingly meta, often in an impressively creative fashion. The Vicious Brothers have answers for everything that would make us believe the first film to be fake: we learn that the cast members used stage names for the sake of their ghost-hunting TV show, the original film's producer admits they added cheesy digital effects to enhance a few moments, and The Vicious Brothers are revealed as just a couple of low-level interns who agreed to have their names put on the picture.

Thankfully, Grave Encounters 2 begins to foster momentum following the re-introduction of Jerry Hartfield (Wilkinson), the producer of the first film. And things get really interesting when Alex pitches the idea that he may be in the middle of making the sequel to Grave Encounters. How meta can you get?! Once the proceedings shift to the familiar asylum, though, the results are a mixed bag. The picture is atmospheric and at times horrifying, to be sure, but the material grows tiresome fairly quickly since we can predict what will happen. Moreover, Poliquin is not as skilled as The Vicious Brothers in terms of pacing or scares. It's a wonder why The Vicious Brothers opted out of directorial duties this time around.

In order to justify this sequel's existence, The Vicious Brothers needed to expand the mythology of the original film and introduce a fresh batch of novel ideas. Alas, this is where the wheels really fall off, as the picture begins to dabble in the realm of sci-fi. I won't spoil too much, but, suffice it to say, Lance Preston (Rogerson) makes his return here to explain some metaphysical nonsense that becomes too much to deal with, shifting the premise from simple creepy horror to something more akin to Stargate. The attempt to expand the franchise's lore is appreciated, but it's handled poorly, and this type of justification for the hospital's disposition diminishes the experience. This culminates with a character-betraying climax which fails on practically every front, though a final scene with Jerry Hartfield is a stroke of meta genius. Oh, and the movie's internal logic crumbles in one scene when we're shown security camera footage from a building that, as it turns out, does not actually exist.

The biggest strength of Grave Encounters 2 is Sean Rogerson, who returns to play Lance Preston here as a mix of Gollum and a crazed prospector. It's a strong performance which gives the actor the chance to do something different rather than rehashing his work in the previous film. Ultimately, if you're willing to endure the sluggish first act, fans of the original Grave Encounters may enjoy this follow-up, though its nowhere near as strong as its predecessor. The Vicious Brothers for the most part do a terrific job of breaking the fourth wall and subtly tearing at the edges of our reality, even though the positives are unfortunately affected by a number of poor decisions.

5.6/10

"You're like the fucking Hebrew Dolph Lundgren or some shit."

Written by Jay Baruchel and Evan Goldberg, 2012's Goon is a loose adaptation of Doug Smith's autobiographical book Goon: The True Story of an Unlikely Journey into Minor League Hockey. It is also a brash, crude, bloody, mean-spirited and nasty motion picture, but it's these exact qualities which makes the film such a uniquely enjoyable treat. Indeed, despite ostensibly being an uplifting underdog tale, Goon does not fall into the traditional sports film category, as there are no feel-good comebacks or inspiring coaches. Rather, the picture is wall-to-wall swearing, gushing wounds and punches, with bits and pieces of romance and debauchery tossed in for good measure. It never exactly reaches exhilarating comedic heights, but Goon is fun and watchable enough, and even those without an interest or understanding in ice hockey should enjoy it.

A dim-witted albeit affable brute, Doug Glatt (Scott) works as a bouncer in Massachusetts, but his unrewarding trade renders him a tremendous disappointment to his family. While on the sidelines during a hockey match, Doug shows off his unbelievable fighting abilities and sheer brute force, impressing a local hockey coach into convincing Doug to give the sport a try. Called upon to use his pugilistic tendencies to protect his teammates, Doug unexpectedly becomes a star player in the hockey world. He can barely skate and doesn't know much about the sport, but his ability to beat the shit out of anyone gives him the opportunity to try his hand at the big time in Canada. His task is to watch over burnout Xavier LaFlamme (Grondin), who scores more drugs than goals. Doug finds it hard to fit in with his team, however, and the threat lingers of league menace Ross Rhea (Schreiber) who's legendary for his beat-downs. Meanwhile, Doug finds love in promiscuous local woman Eva (Pill), who's disarmed by Doug's sweet side.

Goon is fairly predictable from a narrative standpoint. Although it disposes of several clichés often glimpsed in sports films, the picture's final outcome is still unsurprising. Nevertheless, Baruchel and Goldberg's script is otherwise solid, smartly devoting as much time to Doug's personal life as his exploits on the ice. And while the hockey scenes are good fun, the film really sparkles during scenes of Doug and his teammates, and his romance with Eva gives the picture a sweet, heartfelt core which feels neither half-hearted nor tacked on. Goon's pacing is admittedly uneven, and the film loses momentum into its third act, but it promptly recovers with a ripping climax featuring a satisfying confrontation between Doug and Ross Rhea.

It's clear that Baruchel and Goldberg are hockey enthusiasts, as Goon is packed with detail about the sport. But while there are several puck-oriented sequences, the film is ultimately a celebration of an aspect of hockey that's been downplayed of late: badass fisticuffs on the ice. It makes sense, too; I mean, are there any other team sports which feature mano-a-mano conflicts that are actually tolerated by referees? Fortunately, the fights are well-staged here, and director Michael Dowse and his team have skilfully captured the speed and danger of ice hockey. The hockey sequences are not perfect since more visual creativity would have been beneficial, but they're proficient and smooth. Likewise, the locker room bantering is lively and energetic. Hockey players and followers will pick up on more of the in-jokes and slang, but the uninitiated should not be discouraged as there's plenty of humour here to be enjoyed by all.

Ever since his infamous appearance as Stifler in American Pie, Seann William Scott has enjoyed a career playing likeable, comedic-centric supporting characters. Goon is Scott's first movie where he actually plays the lead protagonist rather than a supporting character or as part of an ensemble, and he handles leading man responsibilities extremely well. He easily sells Doug's brutish abilities and he's a believable fighter, yet Scott also permeates the character with a sincere core that allows us to like him. Moreover, Scott is essentially the antithesis of Stifler here, which really shows the actor's unexpected range. Alongside him, an unleashed Jay Baruchel steals scenes as Doug's marvellously foul-mouthed best friend. Baruchel often plays soft-spoken nerds, so it's hilarious to see him in such a vulgar role. Meanwhile, Alison Pill is funny and likeable as Eva, and Liev Schreiber makes the most of his antagonistic role.

Goon is a mightily pleasing and refreshing comedy, providing a nice handful of laughs and a few entertaining blasts of hockey-playing brutality. It's standard in terms of narrative trajectory, to be sure, and more energy and laughs would be appreciated, but it's hard to be entirely dissatisfied with the flick.

6.5/10

"W-who are you? You look like some sort of ice cream man from 'Hello, Dolly!'"

A 2002 made-for-television film presented by NBC, It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie is precisely the type of enjoyable Muppet fix that long-time fans should adore. Harkening back to the classic Muppet spirit, it is a snarky and sweet picture brimming with pop culture lampooning and celebrity cameos reminiscent of the beloved TV show. Heck, the story even takes place in the old Muppet Theater, and the inimitable Statler and Waldorf show up to heckle from the balcony once more. With The Muppet Christmas Carol director (and Jim Henson's son) Brian Henson serving as executive producer and participating in the puppeteering, It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie is a hugely satisfying effort; not an instant classic but an enjoyable contemporary Yuletide fare for kids and adults alike.

It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie is a Muppet adaptation of the timeless 1946 Frank Capra picture It's a Wonderful Life. The film opens on Christmas Eve, and Kermit the Frog (Steve Whitmire) is at the end of his rope. In heaven, an accountant named Daniel (David Arquette) notices Kermit's plight and unsuccessfully tries to convince the angels to help him. Against the advice of his colleagues, Daniel takes the case to the Boss (Whoopi Goldberg), who agrees to review recent events in Kermit's life, after which the film flashes back to the lead-up to Kermit's Christmas Eve depression. The Muppet Theater faces foreclosure at the hands of banker/real estate agent Rachel Bitterman (Joan Cusack), who plans to knock down the establishment to build a nightclub. The Muppets have until Christmas Eve to pay their outstanding debt, or they will lose the theatre forever. Unfortunately, despite managing to put on a successful Christmas play, they stand to lose the theatre regardless due to Bitterman secretly changing the contract terms, deeply affecting Kermit. Soon, Daniel descends from heaven to raise Kermit's spirits by showing him what the world would have been like if he had never been born.

They say that when you steal, you should steal from the best. Screenwriters Tom Martin (Saturday Night Live, The Simpsons) and Jim Lewis (a long-time Muppet writer) likely kept this adage in mind while scripting It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie, choosing to use the plot of It's a Wonderful Life as the basis for this television film. Capra's beloved classic provides a terrific narrative framework, giving the Muppets a chance to go on a proverbial pop culture rampage while also reinforcing a few heartwarming messages. And by golly, the pop culture spoofing is just like it used to be: funny, mean and even a tad risqué as the felt characters rip into old and new Christmas traditions. Beyond the obvious It's a Wonderful Life parody, further festive targets include Burl Ives's Sam the Snowman (from 1964's Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer), A Christmas Story and How the Grinch Stole Christmas, not to mention the flick also parodies Fear Factor and A Beautiful Mind. The Muppets even take the piss out of Moulin Rouge by performing Moulin Scrooge, and Cirque Du Soleil is retitled Cirque Du So Lame.

For a television movie, It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie looks above average from a technical standpoint. It was reportedly produced for an extravagant $20 million and could almost pass as a theatrical feature with its attractive production values and recognisable actors. The film marks the directorial debut of Kirk R. Thatcher, who started his career working at Industrial Light and Magic and served as a production designer on several music videos for directors like David Fincher. However, the chintzy score by Mark Watters often makes the film feel direct-to-video, as the music lacks nuance and meaningful motifs. Another of the film's downfalls is its lack of genuine laugh-out-loud moments and a few stretches of rocky pacing. Despite running a relatively brisk 90 minutes, the film sometimes grinds to a halt, and there are a few hit-and-miss moments. One particularly egregious scene involves a Steve Irwin wannabe chasing Fozzie with a blow dart. The shtick is painfully unfunny and downright awful, made all the worse because it features a talentless impersonator instead of the Crocodile Hunter himself. Irwin's premature death also makes the scene hard to watch now. However, It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie also has great scenes, and it is hilarious to behold what has become of the Muppets in the world where Kermit was never born. Another highlight involves Miss Piggy making a cameo on Scrubs and making a considerable fuss on-set, leading to her firing. Most of the actual Scrubs cast appears here, including Zach Braff (as J.D.), Sarah Chalke (as Elliot), John C. McGinley (as Dr. Cox), Judy Reyes (as Carla), Neil Flynn (as The Janitor), and even the show's creator, Bill Lawrence, which helps the scene work so well. (Donald Faison's absence is frustrating, however.)

The Muppets fortunately seem like their old selves here, with their unmistakable original personalities remaining intact, and all performances from the Muppet veterans are spot-on. A few of the original Muppet performers are missing (most notably Frank Oz), but their successors are perfectly fine and stay true to the characters, allowing for a seamless change. As for the roster of co-stars, Joan Cusack is in good form playing the over-the-top villain, while David Arquette is funny and charming as meek accountant Daniel. The ensemble also contains the likes of William H. Macy as an angel and Whoopi Goldberg as God. However, the guest stars do not stop there, as the movie also features Mel Brooks as a Sam the Snowman parody, while Matthew Lillard shows up as a flamboyant choreographer, and iconic podcaster Joe Rogan plays himself in a small cameo. Although Snoop Dogg filmed a cameo as himself, his scene did not make the final cut because, according to Kermit, it was inappropriate to include the rapper in a Muppet production.

To be sure, there is nothing overly original or groundbreaking about It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie, and it does not advance Muppet lore in any significant fashion. However, this seems to be the point; it stays true to the Muppets and restores the gang to their old ways in an old-fashioned television film carrying an easy-going vibe and a handful of laughs after their more outlandish '90s theatrical features. It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie also wound up being the last Muppets production before The Walt Disney Company acquired the brand, leading to more theatrical movies, television specials, and TV shows in the ensuing years.

6.9/10

"Marines don't die, they go to hell and regroup."

Red Dawn was filmed and completed three years ago in 2009, but its studio, MGM, went bankrupt and lacked the money to grant the picture proper distribution. The same fate was shared by Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard's The Cabin in the Woods, which was at long last released earlier in 2012. The two films share a common star in Chris Hemsworth, but the comparisons end there. While Cabin in the Woods is an outstandingly original horror movie and one of the year's notable highlights, Red Dawn is merely a middling actioner. The best remakes are those which produce an exciting new take on an old idea, or at least improve upon the execution of the original film. This Red Dawn does neither. It begins with promise, but soon collapses under the weight of its glaring idiocies, forgettable characters, and incomprehensible photography.

Jed Eckert (Hemsworth) is on leave from the Marines, living with father Tom (Cullen) and brother Matt (Peck) in their quiet Washington State hometown. Not long after a mysterious power outage sweeps the Pacific Northwest, Jed and Matt wake up to the sound of gunfire and a sky littered with armed paratroopers. With North Korean invaders hastily moving into the country, Jed and Matt skip town, forced to leave their beloved father as they flee to a forest in the local mountains with as many of their friends as possible in tow. Calling themselves the Wolverines after their high school football team, Jed begins presiding over a resistance unit, turning to terrorist tactics in the hope of defending their tattered country and thwarting the takeover effort run by Captain Cho (Lee).

As Red Dawn languished on a shelf awaiting release, the invading force was changed from China to North Korea, necessitating extensive dubbing, a new opening title sequence, and digitally altered flags, uniforms and insignias. The decision was purely motivated by money, as the distributors realised that China is a huge market for action blockbusters, and Chinese invaders would diminish foreign box office takings. North Korea was fair game, though; nobody cares what they think. To the credit of those involved, the change is seamless, but the notion of North Korea successfully invading America is risible. I mean, North Korea cannot even take over South Korea. Plus, the country's population falls short of 25 million - even Texas alone has a higher population. Hell, the amount of armed citizens in the whole of America would outnumber the invading soldiers by a hilarious margin. It's implied that the Russians are assisting the takeover, but the extent of their involvement remains a mystery. We only see one Russian in the entire film.

Screenwriters Carl Ellsworth and Jeremy Passmore not only neglected to fix the glaring idiocies of the original Red Dawn, but they introduce a new slate of stupidities as well. What is North Korea's game plan? What do they aim to achieve? Plus, the Wolverines seem able to easily come to town and leave as they please. Are there no road blocks to prevent them from escaping into the forest? How is the forest not overrun by North Korean forces seeking to find the squad's base camp? Cell phones are often used to take photos as well, despite the fact that the characters have nowhere to charge the things. And not to worry, although America has been taken over, Subway restaurants are still in operation. Moreover, all it takes is one training montage for Jed to single-handedly turn his inexperienced would-be soldiers into competent militias able to shoot and fight. Red Dawn is bloody cheesy, too. No matter which way you cut it, chanting "Wolverines!" and giving motivating speeches can never be taken seriously.

Director Dan Bradley's years of experience as a stunt coordinator and second unit director serves him well here. This Red Dawn admittedly works in fits and starts, with bursts of stand-out action here and there. The initial takeover is chilling and nail-biting, a petrifying vision of what a modern military invasion might look like. Added to this, a few shoot-outs are fairly awesome. But here's the thing: Bradley merely aspired to blow shit up and use the teen guerrillas as action figures with perfect marksmanship skills who can superhumanly jump from great heights without breaking any bones. (Are these Wolverines reinforced with adamantium?) In other words, while John Milius' original Red Dawn explored the devastations of war, this reboot is all cheap thrills, but without any actual bloodshed since this is a PG-13 film. The 1984 film was one of the first pictures to receive a PG-13 rating, yet it's far more violent and edgy than anything in this sanitised, bloodless remake.

Compounding its many flaws, the film's attempts at character development oftentimes fall flat. The screenwriters even use the old "forcing a naïve newbie to consume something nasty under the guise of it being tradition," even though the stale old joke hasn't been funny for over a decade. The characters are much too indistinguishable beyond the three main characters. Whenever one of the characters died, I struggled to figure out who it was, and struggled even further to care. It doesn't help that Bradley's team heavily leaned on lazy shaky-cam techniques. Throughout the action set-pieces, the cameramen keep suffering epileptic seizures, so it's hard to tell who dies and how they were even killed. Interestingly, the cast of the original Red Dawn (including Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen) went on to become big stars. Meanwhile, the stars of this update became big names between filming the movie and the film finally being released. Heh. In the lead role of Jed, Chris Hemsworth is suitably authoritative and strong, whilst Peck is merely okay as Jed's younger brother. Josh Hutcherson (The Hunger Games) and Connor Cruise (Tom's adopted son), meanwhile, play some of the most forgettable characters in the film, though it's hardly their fault; blame Bradley and his writers. Honestly, if someone lined up all the Wolverines in the film, I would not be able to tell you whether or not they died, or, more pertinently, how or when some of them died.

1984's Red Dawn was relevant at the time of its release. Created at the height of the never-ending Cold War, it was a response to the public's heightened paranoia that the Soviets could be on their doorstep at any minute. Moreover, although the film is cheesy, it had a wonderful sense of political awareness and its portrayal of war was effective. 2012's iteration, on the other hand, has no relevance or ambition; it's a random stab against a country with no beef against the United States. To be fair, this Red Dawn may entertain you, and there are worse action movies out there, but overall it's a wasted opportunity. Its initial sequence depicting the takeover is chilling, yet the film doesn't follow through with its promise to be a complex, challenging war movie emphasising the terror of a foreign invasion.

5.1/10

"At this moment, I didn't feel shame or fear, but just kind of blah, like when you're sitting there and all the water's run out of the bathtub."

Terrence Malick's masterful debut feature, Badlands is a deliberately-paced thriller of immense power and striking visual lyricism. The picture was produced for a paltry $300,000, and is loosely based on the real-life killing spree of Charles Starkweather and Caril-Ann Fugate, whose senseless actions shocked the American public in the late 1950s. Malick, who produced and wrote the film on top of directing, stripped any sense of romanticism from the story, preventing any comparisons to Bonnie & Clyde. Certainly, the dated '70s aesthetic and the idea of a couple on the run is comparable to Bonnie & Clyde, but the similarities end there.

Kit (Sheen) is a 25-year-old garbage collector from South Dakota who looks a lot like James Dean. Not long into the film, he meets Holly Sargis (Spacek), a 15-year-old with a privileged upbringing and a keen interest in reading and music. The two fall head over heels for one another, but Holly's widower father (Oates) strongly disapproves of the relationship. In order to be with Holly, Kit murders his lover's father in cold blood, and the two set the house on fire and flee to the badlands of Montana hoping to start a new life together. But the authorities are not far behind the pair, and Kit eventually turns to killing a string of innocent people as Holly and himself go on the run.

Badlands is easily the best motion picture Terrence Malick has ever made, as it's the most focused and possesses the most amount of narrative momentum. Unlike Malick's intolerable later output, the film is not weighed down by self-indulgence or undisciplined storytelling. Rather, Badlands is a ripping thriller which briskly establishes its two protagonists before sending them on their crime spree. Malick packs a lot into the film's 90-minute running time, and the pace is often kept taut. Admittedly, the picture does occasionally plod, and there is a fair amount of obvious and slipshod ADR, but Malick gets more right than wrong. The most remarkable aspect of Badlands is its visuals - cinematographers Brian Pobyn, Tak Fujimoto and Steven Larner skilfully photographed the harsh bleakness of the South Dakota badlands, while the score by George Tipton bursts with haunting melodies. The surreal yet banal landscapes essentially reflect the empty souls of Kit and Holly. Thus, instead of choosing between style or substance, Malick mixed the two, a trick that more filmmakers should learn.

From start to finish, Kit and Holly remain bewildering characters, with Malick telling their story as it is and leaving viewers to interpret what they see. Holly's motivations can possibly be understood in terms of simple boredom, naïveté and being in love with Kit, though it's hard to say for certain. Kit, on the other hand, is a genuine enigma. Consistently described as a dead ringer for James Dean, he's a fascinating combination of boyish charm and cold-blooded killer. Kit's brand of evil is peculiar, as he does not seem to carry any emotional baggage. In fact, he seems detached from the violence - the people he kills are not bad and do not deserve to die, and Kit kills them without any sense of remorse. Thus, Malick creates a fascinating scenario: viewers will want to get closer to the pair and find out precisely what makes them tick, yet the film keeps us at arm's length, never pretending to know all the answers. Some may dislike Badlands for this reason or perceive it as lazy, but this reviewer found the experience uniquely enthralling. After all, Kit and Holly's real-life counterparts are question marks, hence armchair psychology would be foolish.

Badlands greatly benefits from the presence of Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek. Sheen is the better of the two, probably because he's given the most to do as Kit. Sheen's boyish charisma is a huge asset, and he really nails the characteristics which make his character such a mystery. Sheen moves like a primal force, and there seems to be no rhyme or reason to his actions. But he also baulks from making Kit outright evil; he always maintains a sense of charm and amiability, which is exactly what makes his actions so shocking. Meanwhile, Spacek provides solid support for Sheen; her quiet, understated performance as Holly is a revelation. Spacek was in her early 20s here, yet she's tremendously nuanced, and it's no surprise that she went on to have a remarkable career.

After Badlands and Days of Heaven, the infamously reclusive Terrence Malick disappeared from the filmmaking scene for twenty years, after which his films suddenly became bloated and unfocused. It is therefore refreshing to watch Badlands and see just how disciplined and masterful Malick used to be.

7.9/10

"The symbol is associated with a Pagan deity named Baghuul... He consumes the souls of the human children."

Let's not mince words here: Sinister scared the fucking shit out of me, and that is not an accolade I hand out lightly. It's rare to stumble upon a truly scary movie in this day and age; the horror genre has grown stale of late, with filmmakers constantly wasting our time with predictable jump scares and poor attempts at tension. 2012's Sinister is a diamond in the rough, an authentically terrifying low-budget horror gem that puts to shame 99% of horror movies released in the last decade. Directed in the classical style by Scott Derrickson - who made a huge impression in 2005 with his breakthrough chiller The Exorcism of Emily Rose - the film is of a rare breed that burrows under the skin and haunts you for days.

A true crime author, Ellison (Ethan Hawke) made a huge splash a decade ago with his hit book Kentucky Blood, but followed his debut with a string of humiliating misses. Looking to write another hit, Ellison moves his family to rural Pennsylvania. Unbeknownst to Ellison's family, including wife Tracy (Juliet Rylance) and daughter Ashley (Clare Foley), he has actually moved them into the very house where four people were killed in the horrific unsolved murder case that Ellison plans to write about. Hoping to connect to the crime and conduct extensive research about the brutal murder, Ellison sets up a private office in which to do his work. However, Ellison stumbles upon far more than he bargained for when he discovers a box of 8mm home movies in the attic. The box, as it turns out, contains disturbing snuff films showing families being murdered by a demonic ghoul. Delving further and further into the case, Ellison reaches the point where the line between reality and nightmare is blurred.

Unlike most horror flicks, Derrickson and co-writer C. Robert Cargill show interest in developing the characters as genuine human beings. The scenes of Tracy and Ellison arguing over what's best for the family feel organic rather than tacked on, and help to generate a sense of danger. Likewise, the film works as a careful character study of Ellison, who's struggling to reclaim his former glory at any cost. Striving to make a lasting legacy, Ellison grows distant from his family as he becomes overwhelmed by his obsessive work practises. Some may question why Ellison does not automatically pick up and leave as soon as he thinks something is up, but this is all part of Ellison's flawed character; he doesn't want to believe anything is wrong. He's so consumed with the thought of finishing his book, and so convinced that supernatural stuff is non-existent, that he refuses to think straight. Added to this, Sinister may look like a standard horror fare on the surface, but it's surprisingly inventive, with a late plot twist and a climax which had this reviewer's jaw gaping open.

Scott Derrickson is a real talent in the field of horror. The Exorcism of Emily Rose is one of the creepiest horror movies of its decade, yet Derrickson has upped the ante with Sinister, showing that his tragic remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still was just an unfortunate fluke. Admittedly, Sinister is occasionally predictable and Derrickson serves up a smattering of jump scares, but the film is extremely effective nevertheless because the images which trigger the jump scares are goddamn petrifying. The way that Derrickson builds and maintains tension is legendary, and a late scene grows so intense that you could be forgiven for screaming in terror alongside Ellison. Every set-piece is well-staged and effective; the snuff films are too immediate for comfort, and tension is intoxicating whenever Ellison wanders his house's dark hallways. Furthermore, Derrickson's crew clearly understood the importance of an effective soundscape in horror. Christopher Young's score is harrowing and skin-crawling, and the soundtrack is otherwise filled with creepy sounds, whisperings and chants. It's rare to see a horror film in this style that's so technically proficient.

Ethan Hawke was faced with a tough task in portraying Ellison; he was required to communicate the writer's bruised ego and sell his self-destructive ambition, all the while remaining watchable and maintaining audience sympathy. Remarkably, he pulled it off. Hawke seems genuine terrified whenever the occasion calls for it, and he makes Ellison seem like a real person. Moreover, a lot of the more gruesome imagery from the 8mm home movies is never actually glimpsed; Derrickson instead replaced a few unsettling moments with Hawke's horrified reactions. It amplifies the power of said scenes, and it also prevents Sinister from devolving into dumb torture porn. Meanwhile, in her first major motion picture, Juliet Rylance holds her own playing Ellison's wife, Tracy. In a welcome twist on the usual cliché, Tracy does not see anything that makes her suspect the house is haunted. Also in the cast is Vincent D'Onofrio, glimpsed via iChat as a University professor who assists Ellison in his research. An amiable James Ransone plays a helpful deputy, while Fred Dalton Thompson is excellent as a sheriff who detests the thought of Ellison moving into his town.

Sinister is a true breath of fresh air. This is an exceptional horror film, reinforcing that Derrickson is one of this generation's finest horror filmmakers. Perhaps what sets it apart from its contemporaries is how focused it is. James Wan's remarkable Insidious was spine-chilling, yet the terror was broken up by a sense of funhouse camp. And while Ti West's The Innkeepers is scary, it gives us two fun central characters and a healthy sense of humour. Sinister has none of that. It's a downright petrifying film which scares the fucking hell out of you and never lets you feel safe. If you watch it in a dark room by yourself late at night, you won't sleep for days.

8.3/10