Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"If you lose, our government will have directly financed terrorism..."

After the tragic debacle of Die Another Day, the James Bond franchise was in dire need of a reboot to bring the character back down to earth. Producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli also needed to do something fresh with the character, as the franchise's novelty had long worn off. The result is 2006's Casino Royale, which manages to do something new with Agent 007 by hitting the reset button and returning to Ian Flaming's original vision of Bond. It's therefore quite fitting that Casino Royale is an adaptation of Fleming's first Bond novel, making this the first 007 film in over a decade to be based on a pre-existing source. This is not the first time that Casino Royale has been adapted - it was previously made into a telemovie in the 1950s, and a 1967 spy genre satire with David Niven. This is, however, the first canonical adaptation of the story, and the first serious big screen treatment of the source. Casino Royale also diminishes proverbial Bond movie staples; it foregrounds drama and strong violence while keeping one-liners, sexual gags and gadgets to a minimum.

Not long after being promoted to 00 status, James Bond (Craig) lands in hot water with one of his MI6 commanders, M (Dench), due to his proclivity for killing suspects. For his next assignment, 007 is paired with alluring accountant Vesper Lynd (Green), who's hired to keep a sharp eye on the loose canon. Bond's mission is to thwart terrorist financier Le Chiffre (Mikkelsen), who seeks to win a high-stakes poker tournament at Casino Royale in order to aid international terrorist cells. Sent to the titular casino in Montenegro, Bond enters the poker tournament with Vesper acting as his aid. As Bond and Vesper sink deeper into the assignment, the pair begin to fall in love, which puts Bond's cold heart to the ultimate test.

The only real problem with Casino Royale is its lack of typical Bond elements. Unlike Licence to Kill and For Your Eyes Only, the filmmakers here got a little too down to earth for their own good, eliminating what makes Bond films so much fun. By taking away the stuff which distinguishes Bond from his imitators, Casino Royale just feels like any old modern actioner, indistinguishable from the Bourne movies or any other PG-13 action movie on the market. Furthermore, running at a sizeable 144 minutes, this is the longest Bond film to date, and it does feel like overkill. The story is decidedly skinny, and the poker tournament feels a bit too extended. The romance between Bond and Vesper particularly grinds the pace to a halt. Paul Haggis was recruited as a co-writer for the film, and his hand in the scripting yields mixed results. Dialogue is admittedly stronger here than in most Bond films, but some of the chatter sounds too self-consciously Oscar-esque, like allusions to Macbeth (of all things). Complexity is welcome, but this material is corny beyond all belief.

Martin Campbell helmed Pierce Brosnan's remarkable 007 debut, GoldenEye, making him a smart choice for Casino Royale. Campbell excels as an action director, and he truly knows how to mount an effective Bond-buster. His approach favours smooth, glorious wide shots, and his filmmaking seems to be allergic to shaky-cam and rapid-fire editing. Hence, it's possible to watch all of the fight choreography and easily discern what's happening. Moreover, Campbell can do action, suspense, torture and romance, all the while maintaining a crucial air of edginess. The stylish first scene of Casino Royale really sets the tone; it's a grainy, black-and-white introduction to the new James Bond, showing the agent getting his wings. Also notable is an early chase sequence that's especially remarkable for its use of real stunts, giving the set-piece true weight and excitement, and reflecting the film's harder, grittier tone. Fortunately, the quality of the action never flags. The centrepiece of Casino Royale is, logically, the poker game. To the credit of Campbell, he almost overcomes the ostensibly drab nature of playing cards, but not quite. As a result, the film often lags throughout the tournament.

It's a shame that Pierce Brosnan had to depart the role of James Bond, but he would not have been suitable for the new direction that Casino Royale takes. Daniel Craig, in spite of the huge controversy surrounding his hiring, is a solid 007 in the mould previously established by Timothy Dalton in the '80s. Craig is particularly notable for the way that he makes Bond seem vulnerable; he makes mistakes, he hurts when he bleeds, and it looks like his sweating is the result of genuine exertion rather than careful make-up application. Craig is a real man's man, too; a rugged, tough-as-nails action hero who looks to be in his element dispatching bad guys. As the requisite Bond girl, Eva Green is beautiful and convincing, while series veteran Judi Dench continues to impress in her fifth appearance as M. Unfortunately, Mads Mikkelsen is a weak villain, forgettable and non-threatening. The intention, clearly, was to create a more "realistic" bad guy, but here's the thing: realism to this extent is boring.

Many probably assumed that the Bond franchise would silently fizzle out after Die Another Day, as it seemed that the franchise had run its course after 40 years. Fortunately, Casino Royale gives the long-running series a new lease on life, ensuring that Bond can still go on for many more years to come. However, while a step in the right direction, Casino Royale never quite reaches the greatness that it had the potential for, as it feels a bit vanilla without the proverbial Bond film characteristics.

7.8/10

"When are you gonna grow some balls, mate?"

One of the most disturbing serial killer cases in Australian history, the Snowtown murders - or the "bodies-in-barrels" killings - were perpetrated in the late 1990s by John Bunting, Jamie Vlassakis, Robert Wagner and Mark Haydon. Between them, twelve people were tortured and murdered, and their corpses were disposed of at various places around South Australia, most notably in a disused bank vault in Snowtown. Contrary to what some may assume, Snowtown was just the location where a lot of bodies were kept - the grizzly murders were actually carried out in the lower class town of Salisbury North. 2011's Snowtown is a dramatisation of the chilling murders, and it is not a film for the faint of heart. Directed by first-timer Justin Kurzel, this is a bleak tale of murder, abuse and manipulation, and it's entirely without a positive angle or a redemptive arc. Snowtown is one of the most nihilistic and horrific Australian movies in history, yet it is also a compelling masterwork which benefits from excellent filmmaking and stunning performances right across the board.

16-year-old Jamie Vlassakis (Pittaway) lives with his mother Elizabeth (Harris) and his two younger brothers in their dingy Adelaide home. When Elizabeth leaves her sons with a friendly local, he sexually abuses the boys, traumatising the family. Into their lives soon comes the confident, charismatic John Bunting (Henshall) and his gang of mates, who torment the local paedophile into moving out of the neighbourhood. This sparks a crusade of sorts; Bunting and his cronies are disillusioned by the inherent failings of the criminal justice system which is too lenient towards perpetrators of child abuse, and want to do something about it. Bunting sets out to murder anyone he deems a threat to children, but he cannot distinguish between paedophiles and innocent homosexuals, and he becomes determined to slaughter anyone vaguely suspicious of being one or the other. Meanwhile, Bunting emerges as a father figure to Jamie, grooming the young teenager to do his sinister bidding.

Jamie sees John Bunting as somewhat of a saviour for his family, and, at first, so do we. After all, Bunting is a charismatic presence, and he puts food on the table and bonds with Jamie. It's easy to root for Bunting as he encourages the kids to vandalise the house belonging to the paedophile who abused them, even though it's morally wrong. But Bunting is more sadistic and sinister than he lets on, and he transforms from kitchen table ranter to irrational serial killer. It's hard to describe the effectiveness of Snowtown. Utterly harrowing, it's packed with scenes and images that will haunt you for a long time. This is thanks in large part to director Kurzel's matter-of-fact filmmaking approach - the movie is not glossy or stylised; it's disturbingly raw. Atmosphere, too, is spot-on, as it feels like the movie genuinely takes place in lower-class Australian suburbia during the 1990s.

For the most part, we do not see the murders. Instead, the killings are implied; we hear answering machine messages from the victims to loved ones or friends explaining that they are leaving for a few months, or permanently moving. See, in order to cover his tracks, Bunting forced his victims to record such messages before he killed them. Once this becomes clear, it's a chilling and brilliant nuance. Only one murder is seen in full detail, and, heavens me, it's disturbing beyond belief. Saw and Hostel are palatable due to their shallow, mainstream nature, but Snowtown feels uncomfortably real, as if Kurzel filmed real-life torture. Kurzel does not depict the violence in an exploitative or enjoyable way, since this is not torture porn for entertainment; Snowtown is bleak filmmaking which uncomfortably portrays the horrors of these killings. It is literally hard to watch from time to time. The film additionally benefits from Adam Arkapaw's stark cinematography, and the pounding, harrowing score by Jed Kurzel.

Snowtown is somewhat unconventional in its narrative approach, hardly focusing on the machinations behind the murders. One can't help but wonder if a more linear approach might have worked better, since a lot of compelling details about the case were omitted. For instance, the police eventually started investigating Bunting, and he had trouble finding places to store the barrels. This led him to store the barrels in the Snowtown bank vault. The film also gives us the vague sense that Bunting killed people on the flimsiest of evidence, but could have done a lot more with it. And hell, in real life, after slaughtering their final victim, Bunting and Wagner fried and ate a piece of said victim's flesh. Morbid details like this would have tremendously amplified the picture's power. Furthermore, Shaun Grant's script introduces too many new characters too soon, not giving us the chance to properly acquaint ourselves with Bunting's partners in crime. A few plot developments are too vague as well, and the film is occasionally confusing. Make no mistake, the film's narrative structure works on its own terms, but it just feels too underdone.

Without a doubt, most of the movie's power is thanks in no small part to the performances. Except for one or two of the performers, the film is inhabited by non-actors who were literally pulled off the street. You wouldn't know it, though, since the acting is spectacular. Daniel Henshall is most notable as John Bunting. Bunting is a warped psychopath and a stone-cold killer, but it's possible to almost forget this fact during the first act of the film due to Henshall's incredibly nuanced and restrained portrayal of Bunting. Henshall's performance is sensational; he has created one of the most powerful and disturbing characters in recent cinematic memory. Lucas Pittaway is equally remarkable, playing Jamie Vlassakis as a naïve boy unwillingly sucked into a cesspool of killing and nihilism.

Snowtown will shake you to your very core; it's a highly confronting film that's hard to watch and impossible to forget. Most will find it too bleak and depressing, and simply will not be able to watch it. However, those with patience and endurance will be rewarded with remarkable acting, vivid direction and exceptional filmmaking. No, this is not the definitive story of the murders, and you'll learn a lot more about the full story by watching a documentary. Snowtown is, however, a harrowing dramatisation.

7.7/10

"Three months ago, you lost the drive containing the identity of every agent embedded in terrorist organizations across the globe."

In the case of Daniel Craig's James Bond adventures, third time really is a charm. After 2006's Casino Royale and the dismal misfire that was Quantum of Solace, the producers behind the 007 franchise have finally got it right for 2012's Skyfall. This is a sensational return to form for the long-running series, an extremely satisfying Bond-buster which reincorporates traditional James Bond attributes while updating the character for the 21st Century. Skyfall is the movie that the Craig reboot has been building to since the beginning, at last developing a new identity for the series that mixes the old and the new in an agreeable fashion. Directed by the Oscar-winning Sam Mendes, the picture is rousing fun as well; it's visually gorgeous, exciting, and has a great story. Added to this, Skyfall is surprisingly deep and thoughtful.

During a crucial mission to retrieve a top secret hard-drive containing the identities of undercover MI6 agents posted around the world, James Bond (Craig) is accidentally shot by fellow agent Eve (Harris) and believed to be dead. Taking his "death" as a golden opportunity to cleanly escape Her Majesty's Secret Service, 007 retreats to a corner of the world to drink and womanise. However, in London, the mastermind behind the hard-drive theft bombs MI6 and begins releasing the identities of the undercover British agents. Head of MI6, M (Dench), is held accountable for the attacks, and the Ministry of Defence begins questioning M's competence. Learning of the bombing, Bond returns to London to investigate, eventually learning of a demented madman named Raoul Silva (Bardem), a former MI6 agent disillusioned by the secret service who has positioned M as his next target.

Skyfall welcomely reintroduces a number of iconic 'Film Bond' staples, dusting off elements like a secret lair on a deserted island and a colourful, megalomaniacal villain. Furthermore, the script (by John Logan, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade) contains a number of light-hearted quips and moments to lighten the mood, shaking off the dour self-seriousness that plagued Craig's first two outings. A new Q (played by Ben Whishaw) is introduced as well, and the scenes between Bond and Q sparkle with the same type of wit we saw during the Desmond Llewelyn era. Thankfully, reliance on old tropes does not make the material feel stale or reheated. On the contrary, Skyfall feels astonishingly fresh. Additionally, the script is filled with witty, well-written dialogue. There are even a number of sly references to prior Bond films through dialogue and situations which will definitely be appreciated by long-time series fans.

Out of Craig's three Bond pictures so far, Casino Royale is the most story-driven while Quantum of Solace is the most action-oriented. Skyfall, meanwhile, is a pitch-perfect amalgam of the two. Action scenes do not dominate Skyfall: the action is in the service of the story, not the other way around. The film clocks in at a pretty sizeable 140 minutes, and the pace does admittedly lag from time to time around the midsection, but the film is otherwise compelling and engaging. Skyfall is especially notable for the way it probes Bond's psyche and history, allowing us to understand him as more than just a caricature of our imaginations. This is a story about revenge and betrayal, and it unexpectedly brings to the fore a key Bond girl: M. It's not that the two are lovers or anything, but M acts as a kind of surrogate mother to Bond, and it's a crucial relationship which gives the film an unexpected amount of heart.

Fortunately, Skyfall nails another requisite of any good Bond flick: the opening titles. The visuals are old-fashioned yet the atmosphere is contemporary, generating a stunning display of images that suit the franchise to the ground. Adele's classy Skyfall song accompanies the titles, and her tone is spot-on. Skyfall also knocks its opening action sequence out of the park. Beginning in Istanbul, we follow Bond as he chases goons on foot, on a motorcycle and on top of a train, where he uses a freaking tractor to defend himself. It's a nail-biting tour de force of an action set-piece, destined to go down as one of the best beginnings in the series. Sam Mendes was a superlative choice to fill the director's chair, lending his Oscar-winning skills to the franchise that was in dire need of such a deft touch. Especially skilful is his ability to build tension and generate an aura of danger - this is not a "safe" 007 outing, but rather a daring film in which we feel that nobody is safe. The beautiful stylishness of the film is very much appreciated, as Mendes and master cinematography Roger Deakins (No Country for Old Men, True Grit, Revolutionary Road) photograph the frenetic mayhem sensibly, giving us the chance to marvel at the outstanding stunts and remarkable special effects. This is easily the best-looking Bond adventure in decades, and the action sequences are some of the best that the series has ever featured. However, the final showdown between Bond and Silva is a bit limp - with so much build-up, Skyfall should have delivered a show-stopping final fight between the two, but the moment never arrives.

Daniel Craig has finally come into his own as Agent 007. His performance here is more nuanced and agreeable, with hints of humanity and a sense of humour that we have not previously seen. It's not that Craig is a softer James Bond here; rather, it's that his stoic intensity is supplemented by a palpable willingness to actually have fun in the role and drop one-liners with glee. In other words, it announces the end of Bond's coming-of-age which began with Casino Royale. So far, Craig's Bond pictures has been let down by weak bad guys, but Javier Bardem is every bit Craig's equal here. Bardem, who won an Oscar for playing the vicious villain in No Country for Old Men, clearly had a great time playing Silva; he's creepily charming and at times even playful, yet he's also terrifying. Judi Dench, meanwhile, gives her role of M much more depth than ever before, and the seasoned actress has done so with consummate skill. Ralph Fiennes is also introduced as the new chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Fiennes is excellent in anything, and this is no exception. Rounding out the cast is Ben Whishaw as the new Q. Whishaw has plenty of charisma and seems right at home as the tech-savvy Quartermaster. I have no problem with the idea of Whishaw entering the franchise for the long haul.

The biggest success of Skyfall is that it's a modern James Bond film which understands that times have changed since the 1960s, and it adapts to those changes, yet it also has its feet in the tradition of 007 and retains the franchise's spirit. In the final act, we get a brilliant epiphany moment: Bond stands on a London rooftop observing the Union Jack fluttering in the wind. It sublimely underscores what Bond has done for king and country, and promises that he is not finished. Skyfall also works to return the characters to "classic" form within the new contemporary aesthetic, and it's a tempting offer, especially if filmmakers like Mendes are in charge. This is the movie that Casino Royale should have been, and it helps us to forget that Quantum of Solace ever existed.

8.9/10

"I'm going to find everyone of them, and send them to the death they pray for."

A low-budget British action-thriller, 2012's Cleanskin puts terrorism in the United Kingdom under the microscope. For those unaware, the term 'cleanskin' is used to describe an unexpected terrorist with no known ties to any terrorist groups; someone who essentially appears out of the blue to wreak havoc despite appearing to be a regular citizen. The film was produced, written, directed and edited by British filmmaker Hadi Hajaig, and the product is an unusually nuanced thriller with an eye towards character development, painting a portrait of two men at opposing ends of the ideological spectrum. Cleanskin is not a complete success due to a few scripting flaws, but it's a valiant effort on the part of Hajaig.

The 'cleanskin' of the title is Ash (Galeya), a young British Muslim who elects the terrorist route after being brainwashed. Staging an attack on an arms dealer, Ash stealers a large stash of deadly plastic explosive with plans to devastate London through a series of bombings. Ash's actions send the British Secret Service into damage control, with an agent named Ewan (Bean) being assigned to track down the briefcase and retrieve the explosives before Ash can put his master plan into action.

The premise sounds like a promising set-up for a Taken-style action film spotlighting Sean Bean on a violent rampage against Muslin extremists. But Cleanskin is a different type of thriller, and the majority of its runtime is used to probe Ash's background and explore his transformation from meek University student to terrorist. Hajaig's attempt to humanise a home-grown terrorist is laudable, yet it may not sit well with everyone, and Hajaig only provides a very paltry set of reasons for Ash to want to become a terrorist. It's poignant to see Ash being "radicalised" by an overweening Imam, but the trigger which sends Ash to the dark side is preposterous: troubles with his girlfriend Kate (Middleton). Is that really what causes terrorism these days? Worse, Ash's arc is ultimately rushed, and his eventual transformation into suicide bomber is shoddy. Ash is established as someone who feels bad about a couple of civilian casualties, but he decides to strap on a bomb and murder a lot of innocents without proper motivation. Furthermore, Bean's character of Ewan is too thinly-drawn. Hajaig focuses so much on Ash that Ewan is rendered as more of a one-dimensional hero without much in the way of depth or background.

Cleanskin fares best during its major set-pieces, of which there are a few. The opening shootout is exhilarating and well-staged, while the various other conflicts throughout the picture are gripping. Hajaig occasionally employs shaky-cam which can be irritating, but the action is for the most part watchable and enjoyable. And for a film that reportedly cost an estimated £2 million, production values are top-notch and the film looks exceptional. Cleanskin also packs one hell of a punch during its scenes depicting the London bombings. In one scene, we're introduced to a beautiful, endearing young lady who's talking on the phone to her mother whilst walking to work. It's easy to assume she might become a key player, but, lo and behold, she suddenly becomes the victim of a suicide bombing. It's a brutally effective scene which emphasises the true horror of these bombings, underscoring that innocent people with their own unique lives were senselessly killed.

Sean Bean has always been a talented thespian, but has often been relegated to supporting roles in major motion pictures. It's refreshing, then, to see Bean at long last getting more substantial roles, even if they're only in direct-to-DVD efforts. Bean is excellent here as Ewan, engaging and full of intensity. In his 50s, Bean has the right look for a grizzled, gritty action hero, somewhat akin to Liam Neeson. The rest of the cast is quite good, as well. Abhin Galeya is terrific as Ash; at times charismatic, at other times scarily serious. Galeya and co-star Tuppence Middleton (as Kate) were required to play their characters both as young University students and mature adults. Amazingly, the actors sell both versions of their roles in terms of appearance, body language and temperament. It's tremendously effective.

Uneven pacing and script issues aside, Cleanskin is a solid action-thriller which deserves to be seen. It's easy to appreciate what writer-director Hadi Hajaig has achieved here, but it's a shame that the film does not quite reach its full potential. One must wonder how much more effective the film might've been with a more generous budget or with a few more script rewrites.

6.0/10

"Catch you at a bad time?"

One in the Chamber is just okay. It's not great or even overly good, but it's not dreadful; it's in the unremarkable province between those two extremes. The action sequences on offer here are not the best or the worst you'll ever see, the acting is middle-of-the-road, the story is standard-order, and production values are decent. It works as a serviceable time-killer on a slow day to an extent, but it's doubtful that you will remember the film a few weeks down the track - or, indeed, a few hours after watching. Pretty much the only thing distinguishing One in the Chamber from other direct-to-DVD action films is the presence of Dolph Lundgren, who's extremely colourful and flamboyant here.

In Prague, assassin Ray Carver (Gooding Jr.) is hired by a mafia family to kill several members of a rival gang. However, this sparks an all-out war between the two gangs, leading to bloodshed and carnage. Carver's employers soon call in Soviet badass Aleksey Andreev (Lundgren), an assassin more commonly known as "The Wolf," to finish what Carver failed to achieve. Meanwhile, Ray is employed by the same people he was previously hired to assassinate. As an all-out mob war breaks out, Carver also begins a flirtatious relationship with Janice (Bassols), a woman he's been besotted with for years.

Clichés run rampant throughout One in the Chamber. In a painfully contrived sequence, Janice is snooping around Carver's apartment and finds a bible which belonged to her late father, and deduces that Ray was involved in her father's death. Janice storms off upset, but is soon targeted by the bad guys, so Carver has to save her and redeem himself. Additionally, storytelling throughout the film is often messy and garbled. At times it's hard to discern what's happening, and a handful of plot developments are too vague. Whether this is due to the writing, the directing or the editing, I cannot be certain, but it is problematic, especially for what's advertised as a straight-ahead B-grade action fiesta. Added to this, we get internal narration courtesy of Carver, but it's too melodramatic. It's laudable that the screenwriters tried to infuse the killer with humanity, but the material winds up sounding corny. There is simply not enough depth to Ray's character in the first place, and the stream-of-conscious narration does nothing to help this.

To his credit, William Kaufman is not a bad director - in fact One in the Chamber is an attractive-looking action movie which miraculously makes its Eastern European locations look appealing. He is, however, very workmanlike; the action set-pieces here are somewhat decent, but they are by no means memorable or outstanding. Kaufman dishes up the usual assortment of shoot-'em-up and beat-'em-up elements that we've seen done better before...and oftentimes done significantly better before. Unfortunately, quality of the action drastically varies. While there are a few badass action beats, some scenes employ far-too-obvious CGI blood. Furthermore, Kaufman's pacing is a mixed bag. Especially throughout the midsection, the film plays out at an uneven pace.

Cuba Gooding Jr. is an Oscar winner, but he has fallen quite far in the years since Jerry Maguire; now he's a direct-to-DVD action hero, on a par with Steven Seagal. Gooding tries to play the role of Ray Carver as a stoic, emotionless assassin, and does an okay job, but he lacks energy. And it is very problematic for an action hero to have almost no personality. On the flipside, however, is Dolph Lundgren, who clearly had an absolute ball with this role. Lundgren looks suave and assured, killing his targets with precision whilst donning Hawaiian shirts and fedoras. As shown in the recent Expendables 2, Lundgren has terrific comedic timing and deadpan delivery, and One in the Chamber makes good use of this. This is a classic case of wanting to root for the bad guy, because Lundgren is the only one in the film with any energy. Thus, the film focuses on the wrong character; I found myself wanting to know more about Dolph's Aleksey Andreev than Carver, and was disappointed that the film concentrates so much on the latter. The rest of the cast is decent enough, but by no means memorable.

At the end of the day, One in the Chamber is a passable effort, but it looks pretty unremarkable amongst the dozens of other direct-to-DVD action flicks on the market. The only real reason to see the film is Dolph Lundgren, who's extremely enjoyable and in remarkable shape for a man in his 50s. One can't help but wonder how much better the film would've been if it focused on Dolph's slick assassin rather than Cuba Gooding Jr.'s conflicted character.

5.1/10

"There's a 12-foot great white shark in here..."

On paper, 2012's Bait 3D sounds like a hoot and a half. After all, B-movie extraordinaire Russell Mulcahy co-wrote and produced the movie, which is about a supermarket that gets flooded during a tsunami before hungry, man-eating sharks invade the store to feast on the survivors. Unfortunately, however, this Australian shark thriller is underwhelming and sorely lacking bite. Only occasionally showing signs of goodness, the picture predominantly sits there on the screen, dull and limp, with its amateur-hour presentation frequently yielding pure boredom. Although it is a notable step up compared to the irredeemable Shark Night 3D since Bait at least contains R-rated levels of gore and language, the film nevertheless fails to provide the joyful sense of B-movie lunacy that Piranha 3D nailed back in 2010.

After losing his soon-to-be brother-in-law in a traumatic shark attack, lifeguard Josh (Xavier Samuel) also loses his fiancée Tina (Sharni Vinson) in a break-up and regresses into a state of depression. Leaving his lifeguard job, Josh takes a lowly position stocking shelves at a local supermarket, with his life now entirely devoid of ambition. Unfortunately, on a day when Josh is working, Tina enters the supermarket with her new boyfriend. Unfortunately, too, on the very same day, two men attempt to rob the store. And just to top off Josh's wave of bad luck, an earthquake hits, resulting in a devastating tsunami washing ashore. The tsunami moves through the area, flooding the store and trapping a small group of survivors inside the building. As the group seeks a means of escape, a more immediate threat emerges in the form of two man-eating great white sharks that swim through the flood waters and into the supermarket.

The fact that Bait has six credited screenwriters and that Mulcahy was replaced as director at the last minute (by Cut director Kimble Rendall) seems to suggest that the film had a somewhat troubled production. Additionally, filming took place back in 2010, the movie's release date was delayed several times, and the original synopsis suggested an assortment of sharks in the water. There are just two great whites in the finished movie, even though there are still indicators that this may have been a last-minute change. (Josh watches a news report near the film's beginning about a surplus of sharks in local waters.) The eventual shark set-up here does not exactly work - there are two main areas in the supermarket and one great white shark in each area, which is too convenient. Plus, great whites are not usually this fierce; tiger or bull sharks would be far more appropriate for this premise. It may seem foolhardy to ask for realism since that is the least of Bait's problems, but the flick takes itself a bit too seriously at times, asking us to actually accept this malarkey with a straight face.

Bait should have been something like 1999's Deep Blue Sea, which was cheesy fun in all the right ways. Instead, the endeavour is bland and in desperate need of a schlocky touch to make the experience more enjoyable. The dialogue is one primary downfall. Although it would be unreasonable to expect robust, witty dialogue, the chatter is not even enjoyable in a cheesy sense - it's just fucking boring, guaranteed to make you cringe, wince, or want to yell out smartass remarks. Worse, the film concerns itself with many clichéd squabbles and scenarios that fail to give the characters much weight. For instance, one of the robbers survives the tsunami, leading to a great deal of tension between the characters. Plus there's the awkwardness of Josh being around Tina and her new boyfriend. And so on and so forth. One of the most awkward moments spotlights a character trying to make sense of the tragedy by believing it to be some kind of karmic justice to punish immature selfishness.

As a horror movie, Bait is often sleep-inducing, as Rendall merely fills the flick with predictable jump scares without achieving much in the way of honest-to-goodness tension. The special effects are often ridiculously slipshod, as well. This is 2012, and realistic shark effects should be achievable right now. Hell, Deep Blue Sea showed signs that filmmakers were getting extremely close in the late 1990s, especially with mechanical sharks, but things have somehow only gotten worse over a decade later. Bait's shark effects are underwhelming - the mechanical sharks look okay, but the computer-generated fishes never look believable, which harms Rendall's half-hearted attempts at suspense. Jaws features a fake-looking shark, yet Steven Spielberg mostly kept the monster concealed. On the other hand, Rendall insists on keeping the fake sharks in full view all the time during Bait despite their unconvincing disposition, and as a result, it is hard to feel involved in anything that happens. Heck, the first sighting of a shark in the opening sequence is hilarious, and not in a good way. The phoniness of the sharks is odd since the production values are otherwise solid - the tsunami looks terrific, and the interior supermarket sets are impressively intricate.

On a positive note, dark humour occasionally lightens the movie, which is mainly provided by Lincoln Lewis's hilarious turn as sleazebag surfer Kyle. Lewis is easily the best thing in the flick. Whereas the rest of the characters are utterly bland, Lewis keeps firing off hilarious one-liners, and his over-the-top douchebag routine is side-splitting. Alas, Lewis aside, the acting is seriously woeful - it looks as if the filmmakers recruited a bunch of high school drama dropouts. The actors sound stiff, dull and boring, and they seem to regurgitate dialogue without any conviction or intensity. It's a huge problem.

Perhaps the fundamental problem with Bait 3D is that the filmmakers were unsure where to take it. On the one hand, its premise and a few moments seem to suggest that the film is meant to be taken as cheesy B-movie fun. On the other hand, most of the movie is alarmingly self-serious, making the rest of its problems (stiff acting, lousy dialogue) appear all the more glaring. Rendall is not especially adept at building tension, rendering Bait an unremarkable, poorly-written horror movie. It's somewhat entertaining if you have nothing better to do on a rainy afternoon, but the film should have been so much more.

4.8/10

"Pulling a trigger is like ordering takeout."

Directed by the Welsh-born Gareth Evans, The Raid is an elegantly simple, pared-down, back-to-basics action movie. And it's awesome. A vicious showcase of shootouts and severe bodily trauma from Indonesia, The Raid is a pure adrenaline rush destined to become a manly action classic with its insane battles and jaw-dropping moments of violence. The movie has received a lot of hype and attention since hitting film festivals in 2011, and it's easy to see why - it's one of the most insane and inventive action flicks in years, with its straightforward storyline providing an effective excuse for an ultraviolent joyride the likes of which we rarely see.

The plot is simple, like an arcade fighting game: a SWAT team led by Lieutenant Wahyu (Pierre Gruno) set out to infiltrate the drug den of criminal kingdom Tama (Ray Sahetapy). Unfortunately, Tama lives in a massive apartment complex inhabited by drug takers, thugs, scumbags and lowlifes, who will all die in Tama's name. The team hope to remain concealed throughout the mission, but lookouts quickly alert their boss, who orders the dangerous residents to eliminate the officers. This triggers wave upon wave of armed thugs, with the law enforcement officials finding themselves in for the fight of their lives. Amid the officers is Rama (Iko Uwais), a dutiful husband to a pregnant wife who just wants to do his duty and escape the building alive. Fortunately, Rama is skilled in the field of ass-kickery.

Evans, who also wrote the script, avoids bogging the film down in unnecessary details. The action is interspersed with well-judged scenes of character interaction, with Evans at no point clinging onto moments of character development or drama for too long. When The Raid gets down to business, it blossoms with its displays of competent stuntwork, stunning choreography, and awesome pyrotechnics. The bold fights are so raw, brutal and adrenaline-pumping, in fact, that one can't help but wonder how the fuck the actors pulled it off. Uwais is a true force of nature; the crazy Indonesian obliterates his way through a rogue's gallery of opponents, and Evans permits us to watch the chaos unfold in unflinching full shots highlighting the choreography and the physical skills of everyone involved. Some of these guys must have landed in hospital during filming! The Raid is excessively violent as well, with bloody bullet-holes and graphic knife wounds. Evans doesn't linger on the gore or bloodshed, though, instead keeping the pace consistently frenetic. For action fans, The Raid is a freaking godsend. If you're wondering what people mean when they say that Hollywood has forgotten how to produce action movies, compare 2012's Battleship or Total Recall with The Raid. The difference in quality is day and night.

From top to bottom, the picture's technical specs are top-flight. Evans and cinematographers Matt Flannery and Dimas Imam Subhono exhibit gorgeous panache in their framing and movements. Miraculously, the cameras follow the action without reducing each set-piece to an indecipherable blur of shaky-cam. Though framing is admittedly somewhat on the shaky side, it's never too distracting. On top of this, the apartment block itself is a superb supporting player. It looks like a dangerous, dank environment, making it ideal for the action and premise. Furthermore, The Raid features a strong ensemble of actors. As Rama, Uwais is sublime - he's a breathtaking fighter and a capable thespian. Joe Taslim is equally good as Jaka, one of Rama's fellow officers. It's a bit of a shame, though, that Taslim is pretty underused - he has great charisma and acting chops, and should have been allotted a bigger role. As Tama, Ray Sahetapy is colourful and sadistic, while Yayan Ruhian makes a huge impression as a crazy fighter known as Mad Dog.

In spite of its strengths, The Raid is not perfect. By the end, the picture does admittedly get a bit exhausting and repetitive. There are a few hair-brained script flaws, too. For instance, why is it that, after the first half, the building's residents suddenly become averse to using firearms? They round up tonnes of assault rifles from deceased officers, yet wander around using machetes and fists for some reason. (Only the character Mad Dog has a legitimate excuse since he prefers the exhilaration of fighting over guns.) Also, it seems really difficult to hurt people during a number of the brawls. People get the shit knocked out of them, yet still stand and continue fighting as if they aren't injured? A character towards the end is even beaten and stabbed within an inch of his life, yet has the energy and tolerance to engage in a massive brawl. Huh? Oh well, you probably won't end up minding too much about this stuff anyway, since The Raid is such an enjoyable experience for most of its runtime.

Action fans owe it to themselves to check out The Raid, as they will undoubtedly delight in the violent carnage. But the film is not for every taste; those who aren't fond of relentless action will probably be better off watching something softer. For the rest of us, the film is a glorious home run. Sure, it's not quite as skilful as something like John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13, and it lacks the chutzpah to truly catapult it to being a masterful survival action-thriller, but it's hard to be unsatisfied with the film in its current form.

7.9/10

"We've gotta find some proof that Madeline O'Malley really exists before this place closes down..."

Ti West made a splash on the horror scene with the release of his 2009 shocker House of the Devil; a retro throwback to '80s horror pictures. West is recognised for his "slow burn" approach to the genre, though the style did not work so well for The House of the Devil, which ultimately ended up being uneventful and forgettable. Thankfully, West has improved tremendously since his earlier effort, and The Innkeepers is one of the most chilling and memorable horror movies of the year. Whereas The House of the Devil was an '80s horror movie homage, The Innkeepers harkens back to films like The Shining and Rosemary's Baby, though the film feels fresh and unique rather than derivative. A spooky ghost story, West's picture is engrossing and insanely atmospheric, mixing old-fashioned slow-burning horror cues with thrills that grow more intense as time goes by. Add to this a few likeable protagonists, and The Innkeepers is a home run.

An ancient hotel, The Yankee Pedlar Inn is having its last weekend of business, and staff members Claire (Sara Paxton) and Luke (Pat Healy) are left to maintain the hotel for its last few days. Only a few guests remain, including irritable actress-come-psychic Leanne Rease-Jones (Kelly McGillis). Trying to occupy themselves during their monotonous twelve-hour shifts, Claire and Luke turn to ghost-hunting, seeking to capture evidence that a spirit dwells inside the hotel. Legend has it that a jilted bride hung herself within the hotel many decades ago, and her ghost still lurks the hallways. With assistance from Leanne, Claire begins going deep into her exploration, gradually uncovering evidence that a malevolent spirit indeed haunts the Inn.

Forgoing the constant jump scares and gross-out moments of most contemporary fright films, Ti West instead concentrates on measured pacing. As a matter of fact, the first half of The Innkeepers is more about the inner workings of the Inn than any supernatural phenomena. If you were none the wiser, the first act could fool you into thinking the film is going to be a quirky comedy about ghost-hunting nerds. And the thing is, The Innkeepers would have been a remarkable film even if there were no ghosts; Claire and Luke are such an interesting, endearing pair that I could spend all day watching these two banter. They feel like real people, just a couple of nerds who have worked together for years, and who share a palpable camaraderie. West gives us the chance to really get to know these people and care about them, which raises the stakes and tension when things begin to go downhill for them.

In its final half-hour or so, The Innkeepers definitely picks up, reminding us that this is, in fact, a horror movie after all. Ti West cleverly abstains from jump scares, and even snidely makes fun of the idea of jump scares. In an early scene, for instance, Luke shows Claire a typical "jump scare" video as a prank. West is too skilful to play the same tricks on his audience - The Innkeepers employs old-fashioned scare tactics to great effect, with its eerie score and reliance on disturbing imagery. Thanks to West's decision to shoot within the confines of a real hotel, the film has an incredible sense of atmosphere and geography, not to mention a lived-in temperament. It feels like this rundown establishment is full of stories, and West and cinematographer Eliot Rockett take full advantage of this. The film is even broken into a series of chapters using ancient-looking title cards, helping to establish the "ghost story told around the campfire" mood.

West really lucked out in the casting department. As Claire, Sara Paxton is appealingly quirky and goofy, presenting the character as a dorky, sweet and incredibly cute young lady. She's perfectly paired with Pat Healy as Luke, a man-child who harbours a secret crush on Claire. Both actors deliver incredibly naturalistic performances, and deserve credit for making their characters seem both entertaining and fundamentally real. Meanwhile, the now ageing Kelly McGillis (Top Gun) is excellent as washed-up actress Leanne Rease-Jones. McGillis brings maturity and world-weariness that's appropriate for the role, and she's generally convincing. Also, George Riddle is exceedingly creepy as an old man who checks into the hotel during the weekend. The cast is pretty small, but everyone hits their mark, and the interplay is so good that the movie is a breeze to watch.

If you're seeking gore-soaked murder scenes or bucket-loads of cheap thrills, The Innkeepers is not a movie for you. Rather, the movie is made for horror fans who appreciate movies that are deliberately paced and carefully calculated. You have to wait a good hour for the intense stuff to truly kick in, but boy is the wait worth it. And in the lead-up, it's easy to be entertained by the charming pair of central characters. Sure, the film could probably have been tauter, but give me this atmospheric gem over the type of horror rubbish that Hollywood so often force-feeds us.

8.2/10

"Have you heard of extreme tourism?"

The idea of a horror film set in the radiation zone surrounding the Chernobyl reactor is bursting with potential, so it's a shame that Chernobyl Diaries is such a dismal failure. Rather than a competent bone-chiller, the film steals wholesale from Wes Craven's 1977 shocker The Hills Have Eyes and at least a dozen other horror pictures. The film was masterminded by Paranormal Activity creator Oren Peli, who co-wrote the screenplay with Shane Van Dyke and Carey Van Dyke. For those unaware, Shane wrote, directed and starred in The Asylum's Titanic II, and Carey is another Asylum regular. It's hardly surprising, then, that the picture is so vehemently C-grade, dull and uneventful.

While holidaying around Europe, Chris (Jesse McCartney), his long-time girlfriend Natalie (Olivia Taylor Dudley), and their recently-dumped best friend Amanda (Devin Kelly) visit Chris' older brother Paul (Jonathan Sadowski) in Kyiv. Wanting Chris and his buddies to have a good time, Paul organises for them to embark on an "extreme tour" hosted by Russian hulk Uri (Dimitri Diatchenko) to the ghost town of Prypiat, which was abandoned back in 1986 following the catastrophic Chernobyl disaster. Joined by Norwegian Zoe (Ingrid Bolsø Berdal) and her Australian boyfriend Michael (Nathan Phillips), the group soon becomes stranded in the desolate area when their ride breaks down. It isn't long before night falls, and circumstances rapidly spiral downwards as the tourists find themselves up against cannibalistic mutants as well as the vicious local wildlife.

At the very least, Chernobyl Diaries is not yet another "found footage" flick. It opens in the found footage style but soon shifts into conventional writing and directing, which is a godsend. But this is one of the only things the film does right. The pedestrian script calls upon countless clichés and doesn't bother to do something interesting with them. For instance, we learn early in the movie that Chris plans to propose to Natalie. Additionally, as soon as Michael and Zoe show up and ask to join the tour, we immediately realise they exist just to be killed. Couldn't the script be just a tiny bit more subtle? Perhaps most distressingly, the film cheats several times in a lazy attempt to amplify the scares. For instance, a good six or seven hours of daylight suddenly vanishes on the group's second day, a period long enough for the protagonists to hike 20km to the closest checkpoint to get help or do any number of things to help their cause before night falls. It's jarring, creating a threat without earning it and demonstrating little regard for viewer intelligence. And why is it that Paul speaks fluent Ukrainian throughout the film but pleads for his life in English when faced with Ukrainian soldiers?

The ghost town of Prypiat is an ideal setting for a horror film, and the depiction is impressively spot-on. As the protagonists walk around, looking at ancient buildings and playgrounds, director Bradley Parker generates a creepy atmosphere, but it's all for naught. The idea that radioactive mutants inhabit the town is so head-smackingly obvious and boring, squandering the potential for a genuinely unsettling horror story. Admittedly, the concept initially shows promise, with unseen foes and aggressive wildlife generating some degree of intensity. Parker fails to sustain this, however, instead leaning on tired horror tropes. As a result, the film has very little replay value. Chernobyl Diaries is not necessarily awful, but its lack of innovation renders it much too drab. You won't feel compelled to watch this one again anytime soon or ever again.

To be fair, Chernobyl Diaries has a few isolated set pieces that effectively evoke a sense of dread, and the Prypiat setting is always insanely creepy in daylight. If horror fanatics simply want to watch a new backdrop for a clichéd mutant-killer film, then they might find that it delivers the goods if they squint hard enough. Overall, though, the film is a missed opportunity, a leaden exercise in stock characters, clichés and lacklustre scares.

4.0/10

"Legend says that a crystal skull was stolen from a mythical lost city in the Amazon, supposedly built out of solid gold, guarded by the living dead. Whoever returns the skull to the city temple will be given control over its power."

It took nineteen years, at least a dozen screenwriters and several false starts and stops, but it finally happened: the iconic professor-come-adventurer Indiana Jones made his long-awaited return to the silver screen. However, in the years since its release, 2008's Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has become the franchise's black sheep, receiving a distinctly mixed reception from critics and moviegoers. But in this reviewer's eyes, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is far from the abject failure of the Star Wars prequels, and it's not far behind the quality of the previous Indiana Jones sequels. While the original trilogy homages old adventure serials of the 1930s, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull embodies the spirit of 1950s B-movies, resulting in a different type of Indiana Jones adventure that still retains familiar franchise elements. It's Indy 2.0 for the 21st Century, delivering a welcome amount of joyful action-adventure fun coordinated by one of the industry's finest filmmakers.

The year is 1957, and tensions between the United States and Russia are high. Still working as a professor of archaeology as he progresses into his autumnal years, Dr. Jones (Harrison Ford) is rustled out of his everyday routine by a group of Russian soldiers led by the ruthless Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), who are seeking to uncover the location of an enigmatic crystal skull. Working to obtain the skull before the Commies get their hands on it, Indy is joined by young greaser Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf) as they globe-trot to South America, following the clues left behind by Indy's old colleague Harold Oxley (John Hurt).

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is structured like a classic Indiana Jones picture, opening with a large action set-piece before shifting into expositional territory as the relic hunt begins. Hell, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas even dust off the old Paramount Pictures logo and the trademark title font to match the mood left hanging in 1989, and they resurrect the traditional travel montages, with a map displaying the characters' journey. Furthermore, the film retains a warm, orangey colour palette reminiscent of the previous films, and each punch still sounds as thunderous as ever. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is eager to provide light-hearted fun, a quality often lacking in modern action cinema. We get too many grim and ominous action pictures like the Bourne series or The Dark Knight, so it's refreshing to witness a buoyant action-adventure that is straight-up entertaining from start to finish. Personally, I'll take Spielberg's marvellously orchestrated action scenes - which eschew rapid-fire cutting and shaky-cam - over most of today's "grim and dark" action films. The film's playful sense of humour is welcome, too. Composer John Williams also deserves credit for his contributions. It has been decades since we first heard it, but the Indiana Jones theme remains as exhilarating as ever, and each action beat is all the more enjoyable when accompanied by those iconic trumpeted notes.

Screenwriter David Koepp takes full advantage of the picture's 1950s setting. On top of containing a handful of classic rock 'n' roll tunes, it's wonderful to watch the interactions between Mutt and Indy: the rebellious young rock 'n' roll type versus the more traditional sort of American. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is goofy, but Indiana Jones has been goofy since its inception. (Seriously, re-watch Raiders of the Lost Ark - nostalgia may cloud your judgement, but the film is goofy as hell.) The only problem is that Crystal Skull is not quite as gritty as its predecessors - it's a bit too "clean," whereas the original trilogy possessed a veneer of '80s grit. This is due to the use of digital effects over the primitive but endearing special effects of yesteryear and the fact that Crystal Skull is not as violent as its forerunners. (Indy seems reluctant to kill people here, and he never fires his gun.) Admittedly, the CGI glaze is not a bother for the most part, but the film becomes far too cartoonish once it shifts to the jungles of Peru. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull fares better in its smaller set-pieces, including a giddily amusing brawl in a restaurant and an exciting motorcycle chase. When it goes bigger, it lacks the punch of the earlier pictures simply because it looks too much like the product of sets, green screens and computers, rather than the result of expansive location shooting and risky stuntwork. A handful of moments are much too ridiculous, as well, including Mutt swinging on vines like Tarzan. It also feels as if none of the heroes are actually at risk of being hurt.

Ford looks bored in many of his recent roles, but here, he seems to have that glimmer of delight back in his eyes. Ford plays the aging Indy with a low-key charm and never pushes the old man routine too hard, instead just playing a ripened version of the role with a sense of humour. Thankfully, Ford is joined by his old Raiders of the Lost Ark co-star Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood. Allen hasn't been in many films of late, so it's a thrill to see her onscreen again, and it's even better that she's as wonderful as ever. Inviting Allen back to the franchise was an ingenious idea, and it's great that she and Ford still have sizzling chemistry. Meanwhile, LeBeouf is surprisingly likable as Mutt, dialling down his irritating acting habits to portray a credible greaser and an effective side-kick. Blanchett is also deliciously villainous as Irina Spalko, and John Hurt is agreeably colourful as Oxley. Less successful, though, is Ray Winstone - he does what he can as Mac, but his character is ill-defined and pointless, a lazy conflict catalyst who could have been excised without any detriment to the narrative.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is definitely at its strongest during its first and second acts, with its dynamite character interactions, exciting globe-trotting, light-hearted spelunking, and gripping action scenes. Beyond that, the film is distinctly hit-and-miss, alternating between the shonky and the exciting. (The rainforest chase is too cartoonish, though a brawl between Indy and a Russian hulk is a true white-knuckle sequence.) Nevertheless, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull does not deserve the negative press it receives. Even in its silliest moments (FRIDGE!), the film is hugely entertaining, delivering an irresistible amount of matinee-style action that we rarely see these days. It's not on the same level as Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Last Crusade, but it's at least as good as - if not better than - The Temple of Doom.

7.7/10