Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"You break into the Bank of England via computer, and transfer the money electronically. Just minutes before you set off the GoldenEye, which erases any trace of the transactions. Ingenious. "

Following the release of 1989's Licence to Kill, the James Bond franchise withered in limbo for six years due to MGM's crippling financial and legal difficulties. Timothy Dalton departed the role during the interim, forcing producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli to find a new face for the iconic secret agent. His replacement became Pierce Brosnan, who was supposed to take the role a decade prior but was contracted to work on the TV show Remington Steele. The resulting picture is 1995's GoldenEye, the first completely original Bond adventure with no ties to any of Ian Fleming's original novels or short stories, although the title was named after Fleming's luxurious Jamaican estate. The film which re-invented 007 for modern times, GoldenEye is arguably the best Bond-buster to date; a rip-roaring action film with memorable set-pieces, first-rate production values, and the best Bond since Sean Connery. 007 films exist to provide a two-hour thrill ride, and GoldenEye - the seventeenth instalment in the franchise - does just that, with Martin Campbell stylishly integrating all of the elements one expects from the series: fast cars, cool gadgets, hot girls, creative action, and boundary-pushing visual effects.

In Soviet Russia during the 1980s, James Bond and Agent 006, Alec Trevelyan (Sean Bean), infiltrate a Soviet chemicals facility to destroy a deadly weapons stockpile. Though Bond manages to complete his objective, Alec is killed in action. Nine years later, Bond is assigned to investigate the theft of a top-secret space weapon known as the "GoldenEye," which fires an electromagnetic pulse and has the potential to cause devastating destruction. Teaming up with Russian computer programmer Natalya Simonova (Izabella Scorupco), 007 discovers that GoldenEye is now in the hands of Trevelyan, who actually faked his death and is now working with Russian General Ourumov (Gottfried John) and lethal assassin Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen) to send London back to the stone age.

With the political climate having changed since the last Bond outing, the 007 franchise had to change with it. Fleming's character was a product of the Cold War, so, in order to modernise 007 to keep him relevant, the recent fall of the Iron Curtain was worked into the narrative. On top of this, Bond now answers to a female M, played by the brilliant Judi Dench. Furthermore, Trevelyan is arguably the greatest villain the series has ever seen. Jaws may be more popular, but 006 is a master-stoke: an MI6 agent with the same training as Bond who can physically match him in a fight. Trevelyan's familiarity with Bond's personality also gives him an edge which he gleefully exploits. His betrayal has genuine motivation behind it, too, and a scene between Bond and Trevelyan discussing his loyalties is poignant and weighty. Most Bond villains are one-dimensional, thus Trevelyan's depth makes him a memorable antagonist. Writers Jeffrey Caine and Bruce Feirstein bestow Bond himself with some unexpected depth, as well - with 007's often cool demeanour and evasion of serious relationships having been criticised over the years, GoldenEye explores why Bond is who he is, emphasising that it's these exact characteristics that have actually kept him going. The material is well-judged, too, never threatening Bond's long-standing integrity.

Filling the director's seat is just as important as filling the title role. Martin Campbell was a terrific choice to helm GoldenEye, as he has a great eye for action and is a generally excellent filmmaker. '90s action is grittier, faster, and more hard-hitting than the spectacles of precious decades, and Campbell sells the franchise's transition into this new era with a sure hand. GoldenEye's action scenes are fluid and exciting, with some memorable large-scale set-pieces (including Bond chasing Ourumov with a tank through the streets of St. Petersburg, and the climactic showdown atop a satellite dish), a handful of daring stunts (Bond leaping off a cliff from a motorcycle to catch a plane), and a few traditional shootouts. The opening credits sequence deserves a mention as well; it's exceptional due to the beautiful and elegant visuals, as well as the title song performed by the indomitable Tina Turner. The song, which was written by Bono and the Edge, has a modern groove to it, but it's spiritually reminiscent of Shirley Bassey's iconic Goldfinger song. The only thing about GoldenEye which does not entirely work is Eric Serra's score. At times it's suitable, but at other points the music is grating. Serra's score often sounds too "avant-garde," ironically making the film seem dated.

Following in the footsteps of Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton, Brosnan became the fifth actor to assume the role and appears to have been born to play the infamous superspy - he's handsome, elegant and debonair, not to mention he has the ability to mix the charm and grit of the best Bonds. He also looks comfortable in the situations that 007 finds himself in, handling the action elements and delivering one-liners with real panache. His co-star, Sean Bean, is just as remarkable. Bean has spent most of his career playing villains, and Alec Trevelyan is perhaps the most notable feather in his cap; his performance oozes malice and cool. As the requisite Bond girls, Scorupco and Janssen have the looks and charisma to sell their roles, though Janssen is particularly notable for the way she mixes sexiness and brutality. Dench makes for a terrifically cold and straight-faced M, while Joe Don Baker is marvellous as CIA agent Jack Wade. Robbie Coltrane is another good scene-stealer, turning in a colourful performance as one of Bond's old acquaintances. Meanwhile, as a computer programmer, Alan Cumming is enjoyably flamboyant. Rounding out the cast is series veteran Desmond Llewelyn playing our beloved Q, and Samantha Bond who makes for an endearing Moneypenny.

Although GoldenEye is marginally overlong, there's little doubt that this is one of James Bond's finest outings, right alongside Goldfinger. It has more humanity than typical run-of-the-mill action blockbusters, but it doesn't skim on the action or special effects. It's also a flat-out fun film and a light-hearted action-adventure with playful one-liners and riveting set-pieces.

9.1/10

"Effective immediately, your licence to kill is revoked, and I require you to hand over your weapon."

Released in 1989, Licence to Kill denoted the end of the "classic Bond" era. Not only was this the last Bond-buster actively produced by the legendary Albert R. "Cubby" Broccoli, but it was also the last Bond film directed by series regular John Glen, and it features the franchise's last opening titles sequence to be designed by Maurice Binder. More notably, it was the final 007 adventure (of only two) for lead star Timothy Dalton, and, unfortunately, it was the first Bond film to disappoint at the American box office. Following Roger Moore's increasingly campy and goofy 007 outings, Licence to Kill revelled in the conventions of the '80s action movie movement, pushing for a gritty tone for the first time since the Connery era. Indeed, the film is closer to a brutal R-rated action film than a light-hearted Bond adventure, and it has received a lot of flack due to this. Yet, for this reviewer's money, the tonal change actually works here. Licence to Kill is a damn good Bond film; a well-constructed actioner with genuine stakes, solid acting and spectacular action.

In the Florida Keys, retiring CIA agent Felix Leiter (David Hedison) is getting married, and his buddy James Bond is the best man. The happy event is interrupted, however, when Bond and Leiter set off to capture notorious Columbian drug baron Franz Sanchez (Robert Davi), who unexpectedly shows up in the area. But after the wedding, Sanchez escapes and comes after Felix. When Bond finds Felix maimed and Felix's wife murdered, he refuses to pursue his next MI6 assignment, ignoring orders from M (Robert Brown) to concentrate on his own personal vendetta of vengeance against Sanchez. As a consequence, Bond is stripped of his job and licence to kill as he sets out to find Sanchez with help from ex-CIA operative Pam Bouvier (Carey Lowell) and beloved gadget expert Q (Desmond Llewellyn).

It's the audaciousness of Licence to Kill which makes it such a success in the eyes of this reviewer, as such risk-taking provides a unique edge. Michael G. Wilson and Richard Maibaum's screenplay shakes up the time-honoured Bond formula, shocking us with Felix's near-death and surprising us with Bond's decision to pursue a mission which has nothing to do with Her Majesty's Secret Service. Licence to Kill is exceedingly dark in tone, a notion which was unprecedented for the 007 series at the time. Aside from a handful of one-liners and a few colourful supporting turns (Wayne Newton is very funny as a televangelist), this is an edgy Bond flick mostly deprived of lunacy and humour. This is because the producers wanted to return to the spirit of Ian Fleming's novels with a more serious, leaner and meaner depiction of the iconic superspy. Alas, while viewers had started growing weary of the jokey Bond exploits, they still expected various Bond trademarks, like over-the-top villains, world domination schemes, inventive gadgets and a smattering of humour. Licence to Kill is mostly divorced of these staples, but filmgoers were not quite ready for such a change in 1989. With 2006's Casino Royale doing something similar with a much better reception, Licence to Kill was fundamentally ahead of its time.

Director John Glen was working with a $32 million budget - by no means tiny, but comparatively slight for this franchise. Thus, there were no huge Pinewood sets or lavish locations. Hell, nothing at all was shot in England; Licence to Kill was mostly shot in Mexico. Surprisingly, the restrictive budget actually works to the picture's benefit; its gritty, grounded disposition renders it far more exciting than a lot of masturbatory, big-budget blockbusters. There's just something inherently exhilarating about a back-to-basics approach. In keeping with the serious tone, Licence to Kill is the most graphically violent Bond film to date. So violent was the film that its more brutal death scenes had to be trimmed to earn a PG-13 rating in America, whereas all previous Bond films had earned an easy PG rating. (Luckily, the cuts were restored on recent home video editions.) The movie has a fair amount of quality action, all of which was competently staged by Glen. Most notable is the exhilarating climax involving tanker trucks that still impresses to this day. Michael Kamen's music is another huge asset. Kamen was a major '80s action luminary, having composed the music for Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Road House and Action Jackson, among others. Gladys Knight's theme song also warrants a mention; it's enjoyable, but the '80s pop ballad sensibilities are not for everyone.

Dalton simply didn't get a fair shake as 007. He may not get much love and he's no Connery, but Dalton is a strong actor who had all the right qualities to play the character: he was a convincing man of action and had a degree of charm to him as well, not to mention he looked good in a tuxedo. Dalton's performance, which is much truer to Fleming's original creation than anything that audiences had seen in many years, gave Bond much-needed complexity and grit after the character had grown increasingly cartoonish. Not to mention, Dalton looks right at home within an '80s action film. Meanwhile, Davi is a nicely low-key Bond villain. Sanchez does not want to rule the world or cause grand destruction; he's just a vicious drug lord, and he's one hell of a rotten bastard. Of course, there are a few gorgeous women here as well - future Law & Order star Lowell is a top-notch Bond girl as Pam Bouvier, and Talisa Soto is extremely beautiful, too. A very young Benicio Del Toro also appears here playing one of Sanchez's henchmen. In terms of series veterans, Llewellyn remains lovable as Q, and Robert Brown (in his last Bond film) is a strong M.

Admittedly, Licence to Kill could have benefited from a faster pace, as the script does focus more on story and character development than balls-to-the-wall action. Such intricate writing may be appreciated, but the film bogs down from time to time (it does run a hefty 135 minutes). Added to this, some of the shark effects look laughably corny. Still, as Bond films go, Licence to Kill is definitely one of the strongest and most audacious in the franchise, not to mention it's highly entertaining. Interestingly, the original title was Licence Revoked, but the producers were not sure if Americans would understand the meaning of "revoked." So the title was changed to Licence to Kill, even though they used the British spelling of the word "licence." Another score for British Intelligence.

7.7/10

"She lives beyond the grace of God, a wanderer in the outer darkness. She is "vampyr", "nosferatu". These creatures do not die like the bee after the first sting, but instead grow strong and become immortal once infected by another nosferatu. So, my friends we fight not one beast but legions that go on age after age after age, feeding on the blood of the living. "

Bram Stoker's Dracula is the epitome of polarising. In a nutshell, it's a sensuous, artistic, peculiar, eccentric and at times thrilling adaptation of the iconic 19th century novel, packed with demonic rites, erotic images and Christian symbolism. From the project's inception, director Francis Ford Coppola sought to adapt Stoker's original novel as faithfully as possible, which most prior Dracula retellings had neglected to do. To be sure, the resultant film is flawed, but it's a mostly enthralling throwback to the golden days of Hollywood. Eschewing CGI in favour of in-camera special effects techniques from a century prior, Coppola has crafted an intriguing take on such a legendary literary tale. It won't work for everyone, but this reviewer found it uniquely breathtaking.

In 1462, Romanian knight Vlad the Impaler (Oldman) battles to overthrow the Turkish Empire. But when his wife Elisabeta (Ryder) receives a false letter claiming that Vlad died in combat, she kills herself in despair. Finding his wife dead upon returning from the battlefield, Vlad renounces God and essentially joins the dark side, becoming a bloodsucking member of the undead going by the name Count Dracula. Centuries later, aspiring real estate broker Jonathan Harker (Reeves) travels to Transylvania to organise the sale of a London abbey to Dracula. When the Count sees a photograph of Jonathan's fiancée Mina (also Ryder), he sees his lost wife Elisabeta in her, and looks to reclaim his love. Leaving Harker at his castle surrounded by lascivious vampires, Dracula travels to London in pursuit of Mina.

James V. Hart's screenplay adheres closely to Stoker's novel, though a few changes were made to distinguish this adaptation. Most notably, the script bestows Count Dracula with more depth and dimension. Rather than a one-dimensional menace painted in broad strokes of black and white, Hart based the Count on Vlad the Impaler, a vicious historical figure with a body count estimated in the tens of thousands. By giving Dracula a back-story, his motivations are more understandable for pursuing Mina and it adds to the story's overall impact, giving weight to what could have been a cheesy romantic angle. Due to its focus on the relationship between Mina and Dracula, the film is more sensual and sexy than any prior Dracula adaptation have ever dared to be. However, as the source novel is epistolary in form, Bram Stoker's Dracula constantly switches between storylines, and consequently feels a bit overstuffed. Put simply, the movie runs too long, and required more narrative focus and momentum, not to mention more disciplined editing. Indeed, some may find the film dull from time to time.

Francis Ford Coppola purposely abstained from creating any outright horror, and this aspect holds the film back from perfection since genuine thrills would have been welcome. However, Coppola's attention to visual detail and atmosphere is what makes this Dracula such an enthralling experience for most of its runtime. The feature was reportedly produced for $40 million (no small chunk of change for 1992), and the outcome is pure spectacle. Coppola allowed his imagination to run wild in the best possible way, dreaming up unforgettable and often beguiling imagery. Furthermore, Coppola flat-out refused to use digital effects for the film - he fired the CGI-focused crew he was given, and instead recruited his son Roman to create the vast onscreen illusions in-camera without using green screen, optical printers or computers. Coppola and his son utilised every old cinematic trick from the dawn of moviemaking to generate the effects, and the results look better than their glossy digital counterpart. Thanks to such creative innovation, there's a staggering sense of film magic throughout Bram Stoker's Dracula that will always remain intact. Also notable about the film is Wojciech Kilar's formidable score, which excellently establishes a Gothic sensibility.

Coppola was responsible for creating the world for Dracula to inhabit, but it's Gary Oldman's convincing performance as the titular protagonist which truly brings the Count to life. Oldman submitted a remarkable performance here - he alternates between subtle and over-the-top depending on the situation, and presents Dracula as a multilayered character. However, the same praise cannot apply to Keanu Reeves, who's woefully miscast as Jonathan Harker. Reeves' performance is universally despised (Coppola even regrets the casting decision, claiming he only cast the star for his appeal to young girls), and for good reason; he's stilted and wooden, and his awful English accent doesn't convince for a single second. Moreover, his general bodily demeanour is every bit as stiff as his line delivery. Meanwhile, the usually-dependable Anthony Hopkins is somewhat underwhelming as vampire hunter Van Helsing, as he lacks the fire and vigour to bring the role to life. At least Winona Ryder and Cary Elwes are decent in their respective roles of Elisabeta/Mina and Lord Arthur Holmwood - not brilliant by any means, but serviceable.

At times, Bram Stoker's Dracula does border on pretentious, goofy, ludicrous and campy, and the quality of the acting drastically varies, but the production has more going for it than not. It's an old-fashioned monster movie on a grand scale, a Gothic horror spectacle benefitting from Oldman's stunner of a performance and Francis Ford Coppola's memorable visual style.

7.3/10

"I'm the one who's going to make your life real difficult if you don't tow the line, country boy."

Screenwriter Nick Cave and director John Hillcoat collaborated for the exceptional Aussie western The Proposition back in 2005, and Lawless reunites these two boundlessly talented professionals for another historical drama drenched in violence. Similar to The Proposition in terms of tone and brutality, Lawless is an adaptation of Matt Bondurant's historical novel about the illegal bootlegging activities carried out by Bondurant's grandfather and granduncles in Franklin County during the Great Depression. Bondurant's novel was entitled The Wettest County in the World, referring to Franklin County's Prohibition-era nickname which was given due to the substantial amount of illegal alcohol production that occurred despite the Volstead Act.

With Prohibition and the Depression in full swing, residents of Franklin County, Virginia turn to bootlegging to make a living. The Bondurant brothers - Forrest (Tom Hardy), Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LeBeouf) - maintain their own bootlegging business, using their clandestine backyard distilleries to pump out moonshine for the thirsty locals. The boys have no problem with law enforcement, as they provide samples of their product to the police to persuade them to look the other way. But the law begins to close in on the Bondurant brothers following the arrival of Special Agent Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce), who demands a cut of the profits. The siblings of course refuse, and thus begins an all-out war, with brutal acts of violence being carried out on both sides.

Lawless is a slow-burning tale of intrigue which takes its time developing its characters and story, demonstrating more concern with dramatic growth than mindless action. But, as with The Proposition and The Road, Hillcoat does not baulk from showing violence - Lawless contains shootouts, a number of brutal beatings and even a throat slitting, all of which were executed with impressive skill and command. However, Hillcoat skilfully prevents the picture from falling into exploitation territory, as the violence is used to allow viewers to comprehend the gravity of various situations and the ferocity of the period. Not to mention, the unsettling action beats are shown to have dire consequences; the resulting injuries are ugly, and even the victors find themselves unfulfilled by the violence. What's also interesting about Lawless is that you find yourself rooting for the Bondurant brothers despite their criminal status, but only because Rakes and his posse are so repulsive. The film doesn't glamorise the Bondurants and you never find yourself wanting to be in their position, but they are an endearing trio of antiheroes.

Period films oftentimes feel like stagey re-enactments on obvious sets, but Hillcoat's recreation of this era feels real. Although Hillcoat did not have a substantial budget at his disposal, Lawless is a visually dazzling motion picture bursting with authenticity. Hillcoat's approach lacks the gloss and showiness associated with Hollywood, and this is to the flick's benefit. Lawless conjures up a tremendous sense of legitimacy that's commendably unobtrusive, and the sets and locations at no point seem manufactured - it looks like Hillcoat took a bunch of cameras back in time to the 1920s to make the film. Shooting on location in Georgia, Hillcoat and director of photography Benoît Delhomme went for a warm, naturalistic colour palette, conveying this little-known tale through breathtaking widescreen images. Added to this, screenwriter Nick Cave provided the score, and his music is every bit as brilliant as his writing; adding atmosphere and identity to this beautifully-executed film. Lawless is admittedly slow-moving, however. It's never exactly boring, but it does feel long in the tooth and at times narratively unfocused - it's in the region between The Proposition's enthralling brilliance and The Road's utter tediousness.

Shia LaBeouf, it seems, is finally growing up. The young star is grating in the Transformers series and clearly has an enormous ego, yet Lawless presented Shia with the opportunity to show signs of maturity, and he ran with it. His performance here is understated but focused, portraying the naïve Jack Bondurant with impeccable conviction. Likewise, Tom Hardy is outstanding as the stoic Forrest Bondurant, espousing a believable period voice to match his spot-on appearance. Hardy's work is riveting; far superior to his performance in Christopher Nolan's studiously mediocre The Dark Knight Rises. Meanwhile, Guy Pearce is a genuine scene-stealer as Special Agent Rakes, cutting loose in this over-the-top performance that's strikingly committed. Pearce is in the upper echelon of cinematic antagonists here - he's so excellent that you may need to literally restrain yourself lest you try to jump through the screen to kill Rakes yourself. In a smaller but equally important role is Jason Clarke as Howard Bondurant. Though Clarke is not in the spotlight as much as his co-stars, he makes a huge impression. Another big-name actor here is Gary Oldman, who relishes every frame of his limited screen-time as irascible gangster Floyd Banner. Chronicle's Dane DeHaan also has a role here as Cricket, and he's fantastic; believably bringing this innocent and naïve character to life. Rounding out the key players is bright Australian actress Mia Wasikowska, who brings a sweet, delicate touch to the role of Bertha.

Lawless is a tough sell for the average movie-goer. It's a great movie, yet it's not life-changing or moving enough for Oscar consideration, nor is it action-packed or entertaining enough to vie for summer box office dollars. Let's just be thankful that, at the end of a summer beset with loud blockbusters, we got this well-made period movie which treats its audience with respect. Even in spite of the hit-and-miss The Road, it's clear that John Hillcoat is a talent with a huge career ahead of him.

8.2/10

"I'm not crazy! I almost died!"

Paranormal Activity 4 is by far the most rote instalment in the Paranormal Activity franchise thus far. By this point in the series, the found footage conceit is already difficult enough to swallow, but the biggest sin perpetuated by the flick is that it wastes the opportunity to start providing answers. As a matter of fact, it raises more questions than it answers. It's interesting to watch Paranormal Activity 4 to see where Katie and Hunter end up, but the filmmakers fail to do anything worthwhile with the idea, instead wasting time on an illogical story and focusing solely on the franchise's meat and potato elements. By this point in the series, we need loose ends to be tied up and for niggling questions to be addressed, but returning directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman, as well as veteran screenwriter Christopher Landon, seem to want to drag their feet for as long as possible, clearly running out of inspiration and motivation as they milk the franchise for everything it's worth. To the credit of Joost and Schulman, there are a few well-implemented moments of horror to be found here, but nothing in the film is as effective as the best moments in the 2007 original.

Set in November 2011, five years after the events of the first film, the story picks up in Henderson, Nevada, where 15-year-old Alex (Newton) maintains a regular suburban life with her family. Just across the street lives a mysterious young boy named Robbie (Brady Allen), who intrigues Alex and her sort-of boyfriend Ben (Shively). When Robbie's mother is rushed away to hospital, Alex's parents Doug (Dunham) and Holly (Lee) agree to take care of Robbie for a few days, believing he'll make fast friends with their young son Wyatt (Lovekamp). But not long after Robbie's arrival, strange and inexplicable things begin to occur, prompting Alex to set up recording devices around her house to provide 24-hour surveillance. As the hauntings escalate, Alex finds herself trying to convince her mum and dad that something wicked is going on.

It is impossible to properly assess the narrative of Paranormal Activity 4 without delving into what some may consider to be spoiler territory. You have been warned.

A big issue with Paranormal Activity 4 is that, from a narrative standpoint, it fundamentally makes no sense. Since the first film, Katie's fate has been a huge question mark which wasn't addressed in the second or third film. 4 sets out to show what happened to Katie after kidnapping Hunter, but the execution is idiotic. See, as it turns out, Alex's adopted brother Wyatt is actually the kidnapped infant Hunter, and Robbie's "mother" Katie (Featherston) - who moves into the house across the street from Alex - ostensibly wants to retrieve him throughout the film. But how does Hunter, despite being a kidnapped child, end up being legally adopted? Why would Katie let this happen if she wants him back in the first place? How does Katie manage to find a house right across the street from Hunter? How can Katie so openly navigate around the country despite being a wanted fugitive? What is Robbie's purpose, and who is he? The whole set-up is appallingly mapped out and riddled with holes. Maybe the demon wanted an innocent Hunter at a later age and thus let him be adopted by another family, but why, then, did he choose to kill Hunter's birth-parents in the first place? One assumes that some of this stuff may be addressed in future sequels, but I wouldn't get your hopes up - we still have questions from the first film that were never addressed.

It doesn't help that Alex's parents are some of the daftest idiots to grace the big screen in 2012. No matter what Alex tells her mum and dad, they pay no attention to her, or take any action. Doug is the biggest idiot, because he experiences the unexplainable supernatural occurrences first-hand but does nothing about it, and doesn't even tell his wife. Later in the movie, Alex records the unmistakable sight of an unseen force tormenting her, while at the same time her cameras around the house capture someone wandering around. But while Alex has memory cards and hard-drives to prove that a demonic force is present, she apparently doesn't bother to show her parents the footage, and they seem unusually cool about the whole incident. Furthermore, it makes no sense for Robbie to come stay with a family of complete strangers while his mother is in hospital. It doesn't add up.

With a more modern setting, directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman (Catfish) had a larger array of sources to tell this story through documentary-style footage. The characters here employ laptop webcams, video chats, cell phones and more traditional video cameras, following the formula set by its predecessors but giving it an intriguing modern twist. But Paranormal Activity 4 lacks good scary moments, as it mostly relies on cheap jump-scares which will not get under anyone's skin. The spine-chilling final few minutes are admittedly spectacular, but everything else - a chandelier or a knife falling, and characters playing pranks to scare each other - are predictable and silly. And, disappointingly, there is no intoxicating feeling of pure dread permeating the proceedings.

One thing which does work in Paranormal Activity 4 is new leading actor Kathryn Newton. The 15-year-old actress is incredibly cute, and she's such a natural presence on-screen. Newton's performance seems so effortless and lived-in, with her warm, vivacious demeanour making her a believable and ideal protagonist. Also solid is Matt Shively as Alex's boy interest, Ben. Playing a smarmy teen, Shively is a hilarious scene stealer, giving this reviewer a character to actually latch onto. The younger children are equally impressive, with a skin-crawling Brady Allen as Robbie, and Aiden Lovekamp who excellently handles the multiple layers of Wyatt's character.

Paranormal Activity 4's storyline fails to progress the overall mythology of the series in any way. Hell, the entire movie could have been condensed into a 10-minute prologue for a proper sequel. Clearly, the studio heads want to keep milking this thing, but this series seriously needs to stop beating around the bush. The Paranormal Activity franchise should have remained a trilogy in this reviewer's humble opinion. The first two were solid companion pieces, with the second film justifying itself as more than just a cash-grab. The trilogy would have been perfect if only the third film shed further light on Katie's troubled family history. But with this fourth film done and a fifth on the way, we're firmly into franchise milking territory, with the makers wasting as many films as possible to generate maximum profits.

4.8/10

"They cry, they plead, they beg, they piss themselves, they cry for their mothers. It gets embarrassing. I like to kill 'em softly. From a distance."

Director Andrew Dominik's third feature film after Chopper and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, 2012's Killing Them Softly is a brutal tale of mob politics based on George V. Higgins' 1974 novel Cogan's Trade. On top of being a gritty gangster picture, the film provides a thoughtful commentary on America's current political and economical climate. Indeed, Dominik highlights that the mob and the government are in fact very similar, though neither party is prepared to admit it. For those unwilling to pay full attention and engage their brain, Killing Them Softly may be ultimately unsatisfying, as it asks more of you than a routine shoot-'em-up. While the film is maddening from time to time, it does contain a number of inspired moments, and it's rich with atmosphere and nuance.

With the 2008 presidential election looming, a low-level gangster named Johnny Amato (Curatola) hires a pair of grungy hoods (McNairy and Mendelsohn) to rob a mob card game. The organiser of the card game, Markie (Liotta), has been known for robbing his own game in the past, and thus the robbers believe that the "street" will just assume that Markie is to blame yet again. After the heist, an unnamed mafia middleman (Jenkins) brings in an enforcer named Jackie Cogan (Pitt) to sort out the situation. Cogan's task is to seek reparations for the stolen money, and kill anyone necessary in the process.

Killing Them Softly clocks in at a refreshingly brisk 95 minutes, though Dominik's first cut reportedly ran a more sizeable two-and-a-half hours. As a result, the picture does feel unusually streamlined, and the dialogue is perhaps a tad too terse, rendering the narrative somewhat difficult to follow. With a few key events actually happening off-screen, Killing Them Softly demands your fullest attention lest you get hopelessly lost.

Interestingly, one of the primary concerns of Dominik's screenplay is social commentary. At several points throughout the film, characters literally stop what they're doing to listen to speeches delivered by either Obama or McCain as they lament the dire state of the American economy. Dominik draws parallels between mobsters and politicians, as both types of individuals only really care about themselves, and are driven by the relentless pursuit of money. The very final line of dialogue delivered by Pitt solidifies this underlying theme in a very thought-provoking manner. Fortunately, Dominik supplemented the biting political satire with dark humour; Killing Them Softly is littered with amusing banter, as well as a memorably terrific instance of slapstick. Dominik is so often recognised for his distinctive cinematic style (and rightfully so), but his talent for colourful dialogue deserves acknowledgement as well.

From a technical standpoint, Andrew Dominik's efforts are immaculate here. The picture exudes a marvellous sense of visual command, and it's slick and stylised whilst still feeling somewhat raw. The moments of violence are especially impressive thanks to Greig Fraser's cinematography and the extraordinary sound design. The heist sequence is nail-bitingly tense, and every time a punch is landed or a gun is discharged, we experience it in a visceral fashion. The death of one character is especially remarkable; it unfolds in ultra slow-motion, letting us absorb the visual symphony of bullets, broken glass, falling rain, and blood. It's a true spectacle of brutality, perhaps one of the most memorable instances of cinematic bloodshed in 2012. Another excellent touch is the music. Killing Them Softly is not suffused with an original score; instead, Dominik mostly relied on an array of songs which add a great atmosphere to the picture. The most notable song choice is Johnny Cash's The Man Comes Around; the lyrics have strong parallels to the Jackie Cogan character, and the melodies are haunting.

The cast is solid from top to bottom, but it's Brad Pitt who deserves the most credit. As Cogan, the actor is spot-on, playing an interesting and complex anti-hero which is far removed from the type of performance we often see from him. Meanwhile, Richard Jenkins is predictably excellent here. Jenkins is suitably understated and low-key, yet always believable and riveting. Equally terrific is James Gandolfini as Mickey, one of Cogan's acquaintances. Rounding out the key players is Ben Mendelsohn (Animal Kingdom) who's skin-crawlingly creepy as a low-level hood, and Ray Liotta who is surprisingly multifaceted as gangster Markie.

It's somewhat of a challenge to review Andrew Dominik's Killing Them Softly, as my thoughts on the film were actually changing throughout the writing process. Immediately after viewing the film I was left somewhat unfulfilled, but the more I contemplate it, the more I appreciate it. Ultimately, this is a solid motion picture, a stylised gangster flick with a relevant message that demands multiple viewings.

7.7/10

"We are among you!"

2012's The Watch is a wasted opportunity, plain and simple. With a majestic cast like this, the film seems like a can't-miss prospect, but instead you'll spend the entire picture waiting for it to take off and cut loose in uproarious ways...only to realise that the moment will never arrive. The Watch is completely middle-of-the-road and unremarkable from start to finish, rendering it boring and underwhelming. It's seriously deflating to see The Watch unfold on-screen, spotlighting a cavalcade of talented people all performing with humiliating desperation. The stars here all want to make you laugh, yet it would seem that they have forgotten about how exactly to achieve this end.

In a small Ohio town, Evan Trautwig (Stiller) is a model citizen who manages the local Costco and coordinates local activities. Following the vicious death of a Costco security guard one night, Evan believes a killer is on the loose, and decides to start a neighbourhood watch group. The idea barely catches on, however - it only attracts loudmouth married man Bob (Vaughn), lonely wannabe cop Franklin (Hill) and Brit outsider Jamarcus (Ayoade). Initially, Bob, Franklin and Jamarcus refuse to take the group seriously, using their get-togethers as an excuse to drink beer and have fun while Evan struggles to whip his volunteers into shape. It isn't long before the foursome discover that an alien invasion is unfolding in their own backyard, with extraterrestrials having ingratiated themselves into everyday society as they plot the destruction of humankind.

This premise should have yielded a fun Ghostbusters-style sci-fi comedy, but the film never shifts out of the first gear. Oddly, the comic timing and delivery is way off, and the picture often goes for cheap laughs and crude humour rather than coherent storytelling or anything approaching wit. The script (credited to Jared Stern, Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg) is stuffed with obvious red herrings, clichéd personal problems and underdeveloped characters (Franklin and Jamarcus are particularly short-changed). Added to this, The Watch feels like it was made up on the spot, with the gifted actors frantically mugging for laughs and dropping tonnes of vulgarities in an attempt to overshadow the lack of hearty belly-laughs. Topping this off is eye-rolling product placement for Costco and 3-D.

The Watch is the second directorial undertaking for Saturday Night Live veteran Akiva Schaffer, who previously directed the uneven but sporadically amusing Hot Rod. To his credit, Schaffer's mise-en-scène is smooth and the technical specs are competent, but the whole film feels incredibly flat due to the lack of worthwhile humour. This is not to say the film is completely bereft of amusing moments since there are a few good laughs here and there, but a typical evening YouTube surf would yield more entertainment. And YouTube is free. We deserve a lot more from a major motion picture which cost tens of millions of dollars to produce, and which you'll have to pay $10 to see. It's great that Fox permitted The Watch to be R-rated, but it seems as if the filmmakers used the rating as an excuse to be lazy. Several PG comedies have been far cleverer than this.

Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Jonah Hill and Richard Ayoade are somewhat of a comic dream team, so it's a shame that The Watch pretty much squanders the talents of all four performers. A line-up like this deserves a far better, wittier script to match their skills. Stiller is especially dreadful here; he just relied on his trademark neurotic screen persona. Meanwhile, Ayoade is a total missed opportunity. The spirited British comedian is a hoot in The IT Crowd and Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, and he genuinely deserves a successful film career. The Watch wastes him completely, relegating the talent to a bland background role with no memorable laugh lines or, indeed, any chances for him to show what an amazing comedic talent he is. This is all the more deflating considering that most Americans have never even heard of Ayoade, and The Watch is a slipshod way to introduce him. The film's only real acting bright spot is Will Forte as a local cop always giving the boys a hard time. Everything Forte does - every line and facial expression - is roll-on-the-ground hilarious, and the actor infuses the film with an irresistible spark of comic energy. Unfortunately, he's not present in any great capacity, and his efforts here only remind us how much we need a sequel to the underrated MacGruber.

Taken as fluffy entertainment on a rainy afternoon when you have nothing better to do, The Watch may be somewhat satisfying. It's never excruciatingly awful or unwatchable; it's just painfully mediocre.

5.1/10

"Time travel has not yet been invented. But thirty years from now, it will have been."

Following in the footsteps of Source Code and The Adjustment Bureau, 2012's Looper is a science fiction film with welcome intelligence and originality, more concerned with conceptual innovation and clean storytelling than CGI or action overload. With Rian Johnson (Brick) behind the film, this is exactly the type of sci-fi production we always hope for, but have learned to stop expecting after so many years of soulless sci-fi drivel. In short, Looper is a masterpiece; a popcorn film with brains, an indie sensibility, a top-tier cast, and some great action set-pieces. Released in the same year that begat the abominable Total Recall remake, this powerfully brilliant production is a goddamn miracle.

In the year 2074, time travel is possible but illegal. It is only used in secret by high-powered criminal organisations looking to dispose of corpses by sending them back to the year 2044. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) works as a "Looper," a criminal assassin paid to eliminate the targets who are sent back in time to be disposed of. For his latest job, though, Joe finds that his target is his older self. As it turns out, in the future a crime boss known as The Rainmaker is killing all the Loopers. Old Joe (Bruce Willis) evades assassination and goes on the run while Young Joe sets out to finish his mission while being hunted by his colleagues. The Joe of the future has one thing on his mind: finding and killing the man who will go on to become The Rainmaker and be responsible for the death of his beloved wife. Finding out that one of the possibilities on Joe's hit-list is a young boy on a remote farm, young Joe heads to the house hoping to find and confront his older self. However, he ends up befriending farm owner Sara (Emily Blunt) and her son Cid (Pierce Gagnon).

Perhaps the most masterful thing about Rian Johnson's screenplay is that it's genuinely difficult to determine who's doing the right thing. Thanks to well-judged character development, we feel Old Joe's pain over the death of his wife, and we completely understand his desire to prevent her death by eliminating The Rainmaker...even though the future mob boss is still a child in 2044. Likewise, Young Joe's need to finish his mission is understandable, and, due to his growing bond with Sara and Cid, it's easy to understand his want to protect the mother and her son. Johnson is a terrific storyteller, peeling back the narrative in a nonchalant yet sophisticated fashion. In order to keep us up to speed with the ins and outs of this peculiar future world, Joe delivers occasional voiceovers. Narration is often a lazy device employed to disguise an inherently weak screenplay, but Johnson uses Joe's voiceovers smartly and efficiently, tersely keeping us informed without grinding the pace to a halt. However, once the film shifts to Sara's farm, Looper does hit a few sluggish patches. The picture is never necessarily boring, but it could have been tighter. Frankly, this is the only criticism I have with Looper.

Johnson was working on a scant $30 million budget, which forbade him from creating a garish, CGI-laden future world like Minority Report or The Fifth Element. And this is actually for the best - Johnson instead provides a scarily plausible vision of the future that's distinctive but not over-the-top. Techno advances are used sparingly, and the futuristic production design and fashion is unobtrusive, yet you won't mistake this for a film set in 2012. Sure, cool hover bikes exist, but only the rich can afford them; everyone else tools around in old-fashioned cars. This is a bleak future America suffering from economic and sociopolitical woes, where homeless litter the streets and police officers are few and far between. There are digital effects in Looper, though, and they look extraordinary, bestowing the film with an polished look which belies its low budget. Johnson's directing is extremely stylish and grounded throughout, yet he doesn't embrace the joyless "gritty and dark" approach which has become so widespread in this day and age. His handling of the action scenes is excellent, as well. The action comes in short bursts and each scene is thrilling, earning the film its R-rating. Also strong is Nathan Johnson's score, a mix of exciting and haunting music which amplifies the film's sense of atmosphere.

Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt are both spot-on in the role of Joe, doing a remarkable job of inhabiting the character at different periods in his life. Gordon-Levitt has done a marvellous job of replicating Willis' mannerisms while also delivering an engaging performance. Willis has more of a supporting role, but he absolutely shines. The actor has been stuck in meaningless pay-cheque roles for over a decade, only very rarely showing his true acting chops. Willis cut loose in The Expendables and its sequel, but Looper displays Willis as the serious, Oscar-worthy thespian for the first time since The Sixth Sense, blending toughness and tenderness in a remarkable fashion. The biggest stand-out, though, is Pierce Gagnon as Cid. Gagnon is still a child, yet the command of the character exhibited by this tiny performer is terrifying. Meanwhile, Jeff Daniels is wonderfully sinister and colourful as Joe's gruff boss, making you hope that this will be a career resurgence for him, and Paul Dano and Garret Dillahunt show up in small but memorable roles as a couple of Joe's co-workers.

There's a lot happening throughout Looper's narrative, and the script was in danger of collapsing under the weight of all the twists and complications, but Johnson has concocted an ending you won't see coming that wraps everything up in a proper fashion. Science enthusiasts will probably want to argue the logic of the film's time travelling mechanics, but that's about as useful as debating unicorn lore. Time travelling is fantasy so all that matters is internal consistency, and Looper never breaks its own rules. There's little left to say about this movie except that you should stop reading this and go watch it. Pronto.

9.2/10

"Listen to me carefully, Kim. Your mother; is going to be taken. And people are gonna come for you to."

A relatively low-budget action movie which became an unexpected box office smash, the original Taken was a total gas - a lean blast of adrenaline puppeteered by a director who understands the art of creating skilful cinematic junk food. The same compliments cannot be applied to this inevitable follow-up, however. Taken 2 is an oddly lethargic sequel; a poorly crafted action movie which lacks the spark of viciousness and the jittery sense of momentum which fuelled its predecessor. It's not a complete bust, but the picture is underwhelming as a whole.

Picking up not long after the events of its predecessor, Taken 2 finds Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson), his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace), and ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) trying to move on with their lives. Bryan's relationship with Kim is strengthening, and he is finally beginning to mend his broken relationship with Lenore, whose current marriage is falling apart. When Lenore and Kim's plans to travel to China fall through, they join Bryan in Istanbul. Unfortunately, their vacation is soon interrupted by a group of bloodthirsty Albanians out to make Bryan pay for the corpses that he left in his wake whilst out to retrieve his daughter.

Taken wasn't rocket science. It was an unoriginal idea executed with tremendous zeal by director Pierre Morel, who kept the pace taut as Neeson rampaged through Paris. Taken 2, on the other hand, is not as skilful. Screenwriters Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen cooked up a pretty stale story here, and coloured it in with dramatic malarkey that's delivered without sufficient briskness. By the time we get to the action, we're already about a third of the way through, and we aren't any closer to seeing these characters as three-dimensional people. Taken took its time before diving into the action as well, but its drama was more effective. Here, it's boring and, more importantly, it feels forced. Furthermore, Taken 2 commits a cardinal sin by locking Bryan up for the majority of the second act while Kim gallivants around Istanbul, with Bryan providing phone support for his daughter as she endeavours to rescue her parents. Pinning down Neeson for an unreasonable amount of screen-time is insulting, guaranteed to leave movie-goers feeling utterly cheated. The scope of the film also feels limited due to its awkward structuring.

This is probably a given due to its action movie pedigree, but Taken 2's characters are often dumb and confused. The script attempts to introduce an interesting angle by rationalising the Albanian perspective before Bryan points out that the men he killed were scumbags who destroyed the lives of young girls, but it never leads to anything interesting or substantive. And since the Albanians are so keen to hurt Bryan, why don't they just shoot Lenore? It would give Bryan a taste of what it's like to lose a loved one, and, even if Bryan does escape, it'd still mean that the Albanians win. Instead, they put Lenore into a position that gives her half an hour to live. Rather than hanging around to watch Bryan seeing his ex-wife die, everyone leaves the room, basically asking for the resourceful former government agent to escape. Ludicrous moments like these absolutely riddle the screenplay, extending to an unintentionally hilarious moment in which Bryan gives Lenore ridiculously convoluted directions ("Walk to the back of the store, turn left, at the end of the alley turn right, walk up the stairs, then turn left, and go right again...").

Try as he might, Olivier Megaton (Transporter 3, Colombiana) is not cut out for directing action. The hand-to-hand combat was frequently exhilarating in the original movie under the command of Morel, but Megaton's fisticuffs are repetitive and monotonous here, not to mention shot too wildly and edited too frantically. The shootouts, meanwhile, are often marred by the baffling decision to go PG-13. Luc Besson has a reputation for creating R-rated action films that are trimmed to get a PG-13 in America but are released uncut in the rest of the world. For Taken 2, however, there is no full-blooded uncut version - the whole thing is bloodless and gutless, which detracts a visceral punch required for memorable kills (a moment when Bryan fires an entire AK-47 clip into a henchman's stomach at point-blank range is gutted by the lack of blood). A few set-pieces here and there scrape a pass, but for the most part its hard to overlook the hyperactive editing clearly employed to disguise Megaton's incompetence with gunplay and chases, reducing the action scenes to a frantic blur of close-ups and booming sound effects. Megaton has admitted that he isn't even a fan of action films even though he keeps directing them, making him an awful decision to helm this sequel.

Unsurprisingly, Liam Neeson is the best thing in the film. Neeson is a rare type of action star who can handle physically demanding scenes on top of being a genuinely good, charismatic performer. He's a good anchor amid the chaos, giving us someone we can easily root for. On the other hand, Famke Janssen clearly phoned in her performance as Lenore here, and Maggie Grace is strictly ordinary. It's pleasant to see these characters again (especially Bryan's former work buddies), but it's unfortunate that they're treated so disappointingly.

Taken has developed into a modern action classic, but Taken 2 is a slipshod attempt to capitalise on the film's popularity. The basic premise is fine, but the execution is lacking. Rather than having Bryan locked up for half the movie, it would have been interesting if the Albanians killed Lenore or Kim, or captured them both while Bryan eluded them, and spent a solid hour rampaging through the streets of Istanbul. It'd be lazy rehashing, to be sure, but it would have at least been more fun. What we have instead is a sluggishly constructed, unexpectedly small-scale actioner, even though it was produced for double the budget of the original film.

4.9/10

"History prefers legends to men. It prefers nobility to brutality, soaring speeches to quiet deeds. History remembers the battle, but forgets the blood. However history remembers me before I was a President, it shall only remember a fraction of the truth..."

Nobody should prepare to view 2012's Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter under the delusion that a profound history lesson is in store for them. After all, merely reading the title is enough to spark ridicule and disbelief that people actually funded this thing. As it turns out, however, this is not the goofy, B-grade action fiesta that one would expect; writer Seth Grahame-Smith (adapting his own novel) and director Timur Bekmambetov have in fact created a predominantly straight-faced feature, aspiring to create an epic tale of revisionism as opposed to a more disposable straight-to-video offering. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter definitely has its strengths, but it's brought down by slipshod storytelling and the pedestrian nature of most of the action scenes, rendering the film an experimental curio which falls short of its potential.

As a child, Abraham Lincoln (played in adulthood by Walker) lost his mother when malicious vampire Jack Barts (Csokas) drained the life out of her. Years on, Lincoln has grown into a young man with revenge on his mind. Assisted in his vendetta by veteran vampire hunter Henry Sturges (Cooper), Lincoln begins learning the ropes of killing the undead, and vows to terminate the population of bloodsuckers who exist undetected among the living. Settling in Springfield, Lincoln works as a shopkeeper's assistant by day and vampire killer by night, driven by the thought of one day getting the opportunity to take out Jack Barts. Lincoln's life in Springfield leads him to meet and fall in love with Mary Todd (Winstead) before moving to Washington, D.C., where he enters politics and works his way up to becoming the 16th President of the United States. But his vampire hunting days are not quite behind Lincoln yet, as vampire boss Adam (Sewell) begins backing the South with bloodsuckers to help the Civil War effort and overthrow the President.

Grahame-Smith's script sticks closer to the historical record than expected, cleverly reworking key events in Lincoln's life as well as broader historical moments to suit the vampire-hunting conceit. For probably half of its 100-minute runtime, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter actually works, as it shows a surprisingly keen interest in character development intermingled with (mostly) satisfying action set-pieces. As time goes by, however, the quality of everything rapidly declines, most notably the storytelling. Mary Todd calling off her engagement to Stephen A. Douglas (Tudyk) happens without the audience, and Lincoln and Mary advance from young lovers to greying middle-aged married couple in the space of a single scene. Not much vampire business happens once Lincoln becomes President, making his presidency seem like somewhat of an afterthought. As a result, a lot of potential goes unrealised.

At the very least, it's fantastic to see vampires with actual bite here. Due to the godawful Twilight saga, vampires have become reduced to lovelorn, emo metrosexuals, but Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter features frightening vampires who kill without compunction. In the early stages of the film, the vampires are genuinely creepy, giving the picture an effective spark of horror. But alas, it's not long before Timur Bekmambetov gives over to dumb, cartoonish, CGI-heavy action. At times the action scenes are exhilarating, but after a while the repetitive slo-mo routine grows wearisome. On top of this, a few set-pieces are utterly incoherent (I can't make heads or tails of the sequence when Abraham and his friends leave a vampire-filled mansion in a horse carriage). Perhaps the biggest issue with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is that it's a confused mixture of B-grade absurdity and serious drama. It needed to settle on a consistent tone.

At the very least, Benjamin Walker is an ideal protagonist and a solid choice for Abraham Lincoln. Walker managed to nail Lincoln's gaunt, awkward demeanour as well as his charming earnestness. It's a huge benefit to have such an engaging actor to latch onto amid the troublesome storytelling. Dominic Cooper is equally good as Abe's mentor Henry. Meanwhile, Mary Elizabeth Winstead (a strangely beautiful choice for the role of Mary Todd Lincoln considering how unattractive the real woman was) is serviceable if unremarkable, and Rufus Sewell clearly relished the chance to play the vampiric antagonist Adam.

In post-production, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter was subjected to a 3-D conversion. It may make sense for this to be in 3-D due to its reliance on flashy CGI, but the image is dark and drab from behind the glasses, not to mention the 3-D effects aren't especially effective. All things considered, it's disappointing how underwhelming Vampire Hunter is. It had all the right ingredients - a great action director at the helm, Tim Burton as producer, and an R-rating - but the final product fails to take advantage of the limitless potential. It's worth seeing, but temper your expectations.

5.9/10