Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die."

One can best describe 2012's The Dark Knight Rises as an exercise in self-indulgence. Christopher Nolan fans have worshipped the man for years, exalting his modus operandi of gritty self-seriousness and faux gravitas without providing Nolan with the constructive criticism he needs to grow and mature as a filmmaker. Due to the overzealous praise, Nolan's movies have been growing increasingly overlong and ponderous, and his ego reaches critical mass with this third Batman adventure. Thus, instead of working to improve his directorial technique, Nolan sticks by his usual filmmaking idiosyncracies here, hoping to get away with lousy pacing and pedestrian action scenes by smothering everything in relentless dramatic music and overcomplicating a straightforward narrative to make people believe they're smart for following it. This is not to imply that The Dark Knight Rises is a terrible movie, however - it's just a severely flawed, tediously long-winded effort that needs further editorial discipline. Although polished enough to satiate devoted fans, The Dark Knight Rises suffers from significant narrative and pacing issues.

It has been eight years since Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) allowed Gotham City to believe that his Batman alter-ego murdered District Attorney Harvey Dent. The events led to Bruce retiring as Batman and resigning himself to a life of solitude spurred on by his despair over Rachel's death. Although organised crime largely dissolved in the aftermath of Dent's death, Gotham soon faces a new threat: the super-strong, masked mercenary known as Bane (Tom Hardy). Also entering the picture is a cat burglar, Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), who is hired by a millionaire socialite named John Daggett (Ben Mendelsohn) to help in his plan to take control of Wayne Enterprises. Circumstances soon compel Bruce to bring Batman out of retirement, turning to friend and inventor Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) for assistance while also receiving support from a devoted young Gotham police officer, John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt).

The problem with The Dark Knight Rises is that it's a structural and storytelling mess. The picture feels like two movies awkwardly mashed together, resulting in two underdone stories leading to a singular payoff. See, the film initially concentrates on Bruce Wayne battling cheesy inner demons as he weighs up whether or not to don the Batman cape yet again. Once Batman finally rises, though, Nolan hits the reset button and returns us to square one, with Bruce needing to work his way up to becoming Batman again. It feels clunky, destroying what could have been an interesting narrative flow and causing all sense of momentum to founder. It makes the initial rising - and, in turn, the entire first hour - feel like a waste of time. The Dark Knight Rises runs a colossal 160 minutes, yet the plotting is not necessarily complicated. Plot and character development are essential, but the movie is loaded with filler, not to mention Nolan stretches out the simplest developments to make them FEEL complex. If the plot is intricate and multilayered, why can it be summed up so simply? If the characters are well-developed, why is it difficult to feel anything for them?

Directly because of the picture's clumsy structuring, Batman receives a woefully short amount of screen time, as Bruce mostly appears without the cape and cowl. This point does not imply that the movie should have been full of mindless Caped Crusader action, but Batman adventures should use the character properly rather than diminish him to the point that he feels like any other generic hero. Furthermore, the treatment of the protagonists is maddening. For instance, Bruce retires Batman and essentially gives up on life due to Rachel's death, but this notion is ridiculous. Losing loved ones is the defining force that has driven Batman since the beginning - it created him and sustains him. If anything, losing a beloved childhood friend should make Bruce more determined to fight crime. Meanwhile, Alfred (Michael Caine) loses faith in Bruce and abandons his master. This development admittedly raises the stakes, but it betrays the character of Alfred to his very core. Furthermore, Bruce should learn meaningful lessons as part of his character arc, but he never learns anything significant or profound. The Dark Knight Rises carries a self-serious tone, yet for such a pretentious movie, it's not actually about anything. Sure, Nolan uses Harvey Dent's death as the film's "9/11 moment", and Bane's reign calls to mind the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, but such material is heavy-handed and silly, ladled on with the subtlety and sophistication of a shotgun.

The script (by Nolan and his brother Jonathan) is equally troubled in terms of dialogue; the "telling rather than showing" aspect is off the charts, with the characters spending a lot of time laboriously over-explaining every motivation and relationship. This is felt most glaringly in a late plot twist reveal when a silly monologue dutifully spells out every background detail of a specific character's past. It's lazy spoon-feeding in what's intended to be a sophisticated action-thriller, halting the climax for much too long. Furthermore, Nolan's approach to his Batman movies hinges on "gritty realism", but the picture nevertheless contains unforgivably idiotic moments. The opening scene involves Bane's men faking someone's death by transferring a dose of his blood into another person, apparently changing their DNA profile. Additionally, without spoiling too much, an atomic bomb detonates in the ocean near Gotham City, yet no neighbouring cities suffer from radiation poisoning, and there's no tidal wave as a result of the explosion. Plus, the kid-friendly PG-13 rating forbids Nolan from being genuinely dark in terms of violence - whenever Bane promises to do something badass, the camera awkwardly shies away from capturing it.

Another hugely problematic aspect of The Dark Knight Rises is the character of Bane. The comics paint Bane as the ultimate supervillain, an immaculate mix of brains and brawn. While the film addresses his intelligence, Bane's physique is severely underwhelming here, which significantly betrays the character. Tom Hardy stands under six feet in the role and looks more pudgy than muscular. It's a substantial problem that Batman and fucking Alfred are taller than what's supposed to be the most physically intimidating threat in the Batman universe. Hardy just looks like an ordinary dude - in fact, random henchmen from previous Batman movies are more physically remarkable than Hardy. As a result, various narrative machinations are hard to swallow, especially since Bane is apparently able to hurt Batman despite his bulletproof armour. How can such a regular-built individual achieve this? It's impossible to believe Hardy as Bane, and it doesn't help that his dialogue is, at times, utterly indecipherable. Liam Neeson's Ra's Al Ghoul easily remains the most badass villain of Nolan's trilogy.

For years, Christopher Nolan has received flack for his poor construction of action sequences, and such criticisms remain justified for The Dark Knight Rises. The big set pieces are often startlingly incoherent here, as the geography of certain locations is hazy, and it's genuinely difficult to discern where everyone is at any given moment. This is felt most glaringly in the opening aerial action sequence, which is full of close-ups and shaky cam, and is consequently hard to follow. Additionally, the hand-to-hand combat remains as underwhelming as ever, often marred by frenetic camerawork and humdrum choreography.

The Dark Knight Rises is not irredeemably bad, but the film's positive aspects are not as interesting to note as its numerous shortcomings. Certainly, Hans Zimmer's score is suitably engaging, Wally Pfister's cinematography is slick and eye-catching (action scenes notwithstanding), and the production values do impress (it was made for $250 million), but the slipshod writing is more noticeable than these strong surface-level attributes. At the very least, the acting is predominantly excellent. In particular, Gary Oldman and Joseph Gordon-Levitt bring their A-game to the film. Oldman's Commissioner Gordon is articulate and smart, while Gordon-Levitt affords genuine charisma and believability to his role of the young cop. Easily, these two are the best things in the movie, and the scenes they share are better than any of the action sequences. It's also hard to dislike Morgan Freeman or Michael Caine; the two veterans are predictably great here. Meanwhile, Anne Hathaway is reasonably good as Selena Kyle, a.k.a. Catwoman (though she's never referred to as Catwoman at any point). Hathaway is colourful and sensual in the role, although she and Christian Bale fail to sell the love interest angle that is awkwardly shoehorned into the script. Speaking of Bale, he's still just okay as Bruce/Batman. Rounding out the notable players is the Oscar-winning Marion Cotillard, who performs potentially the most laughable death scene in cinema history.

To be fair, the things that work about The Dark Knight Rises do work; it takes bold risks, and there are a few moments of badass Batman combat. At the end of the day, however, The Dark Knight Rises is merely okay - it's not great, not flawless, and by no means is it a masterpiece. Ultimately, Christopher Nolan's trilogy capper is brought down by its long-winded nature and poor script construction. Due to this, and due to the lack of Batman screen time, the movie feels like a mediocre Christopher Nolan action-thriller that happens to feature Batman. It seems that Nolan has grown bored with the series and no longer cares. Nolan was reluctant to return to the franchise directly because of this, and he only took up the director's seat due to fan pressure and the promise of a huge paycheque. The film's ending reflects this attitude, as it leaves room for further adventures but announces that Nolan has no interest in helming any.

5.9/10

"I believe the most rational mind can play tricks in the dark."

Based on the 1980s novel of the same name by Susan Hill, The Woman in Black is one of the most old-fashioned horror movies in recent memory. Horror filmmakers have grown distinctly lazier in the past decade or so, relying more on cheap jump scares and/or gratuitous gore in lieu of mood, atmosphere, scares and story. Thus, a movie like The Woman in Black is particularly welcome, as it focuses on these old-fashioned characteristics. Though it does have its flaws, it reminds us that, when done well, retro-style horror can effectively raise the hairs on the back of your neck. It may be a remake (the story was previously adapted into both a long-running stage play and an ITV-produced telemovie), but screenwriter Jane Goldman (Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class) and director James Watkins (Eden Lake) executed the picture with genuine style and flair, two things often missing in contemporary horror.

With bills mounting and his job dangling in the balance, widowed lawyer Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is compelled to leave his young son Joseph (Handley) to travel to an isolated village to finalise the estate of a recently-deceased woman. Travelling to the dilapidated Eel Marsh House, Arthur soon encounters a malevolent spirit known as The Woman in Black, who haunts the enormous mansion and has the local townsfolk gripped in fear. Despite the apparitions - and despite constant hostility from the villagers - Arthur continues to work towards completing his assignment with help from the sympathetic Samuel Daily (Hinds). But local children begin to die in horrific ways, and Arthur is continually tormented by ghostly sights and sounds within Eel Marsh, forcing the young lawyer to search for a way to appease the ghost and break the curse before his own son travels to visit him in a matter of days.

Produced by the iconic Hammer Films (a British company renowned for their classic chillers), The Woman in Black is a throwback horror experience in many respects. With its 1800s setting, foggy locations and creepy set design, the filmmakers visibly looked to recapture the lost art of the ghost story. It's not entirely successful, though, as the picture gets off to a rocky start. For the first half or so, there are no genuine scares; only cheap, lazy jump scares underscored by loud noises and music. As the second half kicks in, though, The Woman in Black truly takes off - it builds momentum, it becomes genuinely terrifying, and the story develops into something satisfying and even somewhat touching, culminating with a memorable final scene.

Even at its worst, The Woman in Black is insanely atmospheric. As time goes by, you get the sense that Eel Marsh House is genuinely haunted and that ghosts are everywhere. As a result, you don't feel safe, and that's a huge achievement in the realm of PG-13 horror. The camerawork must also be commended. Most horror films are simplistic in their cinematography, but the shot composition and editing here is artistic and skilful. The haunted house is a marvel of production design due to its intricacies, with scary-looking dolls, creepy wind-up toys, old-fashioned furniture and kitschy wallpaper, all of which are coated in dust and cobwebs. Thankfully, none of these details are wasted, as cinematographer Tim Maurice-Jones and director Watkins use magnificent wide shots and well-judged cutaways to give us an atmospheric sense of time and place. Scenes at night are lit only by flickering candlelight, which instils a sense of trepidation due to the frame's dimness and abundance of shadows. Furthermore, Watkins' crew clearly understood the importance of sound in a horror film, as the sound design is skilfully multilayered and Marco Beltrami's superlative score is incredibly intense.

Throughout his decade-long tenure as the titular boy wizard in the Harry Potter franchise, Daniel Radcliffe rarely featured in movies outside of the series, instead spending most of his spare time doing live theatre. The Woman in Black is Radcliffe's first film since the final Harry Potter movie, and his engaging performance here demonstrates that the actor may have a big-screen career ahead of him post-Hogwarts. His acting is strong across the board; Radcliffe sells Arthur's love for his son, determination to be successful at his job, and terror when the titular ghost taunts him. The other main player here is Ciarán Hinds as Samuel Daily. A strong character actor, Hinds is terrific in the role, both engaging and amiable.

Remake or not, The Woman in Black is a mostly successful supernatural thriller which achieves what it set out to accomplish. It's not a masterpiece, nor is it the best ghost story ever made, but it's one of the purest, most immersive and most effective old-fashioned thrillers in years (right alongside Insidious). Furthermore, it will likely stay with you after the credits have rolled, as the bone-chilling images here are not easily forgettable and there are numerous harrowing moments.

7.3/10

"No matter how long it takes, I will find you!"

Considering that 2009's Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs soared at the box office to become one of the highest grossing animated films in history, Ice Age 4 was inevitable. But the question looms: is there anything more that this franchise can offer with a fourth entry, a decade after the first Ice Age was released? The answer, alas, is no. Fox's Blue Sky genuinely tried to make a good movie with the first Ice Age since they needed to compete with Pixar and DreamWorks. Now that the Ice Age brand has been established and quality is no longer a concern, it seems nobody was committed to making a great movie with Continental Drift. As a result, it's not as bright, bubbly or witty as the movie which spawned it. It's an uninspiring continuation of a series sputtering on life support which hasn't been genuinely good in 10 years. It should be energetic and vibrant, yet it's almost completely flat, feeling more like a rote straight-to-DVD effort than a majestic theatrical movie.

As the film opens, ubiquitous sabre-toothed squirrel Scrat (Wedge) is still in pursuit of his beloved acorn, and his antics directly contribute to the titular tectonic event. With land being torn apart and the continents being formed, Manny (Romano), Diego (Leary) and Sid (Leguizamo) are separated from their herd, stranded in the ocean on a small iceberg. As they try to navigate a path home, the trio wind up battling the forces of mother nature on top of encountering a pirate ship captained by the malevolent Captain Gutt (Dinklage).

Written by newcomer Jason Fuchs and franchise veteran Michael Berg, Ice Age: Continental Drift slavishly follows the same formula of its predecessors: an event tears the characters apart and they face great adversity while trying to get home. Along the way, the characters learn a thing or two, and broken bonds are fixed. It's lazy, by-the-numbers filmmaking, and the script lacks the energy and wit to compensate for its narrative conventionality. Naturally, the story proper is sporadically interrupted by small segments spotlighting Scrat as he engages in his trademark acorn-related slapstick. Though Scrat's antics were spoiled in the trailers, they display the most amount of visual wit and inventiveness, serving to highlight just how unimaginative everything else is. The only other saving grace of Continental Drift is a pack of chipmunks who show up all-too-briefly. Aside from this, the flick is a lifeless slog which rarely emerges from its cinematic coma. The jokes are mostly flat and unremarkable, the banter is merely perfunctory, and the plot runs out of steam way before the climax. Worse, the "family is important" messages are hackneyed, and the problems of Manny's daughter Peaches (Palmer) seem to have been lifted from an after-school special.

At the very least, Continental Drift is impressive from a technical perspective. When Ice Age first hit cinemas in 2002, its CGI animation looked second-rate compared to Pixar and DreamWorks. But not anymore; the animation here is superb, resulting in the most visually satisfying instalment of the series. The water effects look especially photorealistic, and every hair is astonishingly rendered to make the characters look alive. (For the record, the incredible detail is more palpable in 3-D, but the 3-D presentation as a whole is overly unremarkable.) But while Continental Drift is a somewhat easy watch thanks to its visually succulent nature, there's no getting around the lack of intelligence and momentum. Ironically, last year's Ice Age Christmas special carried equally sumptuous animation, but its visual opulence was supplemented with genuine laughs and creativity; stuff that's lacking in Continental Drift. Ironically, too, the Simpsons short attached to this movie is endearing, smart, subtle and witty - precisely the things that Continental Drift is not.

It doesn't help that the protagonists have become stale and boring. Everyone was clearly operating on autopilot here, as it seems that none of the voice actors put much heart or effort into their performances. The only interesting characters here are the pirates. Led by the refreshingly sinister Captain Gutt (voiced with relish by the reliable Peter Dinklage), the ragtag team of elephant seals, kangaroos and prehistoric rabbits (Nick Frost even lends his voice here) are far more interesting than Manny, Sid and Diego. An entire movie centring on these colourful sea rats would be more enticing than an Ice Age 5. Considering all the terrific names in the cast - including Wanda Sykes, Patrick Stewart, Seann William Scott, Josh Peck and Jennifer Lopez - it's heartbreaking that all of this talent wasn't matched to something wittier or more heartfelt.

With its disheartening belly-laugh deficiency, it seems like nobody except the animators put much effort into Ice Age: Continental Drift. As a result, it has the feel of an arbitrary sequel that, given the last film's $900 million box office gross, it absolutely is. Kids with low standards may get a bit of a laugh, and it's harmless enough with lots of vivid colours, but adults have come to expect better from their family entertainment. Even the fourth Shrek film was more fun that this. Ice Age started as something original and creative, but it's time for this series to become extinct.

5.1/10

"We all have secrets: the ones we keep... and the ones that are kept from us."

Arriving only five years after Spider-Man 3, 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man represents a reboot of the Spider-Man film series, starting again from scratch a mere decade after Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy kicked off. It's important to note, though, that The Amazing Spider-Man was not produced because the filmmakers had a fresh new story that needed to be told - instead, the Sony Corporation hastily rushed it into production because their film rights to Spider-Man would elapse if they didn't have another movie in the can by 2012. Thus, after cancelling Spider-Man 4, Sony decided to simply reboot the franchise with cheaper actors and a more obedient director. In other words, from its very inception, The Amazing Spider-Man was about business, not passion, and every frame of the film's torturously extended running time feels like the worst kind of soulless, passionless, mechanical, assembly-line, commercially-focused, corporate filmmaking. Worst of all, the movie actually feels like a remake of 2002's Spider-Man since it treads the same narrative ground, failing to justify itself for hitting the reset button.

As a young boy, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) was left in the care of his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field) after his parents disappeared under mysterious circumstances. Growing into a reserved teen interested in photography, Peter begins looking to learn more about his father's work with Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans). While Peter sneaks around Connors' workplace, a genetically engineered spider bites him, giving the teenager superhuman abilities and heightened senses. Peter's beloved Uncle Ben is soon murdered by a street criminal, leaving the newfound superhero hungry for revenge. Peter begins to prowl the night-time streets of Manhattan in search of the culprit, eventually developing into an enigmatic, web-slinging vigilante known to the public as Spider-Man. As Spider-Man's reputation grows and Peter's relationship with classmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) burgeons, the one-armed Dr. Connors tests his latest serum on himself. Connors experiments with lizard DNA to stimulate limb regrowth, but the experiment goes awry, transforming the scientist into a giant, psychopathic lizard.

Rather than conceiving of a whole new origin tale, writers James Vanderbilt, Steve Kloves and Alvin Sargent (who actually co-wrote Spider-Man 2 and 3) lazily stick by the narrative beats of Sam Raimi's movie: Uncle Ben's murder, Flash Thompson bullying Peter, Peter getting bitten by a radioactive spider, Peter creating a suit and going vigilante, Peter falling for a young woman, a mentally fractured villain showing up whose experiment makes him go haywire, and so on. Plus, it's executed here with far less gusto than a decade ago. Furthermore, the second half of The Amazing Spider-Man is a rhythmic remake of 2002's Spider-Man, following the same beats but substituting a different villain. It might be faithful to the comics, but it only triggers déjà vu, feeling like reheated script leftovers rather than an audacious new adventure.

To its credit, while the broad narrative strokes are the same, The Amazing Spider-Man does introduce a few new elements to Peter's background. The problem is that the new stuff is awful, alternating between the outright wrongheaded and the laughably coincidental. See, Peter's father's science partner just so happens to have been the future The Lizard, and they just so happen to have worked for Norman Osborn, and their experiments just so happen to be tied to the genetically engineered spider that turns Peter into Spider-Man. And Gwen Stacy just so happens to work for Dr. Connors. Wow! Writers may think that they're being clever by making everything interconnected, but they're only serving to make a sprawling world of possibilities feel small, in the process removing the "accidental everyman hero" aspect of Peter's personality. Another problem with the script is that it's, for lack of a better word, lame. At one stage, the writers start to care about where Spidey's webs are attaching, leading to a moment during the climax that's meant to be moving and uplifting but is instead the stupidest thing ever witnessed in a Spider-Man movie (even worse than Spider-Man 3's emo dance). Such malarkey constantly shows up throughout the film, extending to a horrible showdown with Flash Thompson on a basketball court and a groan-worthy moment on a football field. Oh, and for unknown reasons, Flash becomes a sensitive soul off-screen and befriends Peter...right after Peter humiliates him.

Worse, the film cannot quite figure out who Peter Parker is (other than not Tobey Maguire and not the comic character). Depending on what happens in a given scene, Parker alternates between a slacker, an emo kid, a wiseass, a hipster, a loner, a skater, and a mumbling Michael Cera type. Plus, there's no arc to Peter's character: he starts as an adolescent dick obsessed with his own problems, and he is exactly the same at the end of the film. A lazy Uncle Ben voiceover at the end tries to establish that Peter has changed, but the next scene completely undoes this intention. Little care goes into establishing Spider-Man and his reputation, too. Raimi's film examined Spider-Man's portrayal in the media, establishing that the public perceives him as a hero. Here, director Marc Webb dedicates all of two minutes to Spider-Man's public introduction. Not to mention, Parker's transformation into Spider-Man feels equally rushed. But it's Dr. Connors/The Lizard who fares the worst. There's literally no justification for his transformation into the story's villain - he's just a guy who's pissed about having one arm and whose scientific experiments turn him into a lizard. There is nothing at the root of his evil beyond his boss wanting to shut him down. From there, he turns into a reptilian fascist who wants to turn all residents of the city into lizards because... Errr... Fuck, I don't know. We're never told. The film has no idea who this character is or what his motivations are. And in the space between a couple of scenes, Connors single-handedly manages to haul heaps of laboratory equipment from Oscorp to the underground sewer system. Okay...

Raimi's Spider-Man movies are colourful creations that feel like true comic book movies, but The Amazing Spider-Man is grittier and more morose in tone. As a result, it often feels self-serious, stripping light-hearted fun out of the equation. And, occasionally, the film looks surprisingly cheap despite its large budget, with strictly workmanlike technical contributions across the board. And the CGI Lizard looks horrifically inept. Seriously, The Lizard looks like the result of bad '90s CGI rather than the digital effects of a big-budget 2012 blockbuster (even The Asylum would be embarrassed to have this shit in their films). To his credit, Webb does show promise in his handling of the smaller scenes. Webb cut his teeth with 2009's fantastic (500) Days of Summer, so it's unsurprising that isolated dramatic moments do work here and there. For example, Peter's verbal stuttering is spot-on, and the death of Uncle Ben is emotionally affecting. On the other hand, Webb's handling of the action is less exciting and, for a summer blockbuster, there is a distinct lack of thrills and exhilaration. Furthermore, the film cheats by having Parker be instinctively good at everything from the get-go. Raimi's Spider-Man shows Peter feeling out his powers, developing strategies and doing a lot of trial and error. Here, Peter masters his skills without even trying, illustrated by an awful subway sequence that devolves into silly slapstick.

I must also mention the 3D. Even though The Amazing Spider-Man was shot natively in 3D, this is the worst 3D presentation I've seen in years. It's not eye-gauging; it's just obnoxiously underwhelming and flat. It looks 2D more often than not, as there's no sense of space between objects or, indeed, any sense of depth. I constantly removed my glasses, and the screen looked exactly the same (except brighter). Save yourself the ridiculous cost of a 3D ticket, and see it in 2D...if you have to see the movie at all.

It almost goes without saying, but Andrew Garfield cannot pass for a 17-year-old Peter Parker - instead, he looks his actual age (28). Garfield shows some promise as Parker, but his acting is overblown for the most part, and the Brit has trouble masking his natural accent, which is troublesome. Not to mention, his performance is reminiscent of Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen. Emma Stone makes the best impression here; she's a pitch-perfect Gwen Stacy with immense spirit, quirk and likeability. Her chemistry with Garfield is also better than expected, and Stone's innate charm helps make the leaden dialogue sound better. Meanwhile, Denis Leary makes for a terrific Captain Stacy (Gwen's father), and Martin Sheen is wonderful in the role of Uncle Ben. Sheen is easily the best thing in this movie; his Uncle Ben is kind, well-articulated, responsible and level-headed, and his performance resonates in a hugely effective manner. On the other hand, Sally Field is a tragically vanilla Aunt May who lacks everything that made Rosemary Harris such a standout in the role. Rhys Ifans is also wasted here as Dr. Connors.

Not only is The Amazing Spider-Man a lousy movie, but it's also one of the summer's most despicable and deflating motion pictures. In the right hands, a Spider-Man reboot could've yielded a refreshing new take on the character, similar to Matthew Vaughn's exceptional X-Men: First Class. Instead, it's a riskless, artless, unimaginative, pointless, lackadaisical endeavour that only exists because Sony believed that even the laziest Spider-Man feature would turn a profit. In other words, the makers had nothing but contempt for their audience. Even the film's okay parts - the fights, web-slinging, etc - have been done better within superior movies.

4.2/10

"Thunder buddies for life, right, Johnny?"

Ted is the feature film debut of writer/director/star Seth MacFarlane, who's best known for his hit television show Family Guy. It's hardly surprising, then, that the film bears a notable resemblance to the long-running cartoon series, as MacFarlane retains his proclivity for toilet humour, non-sequiturs, one-liners, obscure movie references and pop culture shout-outs. Luckily, Ted is also sharper and wittier than most recent Family Guy episodes, resulting in a comedy that is, for lack of a better word, fucking hilarious. Furthermore, the film is based around an inventive central premise. Calling upon his incisive writing instincts, MacFarlane here deconstructs one of the most tiresome comedy plots of recent years - the "decent young guy held back from maturity by a churlish best friend or a cherished toy from his childhood" plot - by taking it to its logical symbolic extreme: the boorish best friend is actually the beloved childhood toy. By doing this, MacFarlane snarkily addresses the "what happens next?" question of every "boy and his magical buddy" movie ranging from E.T. to Pete's Dragon.

A shy 8-year-old social outcast, John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) makes a Christmas wish that his teddy bear would come alive so they can be real friends forever. Sure enough, the magic of the cosmos pulls through, and John awakens the following morning to find that his bear, Ted (MacFarlane), has become a living, speaking being. The talking teddy bear becomes a short-lived celebrity, but through it all, John and Ted vow to remain best friends forever. Fast forward to the present day, however, and the pair are going nowhere fast, spending their days smoking pot and watching TV. While Ted is scraping by just fine, John desperately needs to get his life in order and grow up, as his long-term girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis) is getting fed up with his crap. Faced with an ultimatum from Lori, John urges Ted to move out and start living his own life, but the friendship is hard to break, and John is left choosing between his beloved teddy bear and the woman he loves.

Beneath Ted's routine of lowbrow gags, there's unexpected intelligence and thoughtfulness which places this above less skilful comedies. The story predominantly concerns John's maturation, and the commentary on the realities of growing up is surprisingly poignant. Admittedly, though, Ted does contain a few narrative elements that feel too standard-order. The script is formulaic to extremes, and you will probably be able to guess everything that happens throughout the film. Yet, the film actually gels far better than it had any right to because it's so genuinely side-splitting. Likewise, the film has a tendency to be cheesy (especially the ending), and there's a running subplot about a creepy fan who wants to kidnap Ted which seems to have been shoehorned into the script to allow for a big finale. But in MacFarlane's hands, everything comes together beautifully. It's the execution that matters when it comes to this type of film, and, thankfully, with the original device of an alive teddy bear combined with the witty writing and energetic direction, Ted just plain works. Better yet, there's genuine sweetness here to supplement the laughs.

Those who hate Family Guy, or Seth MacFarlane's humour in general, will probably hate Ted just as much since the comedic styles are similar. But fans of MacFarlane's humour will have an utter ball with this picture. And commendably, the laughs go beyond the one-note gag of seeing a foul-mouthed teddy bear doing things that he just shouldn't be doing. As a matter of fact, the script (by MacFarlane, Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild) is very witty, with obscure pop culture references, blue-collar bar-room humour, and even a party spotlighting a surprise cameo (from a laudably game actor) that should have viewers absolutely wetting their pants. It's also important to note that the jokes work so well not just because they're vulgar but also because of the immaculate timing and delivery. There are a lot of lowbrow laughs here, sure, and thus your liking of Ted is definitely dependent on your taste for comedy, but the film undoubtedly worked for this reviewer.

It helps that Ted is such a terrific character. Seriously, he's one of the greatest movie characters of 2012. Played by MacFarlane through motion capture, the special effects are solid here; not exactly photorealistic, but nevertheless expressionistic and believable. Ted also fully interacts with various environments in different types of lighting to amazing effect. Ted never looks cheap or phoney, nor does he ever stand out as anything other than part of this world. Like last year's Paul, you soon accept and believe the character as real rather than just a digital creation. Injecting personality into a CGI teddy bear is no mean feat, yet MacFarlane pulled it off. Furthermore, you can believe Ted's friendship with John. Ted is a fantasy, but MacFarlane makes us believe this fantastical story, which makes the characters more relatable and the story more engaging.

At first glance, it may seem like Seth MacFarlane just recycled his Peter Griffin voice for Ted, but the talented voice actor actually created a new voice with a Boston tinge (whereas Peter was distinctly New England). It's an engaging vocal performance with spot-on comedic delivery, and it's hard to imagine anyone else playing this role. Alongside him, Mark Wahlberg is extremely well-used as straight man John. He's completely believable and likeable, and, crucially, whenever he shares scenes with Ted, it never seems like he's interacting with something that's not actually there. (A punch-up between Ted and John is a particular success in this respect.) Meanwhile, Mila Kunis was saddled with the clichéd role of a frustrated girlfriend, yet she transcends the material due to the level-headedness she displays, not to mention her inherent likeability as an actress. There are a range of colourful supporting performances here, not to mention several celebrity cameos that this reviewer simply cannot spoil, and suffice it to say everyone hit their marks beautifully. Patrick Stewart even narrates the whole thing, which lends a bit of gravitas to the proceedings.

While cynical filmgoers may mark Ted down for being predictable and generic, the fact is that this is a comedy that aspires to make you laugh, and it is funny as hell. That's no small achievement. It won't change your life, but it's a wonderful, well-told comedy that wholly satisfied this reviewer, not to mention it's more heartfelt than Family Guy has ever been. And, like all of the best comedies in history, it contains countless insanely quotable lines of dialogue. Ted is an instant classic, pure and simple.

8.3/10

"If you had a chance to change your fate, would you?"

Though a definite improvement over the bitterly disappointing Cars 2, 2012's Brave is destined to be a polarising movie. While visually majestic and fun, it lacks the innovation and sophistication that Pixar is renowned for, leaving us with an enjoyable but formulaic effort that fails to linger or resonate. It's perfectly fine at surface level, but Brave is seldom remarkable, as the filmmakers were clearly more concerned with energy and fantasy than mature thematic density or humanity. This is the cruel paradox of Pixar: because they set the bar so high and established themselves as the pinnacle of animation excellence, a merely decent movie from the studio feels like a letdown. Brave isn't terrible - it's just not as good as one might want it to be. Call it the peril of high expectations.

In the highlands of 10th Century Scotland, ginger-haired princess Merida (Macdonald) is next in line for the throne of Clan DunBroch, but yearns for the freedom to do whatever she wants with her life. While King Fergus (Connolly) and Queen Elinor (Thompson) push for Merida to get married as soon as possible, the adventurous young princess prefers to spend time roaming the forest alone practising her archery skills. When members of nearby clans begin to compete for Merida's hand, the rebellious girl ends up having a shouting match with her mother, ending with Merida fleeing into the woods to escape her destiny. Led deep into the forest by ghostly blue lights, Merida happens upon an old cottage where she meets a witch (Walters). Sensing the chance to change her fate, Merida asks for a spell to make her mother back off. But the spell ends up backfiring, and Merida is left struggling to undo her reckless mistake before the consequences become permanent.

With a princess in the lead, Brave is the closest thing to a typical Disney movie that Pixar has ever produced. Wisely, the writers abstained from conventions like the proverbial wicked stepmother and a prince/princess relationship, instead exploring the complicated bond between a headstrong but loving mother and her stubborn daughter. But Brave's storytelling and structure is wobbly and rote, which is baffling since Pixar is so revered for its commitment to quality storytelling. The film simply does not traverse enough new ground, and this is all the more disappointing considering that other Pixar veterans might have been able to do something more audacious with this premise. The biggest missed opportunity is the witch. Here was Pixar's chance to create a truly unforgettable Disney villain, but the witch is never heard from again after she casts the spell. (As a matter of fact, there is no villain.) Basically, Brave reeks of "committee screenwriting" - there was no singular vision, as three writers were involved in penning the film. So while one writer might have aimed for a mature relationship between Merida and her mother, another writer insisted upon a fluffy montage set to upbeat music to lazily convey the characters' growing bond.

Brave's midsection flirts dangerously with DreamWorks sensibilities, ditching sophisticated Pixar humour and creativity in favour of goofy slapstick and derivative gags. Make no mistake, there are a few strokes of Pixar genius here (everything involving Merida's cheeky little brothers is utterly brilliant), but they are in short supply. Also, the usual zing of Pixar's dialogue is missing. Brave features a cast of lovely, sparkling Scottish accents, yet the dialogue they regurgitate is painfully perfunctory.

On a more positive note, however, the picture looks expectedly excellent. Medieval Scotland was meticulously created by the Pixar team, who rendered all of the gorgeous landscapes in stunning detail. The picture is populated with colourfully-designed characters as well. The most notable character from a design standpoint is Merida, whose blazing red hair must've been a nightmare to animate. Somehow, too, the animators managed to make bears seem cute. Indeed, Brave posed a number of unique visual challenges for the Pixar team, who conquered them all with utmost confidence. Fortunately, there are a number of great moments scattered throughout the film, including a few scenes involving a ferocious bear that are nail-bitingly tense (note the PG rating, parents). But less impressive are the 3-D effects, which are utter rubbish. Brave is dark in terms of lighting and colour palette, and thus the glasses only serve to make the picture even dimmer. It does a disservice to the Pixar animators whose work will not be fully seen or appreciated in 3-D.

The biggest positive of Brave is its voice cast. As Merida, Kelly Macdonald is sublime. Her vocal performance is strong and energetic, giving life to this heroine who's brash, stubborn and sweet. Macdonald is a home-grown Scottish lass (she was in Trainspotting), so her natural accent gives Merida an endearing flavour. As Pixar's first lead female character, Merida needed to stand out and make an impression, and, fortunately, she does. Another masterstroke was the casting of Billy Connolly as King Fergus. With the comedian's touch, Fergus has genuine personality; another essential element of any Pixar production. Digging into the supporting cast, Emma Thompson is expectedly great as Queen Elinor, while Scottish actors Robbie Coltrane, Kevin McKidd and Craig Ferguson all give position impressions as various Scottish lords.

Brave feels like a production that was drastically retooled several times, resulting in a disorganised finished product. Reportedly, original director/writer Brenda Chapman imagined the picture to be dark and mature, but departed the project in 2010 over creative disagreements. One must wonder if Chapman's vision would have resulted in another sophisticated Pixar classic rather than the light-hearted piece of entertainment we've ended up with. Brave's thematic undercurrents show promise, yet the execution is nothing special. Nevertheless, it's easy to appreciate the film's artistry, and it does entertain easily enough throughout its runtime. This will be just fine for some, but others will be left longing for the transcendent Pixar that they fell in love with.

6.8/10

"You'll burn."

A title card prefacing The Devil Inside claims that the Vatican does not want you to see this movie. It's a fictional statement present for dramatic effect, yet it wouldn't surprise me if the Vatican were against the movie due to how fucking awful it is. The Devil Inside is another attempt at a "found footage" exorcist film, arriving two years after Eli Roth's disastrous The Last Exorcism. The found footage gimmick was, of course, employed to generate a sense of immediacy and realism while we watch characters battling the demonic forces of Satan. The reality, though, is that you're more likely to wind up battling boredom throughout this half-hearted horror flick. The premise is full of potential, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired, only occasionally showing slight glimmers of promise.

In October of 1989, seemingly normal wife and mother Maria Rossi (Crowley) murdered three clergy members in her home. Reportedly, Maria is possessed by demons, and the murders took place during an attempted exorcism on her. Not sent to prison over the killings due to an insanity plea, Maria is sent to a mental hospital in Italy. Twenty years later, Maria's daughter Isabella (Andrade) and documentary filmmaker Michael (Grama) travel to Italy to try and get answers about Maria's ailment. While the church refuses to help, rogue priests Ben (Quarterman) and David (Helmuth) agree to become involved in the case.

To its credit, The Devil Inside does have its fair share of creepy moments. The opening 911 call, for instance, is insanely bone-chilling, and the exorcism scenes often have an unnerving punch to them thanks to the freedom of the picture's R rating. Furthermore, Suzan Crowley is genuinely terrific as the crazy, possessed Maria. She looks the part, and gives off a believable devil-possessed demeanour whenever she appears onscreen. These strengths aside, however, The Devil Inside is a total failure. Made on a paltry budget, the money shots are too scattershot, with most of the film concentrating on the mediocre actors as they trade stiff dialogue about church politics. It never really gets into an agreeable rhythm; it's an episodic flick, moving from one segment to the next without generating any tension or developing an engaging story. All of the characters are flat, coming across as generic fodder for whatever generic events befall them. Horror movies need a solid lead actor. Hell, even 2011's The Rite had an incredibly hammy Anthony Hopkins to keep us interested. But alas, there is no amiable protagonist here. And although The Devil Inside runs a scant 75 minutes, it's often too slow.

Also problematic is that, narratively and dramatically, The Devil Inside is nothing new. Instead of concocting an original, twist-laden story of demonic possession, director/writer William Brent Bell and co-writer Matthew Peterman trusted that the "found footage" gimmick would breathe new life into the clichéd narrative. Alas, The Last Exorcism already tried it, and that didn't work either. All the "phoney reality" stuff does is serve to make the film look technically incompetent. Moreover, the ending is atrocious. A solid ending can make or break a movie, and, unfortunately, The Devil Inside closes on a terrible note which brings the entire production down a few more notches. The ending is a lazy copout, as if the writers ran out of ideas and desperately grasped for the easiest solution. Suffice it to say, it does not work. It's also amusing that the film closes with proverbial captions elucidating further info about the film's events as if they was real...right before the lengthy end credit reel revealing who made and starred in the movie. It defeats the illusion. Worse, a caption asks us to visit a website to find out more about the "ongoing investigation" of Maria Rossi. Are you fucking serious? Talk about contempt for your audience...

As with most all found footage productions, the camerawork here is often shaky and irritatingly frenetic. This even extends to the conversational scenes - it often seems like the cameraman is suffering a fucking seizure. Plus, the realism of the documentary technique is at times thrown to the wind. When Isabella first visits her mother, for instance, Michael cannot be seen by the hospital's surveillance camera when he should be in plain sight. And there are a few instances of cuts during talking, as if to imply that two cameramen were present. One must wonder how much better off the film might have been without the found footage approach altogether. If it was shot in a more traditional style, The Devil Inside could have been a halfway decent horror movie since we would have at least been able to see what's happening. What we have instead is a lot of bad lighting, grainy close-ups, and shaky framing. Ho hum.

3.8/10

"Whoa, that's my boy! He moved out when he was eighteen, I haven't seen him since..."

Adam Sandler used to be one of the most reliable funny-men in the business, but he has been stuck in a serious rut lately. After a string of awfulness culminating with 2011's sign of the apocalypse Jack and Jill, the prospect of another Adam Sandler comedy is now about as desirable as a cracked rib. What a surprise, then, that 2012's That's My Boy is actually enjoyable. One would not call this a truly good film as most of the humour is juvenile and there are some unnecessary gross-out gags, but it's an amusing film with plenty of highlights, which is frankly miraculous. It's Sandler's most consistently enjoyable effort since 50 First Dates back in 2004.

At the age of 12, Donny Berger (Sandler) made headlines and developed into a national icon when he had a sexual relationship with his teacher Ms. McGarricle (Martino), resulting in her falling pregnant and being sent to prison. Decades later, Donny is a fading star out of money, and he owes $43,000 to the IRS. If Donny doesn't pay in a matter of days, he'll be arrested. While down in the dumps, Donny learns that his estranged son Han Solo (Samberg) - now going by the name of Todd to avoid association with his dad - has become a successful businessman and is soon getting married. One of Donny's TV friends promises to give him $50,000 if he convinces Todd to visit his mother in prison, and thus Donny crashes his son's wedding party. With people convinced that Donny is just an old friend of Todd's, father and son begin to bond.

David Caspe's script is full of clichés (including a typical "lie plot" reminiscent of Just Go with It) and contains several generic narrative beats (including a break-up-to-make-up scenario). Furthermore, the characters are ripped straight from the Comedy 101 handbook - there's the military badass, the leering boss, the horny grandma, the quirky friend, and so on. These stereotypes are too lazy for comfort. What's surprising, though, is that Caspe's treatment of this material is pretty dark. Armed with the freedom of an R-rating, That's My Boy is much more fun than it would've been as a tame PG-13 comedy, and this helps keep your mind off the story's formulaic nature. Plus, the ending is not entirely predictable, as it introduces a handful of twists and merrily destroys the lives of a few characters without blinking an eye. It renders the experience quite refreshing, though it probably won't work for those who actually like fluffy paint-by-numbers Hollywood filmmaking.

Astonishingly, That's My Boy was not directed by Sandler's go-to guy Dennis Dugan - instead, the director is Sean Anders, who helmed the hilarious (and underrated) Sex Drive. It would seem that a new director has reinvigorated Sandler, as the directing here is not as lazy as films like Jack and Jill or Grown-Ups. Anders was an inspired choice - as exemplified in Sex Drive, he can handle vulgar R-rated comedic material as well as quieter character-driven moments. Not all of the jokes here are original, and pretty much none of them are witty, but they're sold by Anders and co. with wonderful gusto and energy, without the bland flavour that Dugan always brings to the table. If R-rated humour appeals to you, That's My Boy is Christmas - Anders permitted Sandler to let loose in a way he hasn't done in years, turning a painfully clichéd father-son bonding tale into a hilariously crass slice of entertainment. Admittedly, some of the laughs are more uncomfortable than amusing (the horny grandmother is unnecessary, and at one stage Todd's fiancé licks dried semen from her wedding dress...), and the humour is mostly infantile. Nevertheless, the laughs for the most part worked for this reviewer, though others are welcome to disagree due to the highly subjective nature of comedy.

A lot of people are destined to despise the voice that Adam Sandler espouses here. It's a pretty big obstacle to overcome while enjoying the movie, as Sandler chose to use an over-the-top, ridiculous speech pattern that's frankly grating most of the time. Still, the actor gets credit for at least trying to do something fresh, rather than leaning on his lazy shtick yet again. Meanwhile, Andy Samberg is charming in the role of straight man Todd/Han Solo, whose normality often amusingly clashes with Donny's shameless idiocy. Surprisingly, the highlight is actually Vanilla Ice, who clearly had a ball sending himself up here. Also notable is Milo Ventimiglia, who's unrecognisable as a buff military badass. Ripped to the teeth and adopting a thick accent, you would never guess that this is the same guy who played Rocky's son in 2006's Rocky Balboa. Beyond these actors, there are a handful of memorable supporting turns; Will Forte (MacGruber) is pretty funny as Todd's uptight co-worker, and James Caan provides several laughs as a badass priest.

That's My Boy is admittedly long in the tooth. For a comedy, a runtime nearing two hours seems superfluous, and the film's flabby nature makes it look like a first cut awaiting further trimming. Still, this is a good fun movie with plenty of laughs that will appeal to its target audience. Average filmgoers will probably find the movie utterly horrifying, but the rest of us should recognise it as a fun-in-the-moment guilty pleasure.

6.5/10

"When I saw you, I believed it was a sign... that something new can come into this world."

2012's John Carter was a long time coming. Based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' story A Princess of Mars which was first published in 1912, official development for a John Carter motion picture has started and stopped since 1931. But apparently eight decades was not enough time to do the project justice, as the finished movie is misguided and soulless. It was almost impossible to ignore all of the bad press surrounding John Carter - Disney blew well north of $350 million on it (including marketing), leading to speculation that the studio had an expensive box office bomb on their hands. Hell, the deck was so overwhelmingly stacked against the film (especially with its inexperienced director and lack of big stars) that this reviewer hoped it would be a success out of sheer pity. Yet, John Carter is desperately underwhelming; rather than an absorbing fantasy adventure, it feels like a mash-up of Avatar, the Star Wars series, Gladiator and other such films which, ironically, were actually inspired by Burroughs' original text.

In Arizona, former Civil War captain John Carter (Kitsch) has become a notorious criminal. When arrested, Carter soon escapes with guards in hot pursuit, and accidentally stumbles upon a sacred cave potentially loaded with riches. Inside, an encounter with a holy Martian (known as a Thern) results in Carter being transported to the planet Mars, which is called Barsoom by the locals. Finding that the planet's weak gravitational pull gives him superhuman abilities, Carter begins wandering the planet, eventually happening upon a race of creatures known as the Tharks. From there, Carter becomes entangled in a conflict over dwindling resources between two cities: Helium and Zodanga. Drawn to Helium's princess, Dejah (Collins), Carter endeavours to work towards planetary peace.

When Burroughs wrote his original stories in the early 20th Century, outer space exploration was mere speculation, and nobody knew was Mars was truly like. Of course, now - one hundred years later - we know that Mars is desolate and lifeless, which automatically positions John Carter within the realm of the blatantly fantastical. Indeed, those expecting any plausibility will not find it here, as director Andrew Stanton and his co-writers (Mark Andrews and Michael Chabon) ill-advisably retained Burroughs' (inaccurate) Victorian-era view of the solar system, creating a huge logical obstacle that's difficult to overcome. It is, indeed, quite a cruel paradox. Ironically, too, because Burroughs' stories have been raided by countless filmmakers over the years (including James Cameron, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg), none of the narrative ideas seem fresh anymore, making John Carter feel like a production long past its use-by date. Naturally, Hollywood has recycled old ideas time and time again and made them feel fresh, but this requires a deft touch that unfortunately eludes director Andrew Stanton.

The lifeless nature of John Carter is especially shocking since Stanton was responsible for Pixar hits like Finding Nemo and WALL-E. Whereas those movies had fun characters, tender humour and lots of humanity, John Carter lacks these qualities. This is most likely due to Stanton's inexperience, as this was his first time directing a live-action film and he tried to nail so many different genres (sci-fi, fantasy, action, adventure) that he never entirely succeeds at any of them. In other words, he bit off more than he could chew, which is further exemplified in the fact that the film underwent a month of reshoots in which most of the picture had to be shot again! It's a shame, too, because Pixar veteran Brad Bird made an impressive live-action debut with Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. What's also ironic is that John Carter looks more cartoonish than any of Stanton's Pixar movies. The CGI is a mixed bag (creatures look impressive but the compositing is skewiff and green screening looks phoney), and the overabundance of digital imagery serves to make it look like the Star Wars prequels. The terrible marketing for the film tried to paint is as the Gladiator of the fantasy genre in which the titular character faces off against monsters in an arena, but this heavily plugged scene constitutes about 5 minutes of the film's mammoth 130-minute running time.

As a consequence of everything, the throwaway action scenes can only conjure up a very mild sense of excitement, no intrigue is generated through the dreary exposition, and it's difficult to care about the superficial characters. Critically, John Carter is poorly-paced - too many scenes waste time over-explaining plot elements which don't really matter, neglecting meaty character development and creating tedious stretches between the action. With Disney having thrown $250 million at the screen, John Carter is a surface-level experience which, despite handsome production values, never introduces human emotion and thus never pulls you in.

The reason why the dialogue is so flat is probably a combination of the subpar actors and Stanton's inexperience directing live-action films. As a result, the acting lacks sincerity, and there's no spark between Taylor Kitsch and love interest Lynn Collins. With Kitsch in the lead role here, John Carter is a sullen, bland empty cipher of a protagonist; a run-of-the-mill pretty boy with a good physique but zero charisma. Carter needed to be played by an actor with more flavour and sass. The character's boring nature is especially problematic since the film is named after him (why didn't Disney use more intriguing titles like A Princess of Mars or John Carter of Mars?). The film also boasts a number of notable actors like Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church, Mark Strong, Dominic West and Bryan Cranston, but they make no impression amid the surplus of CGI and the lack of human feeling, though they at least seem to be trying (it isn't possible for Cranston to be bad in anything).

John Carter is not a terrible movie by any stretch, as there are several memorable images of widescreen wonder to behold from time to time. It's somewhat watchable, but most will ultimately find it too cold. Without solid leading actors, a stirring story or anything genuinely distinguishable, John Carter feels like just another CGI spectacle. We expected and deserved a lot more from this production. After all, if you're finally going to make a movie after 80 years of pre-production, shouldn't it be perfect?

4.8/10

"I will eat your stinking soul!"

Stylistically and tonally different to its 2007 predecessor, 2012's Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is presented as less of a sequel to Ghost Rider and more of a reimagining/reboot. Nicolas Cage is reportedly a huge fan of the Ghost Rider comics, and he wanted a second attempt at making a movie which does justice to the source material. Thus, Crank directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor were recruited to bring their frenetic style to the production. Theoretically, Neveldine/Taylor's style should be the perfect complement for Cage's over-the-top acting sensibilities, and the collaboration should have resulted in a deliriously enjoyable comic book flick. Instead, while it has a few semi-exciting action set-pieces, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is a generic bore. It's a rabid movie, yet it's loud, obnoxious, drab and often startlingly incoherent.

To save his dying father, stunt biker Johnny Blaze (Cage) signed his soul over to the devil, and as a result was bequeathed with a supernatural curse which sporadically transforms him into a flaming skeleton. In order to keep his curse in check, Blaze chooses to hide out in Eastern Europe and live off the grid. Until, that is, he's tracked down by an old friend - alcoholic warrior priest Moreau (Elba) - who offers Blaze the opportunity to get his curse removed. Blaze's task is to protect a young boy named Danny (Riordan) who's on the run with his mother (Placido). As it turns out, Satan (Hinds) wants Danny, and has sent out several mercenaries to retrieve him.

While flimsy plotting is almost customary in action movies, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is worse than most; its story is poorly-structured, and most narrative beats don't make much sense. Not to mention, for some reason the film leans hard on its hackneyed plot rather than cutting loose with feverish action, which completely kills all sense of momentum. Sure, screenwriters Scott M. Gimple, Seth Hoffman and David S. Goyer probably aspired to focus more on storytelling than mindless action, but the problem is that the storytelling is incompetent. Spirit of Vengeance is in sore need of humanity, as well. Great comic book films create genuine weight by concentrating on central characters and their arcs (see Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films), but the writers here were clueless about how to properly achieve this. It's clear that Danny was included to humanise Blaze, but the subplot fails to gain much traction. It doesn't help that all of the dialogue throughout is so painfully stiff and uninvolving. With the titular Rider receiving a scant 10 minutes of screen-time, Spirit of Vengeance mostly involves boring characters spouting boring dialogue.

To the credit of Neveldine and Taylor, the look of Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is just right. Stripping away the glossy, overly Hollywood demeanour of the 2007 picture, this is a grittier film ostensibly aimed more at adults. Not to mention, the Ghost Rider character (which looked utterly cartoonish in the 2007 film) looks spot-on here with a black and charred skull. But this is about the only aspect where Spirit of Vengeance succeeds. Neveldine and Taylor retained their proclivity for batshit insane antics, but what's missing is the sense of energy that they brought to the Crank movies. Furthermore, as violent as the film sometimes is, it's clearly marred by the restrictions of its PG-13 rating. Neveldine and Taylor excel as directors of R-rated junk food, not neutered comic book movies. Some action beats do work, but the 5 minutes of worthwhile awesomeness does not make the film's other 85 tedious minutes worth enduring.

To keep budget costs down, Spirit of Vengeance was shot in drab locations in Eastern Europe. As a result, it looks ugly and cheap, more like a direct-to-DVD movie than a theatrical experience. And as fun as some parts can be, Neveldine and Taylor's efforts are incompetent at times. Take, for instance, a scene towards the beginning in which the Rider stares at a mercenary before eating his soul - Blaze stares at the guy for so long that it's unclear what's happening and it actually looks more like the two are about to kiss. In another scene, Blaze attempts to hold back his inner demon while riding his motorcycle. It's a scene which drags on and on, filled with shots that may look cool but fail to further the plot or develop the character in any worthwhile way. Also odd are the inconsistencies relating to the Rider's tolerance to injury. He's knocked unconscious by a grenade at one stage, but later on another grenade only causes him to spin horizontally while levitating in midair (a huge "WTF?!" moment). We never find out how the Rider can be killed, and this strips the film of emotional stakes.

As Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider, Nicolas Cage clearly gave it his all; he chews the scenery with hammy gusto and endlessly mugs the camera. At times it works, but Cage's insanity is often more grating than entertaining. Idris Elba is the only acting bright spot here. Elba has genuine movie star charisma, and he seems to match the tone of the material. None of the other cast members merit a mention, though it's interesting to note that Highlander star Christopher Lambert has a minor role as a priest...and he's utterly wasted.

From the trailers, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance looked like it was going to be a fun movie, but it really isn't much fun at all. While there are a few nifty action beats here and there, they fail to compensate for the bland storytelling and woeful scriptwriting. It's a misguided, empty-headed mess which fast becomes a test of endurance. Maybe third time will be a charm for Ghost Rider...

3.4/10