Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"There's a clue to another treasure. How's your thirst for adventure, Captain?"

Created in 1929 by Belgian cartoonist Hergé, Tintin is an internationally beloved literary character in virtually every part of the world except America. Enter Steven Spielberg (back in the director's chair for the first time since 2008's Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) and Peter Jackson, who've collaborated to give Hergé's creation new life in a glossy, mainstream Hollywood extravaganza hoping to appeal to both newcomers (Americans included) and established fans. The result is difficult to dislike, with the pair of filmmaking heavyweights using phenomenal state-of-the-art motion capture technology to vividly bring to life this world of danger, adventure and sleuthing.

An intrepid journalist who enjoys investigating mysteries, Tintin (Bell) finds himself inadvertently thrust into a perilous adventure when he purchases an ornate model of a 17th Century pirate ship known as "The Unicorn". To Tintin's puzzlement, the item becomes hotly pursued by other interested buyers, and is stolen when his flat is subsequently ransacked. With help from his loyal dog Snowy, Tintin starts looking into the ship's significance, and finds that his model held one of three scrolls which could help lead to the Unicorn's hidden treasure. The owner of the second scroll, the sinister Ivan Sakharine (Craig), begins resorting to violence and kidnapping to get all three scrolls, sweeping Tintin along on a sea voyage to the Moroccan city of Bagghar where the final scroll allegedly lurks. Along the way, Tintin teams up with Captain Haddock (Serkis), the final descendant of the Unicorn's original captain.

Tagged with the subtitle The Secret of the Unicorn, the film is based on three of Hergé's comics and was written by a trio of superlative British writers: Steven Moffat (Coupling, BBC's Sherlock, Doctor Who), Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), and Joe Cornish (Attack the Block). It's one hell of a dream team, and their energetic screenplay does not disappoint. It's full of fun character interactions and sly jokes, which have been translated to the screen with Indiana Jones-style zest by Spielberg. However, while there are a number of good laughs, a few moments of slapstick do feel overly cheap. More pertinently, Tintin remains an enigma throughout the film. He gets involved in so much action and danger, yet we're never permitted the chance to genuinely get to know him. Most of the dialogue is plot-related, as the picture refuses to slows its pace to let the Tintin grow as a three-dimensional human being. It's odd that he's such an empty cipher considering that Tintin's instantly-endearing dog Snowy is effectively developed just through his mannerisms.

The Adventures of Tintin marks Steven Spielberg's first directorial foray into both animation and mo-cap, and it's clear that the veteran filmmaker was right at home handling the action-adventure elements (it's obvious why Raiders of the Lost Ark was compared to Tintin). Spielberg was effortlessly able to transfer the energy, strong pacing, engaging mise-en-scène and artistic framing of his habitual live-action output to this new medium with added fluidity. It's also clear that Spielberg embraced the freedom to achieve what would be impossible when working in live-action. The Adventures of Tintin contains several amazing tracking shots (the single-shot chase through Morocco is phenomenal) and creative transitions, making the most of animation's boundless possibilities. However, at times Spielberg got too carried away, resulting in action scenes that are too silly and Hollywood-ised. This is vehemently a cartoon, yes, but one can't help but facepalm when a plane is fuelled by a Haddock belch. And set-pieces such as the climax are so over-the-top that you're instantly taken out of the movie. Not to mention, a few narrative developments feel distinctly forced (the way Haddock "remembers" his family history doesn't quite gel).

On a more positive note, the visuals absolutely take the breath away. The Adventures of Tintin grabs you from the very outset, beginning with a stylish Saul Bass-esque opening credits sequence featuring silhouetted characters acting out vignettes set to John Williams' marvellous, toe-tapping jazz score. The picture's lush CGI is not quite photo-real, but gorgeous isolated moments could be mistaken for live-action. Fortunately, too, the characters are not plagued with the creepy "dead-eye" syndrome of most mo-cap pictures - the likes of Tintin, Haddock and especially Snowy have a soul behind their artificially-rendered eyes. However, some body movements look a bit too smooth. This issue only arises from time to time, though - for the most part, the motions look stunning.

One of the benefits of animation over live-action is the possibility of digital manipulation. Thus, all of the actors here look like their comic book counterparts (though the digital avatars are far more detailed than Hergé's more cartoonish illustrations). Furthermore, the performances are solid right across the board. As the titular Tintin, Jamie Bell is ideal; he has a youthful naivety about him, and his line readings are suitably low-key. Alongside him, Andy Serkis is the star of the show as Captain Haddock, who has a drinking problem and a strong supply of one-liners. Also in the cast is the duo of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as incompetent detectives Thompson and Thomson (respectively). The two do not have an overly important part in the adventure, but it's always a pleasure to see Pegg and Frost in a motion picture. Rounding out the main players is Daniel Craig, who positively disappears into the role of Ivan Sakharine with terrific results.

The Adventures of Tintin is not a flawless adaptation, and it's somewhat disappointing that the picture isn't better considering the perfect storm of talent which was assembled to bring it to fruition. Nevertheless, this is a very entertaining, well-made movie that's well worth seeing. With its cliffhanger ending ensuring that a sequel is inevitable, further movies may rectify the flaws of this introductory flick.

7.0/10

"Your life depends on you."

For Tony Jaa, 2003's Ong-bak was essentially his debutante ball, as it introduced the nimble performer and his phenomenal fighting skills to worldwide movie-goers. Wirework and digital effects are the norm in this day and age, but Jaa is the real deal: he actually performs death-defying stunts and leaps, and actually lands brutal aerial blows without any trickery. But Ong-bak was more of a demo reel for Jaa than a cohesive motion picture, and it left us wanting a vehicle for the young martial arts mastermind with strong storytelling. What a shame that 2008's Ong Bak 2: The Beginning is not the Tony Jaa vehicle we wanted; it suffers from leaden pacing and a self-serious tone which denies us the kind of pleasures we derived from the original picture. Plus, this "sequel" does not have anything to do with the 2003 film - instead, it's set in Thailand's medieval past and concerns new characters.

Ong Bak 2's story does not make much coherent sense, so bear with me. Hundreds of years ago, a young prince named Tien (played in adulthood by Jaa) becomes an orphan after his royal parents are killed during some type of violent political upheaval. Subsequently, slave traders capture the boy. After displaying real talent as a fighter during a struggle with a crocodile, Tien is taken under the wing of a moustachioed outlaw who raises him like a son. Thus, Tien is transformed from a primitive young boy into a highly-skilled warrior looking to exact vengeance on those responsible for his family's killing. I think...

It's recommended that you don't bother trying to piece together who's who, what their motivations are or what they're doing at any specified moment. Most of the time it's difficult to figure out where the narrative is heading beyond the obvious revenge quest, with what should be a simple action film becoming unnecessarily complicated. Perhaps the problem is that there's not enough exposition; the whole picture amounts to a handful of action scenes connected by borderline unintelligible montages and flashbacks accompanied by pretentious voiceover narration. The flashbacks are supposed to shed light on Tien's childhood, but they don't really explore his character or explain a great deal. A little girl is introduced in a flashback who reappears as an adult, but her relevance isn't clear. Fuck it, nothing's clear. Ong Bak 2 was notorious for its troubled production: filming went over budget and over schedule, Jaa (who directed the film) went MIA from the set, and extra help had to be pulled in to try and salvage the picture. And after all that, apparently they didn't even manage to tell the whole story they wanted to tell. Oh boy, do these dilemmas show in the finished product.

Ong Bak 2 is an admittedly lavish-looking production - the replication of ancient Thailand is very impressive, with period-specific costumes and sets. But while it's better-looking than its grungy predecessor, this follow-up is a lot less fun due to it being so dour and convoluted. It has a fair share of action, sure, yet the picture lacks momentum, and consequently the gaps between the set-pieces are appallingly tedious. Another key flaw is that we don't see Tony Jaa until about 20 minutes into the movie. We watch Tony Jaa movies to see the crazy little bastard kick ass and pull off crazy physical feats, but the extended opening sans Jaa plus the additional flashbacks means that Jaa is absent for a good one third of the film. Another problem is that Jaa predominantly opted against using the no-nonsense Muay Thai fighting style which made him stand out in the first place. It's understandable that he tried to introduce variety, but the replacement martial art is not as exciting as Muay Thai. Furthermore, there's not enough reason to care about Tien. Couple this with the picture's frequent dullness, and there's not a great deal of excitement to be had during this sluggish disappointment.

A few of Tony Jaa's physical feats here do impress (the elephant stampede jumping sequence is stunning), but Ong Bak 2 remains a jumbled, incoherent mess weighed down by its stoic, pretentious sense of self-importance that exacerbates the bad dialogue and hackneyed plotting. Jaa is a strong physical performer, but he's no filmmaker. He seriously needs to take acting lessons, learn the proper ropes of directing, and take part in a movie which mixes frenetic action with nuanced characters and textured storytelling.

3.5/10

"His wealth is quite useless to him, really. He doesn't do any good with it or even make HIMSELF comfortable with it."

Hundreds of film adaptations of Charles Dickens's 1843 novella A Christmas Carol have been produced over the decades in both live-action and animation, with many distinguished actors taking on the role of pop culture icon Ebenezer Scrooge. Of these adaptations, most critics consider 1951's Scrooge (starring Alastair Sim) the best and most definitive retelling. However, in this reviewer's oh-so-humble opinion, director Clive Donner's 1984 made-for-television rendering of the classic holiday tale surpasses the 1951 version in almost every aspect. Benefitting from sharp screenwriting and top-notch performances right down the line, not to mention surprisingly strong filmmaking technique for an '80s TV movie, 1984's A Christmas Carol is a masterpiece of Christmastime cinema.

The embittered old Ebenezer Scrooge (George C. Scott) is one of the cruellest men in London, and Christmas is his least favourite time of year. With Christmastime upon him yet again, Scrooge could not care less; he's far more concerned with running his business and torturing assistant Bob Cratchit (David Warner). Scrooge's nephew Fred (Roger Rees) invites the curmudgeon to Christmas dinner, but Scrooge looks forward to spending the festive season alone instead. Upon his arrival home on the evening of Christmas Eve, Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his late business partner, Jacob Marley (Frank Finlay), who warns the old man that his miserly ways may lead to his soul being tormented for eternity. As the night wears on, Scrooge is visited by the Ghost of Christmas Past (Angela Pleasance), the Ghost of Christmas Present (Edward Woodward) and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come (Michael Carter), who take the bitter man on a grim time-travelling journey.

Roger O. Hirson's screenplay for this A Christmas Carol is a remarkable piece of work, remaining faithful to the source material while incorporating various effective alterations. In this day and age, Dickens' original dialogue is dry and vague, and it's sometimes difficult to grasp what the characters are saying. Hirson clearly took this into consideration, and altered the original dialogue accordingly to improve flow and comprehensibility, giving it his own distinctive, poetic spin. Couple this with the outstanding acting, and A Christmas Carol is reliably engaging despite its overly verbose disposition. Additionally, this retelling contains more of the novella's emotional nuances and backstory, bringing about a fleshed-out version that never feels excessively dragged out. Director Clive Donner takes his time during the visions of the past, present and future, giving us a chance to see Scrooge's life journeys and transformations, on top of feeling the warmth of Fred's family and the austere poverty of the Cratchit household. Another effective scene here (which I've not seen in any other adaptation) focuses on a poor family on the street, starving and homeless. They consider workhouses (an option Scrooge supports in the film's early scenes), but the ramifications would be tragic for the family. It's a heart-wrenching scene, and it's terrific food for thought for Scrooge.

A Christmas Carol was made for television, yet it mostly feels like a theatrical feature due to its lush recreation of London in the 1800s. On top of the authentic-looking sets and costumes, director Donner conducts extensive location filming rather than relying on obvious, stagy studio back-lots. The makers chose the English town of Shrewsbury to stand in for Victorian London, and its lived-in nature further contributes to the production's aura of authenticity. The special effects, too, are impressive by today's standards, most notably the effects that bring Jacob Marley's ghost to life. If there's a fault with A Christmas Carol, it's that its television origins are obvious from time to time, as there's not a great deal of cinematographic flair, and some scenes could have benefitted from additional visual flourishes. With that said, though, the horror aspects of the story were handled flawlessly. This is, after all, a ghost story. Thus, key scenes such as Marley's visit and Scrooge in the graveyard with the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come are truly dark and scary.

Alastair Sim's portrayal of Ebenezer Scrooge is widely regarded as the best, but George C. Scott gives Sim a run for his money. Scott does not seem to merely play Scrooge - he is Scrooge; he disappears into the character to bring the old miser to vivid life. In Scott's hands, Ebenezer Scrooge is a fully-realised three-dimensional human being, and at no point does his portrayal go overboard (whereas Sim's acting was at times too histrionic). One of the most notably brilliant things about the depiction of Scrooge here is that he continually resists repenting and keeps dismissing both the spirits and their visions. That is, until the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come forces him to view his own name on a laid tombstone. It's not the notion of his death that's upsetting - it's the fact that nobody cares or grieves his passing. At this point, Scrooge realises that his lifelong pursuit of wealth has been worthless. What's also masterful is how Scott conveys that Scrooge is terrified but is trying to hide it.

Fortunately, a magnificent supporting cast surrounds Scott. In fact, the acting from top to bottom is faultless. As Bob Cratchit, David Warner is never anything short of convincing. Warner does a terrific job of shaping the character of Cratchit, a poor man in a humiliating situation who struggles to keep his dignity intact. And when Bob breaks down over Tiny Tim's death, Warner's acting strikes an emotional chord. Frank Finlay, meanwhile, is genuinely frightening as Jacob Marley, skillfully displaying sadness and humanity throughout his critical scene. Finlay is, quite convincingly, the best cinematic incarnation of Jacob Marley to date. Also worth mentioning is a charismatic and believable Roger Rees as Fred, the story's narrator and Scrooge's nephew. The performances from all three spirits are strong, too. What's especially good about Pleasence and Woodward is that they openly mock and poke fun at Scrooge with a sarcastic tone. Rounding out the leading players is Anthony Walters, who's the most authentic and credible Tiny Tim that this reviewer has seen. Tim looked too healthy in the 1951 version, but Walters is both tiny and sickly-looking here.

If you're unfamiliar with the story of A Christmas Carol and have never seen a filmic adaptation of Dickens' novella, this 1984 version is the one to watch. It's cohesive, easy to follow, and at times, quite affecting. Sure, it's not as fun as something like The Muppet Christmas Carol, but it delivers its humanistic message in an earnest, effective, and at times utterly heart-warming way. This is a marvellous film.

8.9/10

"When a Cimmerian feels thirst, it is a thirst for blood. When he feels cold, it is the cold edge of steel. For the courage of a Cimmerian is tempered: he neither fears death... nor rushes foolishly to meet it. To be a Cimmerian warrior, you must have both cunning and balance as well as speed and strength."

It would be erroneous for you to approach 2011's Conan the Barbarian believing it to be a remake of the 1982 Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle of the same name. The 1982 picture was pure camp; a cheesy, not-to-be-taken-seriously fantasy romp with Arnie playing his usual screen persona rather than the character of Conan as originally envisioned. Disposing of campy '80s instincts, director Marcus Nispel and writers Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer and Sean Hood went back to the source for this 2011 flick to produce something closer to Robert E. Howard's original Conan stories. Lavish, violent and vicious, this Conan the Barbarian is the movie that Howard's followers have been waiting for.

Born in the middle of a battle and raised by his Cimmerian warrior father Corin (Perlman), Conan (Momoa) grows up to be the fiercest, most skilled fighter in his tribe. During Conan's childhood, an evil overlord known as Khalar Zym (Lang) and his sorceress daughter (McGowan) raid Conan's village seeking the final piece of an enchanted headdress. In the process, Zym kills Conan's father and destroys everything the boy knows and loves. Years later, Conan still looks to exact revenge on Zym, and traverses the lands developing his skills as a barbarian. During his travels, he winds up defending a young female monk of pure blood named Tamara (Nichols), who's being pursued by Zym.

With its standard-issue revenge plotline and no twists or surprises, there's nothing much in Conan the Barbarian that you haven't seen before. In fairness, though, Howard's first Conan stories were released in 1932, so it would be virtually impossible to be original when dealing with such ancient source material. Plus, the character of Conan has never been associated with complex stories; he's known as a barbarian, after all, and thus he spends his time slaughtering people. To the credit of the writers, 2011's Conan the Barbarian does a great job of for the most part keeping Conan Conan. Admittedly, however, some of the dialogue is pretty terrible and at least a bit of innovation would have been nice.

At the helm of Conan the Barbarian was Marcus Nispel, who directed the unforgivably bad 2007 Viking film Pathfinder. Nispel's presence behind the camera here did not inspire a great deal of confidence, but it seems that the director is improving in the art of creating cinematic junk food. Conan the Barbarian has tonnes of action, most of which was handled well by Nispel. There's a lot of gloriously violent carnage to behold, on top of epic battles involving sand creatures and sea serpents. The picture was produced on a bold budget of around $90 million, and therefore it's aesthetically pleasing - solid CGI permeates the film, bringing this swords-and-sorcery world to vivid life with extravagant results. On the other hand, though, Nispel still has a bit to learn. A number of action beats are marred by shaky-cam, close-ups and rapid-fire editing, while pacing issues do arise from time to time. Most critically, the tone is uneven - some battles are delightfully violent and satisfying, but other instances of violence feel sadistic and uncomfortable.

At least in this reviewer's mind, a lot of scepticism surrounded the choice of Jason Momoa as the titular badass. However, against all odds, Momoa is an excellent Conan; intense, convincing and always in-the-moment. He matches the role physically, and he has that gleam in his eye whenever the character is in his barbaric element. While his screen presence is not quite as strong as Schwarzenegger's, Momoa is a better actor than the Austrian Oak ever was. Leo Howard also deserves a mention for playing baby Conan; he inhabits a good 20 minutes of screen-time, and makes a good impression. Meanwhile, Avatar's Stephen Lang is effectively sinister and scene-stealing as Khalar Zym. Indeed, Lang demonstrates here yet again that he's a reliably badass antagonist. Alongside Lang is Rose McGowan, who's at her scenery-chewing best playing Zym's sorceress daughter. Rounding out the cast is a strong Ron Perlman as Conan's father, and Rachel Nichols who's rather forgettable as the token love interest. Morgan Freeman is also on-hand as the narrator; a job he fulfilled magnificently.

Those who've based their affection for Conan on Arnie's linguistically-challenged version probably shouldn't bother with 2011's Conan the Barbarian. And those without a taste for action who enjoy something subtler should not go anywhere near this production. However, if you're seeking an enjoyable action romp, this picture will serve your needs nicely in spite of its flaws. It has been criticised for being overly violent, but hey - it has the word "barbarian" in its fucking title, so tasteless barbarianism comes with the territory and toning this shit down would be stupid. Considering its strengths, it's a true shame that this Conan the Barbarian failed at the box office; it could've been the start of a new big-budget Conan franchise. Instead, what we have is just a strong origins tale that's unlikely to lead anywhere.

Note: This reviewer did not view the film in 3-D, but by all accounts the extra-dimensional effects are utter bollocks.

6.5/10

"The president has initiated Ghost Protocol. The entire IMF has been disavowed..."

The Mission: Impossible film franchise may be fifteen years old now, and 2011's Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol may be the fourth instalment in this series, but no trace of exhaustion or lethargy is showing through just yet. What began as a merely good action brand has now become something genuinely special, with 2006's wildly underrated Mission: Impossible III and now Ghost Protocol bringing the franchise to an all-time high. Well-written and stunningly well-made, this fourth Mission: Impossible is a sleek and enjoyable treat. It also denotes the live-action debut for animation specialist Brad Bird (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles), who easily puts veterans like Michael Bay to shame in his construction of some of the most breathtaking, armrest-clenching, thrilling action sequences of the year.

After being broken out of a Moscow prison, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is united with fellow IMF agents June Carter (Paula Patton) and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), and offered his newest assignment to retrieve valuable information from within the Kremlin. The mission is abruptly cut short, though, when the site is bombed, leaving the relationship between Russia and America in absolute tatters. With the IMF shouldering the blame for the bombing, a contingency plan known as the "Ghost Protocol" is put into effect, disavowing the IMF. In the event of Hunt or his fellow agents being captured, they would be branded as terrorists and prosecuted accordingly. To clear their names and hopefully prevent World War III, Hunt and his team - who are soon joined by analyst William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) - begin to pursue extremist Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), who's working to obtain Russian nuclear launch codes.

Minus the more logical title of Mission: Impossible IV, and with only two returning actors, rumours surfaced that Ghost Protocol was going to be a series reboot of sorts. Luckily, writers Josh Appelbaum and André Nemec do not take such unnecessary measures. While the first two M:I instalments are never explicitly referenced, one critical subplot is intrinsically tied to Mission: Impossible III and a couple of surprise cameos reinforce series continuity.

Like its immediate predecessor, Ghost Protocol moves at the speed of a bullet. The picture clocks in at a massive 130 minutes, yet the pacing is extraordinarily quick. The film is adrenalized from the very outset - the pitch-perfect opening involves an exciting shootout followed by a brilliant prison riot-come-escape (accompanied by Dean Martin's song "Ain't That a Kick in the Head") and an exhilarating title sequence set to the classic series theme. From there, it moves fast and never lags. However, the protagonists should have been better developed, and it's a shame that we don't get to know them better (Benji, in particular, could use more development). Mission: Impossible III was afforded a human touch by focusing on Ethan's personal life and relationship with Julia, but such nuances are lacking here. On the other hand, there are enough small character moments and clever humour beats to allow us to at least like the people being caught up in the hail of bullets and bombs.

The Mission: Impossible films have undergone a change in director with each new outing, leading to a welcome shift in aesthetic approaches. In theory, Brad Bird was an odd choice to helm this new adventure, but he easily surpasses his predecessors in terms of technique and excitement. Bird clearly strived to achieve most of the action practically with stunt work, and such an approach is a huge benefit. It's easier to become immersed in Ghost Protocol's action when it genuinely looks like Ethan is perilously scaling the world's tallest buildings with flawed gizmos. Indeed, the much-publicised Burj Khalifa climbing sequence is perhaps the most heart-stopping action set-piece of 2011. (It was filmed with IMAX cameras, too, and the results are phenomenal.) Bird and cinematographer Robert Elswit also predominantly eschew an irritating shaky-cam approach in favour of something smoother, steadier and crisper. Coupled with the precise editing and Michael Giacchino's intense score, the action is coherent, fluid, exhilarating and nail-biting. It's unlikely that these characters will ever find themselves in fatalistic danger, but Bird constantly teases such possibilities to keep us on the edge of our seats as he keeps upping the stakes (Ethan's showdown with Hendricks is a humdinger).

Admittedly, though, some of the action sequences are a bit too over-the-top, and a few scenes are hindered by rocky digital effects (the missile launch looks rather phoney). Not to mention, Ethan should have broken several bones (and his fucking skull) during his adventures here, making a suspension of disbelief a requirement to fully enjoy the action. Such Hollywood touches somewhat weaken the intensity, yet this is only a minor complaint since the flick's fun factor is consistently off the charts.

Tom Cruise may be getting old (he was forty-nine during filming), but the star is in great shape and looks to be aging gracefully. On top of this, Cruise still throws himself into every scene, every line and every action, believably delivering dialogue and performing various daredevil stunts without a double. Hate Cruise for his tabloid-fodder personal life, if you will, but you cannot deny that this guy is a terrific movie star. Fortunately, Cruise is surrounded by a stellar supporting cast here. The role of Brandt was apparently shoehorned into the script to give Ethan an equal since the studio was weary of Cruise's profitability after Knight & Day flopped, yet Brandt feels like an organic part of the narrative with a pivotal role in the mission. It helps that Jeremy Renner is so good here, too, oozing charisma and assuredly handling the action elements. Meanwhile, Simon Pegg shows up here to reprise his role from the third film. Pegg is essentially the comic relief, and he handled such duties skilfully. Unfortunately, however, Ghost Protocol is without a proper villain. Mission: Impossible III boasted a magnificently monstrous Philip Seymour Hoffman, but Ghost Protocol is less successful in this respect.

As opposed to most blockbusters, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol's action sequences do not feel forced; they unfold organically within the fabric of the narrative. Additionally, this is a PG-13 action movie, yet it never feels like Bird is pulling any punches. When people are shot, wounds are visible, and there is blood. As a result, Ghost Protocol doesn't feel unrealistically sanitised. Indeed, it's surprising how solid this movie is. It's not Oscar bait (though it deserves recognition in various technical categories), but it is an exceptionally-crafted, balls-to-the-wall popcorn actioner that's far better than anything Michael Bay has done in the last 5 years. Alongside Fast Five, Ghost Protocol is one of the big-budget studio-produced highlights of 2011.

7.8/10

"Everyone will be home for Christmas."

In terms of exploiting the Christmas season for box office profits, 2006 has to be one of the most whorey years in recent memory. In 2006 alone, Tinseltown begat Deck the Halls, Unaccompanied Minors, The Santa Clause 3, The Holiday and The Nativity Story, followed on Christmas Day by Black Christmas; a remake of the iconic 1975 slasher of the same name. It's fair to say that expectations were rather high for this remake, as it was written and directed by the guy who scripted Final Destination, and executive produced by Bob Clark (who directed the 1975 original). Alas, 2006's Black Christmas is a disaster in almost every conceivable way. Boring and incompetent, the film provides no thrills or chills, and is not imbued with any sort of tension or suspense. Instead, it's a cesspool of repulsive, uncomfortable sadism.

Rather than going home for the Christmas holidays, a group of personality-free college girls choose to remain in their sorority home with housemother Mrs. Mac (Martin, who starred in the original Black Christmas). The girls have trouble getting into the Christmas spirit, though, as they bicker and deal with personal troubles, and so on. The boring evening is soon interrupted, though, when the house's former tenant - the murderous Billy - escapes an insane asylum and returns to his childhood home where he savagely murdered his family several years prior.

Bob Clark's original Black Christmas was not exactly rocket science from a narrative perspective; its brilliance came from its technical competence, sense of patience and restraint, and shocking ending. Of course, today's movie-goers are less cultured, hence writer-director Glen Morgan's re-imagining of Black Christmas has been specifically designed to give viewers more bang for their buck. There's tonnes of senseless bloodletting here as eyes as gauged, ornaments and candy canes are used as stabbing objects, and icicles pierce the skin like butter. There are several problems with this approach. First of all, the editing is frantic, rendering most of the kills indecipherable. Secondly, the kills aren't frightening or intense; they're just uncomfortably graphic and in-your-face. And most importantly, the violent set-pieces aren't fun; they're just unpleasant. This exercise in Yuletide chills therefore quickly dissolves into an excruciating torture porn endurance test (think Hostel). There are a few good ideas here (the killer rings the girls using the cell phone of his last victim), but they're wasted in Morgan's drab filmmaking hands.

One of the biggest blunders of Black Christmas is that it gives the murderer - Billy - a huge back-story bursting with silliness and convention. Billy was a mysterious psychopath in the original, but here he's an abused child with yellow skin and cruel parents. Such a trite history erases any sense of menace, and it forbids an opportunity for the film to be a whodunit slasher. Gone, too, is Billy's range of male, female and child voices which suggested schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder... What we have here instead is just a standard-issue sicko. And because there's so much focus on Billy, none of the sorority girls are given the chance to develop personalities. Thus, the girls are barely distinguishable from one another, and additional characters keep getting added to the mix for further bewilderment. We don't grow to identify with the sorority sisters, and you do not care who lives or dies. Not to mention, we know that whoever goes off on their own will be the next victim. The editing is a mess as well - flashbacks to Billy's past are inserted at random times, murdering the film's flow and at times coming across as downright confusing.

The actors are all completely forgettable, playing one-note "bitchy sorority girl" roles without so much as a modicum of personality. The girls here are all television actresses, too - there's Michelle Trachtenberg (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Kristen Cloke (Millennium), Katie Cassidy (7th Heaven), Lacey Chabert (Party of Five) and even Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Wolf Lake). Due to Winstead's subsequent Hollywood stardom (she went on to feature in the likes of Live Free or Die Hard and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), she's easily the most recognisable face here, but she's far too good for the half-written stick figure she plays. The only other cast member worth mentioning is Andrea Martin, who was in the original Black Christmas and who features here as housemother Mrs. Mac. Saddled with a poorly-written caricature of a character, Martin is completely wasted, and she makes no impression.

Although Glen Morgan is credited as the film's writer and director, it may be unfair to lay too much of the blame on his shoulders for this mess. Apparently the distributors demanded re-shoots and re-editing in order to turn the final cut into the tensionless gore reel that it is, disposing of nuance, suspense and character development for splatter effects. The resulting picture is unforgivable. Remakes can work if they respectfully update a decades-old movie for a new generation, but Black Christmas doesn't do this; instead, it's a run-of-the-mill rehash of generic slasher conventions featuring a bunch of forgettable pretty faces ready to be slaughtered.

1.8/10

"Filthy Billy, I know what you did nasty Billy!"

If you thought A Christmas Story was the only Christmas classic on director Bob Clark's résumé, think again. Almost a decade before delivering the saga of young Ralphie and his want for a BB gun, Clark directed 1974's Black Christmas; a Yuletide-themed horror flick which became one of the most influential slashers of the 1970s. Looking back on it in the 21st Century, Black Christmas seems to be irreparably crippled by countless genre clichés, but such a criticism is erroneous since this was in fact the film which mainstreamed a lot of what's now considered to be a cliché. It came before John Carpenter's Halloween, and thus popularised such conventions as: an isolated setting, a group of college-aged victims, a murderer methodically killing people off, and so on.

As Christmastime approaches, a group of sorority sisters decide to spend their holidays on campus. Soon, their sorority house becomes terrorised by a series of increasingly perverse, violent and obscene phone calls. As a psychologically disturbed stalker takes up residence in the house's attic, the sisters begin to go missing under mysterious circumstances. The police are reluctant to treat the disappearances as genuine missing persons cases, but then a young girl is found dead in a public park, sparking the cops into action.

Looking for a Yuletide movie to get you in the Christmas spirit? Stick with Miracle on 34th Street or It's a Wonderful Life. Bob Clark's horror opus is hardly even concerned with Christmas - it's a disturbing, frightening slasher through-and-through. On top of desecrating Christmas cheer, Black Christmas also defies religious conventions with its filthy language, dark humour, violence and the way it explores its teenage characters' intemperance, sexuality and even disobedience (the subject of abortion is dealt with). A lot of the film's dedicated fans claim that Black Christmas is better than John Carpenter's Halloween, but Clark's picture not as skilful from a script perspective - the midsection drags a bit, some of the characters are flat, and the dialogue is fairly unremarkable. In the long run such aspects don't really matter though, as Black Christmas succeeds when it comes to the slasher elements.

Working from Roy Moore's screenplay, Clark's directorial efforts are masterful. The director chose to rely on mystery and an intense atmosphere to sell the terror, rather than a more obvious approach of outright gore and nudity. In fact, Black Christmas is surprisingly restrained in terms of violence - the kill scenes do not often flaunt a great deal of blood and gore. Such restraint actually works, as it amplifies the horror. The movie is also notable for its many intense shots from the point of view of the unseen killer. Furthermore, Clark and cinematographer Reg Morris clearly had a firm grasp of the power of low-angle shots, and they understood the benefit of precise framing and lighting to generate a nail-biting, claustrophobic atmosphere. As a result, the quaint little sorority home becomes a true house of horrors, leading to several disturbingly memorable scenes and shots that will linger in your mind long after the end credits have expired. Black Christmas contains dark comedy elements, too. The humour is somewhat hit and miss, but there are a few good laughs to be had from time to time.

For what is essentially a B movie, the acting is unusually strong across the board. Leading the cast is Olivia Hussey as Jess. Unlike her contemporaries, Hussey can actually act and convey a sense of fear, not to mention she truly looks like the young college girl she's playing. Also strong is a pre-Superman Margot Kidder, who obviously had one hell of a time playing the outspoken, sharp-tongued Barb. Kidder was saddled with a majority of the script's one-liners and snappy banter, and she handled them wonderfully, spouting her lines with irresistible gusto.

Black Christmas is not exactly a masterpiece of the horror genre, but it does what it needed to do extremely well, and (for better or for worse) it helped give birth to the modern slasher genre as we know it. Slasher enthusiasts should definitely check this one out as it's a real artefact, though those outside of the target audience probably won't find much to their liking here.

7.1/10

"You're on Santa's naughty list!"

Every single franchise, it seems, must have a Christmas special at some point. The likes of Shrek, Star Wars, Charlie Brown, Mystery Science Theater 3000, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and even Red vs. Blue have all succumbed to Christmas episodes, upholding the unwritten law for franchises to propagate Yuletide cheer. 2011's Ice Age: A Mammoth Christmas is the latest continuation of this tradition, following on from its franchise's three theatrical predecessors and serving as a reminder that a new feature-length Ice Age movie is due in Summer 2012. The stench of commercialism plagues the notion of this Christmas special, but A Mammoth Christmas is surprisingly enjoyable for what it is. It conjures up an inventive, fresh Christmas origin story, and the intriguing narrative is complemented by strong visuals, humorous dialogue and situations, and lots of holiday fun. The kids in particular will love it.

As Christmas approaches for the Ice Age characters, Manny (Romano) brings out an heirloom for the celebrations: a generations-old Christmas rock. Unfortunately, Sid (Leguizamo) promptly shows up and crashes the party, accidentally destroying Manny's rock amidst his usual daft antics. In a fit of frustration, Manny tells Sid that he's on Santa's Naughty List, leaving the gullible sloth in tears. To get himself off the naughty list, Sid sets out with Crash (Scott), Eddie (Peck) and Manny's daughter Peaches (Bravo) to find the North Pole and pay Santa a visit. Meanwhile, Manny, Ellie (Latifah) and Diego (Leary) frantically chase after them. Suffice it to say, things get worse before they get better.

One especially niggling thing sticks out about A Mammoth Christmas from the very outset: the Ice Age movies are set between ten thousand and three million years ago, yet the gang celebrate Christmas as we know it despite predating the season's namesake by potentially millions of years. Dialogue even references both Miami and airplane vomit bags. But then again, Ice Age has never interested in historical accuracy - these movies are prehistoric family-friendly fantasies, not documentaries. Kids won't think too much into the implications behind this special, but adults may raise a few eyebrows. Additionally, A Mammoth Christmas is not a carefully-designed Christmas special rife with messages. Instead, the special is interested solely in shallow pleasures, and, fortunately, that's where it succeeds. For what is essentially a cash-in, the script is surprisingly witty. Funny dialogue abounds, jokes are fired at a rapid rate and character dynamics are as strong as ever, making this funnier and more enjoyable than at least the last feature-length Ice Age instalment. Scrat is up to his usual tricks here as well, showing up occasionally to engage in more of the slapstick antics we've come to expect from the sabre-toothed squirrel.

The Christmas television specials of yesteryear featured solid but nevertheless primitive animation. A Mammoth Christmas is comparatively perfect, with state-of-the-art animation yielding a gorgeous visual treat. Additionally, all of the Ice Age regulars loaned their voices to this special. By now, the ensemble of actors seem completely comfortable in the prehistoric skin of their respective roles. Thus, we have John Leguizamo who slipped back into the role of Sid as if no time had passed, Ray Romano leaning on his typical shtick, Denis Leary assuredly delivering one-liners, and the pair of Seann William Scott & Josh Peck playing well off one another as the antagonising twin possums Crash & Eddie. In terms of the newcomers, an enthusiastic T.J. Miller is both amusing and enjoyable as Prancer.

With its short running time of about 21 minutes excluding credits, A Mammoth Christmas is lean and nimble. This is both a blessing and a curse - on the one hand the storyline is furiously-paced and never lags, but on the other hand a few developments and plot points feel rushed. Despite this, Ice Age: A Mammoth Christmas is destined to fulfil its goal of entertaining young children. Is it strong enough to find its way into the pantheon of great Christmas specials? Maybe. It's definitely enjoyable, and it's nice to have a contemporary alternative to the overplayed specials of yore. Plus, it's destined to please kiddies who enjoy the Ice Age series, making A Mammoth Christmas a good choice for entertainment on Christmas when there's not enough time for a full-length feature.

7.0/10

"Every idiot who goes about with 'Merry Christmas' on his lips should be boiled with his own pudding and buried with a stake of holly through his heart."

Since its publication in 1843, Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol has been adapted across various mediums (including stage, opera, radio, television and film) to varying degrees of success and quality. One of the best versions to date is this 1971 animated television special, and unfortunately, it is also one of the most forgotten and underrated retellings of Dickens's classic novella. Helmed by Richard Williams (The Thief and the Cobbler) and produced by animation legend Chuck Jones (Looney Tunes, 1966's How the Grinch Stole Christmas!), 1971's A Christmas Carol was initially created as a television special but received a theatrical release due to the high animation quality, and it subsequently earned an Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film. As of 2024, it is the only cinematic rendering of Dickens's supernatural Christmas tale to win an Oscar, and it is highly deserving of this prestigious honour.

A Christmas Carol's story is well-known; therefore, a brief plot synopsis will suffice. Set in 19th-century London, the story concerns a bitter old miser more concerned with his own affluence than human compassion, Ebenezer Scrooge (Alastair Sim). On Christmas Eve, he receives a visit from his deceased former business partner, Jacob Marley (Michael Hordern), who warns Scrooge about the error of his ways and the need to atone for his wrongdoings. Although Scrooge tries to dismiss Marley's ghostly visit as a figment of his imagination, three more spirits visit him during the night: the Ghost of Christmas Past (Diana Quick), the Ghost of Christmas Present (Felix Felton), and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, all of whom offer grim visions and a chance at redemption.

Unlike the numerous feature-length retellings, this A Christmas Carol clocks in at a scant 25 minutes. Fortunately, its brevity is incredibly beneficial, as director Williams does not waste a single frame. The adaptation hews closely to Dickens' original vision (in fact, the film does not credit a screenwriter - only Dickens), briskly moving through the well-worn plot without ever growing dreary or monotonous. Furthermore, this concise short still packs a huge emotional punch and efficiently delivers all the thought-provoking messages audiences associate with this timeless morality tale. Admittedly, a few moments feel slightly rushed (perhaps an extra five minutes could have catapulted the film to perfection), but this was probably the best adaptation possible within a 25-minute timeframe.

For the engaging visual style, the animation team drew inspiration from the original 19th-century illustrations by John Leech and later drawings by Milo Winter for 1930s editions of the book. A Christmas Carol may look dated compared to contemporary animated features, but it remains impressive nevertheless, with innovative pans, zooms and scene transitions giving the director's vision a distinctive look. The skilled artists also use lighting to superb effect, capturing the elegiac austerity of London in the mid-1800s. Williams wanted his retelling of A Christmas Carol to be dark and gloomy, doing justice to the story's bleak supernatural elements. Consequently, Williams plays up the horror aspects, and this version is genuinely scary at times with its unsettling ghost designs and use of darkness. As a result, a title card prefaces the film to warn viewers that this is "A Ghost Story of Christmas." Reportedly, the film fell into obscurity because television stations deemed it "too scary for children," making them reluctant to purchase the broadcast rights.

Narrated with gripping passion by legendary British actor Sir Michael Redgrave, 1971's A Christmas Carol is notable for bringing back Alastair Sim and Michael Hordern, who starred in the acclaimed 1951 iteration of A Christmas Carol (a.k.a. Scrooge). As a result of his highly acclaimed performance as Scrooge in the 1951 picture, critics and viewers frequently regard the late Sim as the best big-screen Scrooge. Fortunately, Sim's work here is equally excellent, reprising the role with relish. With twenty years separating his two performances, Sim sounds older and more gravelly, giving the role more gravitas. The supporting actors also turn in wonderful performances, with Hordern giving Jacob Marley an unsettling edge to complement the spooky, ghostly visuals, while Diana Quick and Felix Felton are hugely engaging as their respective ghosts.

Over fifty years since its release, this incarnation of Charles Dickens's A Christmas Carol remains one of the best and most visually distinctive to date. It is fast-paced and visually stunning, and it does a remarkable job of conveying the grim nature of Scrooge's journey and the uplifting disposition of his redemptive epiphany. Unfortunately, not many viewers are aware of this iteration despite its Academy Award win, making it ripe for rediscovery.

8.2/10

"Every idiot who goes about with 'Merry Christmas' on his lips, should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart."

For over a century, the general public has been inundated with countless film, television and stage adaptations of Charles Dickens' 19th Century novella A Christmas Carol. Amidst this uncountable glut of retellings, director Brian Desmond Hurst's 1951 film Scrooge (renamed A Christmas Carol for its American release) is typically considered one of the best - if not the best - screen rendering of the timeless tale. Although it's not perfect, this visualisation of Dickens' story is a strong effort, with screenwriter Noel Langley (Wizard of Oz) adhering closely to the source material's narrative trajectory while at the same time adding his own effective spin on the story. Indeed, Scrooge is now considered one of the most quintessential festive movies in history, right alongside such classics as It's a Wonderful Life and Miracle on 34th Street.

For those of you living under a rock, A Christmas Carol is a simple morality tale. Ebenezer Scrooge (Sim) is a man of little compassion who regards the festive season as a costly burden. Due to his vile attitude, he is one of the least liked citizens in his community. On the night of Christmas Eve, Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his deceased former business partner Jacob Marley (Hordern), who warns Scrooge about what's in store for him. As the night unfolds, Scrooge is visited by more spirits who take him on a journey of his tragic past, the bleak present and his depressing potential future, showing the bitter old curmudgeon that the path he has chosen may lead to an eternity of torment.

Noel Langley's screenplay mines a lot of material from Dickens' original novella, including large portions of dialogue and various story beats. At the same time, though, Langley made considerable revisions to the source material which gives Scrooge its own life. A rote page-to-screen adaptation rarely works, so Langley either erased or streamlined certain scenes, and introduced his own slant on Scrooge's back-story. For instance, he conceived of an emotionally raw scene in which Scrooge mourns the death of his sister. Furthermore, dialogue was altered for better effect, making the dry 19th Century talk more involving and concise. It all comes together remarkably, allowing Scrooge to stand as both a great standalone film and a well-judged adaptation of classic source material.

Looking back on the film in the 21st Century, Scrooge is not an extravagant production, but it does encapsulate the flavour and ambience of London in the 1800s. And unlike most motion pictures of the same vintage, the special effects have held up rather well, with simple but effective optical effects bringing life to the ghosts. However, Scrooge is not perfect, mostly because it's pretty lax from time to time. The ghosts are not overly frightening, which is especially troublesome when the ghost of Jacob Marley appears to Ebenezer. Marley's appearance should have been a scary, intense scene which conveys the pain and suffering that Scrooge's soul may one day endure. Instead, it's not sinister at all; in fact Michael Hordern's performance is almost comical at times. Moreover, while Alastair Sim is a terrific Ebenezer Scrooge for the most part, his emoting is at times too histrionic, and he seems to begin repenting a bit too soon. Consequently, it doesn't feel like Scrooge went through many genuinely trying things throughout his time-travelling adventure. These flaws probably could have been rectified with stronger direction. Don't get me wrong, though - despite this, director Brian Desmond Hurst's handling of the material is fairly competent, yielding a number of strong scenes and some effective staging.

Over the decades, countless actors have played the inimitable Ebenezer Scrooge, including George C. Scott (1984's A Christmas Carol), Michael Caine (The Muppet Christmas Carol), Bill Murray (Scrooged), Albert Finney (1970's Scrooge), Jim Carrey (2009's A Christmas Carol) and even Scrooge McDuck. It's quite something, then, that Alastair Sim is widely considered to be the best and most definitive Scrooge. Since the direction is such a mixed bag, Sim is the one who carries the film for the most part, and he's easily the best thing in this adaptation. Sim nailed all of the demeanours the role demanded - he emanates the right amount of humbug-ness in early scenes, and at the climax his maniacal zest for life is spot-on. Furthermore, Sim conveys genuine anguish when confronted with humiliating scenes from his past, begging for the visions to cease as he suffers honest-to-goodness emotional distress. Because of Sim's efforts, Scrooge comes across as a three-dimensional human being even at his nastiest. Due to the acclaim that Sim received for his performance here, he eventually went on to play Scrooge again in a 1971 animated TV special that won an Oscar.

Despite its shortcomings and dated nature, there's no denying that Scrooge is a Yuletide classic; a picture which both demands annual viewings and stands up to them. It's not the definitive version of A Christmas Carol, nor is it the best, but that's because it's difficult to call something "definitive" or "the best" when there are far too many screen reiterations of the story to count (there are certainly many more than this reviewer will ever have the time to check out). Let's put it like this: If you prefer Christmas films with heart - a quality lacking in most modern festive movies - then Scrooge is definitely one to check out.

7.9/10