Reviews by PvtCaboose91

No-one asked for it, but after 2001's The Fast and the Furious racked up an impressive sum at the box office, Universal ordered a sequel to their awful cash-cow. Jettisoning director Rob Cohen and actor Vin Diesel (thank God), 2 Fast 2 Furious is precisely what you'd expect: a brainless actioner with street racing and crime scenes reminiscent of Miami Vice. On account of terrible scripting and wooden acting, by no stretch is this a good movie, but at least it's efficient enough at fulfilling its promise of fast cars and action aplenty. With a better director in John Singleton (Boyz n the Hood), the picture actually delivers the goods with stylish flair. Against all odds, the filmmakers behind 2 Fast 2 Furious have managed to create a moderately serviceable time-waster out of an unnecessary sequel, though it's still heavily flawed.

Kicked off the LAPD for his moronic behaviour in the original film, Brian O'Conner (Walker) has relocated to Miami where he earns his keep winning illegal street races. After being arrested following one such successful race, the authorities offer Brian a proverbial "we'll wipe your criminal record clean if you do a job for us" deal. Brian's target is crime boss Carter Verone (Hauser), whose crew has already been infiltrated by a U.S. Customs agent (Mendes). To act as a second driver, Brian recruits old friend Roman Pearce (Gibson), who had gone to prison several years beforehand thanks to Brian's undercover work.

2 Fast 2 Furious was written by Michael Brandt and Derek Haas, neither of whom had a hand in writing 2001's The Fast and the Furious. While it was a promising move to discard the talentless hacks responsible for the first film, 2 Fast 2 Furious' screenplay is unintentionally laughable in both its ridiculousness and its dialogue. Clichés abound, and the film has a tendency to be mind-numbingly stupid (see the finale, wherein Brian manages to perfectly land a car on top of a moving boat and escape without serious injury). The dialogue, meanwhile, alternates between bland and flat-out awful, not to mention the picture contains enough uses of "bro" and its derivatives ("bruh", "breh") to surely set a new cinema record. With drab, one-dimensional characters, there's no heart or soul to this picture, nor is there any way to justify its existence beyond the business aspect. The awful soundtrack of hip-hop and generic action music doesn't help matters.

However, the action scenes - i.e. the film's bread and butter, and the only reason outside of greed for the feature to exist - are admittedly impressive thanks to slick production values and competent direction. They are indeed entertaining and well-crafted, and almost make the trite dialogue scenes worth enduring... Almost, but not quite. The problem is that the film is just too "sanitised" - an R rating rather than a studio-friendly PG-13 rating would've helped 2 Fast 2 Furious tremendously. After all, it feels iffy for African American characters to talk in such a stereotypical fashion, but not use the f-word liberally. (Humorous dialogue is especially neutered in this sense). Also, B movies just sit better with unrestrained violence; PG-13 injuries and gunshot wounds feel too unrealistically compromised, thus weakening the sense of fun.

With Vin Diesel having stepped away from the franchise for part deux, it's a mighty shame that Paul Walker wasn't ejected as well. An exceedingly wooden performer, Walker shows no degree of acting talent in his performance here; instead, he merely regurgitates dialogue in an awkward fashion as if he's forgotten his next line. However, as Roman, musician-turned-actor Tyrese Gibson is surprisingly decent. Gibson has charisma, and it looks as if he had fun in the role even though it's obvious his character was written into the script to replace Dominic Toretto after Vin Diesel refused to return. Since this is a PG-13 action movie, Cole Hauser did not have the freedom to be a genuinely sinister villain, which renders his performance unremarkable. Meanwhile, as the token hot females, Eva Mendes is attractive but forgettable and generic, and Devon Aoki is completely interchangeable. The only other cast member worth mentioning is James Remar, who's strong and authoritative as one of the police officers overseeing Brian and Roman's assignment.

You're an idiot if you expect fully-rounded characters and smart writing from 2 Fast 2 Furious. It's an action movie for the masses which delivers superficialities and action scenes within a sleek packaging, and nothing but vacuous dead air surrounds the sporadic thrills. Nevertheless, at least there are thrills here and there, which is more than what can be said for its unredeemably bad predecessor. So, no, 2 Fast 2 Furious is not exactly awful since it's pretty entertaining, but there are plenty of superior action movies out there, rendering this middling effort entirely disposable. But if you loved the original movie, you'll probably love this one too. Sequel: The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift.

5.2/10

After his work in the audacious sleeper I Love You Phillip Morris, 2011's Mr. Popper's Penguins finds legendary funny man Jim Carrey back in pure paycheque territory. Instead of a worthwhile vehicle for Carrey's dramatic and/or comedic chops, Mr. Popper's Penguins has Carrey playing second fiddle to CGI penguins and working from a completely formulaic script based on the 1938 children's book of the same name. Admittedly, though, while this is definitely a commercial adaptation of a beloved classic, it's not exactly an abomination. By no stretch is this a good movie, but it's not awful to an insulting extent either. On the contrary, it looks like director Mark Waters (Mean Girls) actually tried to do something worthy with the trite screenplay, resulting in a fluffy, nimbly-paced movie that kids may enjoy. Still, it holds limited appeal for anyone above the age of, say, 10.

Thriving Manhattan business Tom Popper (Carrey) is facing a massive promotion. The last thing separating Popper from a more prestigious position is the defiant owner of a restaurant (Lansbury), who refuses to sell to Popper's employers. While preparing to go in for the kill, he receives the gift of six penguins which were willed to him by his late father who always regretted not spending enough time with his family. Popper looks to get rid of the birds as quickly as possible, but his estranged children unexpectedly grow attached to them. Sensing that his troubled relationship with his kids and ex-wife may be mended through the penguins, Popper decides to keep them, and struggles to learn how to care for the flightless guests. Meanwhile, a New York Zoo official (Gregg) is keen to take possession of the birds, thus threatening the future of Popper's budding domestic equilibrium.

Unfortunately, the penguins' presence was not utilised for any substantive purpose - rather, writers Sean Anders, John Morris and Jared Stern treated the birds as an opportunity to create a typical, paint-by-numbers family film that's predictable from start to finish and coated in a thick, sickening layer of family-friendly saccharine. It faithfully adheres to the well-worn formula to the letter - workaholic divorcee Popper has trouble bonding with his estranged kids and ex-wife, then the penguins renew their relationship, and before the films ends Popper learns lessons about the importance of family (and the evils of being career-minded) through some type of conflict. It's possible to safely predict what the conflict will be, when it will happen, and how it will be resolved. Additionally, the portrayal of the zoo official is ill-conceived - he's not a wise advice-giver but rather a moustache-twirling villain called upon to trigger cheap conflict. The zoo official spouts pure truths throughout the movie in relation to the treatment of the penguins, yet we're led to believe that the birds can live in a high-rise NYC apartment out of their natural habit as long as they have love. Mr. Popper's Penguins is nothing but conventional family fluff; unrealistic, shallow and rudimentary.

Mr. Popper's Penguins is constantly on the prowl for easy laughs, resulting in plenty of fart and defecation gags scattered throughout (one of the penguins is even named "Stinky" due to constant flatulence), on top of a scene of testicular trauma. Expectedly, all of this cheap, well-worn comedy is subpar. The film only scores laughs whenever Jim Carrey was evidently given the leeway to cut loose and improvise. On account of these moments of improvised Carrey hilarity, Mr. Popper's Penguins does get at least a tentative recommendation. Not to mention, director Mark Waters afforded an attractive visual zest to the project, and there are a number of moments of inspired filmmaking to save the film from tedium. For instance there's a lovely moment when it's revealed that the penguins love watching Charlie Chaplin movies. Additionally, the digital effects giving life to the titular birds are impressive - not perfect, but good enough to that you won't constantly think about their computer-generated nature.

In portraying Tom Popper, Jim Carrey more or less just revived the role he played many years ago in Liar, Liar. While Carrey is clearly aging and some sections of the movie suggest that he was on autopilot, it looks as if the performer had a fairly fun time here, and his sporadic enthusiasm helps to sell jokes here and there. Playing Popper's ex-wife, Carla Gugino is strictly okay, fulfilling her required duties well enough but never standing out. Ophelia Lovibond, meanwhile, is terrific fun as Popper's assistant Pippi, who's fond of alliteration with the letter "p".

At the end of the day, Mr. Popper's Penguins is what it is - commercial family-friendly entertainment for the masses. Fans of Jim Carrey are likely to be disappointed with the lack of laughs, and adults will mourn the absence of thematic depth that's present in superior family movies. Kids, however, will probably find this to be an easy, fun sitting, and at least adults won't be bored out of their mind by the picture. So if your children want to see it, you could do far worse. That's pretty much the best recommendation I can offer you.

5.2/10

If you come to The Fast and the Furious seeking thrilling racing sequences, spectacular stunts and fast cars, disappointment is imminent. Likewise, viewers in search of quality writing, plotting or acting won't find anything here to their liking. A typical brain-dead blockbuster from Hollywood's tired mills, The Fast and the Furious is junk food of the most low-rent variety. How the hell could it be possible to screw up a pure action movie about illegal street racing and heists that only needed to raise your adrenaline? Somehow, director Rob Cohen and the trio of writers managed to fuck it up big time, resulting not in a lively action extravaganza but rather a lethargic, joyless, pedestrian actioner unable to provide the most basic of summer movie pleasures.

Set in the seedy world of illegal underground street racing, rookie undercover cop Brian (Walker) is assigned to investigate a series a truck hijackings occurring in Los Angeles. He infiltrates a gang led by ex-con Dominic Toretto (Diesel), who's rapidly rising to the top of the street-racing circuit. Dominic is initially apprehensive about letting Brian into his life, but soon takes him under his wing. As he continues to bond with Dominic, Brian becomes reluctant about working to put his newfound friend behind bars. The situation becomes more complicated when Brian falls for Dominic's sister Mia (Brewster), not to mention Brian's superiors are constantly on his back and Dominic's best friend (Schulze) is starting to grow suspicious of the new addition to their crew.

The Fast and the Furious is essentially Point Break for douchebags, with fast cars and street racing instead of surf boards. But while Point Break had some great action set-pieces and the benefit of a few great actors (Patrick Swayze and Gary Busey included), the action sequences in The Fast and the Furious lack style, are drab and repetitious, and are simply are not as thrilling as they want to be. Not even the boisterous soundtrack can raise the pulse during the strictly humdrum, paint-by-numbers racing scenes. The slipshod script, meanwhile, resembles a daytime soap opera with its awful dialogue and conventional romantic subplot. The Fast and the Furious is absolutely riddled with clichés, resulting in a completely predictable film from beginning to end. It's bewildering (and frankly a tad amusing) to consider that it took three writers to pen such a shoddy screenplay.

Rob Cohen was clearly lost when it came to the action scenes, but evidently he was even less at ease with dialogue-heavy moments involving the actors. It'd be erroneous to expect Oscar-calibre performances from the cast, sure, but is a little bit of personality too much to ask? Vin Diesel has the right physique for the role of Dominic, but his line delivery is tragically vanilla, and he lacks the presence of all the best muscle-clad action stars. Paul Walker fares even worse, giving a bland performance of forced intensity and contrived line readings. Walker has proven to be a solid actor on a number of occasions (see Running Scared), so it's a shame that he's so weak here. Even Keanu Reeves was stronger in Point Break. The supporting cast is no better, with a forgettable Michelle Rodriguez and an even worse Jordana Brewster who makes no impact at all as Walker's love interest.

All Rob Cohen needed to do was keep the action coming, the adrenaline levels high, and the cars zooming past. But The Fast and the Furious fails to fulfil these requirements, and only shows signs of coming out of its filmic coma for the climax (or at least the first climax); an admittedly serviceable botched truck hijacking. It's not as thrilling, perilous or exciting as it would've been in defter hands, but it's still an entertaining enough sequence, showing a shred of evidence of what the film had the potential to be. Such a set-piece in such an awful movie is akin to stumbling upon a puddle of muddy water in the middle of the desert - not entirely satisfying, but beggars can't be choosers. Too bad, then, that the sequence is followed by more trite melodramatic nonsense, concluding on an eye-rolling note which leaves room wide open for countless sequels. The Fast and the Furious was just meant to be a trashy, fun B movie, but even a typical low-rent direct-to-DVD action flick with Van Damme or Dolph Lundgren has more thrills than this...

2.2/10

On paper, Bad Teacher must have sounded like a promising idea for a gleeful black comedy, as it was designed in the mould of 2003's Bad Santa and it concerns the behind-the-scenes behaviour of school teachers. The title's similarity to Bad Santa is surely not a coincidence - Bad Teacher is very reminiscent of the earlier picture in spirit, and the protagonist of both movies is a cruel, mean-spirited, foul-mouthed alcoholic. (One can almost imagine a ragtag franchise of Bad movies being spearheaded...) However, in its finished form, 2011's Bad Teacher is a complete misfire. The film was written by the duo responsible for 2009's abominable Year One, which perhaps makes the material's awfulness less surprising. Heck, just by mentioning the screenwriters' prior works, this review could be concluded right here...

Upon completing her first year as a school teacher, slutty gold digger Elizabeth Halsey (Diaz) quits her job, looking to marry her sugar daddy and settle down for life. When her fiancé promptly breaks off the engagement, though, Elizabeth begrudgingly returns to teaching where she keeps her students busy with movies while spending school hours hungover, asleep or high. A rival soon emerges for Elizabeth in form of chirpy, academic overachiever Amy Squirrel (Punch), who resents Elizabeth's behaviour. Hoping to get breast implants to help her land a rich hubbie, Elizabeth begins scheming to scrape together thousands of dollars through embezzling and even rigging an exam. Catching onto Elizabeth's plan, Amy begins working to expose her co-worker's misdeeds. Meanwhile, earnest gym teacher Russell (Segel) watches from the sidelines and makes continual passes at Elizabeth, but she's far more interested in wealthy substitute teacher Scott (Timberlake) who's heir to a lucrative watch-making dynasty.

Chief among Bad Teacher's biggest faults is that Elizabeth makes little sense as a person. For instance, she often shows up to work hungover but we do not see her actually drinking or partying. In fact her outside life is barely glimpsed save for a couple of ineffective scenes in her apartment, where she's just slouching on her living room lounge. And when Elizabeth begins to actually teach her students, the habitual slacker seems to be extremely knowledgeable about books like Animal Farm and To Kill a Mockingbird. Since when is she so intelligent? Rather than a fully-rounded individual like Billy Bob Thornton in Bad Santa, Elizabeth remains a thinly-sketched caricature who mysteriously changes at the script's convenience. Worse, the ending hints that Elizabeth has turned a new leaf and changed her ways, but the transformation is too sudden to feel like a cohesive, logical arc. The narrative is too shambolic, jumping from set-piece to set-piece without providing necessary bridge scenes or adequate material to give weight to Elizabeth's character. The filmmakers clearly imagined we'd overlook these lapses in logic in order to have a few laughs and enjoy the ride. Unfortunately, while the film is well-paced, there are too few laughs to be had - you may laugh four or five times, but the next day you'll be hard-pressed to remember what you found so amusing.

Ultimately, screenwriters Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky were unable to conceive of enough comedy that's worth a damn. Instead, they chose to dish up lazy, half-hearted, unfunny humour akin to their dismal Year One. Compounding the awfulness is the lethargic delivery of the jokes, giving the impression that director Jake Kasdan (Walk Hard) was fast asleep at the helm. The notion of Bad Teacher being the work of a truly invested, passionate filmmaker is ridiculous. And despite its R rating, Bad Teacher is simultaneously neither soft nor dark enough. If the language was tweaked and a few raunchy scenes were removed, this could've been rated PG-13. An R-rated picture was definitely preferable and it's good that the filmmakers stuck to their guns, but the jokes are too sophomoric and the plot is so uncreative and drab that mature-aged audience members won't find much of interest here. Perhaps the studio forbade Kasdan from going as far as he wanted in terms of bad taste. Again, give me Bad Santa any day.

If nothing else, Cameron Diaz's performance as Elizabeth is somewhat amusing, and it looks as if she had a ball playing the role. To the actress' credit, she managed to maintain a bit of amiability despite her character's reprehensible nature. Then there's Lucy Punch (Hot Fuzz), who went as over-the-top as possible playing Amy Squirrel. She gets a few laughs, but her performance is more awkwardly overzealous than flat-out amusing. Justin Timberlake (The Social Network) is the cast's weakest link as Scott - he did well enough with the material he was given, but he failed to own the role and he's ultimately interchangeable. Meanwhile, Jason Segel (Forgetting Sarah Marshall) is genial and sweet, as he always is.

The occasional laugh aside, there's not much to recommend about the generic, trite Bad Teacher. Of course, humour is subjective and some may find the film to be a total laugh riot, but for this reviewer's taste the film is just flat-out not funny enough. It's a great idea that's been committed to film, and that's about all there is to Bad Teacher. Perhaps the production started life as something greater than the subpar finished movie.

3.2/10

Based on the nonfiction book To Kill the Irishman: The War That Crippled the Mafia by Rick Porrello, Kill the Irishman is a compelling walk through Cleveland's criminal underbelly during the 1970s and an informative look at a man who brought down the hammer on the mafia's golden age. To seasoned consumers of gangster movies, Kill the Irishman will likely trigger bouts of déjà vu due to its conventional construction, but it's hard to begrudge the film of this since it's a mostly accurate retelling of a true untold story (and it concerns the Cleveland mafia, thus giving Las Vegas and New York a well-deserved break). Sure, the film is no Goodfellas or Godfather, but it's a solid motion picture on its own terms thanks to astute direction, engaging performances and impressive production values (even despite the low budget).

Danny Greene (Stevenson), a proud Irishman and a self-proclaimed descendant of Celtic warriors, started his adult years as a salt of the earth working man before moving his way up the ranks to a union boss. Throughout the late 1960s and '70s, Greene also made a name for himself in organised crime, forming a gang of enforcers, climbing into bed with the Italian mafia, and making enemies at every turn. Greene developed into somewhat of an icon around his local neighbourhood, becoming known as the "Robin Hood of Collinwood". The title of Kill the Irishman refers to the years-long struggle for his enemies to eliminate Greene, who managed to elude multiple assassination attempts and was notoriously difficult to kill.

The script (written by director Jonathan Hensleigh and Jeremy Walters) adheres pretty faithfully to the historical record for the most part, though composite characters were created and some things were excluded (for instance Greene's military service). Indeed, this is a case of the true story being so fascinating that not a lot of tampering was necessary for its translation to the screen. Hensleigh and his co-writer aimed to cover as much as possible with Kill the Irishman, hence they packed a lot of material into a slim 105-minute runtime. Alas, this denotes the production's major shortcoming: the details of Greene's life are too compressed and poorly fleshed-out. As a result, the disjointed, messy narrative jumps from one time period to another without permitting sufficient room to explore the incidents in any great depth. And due to the nimble pacing, it's difficult to get a complete grasp of the life and exploits of Danny Greene. A story like this demands a Scarface-sized runtime.

Nevertheless, Kill the Irishman is a home run from a technical standpoint. Hensleigh (who directed the 2004 Punisher movie; the one without Ray Stevenson) is a strong action director, and therefore the film contains a number of exciting confrontations pervaded with energy and a refreshing brutality suitable for the material. But the production's biggest asset is the immaculate recreation of 1970s Cleveland - classic American cars fill the streets, and the frame constantly bursts with '70s-style clothing, hairstyles, and interior décor. The filming locations afford the material a very authentic look and feel, not to mention the colour palette is retro and '70s-looking. Further amplifying the magic is the inclusion of several snippets of authentic news footage from the era, and a soundtrack packed to the gills with retro '70s rock and funk tunes.

Ray Stevenson (star of Punisher: War Zone and TV's Rome) was a magnificent pick for Danny Greene. Stevenson's performance is charismatic, authoritative, convincing and brimming with intensity - he sounds like he genuinely means each line he delivers. The end of the film even contains a fleeting glimpse of the real-life Danny Greene via archive footage, but viewers might not notice because of how spot-on Stevenson's portrayal is. The supporting cast, meanwhile, is filled with talent - there's Christopher Walken, Vincent D'Onofrio, Val Kilmer, Robert Davi, Vinnie Jones (sporting an embarrassing Irish accent), Paul Sorvino, and Tony Darrow, just to name a few. All of the actors look, talk and feel like real gangsters and mafiosos, once more augmenting the production's sense of authenticity. Some viewers may be disappointed that many of the actors were essentially given glorified cameos, but their presence is nonetheless appreciated and the performances are strong right down the line.

Covering a period of about 15 years in the life of Danny Greene, Kill the Irishman is more or less an episodic, streamlined highlight reel of the life of this colourful historical figure. Nevertheless, the cast is A-list (led by an engrossing Ray Stevenson) and the technical contributions are solid, making the film a worthy addition to the oversaturated gangster genre that's well worth checking out.

7.2/10

Joel and Ethan Coen often utilise western conventions for their movies, but 2010's True Grit is the brothers' first attempt at crafting a true, old-fashioned western. While based on a novel by Charles Portis, True Grit is most likely best known as a John Wayne western vehicle from 1969; the film which earned The Duke his one and only Academy Award. However, the Coens Brothers' True Grit is touted as less of a remake and more of a closer adaptation of the source material, though both films are still the same story with the same basic story beats and a lot of the same dialogue. True Grit is definitely a well-made, compelling motion picture at surface level, but it nonetheless remains somewhat of a disappointment. The Coens are renowned for slyly expanding upon and subverting each genre they tackle, but True Grit is merely a rote western that lacks the touches we've come to expect from the talented brothers.

Set in the 19th Century, 14-year-old Mattie Ross (Steinfeld) learns of the cold-blooded murder of her father at the hands of outlaw Tom Chaney (Brolin) and vows to seek retribution. Upon hearing that Chaney has fled into Indian territory and is low priority for the understaffed U.S. Marshalls, the determined young Mattie offers payment to the grizzled Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Bridges) - who is said to have "true grit" - if he helps her to bring her father's killer to justice. An aging, fat one-eyed alcoholic of dubious morals, Rooster hesitantly agrees to Mattie's proposal, and they set off to hunt Chaney. Accompanying the pair is Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Damon), who's equally determined to catch Chaney as he wants to fetch the massive Texan reward on the outlaw's head.

Unless you had prior knowledge of the Coens' involvement, you would not have guessed that they wrote and directed True Grit. The brothers' best movies are intelligent, multifaceted works, skilfully mixing an array of genres and engaging the brain. But 2010's True Grit is too linear and basic. One would expect the Coens to do something new and exciting with the source material, and rework it in their trademark way. Instead, the Coens just went mainstream, which is further exemplified in the tame PG-13 rating, the fact that the brothers considered it to be a family movie, and the fact that the movie was a tremendous box office hit (it became the first Coen Brothers flick to gross over $100 million domestically). Curiously, the film is not entirely faithful to the source, as they streamlined Portis' novel. For instance, there's no sign of Rooster's cat, and a scene of Rooster shooting a rat has been excised (wouldn't that have appealed to the Coens' brand of dark humour?). This begs the question: why promote the film as a faithful cinematic rendering of the book if things have been changed? And if the Coens were going to change a few things anyway, why didn't they go the whole hog and put a new creative spin on the story?

Still, from a visual and entertainment standpoint, True Grit is close to perfection. Roger Deakins' Oscar-nominated cinematography is masterful and evocative, Carter Burwell's music is hauntingly beautiful, and the production values are faultless. The locations and towns do not feel like sets - they feel lived-in and authentic. And while the pacing is not always spot-on, the film has plenty of truly memorable moments, including a hilarious early scene in which Mattie negotiates money for her father's horse, and a rather amusing scene of Rooster being questioned in court. And that's not counting the electrifying shootouts, though at times these sequences appear to be pulling punches to secure a PG-13 rating. One gets the sense that a more full-blooded R-rated picture like 3:10 to Yuma or The Proposition would've been more suitable for the Coens' gritty approach.

Perhaps the film's biggest hindrance is that its emotional punch is too subdued. One can sense the peril that the characters face, but it's hard to feel it emotionally, thus sapping power from the story. True Grit is therefore a film in which we appreciate the journey but cannot feel as if we are on the lam alongside the protagonists. And the ending is a bit weak - true to the book, sure, but the 1969 version had a more satisfying ending, solidifying the fact that changing things for a film adaptation is sometimes better than sticking to the source. Additionally, the Coens are often able to generate black comedy through grim situations (which is ideally suited to the western genre), but this talent eluded the brothers here.

Another hole in the "faithful adaptation of the novel" angle is the casting of Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn. Rooster was in his 40s in the novel, but Bridges was 60 when the picture was lensed. (For the record, John Wayne was 62 when he portrayed the role.) Nevertheless, Bridges' interpretation of the role is terrific. Wisely, he did not try to ape The Duke - instead, Bridges made the role his own, bringing Cogburn Revisited to life with a solid, gritty performance that earned him an Oscar nomination. Meanwhile, newcomer Hailee Steinfeld is a great find as Mattie Ross. The young actress - who was a tender 13 years of age during filming - received an Oscar nomination for her performance, and it is not hard to see why. Matt Damon is equally strong as LaBoeuf, one-upping Glen Campbell's portrayal of the role from 40 years ago with an excellently nuanced piece of acting. Rounding out the main players is Josh Brolin as Tom Chaney, and a sinister, effective Barry Pepper playing Ned Pepper (no, that's not a typo...).

True Grit remains an entertaining remake of a John Wayne classic that didn't really need to be remade in the first place, but one gets the sense that two highly talented filmmakers have wasted their time to make a film that's below their gifts. Okay, so the Coens set out to make a straightforward western, and they've done well in this respect. But in this reviewer's eyes, it's just not enough considering what the brothers are normally capable of.

6.5/10

A curious mixture of The Goonies and War of the Worlds filtered through Assault on Precinct 13, Attack the Block is not exactly a typical alien invasion movie. Rather, this directorial debut for Joe Cornish is a more playful motion picture concerned with a bunch of British youths and stoners armed with whatever makeshift weapons they can find. An English production through-and-through (the British slang is thick as fog), the picture shares the same producers as the acclaimed Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz (and the director of both, Edgar Wright, executive produced). But while this connection is the focal point of the advertising, Attack the Block was predominately made by talented unknowns. On top of this being Cornish's first feature as director, the film was photographed and scored by first-timers, and it stars a handful of first-time actors. Despite this, the entire production feels amazingly veteran, and it seems unbelievable to consider that most of the creative team were motion picture virgins.

It's Guy Fawkes Night in South London, and nearby residents are shooting off fireworks as part of the celebrations. During her lonesome walk home, twenty-something nurse Sam (Whittaker) is terrorised and mugged by a juvenile street gang led by young Moses (Boyega). Afterwards, Moses and the boys are startled when an alien pod crash-lands in the street and begets a strange beast. Feeling defensive about their neighbourhood, the teens promptly slaughter the alien life-form. But further trouble emerges when more alien visitors begin bombarding the local streets, forcing the troublemakers into action. After seeking shelter in Sam's flat momentarily, the kids team up with their former victim as the invaders from outer space advance on the apartment complex.

Attack the Block is vehemently an antihero story - save for Sam and an educated stoner (Treadaway), the characters are mostly repellent. Successfully pulling off such a story requires a deft hand, but Cornish unfortunately falls short. While it's laudable to try and put teenage British hooligans in a sympathetic light, the characters lack depth - they're scarcely developed past surface-level caricatures. If there was something else to these characters apart from them having the occasional heroic instincts, it'd be okay. As it is, the script lacks something enticing to turn the unredeemable ruffians into agreeable antiheroes. It feels wrong for Cornish to ask us to like and root for these characters, which in turn compromises the fun to an extent. It's not a good sign if you want the aliens to kill the main characters because you want to see these bastards get their comeuppance. Heck, one could easily be fooled into thinking that these streetwise punks will all be killed in the first scene to introduce the aliens and demonstrate the aliens' abilities.

The protagonists may be unlikeable, but Attack the Block is a technically proficient motion picture; handsomely photographed and competently directed. The alien design is ultra cool (they're pure black with glowing teeth), and they were brought to life through an almost seamless mix of CGI and practical effects. There are plenty of terrific action beats as well, which pit the violent youths against the otherworldly beasts. Indeed, this is a polished little movie despite its modest budget. For the most part, Cornish also managed to navigate the tonal changes remarkably well, as Attack the Block veers between comedic and genuinely sinister. At times the graphic violence threatens to overwhelm the humour, but it's no real biggie since the film still scores huge laughs.

Despite their inexperience, the ensemble cast is uniformly strong. Though his role is one of the most unlikeable characters in the film, John Boyega is excellent as the conflicted young Moses. Young actors oftentimes sound too contrived (Taylor Lautner, anyone?), but Boyega truly shines with a performance that never seems false or forced. As Moses' friends, Alex Esmail, Leeon Jones, Frank Drameh and Simon Howard share a good camaraderie, and their bickering and bantering is at times quite amusing. Then there's Jodie Whittaker, who threatens the steal the picture with an earthly, beguiling performance as Sam. The funniest performance in the movie, of course, is courtesy of Nick Frost, though his screen time is disappointingly low. (It's a shame that Simon Pegg didn't make a cameo...) And finally, there's an amiable Luke Treadaway as a stoner who provides comic relief alongside Frost. Apparently the performers' thick British accents and the abundance of peculiar slang caused Screen Gems (the film's American distributor) to panic, and reportedly considered subtitling the film for its stateside release. Though the dialogue can be tough to comprehend, it's not much of a distraction because the film is not difficult to follow and it possesses such a lively energy that you won't worry about the occasional incomprehensible throwaway line.

After several preview screenings, Attack the Block was heavily hyped in some corners, so it's a bit of a shame that the film fails to live up to its full potential. Still, in spite of its flaws, Attack the Block is for the most part entertaining and unique, especially in the shadow of the painfully generic alien invasion film Battle: Los Angeles. It doesn't redefine the alien invasion subgenre, but it's a solid enough entry in a highly saturated market.

6.8/10

It is hard to remember the last time Hollywood begat a romantic comedy or a dramedy as heartfelt, clever and thoughtful as 2011's quirkily-titled Crazy, Stupid, Love. (two commas and a full stop?). Instead of a run-of-the-mill rom-com, writer Dan Fogelman and directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa (I Love You Phillip Morris) concoct an incisive examination of contemporary love, with the film tracking a gallery of characters representing different stages and forms. The flick juggles several subplots and secondary romantic storylines to fulfil its ambitions, yet none of the narrative pieces feel undernourished or short-changed. Most importantly, Crazy, Stupid, Love. is a comedy-drama that finds the perfect balance between poignant drama and quality comedy without feeling tonally schizophrenic or uneven.

After marrying young and spending 25 years together, Cal (Steve Carell) and Emily (Julianne Moore) initiate divorce proceedings in response to Emily's infidelity. A despondent Cal moves out and begins drowning his sorrows in alcohol at an upmarket local bar, where he encounters a charming, fast-talking womaniser named Jacob (Ryan Gosling). Jacob impulsively takes Cal under his wing to help him regain his manhood, teaching the middle-aged schlub to dress properly and talk to women. But while Cal enjoys several meaningless sexual conquests, Emily finds it more challenging to move on, even with an interested suitor in David Lindhagen (Kevin Bacon). Meanwhile, Jacob begins to abandon his womanising ways when he falls for Hannah (Emma Stone), a beautiful young girl who resists his trademark pick-up methods from the outset. Additionally, the family's babysitter, Jessica (Analeigh Tipton), harbours a crush on Cal, but Cal's 13-year-old son, Robbie (Jonah Bobo), expresses his undying love for her.

In less dexterous hands, Crazy, Stupid, Love. would have been a disposable rom-com involving embarrassing archetypes and broad comedy. However, writer Fogelman (Cars, Tangled) pens a far more skilful screenplay that manages to convey both the elation of being in love and the hurt it can cause. It deals with various forms of love, from high school crushes to young love to middle-aged marriage, and it deals with each topic honestly and authentically. Consequently, everyone should be able to relate to this movie in some capacity. Additionally, rather than one-dimensional genre stereotypes, the film's characters are well-written with genuine depth, and they feel like authentic human beings. Their decisions, actions and mistakes exhibit admirable realism, raising the film above less ambitious studio rom-coms. Crazy, Stupid, Love. is definitely a comedy since it's extremely funny, but the film is rooted in poignant themes and issues of the heart. It's refreshing to see something this gentle and nuanced coming out of Hollywood without seeming saccharine-coated or contrived. Although Cal's climactic speech is perhaps too calculated, the final scenes recapture the sincerity and honesty of what precedes it. Crazy, Stupid, Love. predominantly shies away from Hollywood clichés and refuses to end on a conventionally happy note.

Before their directorial debut with 2009's I Love You Phillip Morris, directors Ficarra and Requa had written comedies like the hilarious, edgy Bad Santa, and their comedic instincts do wonders for Crazy, Stupid, Love.. The duo display immense comic timing, and the picture flows smoothly thanks to attractive cinematography, buoyant editing and a playful soundtrack. Additionally, the directors bring enough edge to the feature to ensure that it never turns into either a ridiculous comedy or an overly sentimental affair. Some of the humour is a tad broad, but the comedy is mostly witty, with brilliant one-liners and snappy banter triggering belly laughs or giggles. Additionally, the screenplay roots the humour in relatable and undeniable truths, epitomised in Cal's hilarious shopping expedition with Jacob. Crazy, Stupid, Love. contains several standout scenes like this, with memorably funny dialogue far more effective than most mainstream studio comedies.

For an often comically-oriented actor, Steve Carell brings tremendous gravitas to the role of Cal, resulting in a performance alternating between emotionally powerful and amusing. Who would've thought that an actor from The Office, Anchorman and Dinner for Schmucks could be so subtle? Julianne Moore is equally excellent - her performance as Emily is naturalistic and nuanced, and she seemingly defies age. Carell and Moore make for a convincing couple who share great chemistry, and their dramatic scenes together are enthralling. Another standout is Ryan Gosling, who demonstrates here what a versatile performer he truly is. Effortlessly emanating charisma, Gosling is spot-on as the womanising Jacob, and the back-and-forth between him and Carell is pure gold. Emma Stone represents another welcome addition to the cast; she's cute, likeable and believable as Gosling's love interest. The scenes between Gosling and Stone are exceptional, with their tender flirtations and sharp bantering providing heart and humour, and with the movie making great use of the Doris Troy song Just One Look. Also engaging are Analeigh Tipton and Jonah Bobo, who are younger but no less convincing as teens who are naïve about love. Rounding out the main players is a hilariously uninhibited Marisa Tomei, who plays one of Cal's sexual conquests, and an against-type Kevin Bacon.

Crazy, Stupid, Love.'s message about love is not exactly groundbreaking, but what original messages on the subject are there left to convey at this point? What matters is the execution, and in this respect, the film is a home run. Both funny and romantic, Crazy, Stupid, Love. is not solely aimed at women since men can enjoy it without feeling guilty, and the movie has enough to offer both sexes. In fact, this is the kind of title I would gladly add to my collection alongside Commando and Predator.

9.2/10

For fans of Bill Murray's brand of smartass humour (seen in Ghostbusters, Caddyshack, etc), Stripes is a must-watch. Additionally, if you're a fan of classic '80s comedies, you cannot afford to miss Stripes. Hell, if you have a sense of humour, then you definitely have to watch Stripes. Directed by Ivan Reitman (Animal House, Kindergarten Cop) and starring the likes of Murray, Harold Ramis, John Candy, Warren Oates and even Judge Reinhold, this is primo '80s comedy entertainment. Admittedly, there are pacing problems and the comedy is at times hit and miss, but Stripes packs one hell of a wallop whenever it does hit, resulting in an American comedy highlight of the 1980s and an eminently quotable "bloke movie".

At the beginning of the film, irresponsible goof John Winger (Murray) loses his job, his girlfriend, his car and his apartment...all in the course of a few hours. He's in dire need of discipline and he needs to get in shape, so he convinces his best friend Russell (Ramis) that they should enlist in the United States Army. At boot camp, they find themselves surrounded by a bunch of similar misfits, including druggie Elmo (Reinhold) and the overweight Ox (Candy), just to name a couple. Suffice it to say, it isn't long before smartass John gets on the wrong side of the platoon's drill sergeant (Oates)...

Stripes literally feels like two movies rolled into one. The "first movie" tells the story about basic training wherein John Winger and his comrades wreak havoc on the army base in side-splitting ways. The "second movie" is the sequel which picks up right after basic training, when the group is shipped off to Italy for a military mission, culminating in an extended climax depicting John, Russell and their girlfriends invading Czechoslovakia to save the rest of their platoon. While the fusion of these two stories is decent enough, the "second film" is too long, and could have been strengthened with tighter editing and better writing. It's not altogether bad, but the energy and wit of the "first film" is seriously lacking, with laughs becoming too scattershot. It's as if the writers of the "first movie" were jettisoned for the "sequel", and their replacements were vastly inferior. As a whole the film is still worth seeing, but, with a stronger second half, Stripes could have been a bona fide home run.

A lot of the creative forces behind National Lampoon's Animal House reunited to work on Stripes. While Animal House took place at a school and Stripes has a military backdrop, the basic premise is similar: underdog losers vs. the establishment. It may be a formulaic premise, but Stripes works because it contains many quotable lines and classic scenes. Take, for instance, the opening, which cuts between John driving a cab and Russell teaching English to immigrants. These sequences are funny by themselves, but the results are eye-wateringly hilarious when they're intercut. Additionally, whereas most contemporary comedies are made by sitcom directors and unremarkable studio puppets, Stripes was created by consummate professionals. The cinematographer, for instance, was Bill Butler, who also shot The Godfather, Deliverance, Jaws and Grease. Elmer Bernstein, meanwhile, composed the music. Prior to Stripes, Bernstein also scored such films as Airplane!, True Grit and The Great Escape. This is the biggest difference between something like Stripes and something more modern like Happy Gilmore - both are silly, sure, but Stripes is fondly remembered decades later because it looks and feels like a real film.

Billy Murray is in top comedic form as John Winger - the script provided an idyllic playground in which the star could do his trademark smartass shtick. Murray reportedly did a lot of improvising on the set, to the extent that nobody ever knew what he was going to do next. (His hilarious background story, including the whole "making it with a cow" and "Hulka is our big toe", was improvised by Murray.) Also terrific is Murray's on-screen relationship with Harold Ramis. The two are an excellent comedic duo, with the rather more sensible Ramis providing an ideal foil for Murray. A lot of big laughs also come as a result of Murray's confrontations with the hard-nosed Warren Oates. The rest of the cast, meanwhile, is full of great names. There's the late, great John Candy as Ox, the amusing Judge Reinhold (in his first movie role) as Elmo, and the beautiful pair of P.J. Soles and Sean Young as military policewomen who become involved with John and Russell.

For its home video release, an extended edition of Stripes was released containing 18 minutes of previously excised footage. Considering that the theatrical cut in itself feels a bit too long in the tooth, the extended edition only exasperates the problem, and the additions aren't overly valuable despite a few extra laughs here and there. Stick with the theatrical cut, though fans of the film will want to investigate the extra footage purely out of curiosity. In final analysis, Stripes is a terrific relic from the golden era of '80s comedy, and it is definitely worth checking out.

7.3/10

It may be the third instalment of a series, but Transporter 3 could easily have been entitled Generic Action Movie. Coming from Luc Besson's French action production house, this third Transporter outing is only destined to please undiscriminating action fans or unfussy viewers. The film contains a few nice car chases, a few scenes of fisticuffs, a handful of nifty stunts and some explosions, but the material is painfully generic, and the film doesn't do anything well enough to genuinely stand out amongst hundreds of other action titles. The fact that it has glaring problems with scripting and pace - and that it's not as thrilling as it should've been - only worsens matters, ensuring that Transporter 3 will not be remembered in a few years - or, indeed, a couple of hours after you watch it.

Effectively retired from the transporter business, Frank Martin (Statham) is approached by a bunch of Generic Shady Bad Guys™ to take care of a delivery job, but he promptly refuses despite forceful persuasion. He recommends someone else for the job, but his replacement is promptly killed, forcing Frank back into play. Johnson (Knepper) refuses to take no for an answer this time - to make sure Frank plays ball, he fits him with an explosive bracelet rigged to detonate if he gets more than 75 feet away from his car. In Frank's trunk are a couple of bags he's supposed to deliver, while his passenger seat is occupied by Ukrainian girl Valentina (Rudakova) who also carries an explosive bracelet and whose place in the scheme is unknown.

The first two Transporter films are not action masterpieces, but they remain eminently watchable thanks to high energy levels, stylised action, excellent fight scenes and a non-serious tone. However, this Transporter outing is a gloomier affair, resulting in an often joyless action machine without the euphoric spark that made its predecessors so fun. Because Transporter 2 was so preposterously over-the-top, the filmmakers attempted to bring things back down to earth by focusing more on character interaction (oh dear) than delirious, over-the-top action beats. Problem is, try as he might, Olivier Megaton is simply not an overly good director and the pacing is at times too sluggish. Writers Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen also made the terrible mistake of introducing a romantic subplot into the fray, with Frank's sensitive side being exposed to Valentina as they exchange inane dialogue. Clearly, the aim was to move the series forward by exploring further facets of Frank's character. While it's possible to appreciate what the filmmakers aspired to do, it was just not done well enough.

Transporter 3's story is heavily clichéd, but that's to be expected I guess. The problem, though, is that the story doesn't make much coherent sense because of vague villain motives and clumsy exposition. Not to mention, as with most modern actioners, all of the stunts, fights and action scenes are marred by confusing camera placement and rapid-fire editing, making certain sequences impossible to enjoy. The fights were choreographed by Corey Yuen, so they are often impressive...but only if you can figure out what the hell is happening. Why hire such a talent like Yuen if all of his choreography will be cut to shreds in the editing room? The film suffers because of its PG-13 rating too, as it was choppily edited to avoid the need for violent shots of bullet hits. Transporter 3 is for the most part dumb as well - villains are stupid and can't shoot straight, and Frank at one stage balances his car on two side wheels to go between two trucks. It's therefore baffling that the tone is so dim. Why not cut loose and just revel in fun ridiculousness? To be fair, there is some fun to be had from time to time, and isolated action scenes do shine (a highlight sees Frank chasing a car on foot and on a bicycle).

Returning to the role of Frank Martin, Jason Statham is essentially the same character here that he plays in all of his action movies. However, Statham is so successful not because of range but because of his inherent charisma and screen presence, both qualities of which are omnipresent in his performance here. Additionally, Statham actually inhabited the role, and as a result doesn't ever sound contrived or phoney, which is highly laudable. Statham's love interest this time around was played by Natalya Rudakova; a hairdresser with no acting experience who was recruited by Luc Besson on a whim. Her lack of acting skills is obvious, but she's serviceable enough for this type of action movie. Interestingly, while Rudakova is admittedly somewhat sexy, she's not the typical superhot Megan Fox type that one would expect to see in a movie like this. Meanwhile, Robert Knepper played the villain, Johnson. He's a completely generic action movie villain, though, and he lacks the chilling edge of his work on TV's Prison Break.

At the end of the day, Transporter 3 is neither good nor bad. It's heavily flawed and completely forgettable, but is nonetheless serviceable and enjoyable to an extent thanks to a few nice action beats and even a decent smattering of tongue-in-cheek humour. Action films like these are akin to a hamburger from McDonalds - quick, easy, cheap and readily available, but nothing overly skilful, and some are better made than others.

4.9/10