Reviews by PvtCaboose91

A cinematic experiment clearly inspired by Alfred Hitchcock (think Rope or Lifeboat), Buried is a 95-minute motion picture which takes place entirely in one cramped location and features only one lead actor. It's an unattractive proposition, but writer Chris Sparling and director Rodrigo Cortés have for the most part succeeded in transforming the concept into an eminently watchable, intense thriller. Buried is not exactly unequivocally enthralling and it never registers as an instant classic, but it nevertheless remains a skilful little film; an interesting exercise in minimalism and efficiency that rightfully stirred up a ruckus when it did the rounds at film festivals.

A civilian truck driver who merely delivers supplies in war-torn Iraq, Paul Conroy (Reynolds) mysteriously finds himself inside of a wooden coffin buried somewhere in the desert. Paul has no clue about his location and has only a handful of supplies, including a lighter, a cell phone with limited battery life, and other incidental items. Struggling for breath, Paul begins using the cell phone to contact the outside world. Unfortunately, his cries for help are largely ignored; people think he's crazy, while government agencies opt to use uncaring stalling techniques on him. Making the situation worse for Paul is finding out that the group who put him in the ground want a ridiculous ransom that he cannot pay in exchange for his release.

It's a natural human instinct to be afraid of being buried alive, and Buried brilliantly plays on this universal fear. Throughout the duration of the flick, the camera stays with Paul Conroy inside his wooden box - there are no prologues, flashbacks or cutaways of any sort, resulting in an intense, visceral sense of claustrophobia. Consequently, Buried is not for the weak of heart, and you may even find yourself gasping for air alongside Paul. It's highly impressive just how many camera set-ups director Cortés and cinematographer Edward Grau were able to achieve while retaining the cramped nature of the box's interior and maintaining a sense of visual interest. The sound design, too, is especially effective, further augmenting the illusion that Paul is genuinely stuck inside of a coffin. While the restrictive setting would ostensibly seem better suited for a stage play, Buried is extraordinarily cinematic.

Thankfully, writer Chris Sparling did just enough to allow us to empathise with Paul's plight. Sufficient details about Paul are drip-fed to us in an unforced manner, with the script efficiently using phone calls to establish him as a simple working man with a wife at home and a dementia-suffering mother who doesn't even remember him. He's an innocent Everyman who's been thrown into such an unenviable situation, thus it's difficult not to care. Additionally, Buried spends time commenting on the insignificance of civilian life in a war zone. The cruelty being shown towards Paul isn't entirely derived from the kidnappers who buried him in the first place, but rather from the bureaucrats on the other end of the phone line who don't care whether he lives or dies. However, Buried does succumb to a few forehead-smacking lapses of logic. For instance, it would be impossible for people to return Paul's phone calls since the number is listed as "unavailable". And the person trying to help Paul needs the encoded number of his cell phone, but when he finds out the number, Paul's first call is to his wife, who hasn't been answering her phone anyway...

Of course, the success of Buried pretty much lived and died with Ryan Reynolds' performance because he's the only person on-screen from start to finish. Thankfully, the star pulled it off. Throughout the film, Reynolds believably runs through several emotions, from frustration to hysteria to fear. The range exhibited by Reynolds is truly amazing, especially since the actor spends most of his time handling thankless comedic roles (Reynolds went right onto Green Lantern and The Change-Up after Buried...). Best of all, the actor never goes over-the-top; his performance is grounded in realism. Paul Conroy might not be an angel because his attitude is not always agreeable, but you can still care about him because of the humanity exuded by Reynolds.

While Buried's first half is a bit draggy, the second half is incredibly intense, culminating with an emotionally shattering final few minutes. Due to this, and due to the film's cramped scope, Buried is not a movie for everyone, and it's not exactly an enjoyable experience you'll want to revisit. Nevertheless, this is a brilliantly-staged little experiment which for the most part remains interesting throughout. And perhaps it does have replay value for some, as you may want to study the nuances of the proficient filmmaking.

7.1/10

Employing the same type of "found footage" gimmick made popular by The Blair Witch Project over a decade ago, The Last Exorcism aspires to do for exorcist movies what Paranormal Activity did for haunted house movies. The film's plot is unremarkable, but an effective, authentic-feeling found footage approach could've allowed The Last Exorcism to stand as an excellent genre pic and the first genuinely terrifying exorcism-related movie since The Exorcist back in 1973. Unfortunately, the finished product is a far cry from what it should have been. A common complaint of found footage movies is that they're boring, and The Last Exorcism is guilty of this cardinal sin to an unforgivable extent, with leaden direction and a constant feeling of artificiality.

Southern preacher Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian) comes from a long line of ministers but is nevertheless confronted with a crisis of faith, and he maintains that exorcisms are a sham, merely serving as a placebo cure for mentally ill persons. To prove that exorcisms and demons are bogus, he invites a couple of documentarians to join him as he travels to Louisiana to perform what he intends to be his final exorcism. The supposedly possessed individual is a virginal teenage girl, Nell (Ashley Bell), whose anxious father, Louis (Louis Herthum), believes that she slaughters livestock at night under the control of a demon. To provide the family peace of mind, Cotton performs his fraudulent exorcism routine on Nell and prepares to head home. Unfortunately, it seems that Nell might not be free of the demons, and what begins as a mission to prove the nonexistence of demons turns into something more sinister and unholy.

Any found footage movie sets out to achieve a sense of realism and authenticity, or else it just looks like a lousily-filmed student movie using a gimmick to excuse glaring flaws. Alas, The Last Exorcism feels too staged. It even draws attention to its artificiality by blatantly cheating - music is present to underscore "scares", there are too many convenient transition shots, and the cast even contains established actors. Most critically, there is supposed to be only one cameraman, but several sequences are edited in a way that'd be impossible to achieve without multiple camera set-ups or several takes. It's clear that director Daniel Stamm wanted to deploy filmmaking techniques forbidden by the found footage approach, resulting in a picture that lacks the documentary essence it relied on to prevent it from feeling like a cheap Exorcist knock-off. Further compounding these faults are scenes in which it seems ridiculous for the cameraman to keep filming. Not to mention, an actual camera operator would not be so liberal with zooms - indeed, the zooms are so constant and unnecessary that they quickly become an annoyance. Stamm's efforts may be enough for some viewers, but anyone who thinks too deeply about the filmmaking techniques will see The Last Exorcism for the muddled attempt at realism that it is.

However, The Last Exorcism does have its positives, with strong performances from an eminently watchable Patrick Fabian as Cotton and a highly effective Ashley Bell as Nell. There's also a sharp sense of satire permeating several scenes (Cotton's staged exorcism on Nell is especially hilarious), and the film has a few interesting comments to make about religion, faith, and Christianity. However, the film has enormous pacing issues - the first hour is devoid of anything approaching scares, leading to a disheartening lack of tension exasperated by the uninspired script and drab mise-en-scène. Worst of all, the film tries to force the possibility that Nell is mentally unstable, but the filmmakers are not interested in following through with this potentially interesting angle. Instead, The Last Exorcism ends with a complete dud of a finale (with cartoonish CGI) that takes the easy way out and was clearly made for cheap thrills, not the kind of thrills we came here wanting to see. It's a thoroughly moronic way to close the feature, proving that a terrible ending can affect a movie's quality as a whole.

Perhaps the worst thing about The Last Exorcism is that it has zero replay value. Once you know how the movie ends, you will not want to take the journey again. The film is pretty boring the first time around, but it's a borderline agonising bore when you watch it again with knowledge of how it ends. The brilliance of films like [Rec] and Paranormal Activity is that they sold their documentary conceit extremely well and were engaging and well-written. The Last Exorcism doesn't follow the same rules and is marred by the generally dull filmmaking all around. It has a few nice moments, but they are few and far between. You'd be better off watching free exorcism videos on YouTube than enduring this sluggish missed opportunity.

3.9/10

2011's Drive is the American filmmaking debut for Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn, best known for films like Valhalla Rising, Bronson, and the Pusher trilogy. Not all foreign directors are an ideal fit for Hollywood, but the transition does not force Refn to suppress his directorial trademarks or neglect the critical elements that constitute a great movie. At face value, Drive may seem like a straightforward action flick, but it is far more than that - it is a riveting, multifaceted masterpiece that reinvigorates its ostensibly unoriginal narrative pieces and masterfully draws you into its unpredictable narrative. Entrancing and compelling, Drive will give mainstream audiences a thrill, but cinema enthusiasts will undoubtedly get the most out of the film and appreciate everything it has to offer.

The movie's protagonist does not have a name; he is simply The Driver (Ryan Gosling). An extremely proficient wheelman, the Driver works as a car mechanic for auto shop owner Shannon (Bryan Cranston), who also coordinates the Driver's additional jobs: performing car stunts in Hollywood movies and moonlighting as a getaway driver for criminals. However, the Driver is gearing up to move into stock car racing, with Shannon convincing Jewish-American mobster Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks) to cover the cost of a suitable vehicle. However, the Driver's life drastically changes when he meets his new neighbour, Irene (Carey Mulligan), and her young son Benicio (Kaden Leos). Irene and the Driver develop a low-key, flirtatious relationship, which is interrupted when Irene's criminal husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac), is released from prison. Standard soon finds himself in trouble with an Albanian gangster, Chris Cook (James Biberi), who demands prompt payment for the protection money he owes. With Standard's situation threatening the safety of Irene and Benicio, the Driver steps up to help, offering to act as a wheelman for Standard and Cook's accomplice, Blanche (Christina Hendricks), as they rob a pawn shop. From this point onwards, things start to go awry, with the Driver trying to protect Irene and Benicio while dealing with violent mobsters.

Drive is an adaptation of James Sallis's acclaimed 2005 noir novel of the same name, with Hossein Amini (2010's Shanghai) penning the screenplay. Amini's shooting script was a scant 81 pages (Sallis's book was also short at 158 pages), yet Refn and Gosling continually worked to trim dialogue during shooting. Refn's style favours showing instead of telling, with the director staging touching character moments between the Driver and Irene without a single spoken word. For example, one memorable elevator scene contains no dialogue, but the imagery powerfully conveys what the Driver and Irene are feeling. Additionally, Refn creates breathtaking montages to show the Driver becoming acquainted with Irene and Benicio, and these moments eschew dialogue, as we do not need to learn more about the Driver's past or his character's psychology. It's a refreshing approach, making Drive feel even more distinctive. The montages do not amount to lazy padding; instead, they are an organic part of Refn's European cinematic voice.

Labelling Drive as "the arthouse Transporter" or "The Transporter for smart audiences" may seem apt, but the designation sells both flicks short. The Transporter films are brainless but entertaining, while Drive is more than just a superior version of them. Refn's film is unique and defies easy categorisation - in fact, it feels like a Coen Brothers picture (think No Country for Old Men or Miller's Crossing) but without the self-aware quirkiness. Drive is a character-driven mood piece, concerned with compelling drama rather than pure action, though Refn sprinkles a few vicious action beats throughout the picture's breezy 100-minute duration. The narrative flow does not reek of Hollywood convention but of innovation and intelligence, and it is hard to predict what will happen next. Additionally, with the freedom of an R-rating, Refn does not hold back on the violence, as there are several shocking moments of brutal bloodshed. However, the unsettling content is not for cheap thrills; instead, it augments the stakes and introduces a genuine sense of danger while maintaining a sense of tact to prevent the violent moments from feeling like exploitative gore porn. Luckily, there is also levity amid the brutality, with a few moments of humour to lighten the tone.

Drive carries a wonderfully retro look and feel. Refn's cinematic style harkens back to the '70s and '80s, down to the neon pink cursive font of the opening titles. The soundtrack bursts with beautiful, moody '80s-inspired synth beats courtesy of Cliff Martinez, whose enthralling score adds momentum, tension, and flavour, while the song choices also perfectly accompany the distinctive aesthetic style. The opening credits follow the Driver around Los Angeles, set to the tune of "Nightcall" by French artist Kavinsky, perfectly introducing this world and this character. Meanwhile, the film's aural soul is the recurring "A Real Hero" (by College feat. Electric Youth), which sounds like an '80s tune in the style of Tangerine Dream despite being relatively new. Drive features other songs that would have no place in a mainstream action film, and they enhance the picture's sense of cinematic personality. Refn is an artistic filmmaker, and it seems the director heavily considered every shadow, beam of light, angle and frame, leading to an enthralling sense of authority and atmosphere.

Newton Thomas Sigel's crisp digital cinematography is just as assured as Refn's direction, as Drive carries an immense sense of visual gravitas. Refn and Sigel also employ interesting camera techniques, such as a split screen during a phone conversation between the Driver and Irene. Additionally, the director is not afraid of pauses, as the camera lingers on characters while they contemplate their actions and process what is happening, but the shrewd editing by Matthew Newman (Valhalla Rising, Bronson) ensures the movie never devolves into tedium. Shooting on location throughout Los Angeles heightens the picture's sense of authenticity and atmosphere, with stunning neon-soaked nighttime cityscapes. There is no digital artifice or green screening during the driving sequences, as the production features practical stunts and real driving. The car chases are sleek and gripping, and Refn alternates his approach to keep things interesting, opening the feature with a pursuit through the streets of L.A., during which the camera remains inside the car alongside the Driver.

Further contributing to Drive's technical virtuosity is the engaging sound design, which received recognition with an Academy Award nomination for sound effects editing (the movie's sole Oscar nod). Drive is tailor-made to be seen in a cinema on a large screen with surround speakers to emphasise the engrossing sound design. Indeed, this is a true cinematic experience - a motion picture that grips and mesmerises you through masterful filmmaking and refuses to let you go until the end credits appear. The fact that Refn could execute such a technically immaculate picture on a relatively small $15 million budget seems miraculous. Indeed, straight-to-video movies with a similar price tag do not come close to matching Drive's intoxicating sense of cinematic style and personality.

A few years ago, movie-goers perceived Ryan Gosling as "that pretty boy from The Notebook." However, Gosling reinvented himself by taking on complex, memorable roles in films like Lars and the Real Girl, Blue Valentine, Crazy, Stupid, Love., and now Drive. This role is a perfect fit for Gosling, who delivers an absorbing performance with minimal dialogue, creating a role with shades of Clint Eastwood and Steve McQueen. The performance is not contrived, as his soft-spoken persona feels entirely organic. Meanwhile, Carey Mulligan (An Education) imbues her character with nuance and emotional depth, ensuring Irene is not a thankless love interest. Mulligan possesses the correct type of innocent look and sweet nature to make the character believable, and her acting maturity is second to none. Also in the cast is Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad), who once again shows his incredible range by giving Shannon genuine humanity and personality. Ron Perlman (Hellboy) and Oscar Isaac (a future Star Wars star) are also effective, adding genuine depth to their respective roles, while Christina Hendricks (Mad Men) makes a terrific impression with a wholly convincing performance. But the real standout is Albert Brooks (Marlin from Finding Nemo), who plays against type as the menacing Bernie. Brooks carries a genial nature, which makes his penchant for violence all the more shocking.

Drive is a touching love story, a brutal action movie, and a tense crime thriller, but it is not tonally schizophrenic, as Refn nails each style and navigates between them with assurance and dexterity. Refn's American filmmaking debut feels distinctly European in its execution but follows a more pronounced narrative than several of the director's Danish films, resulting in incredible momentum and pacing while maintaining astonishing artistic integrity. It's hard to pinpoint a singular reason why Drive is such a gem, as everything is perfect: the pacing, direction, acting, dialogue, photography, editing, and music combine to create one of the most memorable and brilliantly unpredictable movies in years. Drive is both arthouse at its finest and action at its finest - in fact, it is the only arthouse movie in recent memory with tremendous replay value.

10/10

My Soul to Take is an utterly bewildering film to experience. And the fact that horror maestro Wes Craven both wrote and directed this hogwash makes it even more head-scratching. Craven must have been pulling an elaborate hoax by making this seriously awful film - he is so far above the material that he must be joking or at least committing an act of cinematic trolling. The premise - a half-hearted mixture of Scream and Nightmare on Elm Street - is ridiculously abstract, and it comes to life with stilted dialogue and awful screenwriting. Trying to explain precisely why the script is so bad is a foolhardy task because recognising the flaws requires one to understand everything happening in the story. Frankly, I cannot make heads or tails of it - and I doubt that any of the actors or even Craven himself could explain it.

As the film opens, a notorious serial killer known as the Riverton Ripper is killed by police, revealing a supernatural presence that continues to live on despite an ostensibly deceased physical body. And on the night of the Ripper's supposed death, seven babies were simultaneously born at the local hospital. The story then fast-forwards to the 16th anniversary of the events; the Ripper's body is still undiscovered, and the seven kids born on the night - known as the Riverton Seven - are well aware of the bizarre events surrounding their births. The anniversary is an evening of tradition for the Riverton Seven, who gather yearly to commemorate the end of the Ripper's deadly reign. However, it appears that the Ripper has returned this year and that his malevolent soul may be living on inside one of the Riverton Seven.

Despite its clichéd nature, My Soul to Take's opening sequence is passable, instilling at least a vague sense that a decent film may be taking shape. But from that point on, the flick takes a massive nose-dive, spiralling out of control to such an extent that it's hard to figure out what the fuck is happening, let alone why. None of the characters make any sense or seem real in any way, scenes drag on and on to the point of tedium, and the dialogue (which sounds like Craven was trying to imitate Kevin Williamson) is horrible. Furthermore, My Soul to Take is not thrilling, funny or even engaging due to unbelievably lousy storytelling. It doesn't help that the story itself is a complete mess. The tone, meanwhile, is all over the map, with what appears to be ineffective humour popping up amidst ineffective horror. The result is 100 minutes of awkward, disjointed, agonising monotony that's not worth sitting through, even as a dare.

The only thing close to terrifying about My Soul to Take is that it was Wes Craven's return to the horror scene after a five-year hiatus. How can the director of Scream and A Nightmare on Elm Street beget such a talentless addition to the same genre that he helped build? In fact, there's not a single scare or creative kill in My Soul to Take at all - the kills are Syfy Channel lame, while some kills even happen off-screen. Making matters worse is the obvious use of CGI blood, which looks monumentally awful and lessens the visceral impact of the murders. Adding insult to injury, Craven seems to channel his own Scream for no reason at all, with the killer calling the teenagers on their cell phones to taunt them just before murdering them (apparently the voice of Scream's Ghostface, Roger Jackson, also voices the killer here). In context, the phone taunting makes no sense - did Craven just include this malarkey in an attempt to be funny and self-referential? If so, he failed. And if he did it because he genuinely thought it would be thrilling? Fail on omega levels.

After an interminable series of thrill-less murders, stiff dialogue and painful scenes of so-called acting, the proceedings come to a head for the exhaustively stupid climax that is prolonged to agony. It's hard to figure out exactly what the fuck Craven was aiming for with the climax - it's completely devoid of tension and thus merely amounts to a few bad actors spurting bad lines of dialogue. Speaking of the actors, they are all terrible - not only do they look too old to be high school kids, but their acting is so forced that it feels like we're watching a low-rent high school play. Zena Grey is a notable offender. Sure, Grey is pleasant to look at, but her religious zealot act is cringe-worthy due to its over-the-top awfulness.

Wes Craven must share the Riverton Ripper's condition of having multiple souls rattling around inside his physical form. The real Craven is a master of horror, but the alternative soul inside of Craven begets nonsense like My Soul to Take. It's impossible to overstate just how abysmal this film is - scenes are haphazardly assembled without any sense of pacing, and all of the talk of souls and soul guardians (i.e. the stuff supporting the central premise) merely leads to a lot of "What the fuck?" moments. Absolutely nothing works here. If this was a student film, My Soul to Take would still be unwatchable. But with Craven having written and directed it, the film is a crime against cinema.

0.5/10

By now, we've all heard the assertion that Cars 2 is Pixar's first truly bad movie. Alas, it's true. It was bound to happen at some stage, though, as the studio had spent almost two decades producing one modern animated classic after another...but it's tragic that Pixar's worst, dullest picture had to come right after the superlative Toy Story 3. The original Cars from 2006 was the studio's lowest grossing and most critically unfavourable movie, rendering the sequel a baffling idea. However, in terms of merchandising profits, Cars was one of Pixar's most successful ventures. Cars 2 was therefore made purely for the toy sales, and this fact is exemplified in every lazy frame of this sluggish disappointment. While the first Cars was a low-key story about cars and small, forgotten American towns, this sequel is an action/spy comedy lacking in emotional depth, thematic complexity, and Pixar magic.

After winning the Piston Cup for the fourth time, Lightning McQueen (Wilson) returns to Radiator Springs. His break is short-lived, though, as McQueen decides to compete in the World Grand Prix after being challenged by arrogant Italian formula 1 race car Francesco (Turturro). And for the trip, McQueen brings along his best friend Mater (Larry the Cable Guy). As McQueen struggles to stay focused for the tough races, Mater is accidentally mistaken for a spy by British secret agents Finn McMissile (Caine) and Holley Shiftwell (Mortimer). As Mater becomes sucked into the world of international espionage, a devious plot emerges that's tied to the Grand Prix and the introduction of an alternative fuel source produced by millionaire racing enthusiast and green power advocate Sir Miles Axlerod (Izzard).

With globetrotting spy concerns taking centre stage in Cars 2, Lightning McQueen is relegated to a supporting character in what should be his own story, while his Radiator Springs family get mere cameo appearances. (McQueen's love interest, Sally (Hunt), is barely in the film at all.) Unfortunately, Mater was called upon to fulfil protagonist duties, and the results are dire. Cars 2 is nothing but a loud, obnoxious action film first and foremost, with a script full of shootouts, explosions and a huge array of weaponry, not to mention unfunny slapstick situations involving Mater. Indeed, parents expecting a sweet, family-friendly story about friendship or any other Pixar values will walk away bewildered. The move appears to be for the sake of expanding the appeal to the lucrative teenage market weaned on over-the-top action movies, but by doing this they sacrificed everything that Pixar is about. Perhaps if Cars 2's story focused on Lightning McQueen's Grand Prix exploits, his rivalry with Francesco, his relationship with Sally, and his friendship with Mater while also examining the exploits of Radiator Springs characters, then it could have been a worthy Pixar entry. What we've been given instead is a soulless smash-'em-up with direct-to-DVD storytelling.

Of course, as with all of Pixar motion pictures, Cars 2 admittedly benefits from gorgeously vibrant animation and dynamic photography. Even at its worst, this is a stunning movie to behold, with racing scenes and set-pieces constituting the only saving graces of this otherwise lifeless husk. But much like the original film, Cars 2 is better seen than heard. Bridging the exciting sequences are laborious scenes of drab exposition that no animation - no matter how succulent - can redeem. Additionally, one cannot in any seriousness classify Cars 2 as a comedy because there's literally no belly-laughs. Pretty much the only jokes the filmmakers had in their arsenal are of the "If [blank] was a car" variety (not to mention a goddamn fart joke). With dull dialogue and no big comedic payoffs, the movie is nothing but an aloof snoozer which tarnishes Pixar's good name.

Larry the Cable Guy's loyal fans (all five of them) may be overjoyed by the actor's promotion to lead role, but it's bad news for the rest of us. It isn't long before the performer's shtick and one-note vocal performance becomes comparable to fingernails on a chalkboard. Owen Wilson, meanwhile, sounds positively uninterested as Lightning McQueen. Admittedly, though, a few of the newcomers enlighten the script from time to time. The always-reliable Michael Caine makes his role of Finn McMissile rather engaging and interesting, while Emily Mortimer is lovely as agent Holley Shiftwell. The standout is John Turturro, who nailed the role of Francesco and is the source of the film's only worthwhile laughs.

Cars 2 occasionally comes alive, but there's no getting around the enterprise's overlong nature and general lack of iconic Pixar moments. Perhaps the effort would've been passable if it wasn't Pixar, but this utter mediocrity being released by such a renowned studio makes it an unforgivable sin. The studio produced Cars 2 purely for the merchandising profits, so let's hope that Pixar only sold out momentarily to amass suitable funds to embark on many more original, innovative projects in the future.

And for the record, theatrical showings of Cars 2 were prefaced with a Toy Story short entitled Hawaiian Vacation. It runs for less than 6 minutes, but it's funnier, wittier, brighter and more enjoyable than Cars 2, and has more iconic moments of Pixar brilliance in its 6-minute runtime than Cars 2 has in its entire 110-minute runtime.

3.8/10

Just as slasher films were done to death in the '80s and '90s, the "found footage" subgenre (made popular by 1999's The Blair Witch Project) is now being exploited to the point of becoming tired. After films like Cloverfield, [Rec], Quarantine, The Last Exorcism, Paranormal Activity, Diary of the Dead and countless other films, it's becoming increasingly difficult to make a fresh-feeling found footage movie, and Grave Encounters is further proof of this. Even though the fine details have been changed, Grave Encounters recycles countless broad strokes from its cinematic cousins. But to be fair, the subgenre is so overdone because, if done right, it works marvellously. While this Canadian import does lack original thinking, it nevertheless achieves what it needed to achieve in a competent fashion, pulling together an interesting story within an extremely creepy location, and offering up a huge amount of thrills.

In the context of the story, Grave Encounters is the title of a budding ghost-hunting reality TV show. In each episode, host Lance Preston (Rogerson) and his team visit a haunted locale and spend the night, setting up cameras to capture any possible paranormal activity. For the team's sixth episode, they venture to a rundown psychiatric hospital that's said to be haunted. Due to his enthusiasm for presenting the show as realistically as possible, Lance asks the building's caretaker to lock them in the hospital for one night. To get as much coverage as possible, several static cameras are set up in "paranormal hotspots" while the hand-held camera crew roam the hallways, encouraging and riling up whatever ghosts that may be haunting the structure. However, the team - who are sceptical to believe in the paranormal - get much more than they bargained for. Slowly but surely, their fun and games give way to a horrifying nightmare.

On top of being a found footage horror movie, Grave Encounters satirises popular "reality" shows like Ghost Hunters through fly-on-the-wall footage which shows the team falsifying material for the sake of the program (they even pay someone to make up a ghost story). Grave Encounters also nails the elements which were critical for making the titular television show seem real - the opening promo is absolutely spot-on with its cheesy graphics and corny music, while black-and-white archival footage of the facility looks real, and there's a wealth of interesting, authentic-sounding background information about the building. Further contributing to the fun is some sly self-referential humour - the clinic's late doctor carries the surname Friedkin in an obvious nod to the director of The Exorcist.

In terms of scares and atmosphere, the picture owes a lot to Paranormal Activity due to the tense on-camera stretches of anticipation and the way that the paranormal entities begin their reign of terror with placid antics such as opening windows or shutting doors. Grave Encounters also owes a great debt to The Blair Witch Project in the way the hospital is turned into a never-ending, inescapable nightmare, and the way that Lance directly addresses the camera to document the experience. But despite this innovation deficiency, first-time filmmakers Colin Minihan and Stuart Ortiz (billed as The Vicious Brothers) have crafted an extremely competent scare-fest. The sense of atmosphere is insanely bone-chilling, and there are several terrifying images and set-pieces throughout the film that may haunt you for days. However, while the ending is intense, the film fails to provide adequate closure. For instance, considering the film's events, how were all the cameras and tapes recovered? What was the aftermath of these events? Were any bodies found? Most found footage movies end with titled explication to provide at least some degree of closure, but we get none of that here, ultimately leaving a bit of a bad aftertaste.

As Lance, Sean Rogerson is sublime. The actor managed to nail that type of over-the-top, cheesy, over-confident persona that we often see hosting these types of reality shows. And when the shit hits the fan, Rogerson believably transforms Lance from a fame-hungry TV host into an overwhelmed, horrified guy determined to save his team. Surprisingly, character behaviour is for the most part not dumb here; the characters seem like real people, and their realistic decisions and actions solidify this. Automatically, this makes them easier to care about. Thankfully, all of the actors submitted highly believable work which aids the production's sense of authenticity.

Grave Encounters does not revolutionise the found footage subgenre, but who really expected it to? The narrative's derivative nature matters not, as The Vicious Brothers nailed important assets like tension, scares and atmosphere. From start to finish, this is an extremely skilful and enthralling journey into pure terror.

7.2/10

With the Saw franchise having at long last ended in 2010, the Paranormal Activity series is now moving in to claim Saw's former Halloween release timeslot. But Saw and Paranormal Activity are different types of horror movies - while the Saw pictures relied on gratuitous violence and gore to generate thrills, the Paranormal Activity series is more reliant on psychological terror, nail-biting tension and proper suspense. Both franchises do share something in common, though: each instalment can be made on a tiny budget and is guaranteed to pull in enormous box office profits, meaning that artistic integrity is a lesser concern. While Paranormal Activity 2 was a worthwhile follow-up that satisfactorily expanded upon the franchise's mythology, 2011's Paranormal Activity 3 is a lazier effort from a script standpoint. Nevertheless, it's well made - the filmmakers did just enough to keep the formula from becoming stale thanks to the prequel angle and the adept efforts of directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman.

Set in 1988, 8-year-old Katie (Csengery) and her 5-year-old sister Kristi (Brown) live with mother Julie (Bittner) and her wedding videographer boyfriend Dennis (Smith). Due to his passion for photography, Dennis begins documenting their daily lives with his camera equipment. However, he soon begins to capture mysterious supernatural occurrences on-camera. Intrigued, Dennis sets up a few cameras around the house to record nightly activity and potentially capture evidence of a paranormal intruder. Unexplainable occurrences continue to intensify as the days elapse, so Dennis decides to conduct research and bring in camera assistant Randy (Ingram) to help.

The problem with Paranormal Activity 3 is that it does too little to expand upon the mythology of the series. There are a few interesting developments, but the movie is more interested in scary payoffs. When Katie and Kristi discussed their childhood in prior movies, we heard that there was a major house fire and a dark figure that appeared at the foot of Katie's bed... But none of this is addressed in the film. What's more disheartening, though, is that the trailer suggests this material was filmed but cut out. In fact, more than half of the stuff from the trailer is nowhere to be seen in the finished movie! It insinuates that Paranormal Activity 3 was more substantive in an earlier edit before being cut down to its basic meat and potato elements, rendering the film interesting but a bit too disposable. It also suggests that the producers wanted to save more stuff for future instalments in order to keep milking the series. (After all, in the first film Katie said the hauntings began at age 8 and started again when she was 13. Did the filmmakers intentionally neglect to fill gaps to save material for a fourth film? This theory is solidified by the fact that among the VHS tapes at the beginning are tapes labelled '1993'; the year that Katie was 13.)

Directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman made quite a splash last year with the documentary film Catfish. And because Catfish's authenticity is so hotly debated, the directors were an ideal choice for Paranormal Activity 3. To Joost and Schulman's credit, the film's sense of authenticity is tremendous, and nothing seems false or staged. And my word, the filmmakers did a terrific job of making this picture scary - the proverbial slow-burning set-pieces are unbearably intense. To put a unique twist on these scenes, one of the cameras is placed atop an oscillating fan stand, allowing it to alternate between the kitchen and living room areas. The directors used this technique to create many moments of effective terror. Also note-worthy is the riveting, bone-chilling tour de force of a climax. Furthermore, certain set-pieces are alleviated with a bit of sly humour here and there, which is a welcome touch.

Perhaps the biggest issue with Paranormal Activity 3 is that the photography is too crisp and sharp, as if the film was shot with contemporary high definition video cameras rather than the VHS-loaded consumer camcorders of the 1980s. We're supposed to be watching ancient (probably glitchy) VHS tapes, so the sharp photography is detrimental to the material's sense of legitimacy. Additionally, the demonic entity here is too vicious compared to its more placid behaviour in the first film, leading to more "in your face" scares than subtly terrifying moments. It still terrifies you, sure, but it feels a bit cheaper. Another glaring flaw is that screenwriter Christopher Landon (Disturbia) struggled to make it seem plausible for the characters to keep filming throughout certain events. It's a common fault of "found footage" movies, and this is no exception. (Why does Dennis film conversations with Julie? Why does Randy keep filming when he's attacked?) The climax gets a free pass in this case, though, because the camera's light becomes Dennis' only source of illumination.

On a more positive note, the performances are effective right down the line, generating a plausible realism and tremendously aiding the vérité aesthetic. Christopher Nicholas Smith (who actually looks a bit like Micah...) is especially good and believable in the role of Dennis, which is fortunate because he was tasked with delivering most of the requisite plot exposition. Child actresses Chloe Csengery and Jessica Tyler Brown also excel as young Katie and Kristie - they both possess an adorable childlike innocence, and their dialogue delivery sounds completely natural. In some scenes, their cries of hysteria seem heart-breakingly real. In the role of Julie, Lauren Bittner is also impressive - and on top of being able to sell every emotion and line of dialogue, Bittner shares a striking resemblance to Katie Featherstone. Meanwhile, as Randy, Dustin Ingram is superb comic relief; he lightens things up when the film becomes particularly dark.

Ultimately, the intention of any horror movie is to scare audiences and generate an atmospheric, intense environment. Thanks to the able directorial efforts of Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman, this third Paranormal Activity manages to do exactly that. It delivers the franchise's staples in a very effective fashion, and the film is both enthralling and entertaining. If that's all you want, then that's precisely what you get. At the end of the day, though, the script is just too underdone. This series could have worked as just a rounded trilogy that examines the ghostly history of this family, but Paranormal Activity 3 truly feels like the producers are purposely excising details in order to milk the series for every film they can. It will indeed be interesting to see the footage which was cut out of the finished product... Perhaps it further illuminates on the franchise's mythology in a more substantive way.

6.1/10

At long last, after wasting numerous years demeaning himself in trite family films, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has returned to R-rated territory for 2010's Faster; the star's first true action flick since Doom back in 2005. A rock-solid revenge film harkening back to 1970s action flicks, this is a vehemently R-rated feature which delivers on its promise of gritty, bloody violence and shootouts. However, Faster aspires to be more than a fun but ultimately unfulfilling slice of action entertainment - with a roster of intricate characters and a thematic density that's rare in the genre, Faster is more thoughtful than anticipated. And indeed, viewers expecting a mindless action showcase may be somewhat disappointed.

Driver (Johnson) has just finished serving a decade-long prison sentence after participating in a botched bank robbery which resulted in the murder of his beloved brother. Armed with a revolver, an American muscle car and a list, Driver determinedly sets out to slaughter the men responsible for his brother's killing. As bullets continue to fly, a junkie detective known as Cop (Thornton) and his colleague Cicero (Gugino) begin to investigate the killings. The situation becomes complicated, though, when professional assassin Killer (Jackson-Cohen) is hired to eliminate Driver; an assignment that he becomes determined to complete at all costs.

The trailers fooled you into thinking that Faster is a pure action fiesta, but the finished film is a different specimen. It does deliver bloodshed, sure, but the film primarily functions as a powerful mediation on the way that vengeance affects your soul. The film's real strength is the fact that the characters are interesting and multifaceted; an asset truly surprising in a film like this. Granted, the characters are more or less archetypes in the service of a pretty clichéd story, but they feel like real human beings with lives, loves and histories which extend beyond the boundaries of the film's proceedings. Indeed, Faster functions as a character study of the protagonist of each story thread: Driver, Cop, and Killer. However, with the film running at a brisk 95 minutes, it feels like more could have been done with the characters of Cop and Killer. In fact, they could have been the subject of their own movies. They're adequately developed for the production's intentions, granted, but a lengthier, more patient treatment of the premise could've yielded an overall superior, more complete movie.

From a stylistic standpoint, Faster is very much a throwback movie. Director George Tillman Jr. and cinematographer Michael Grady (who worked together on 2009's Notorious) infused the film with a very gritty, cinematic look reminiscent of revenge flicks from the 1970s (think Death Wish or The French Connection), and they captured the action beats using old-school cinematic techniques reminiscent of the '80s. From top to bottom, this is a well-crafted motion picture, and its dark, no-nonsense tone makes for a riveting experience. Despite the film mainly consisting of dialogue, the pace never grinds to a halt. Tillman also excels as a visual director; the three protagonists are introduced in visual terms within skilful, wordless montages. Driver's introduction is especially effective, as so much is conveyed about the character without a great deal of dialogue at all.

It's terrific to see Dwayne Johnson doing hardcore actioners like this instead of tosh like Tooth Fairy or The Game Plan. With his imposing physique, Johnson has an immense screen presence, and his performance here is tough, focused, intense and no-nonsense. Faster is an ideal transitional movie for the former wrestler, as it highlights the star's physical capacity for action movies as well as his acting prowess. This was a complex role for Johnson, but he pulled it off - in spite of minimal dialogue, one can sense both the emotion he feels at any given moment and everything going through the character's mind. This is especially evident during a poignant scene when he comes face-to-face with Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje; one of his intended victims. But Johnson is not the only strong performer here. Playing Cop, Billy Bob Thornton is every bit as sublime and nuanced as Johnson, and he afforded much-needed emotional depth to his role. Meanwhile, the charismatic Oliver Jackson-Cohen shows great promise as Killer.

Faster may have problems with its undernourished script and dumb tendencies (in the real world, Driver would've been apprehended long before the climax), but it remains an enthralling little action flick with a lot on its mind. It delivers enough bang for your buck in terms of gritty action and violence, but it also offers sincerity and powerful, provocative themes without becoming a pretentious arthouse bore.

8.2/10

It's not often that a summer blockbuster spawns a large number of sequels. And considering how awful 2001's The Fast and the Furious was, who would have imagined it'd launch a franchise still kicking a decade later? Moreover, who the hell would've thought that the film's fourth sequel would actually be good? 2011's Fast Five is easily the best, most satisfying Fast and the Furious picture so far, on top of being the franchise's first genuinely good film. It's a pretty dopey, clichéd slice of summertime entertainment, but it's also a lot of skilful fun. Added to this, Fast Five is not hindered by all the usual issues - against all odds, the dialogue is actually involving, the dramatic elements are perfectly tolerable, and the formula has been altered, thus introducing much-needed innovation into a franchise long past its expiration date.

Fast Five picks up after Fast & Furious ended, with Dominic Toretto (Diesel) being freed from an in-transit prison bus by his sister Mia (Brewster) and former FBI Agent Brian O'Conner (Walker). Now fugitives being actively pursued by the authorities, the trio head to the streets of Rio de Janeiro whereupon they fall into the bad graces of powerful drug kingpin Hernan Reyes (de Almeida). Hoping to buy their freedom and give up life as fugitives, Dom, Brian and Mia start planning a heist to rob Reyes of $100 million. It's a daring mission, so the trio pull together a team of friendly faces, including such former partners as Roman (Gibson), Tej (Ludacris) and Han (Kang). However, a hulking federal agent named Hobbs (Johnson) is on their trail, working as fast as possible to bring down the fugitives by any means necessary.

It's doubtful that Fast Five can be considered positive for Rio's tourism industry. After all, the plot concerns the city's seedy underside of corrupt police, drug dealers and armed teenagers. Indeed, the depiction of the city is very different to that which was seen in the 2011 animated film Rio.

Screenwriter Chris Morgan might have been responsible for the appalling Tokyo Drift and 2009's average Fast & Furious, but his script for Fast Five is superlative. Astonishingly, the dialogue is not bland or awful; the repartee is actually witty, with engaging character interaction and a few notably amusing exchanges between Roman and Tej. The flick isn't Harold Pinter or anything, but it is robust and awesome. And mercifully, the street racing aspect takes a backseat for this story - Fast Five is more concerned with a heist in the vein of The Italian Job and Ocean's Eleven. Long-time fans of the series may be disappointed with the lack of street racing, but the change is good - it denotes progress in the franchise, and, after all, the racing angle ran out of steam a few movies ago. To maintain fidelity to the series, a random street race does happen for the sake of having a street race, but it's the most uninspired set-piece in the film.

Returning to the franchise, director Justin Lin and his team set out to achieve the majority of Fast Five's action sequences with practical effects. Fortunately, the results are spectacular - the stunts are phenomenal and the vehicular carnage feels real, making the action scenes all the more exhilarating. (If CGI was used at all, it's seldom obvious.) The extended climax - a car chase through the streets of Rio - is especially rewarding; cars are smashed and buildings are decimated, making Fast Five worth a hearty recommendation on the basis of this sequence alone. Of course, a suspension of disbelief is often required for this franchise, and Fast Five is no exception. Patently ridiculous stuff does happen, but it's easy to suspend your disbelief thanks to the old-fashioned filmmaking techniques. Also thrown into the mix are a few exciting shootouts, and even an awesome showdown between Vin Diesel and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, the latter of whom looks buff enough to wrestle a fucking T-Rex and come out victorious.

Another contributing factor to Fast Five's success is the actors, all of whom are better than they had any right to be. The real surprise is Paul Walker, whose acting has drastically improved since the first Fast and the Furious. No longer wooden, Walker's performance is solid and believable, and he always looks in the moment. Even Vin Diesel's work is strong here, and Jordana Brewster doesn't get on the nerves anymore. To make the reunion a bit more complete, Matt Schulze is also seen here as Vince for the first time since the 2001 original. And Walker's 2 Fast 2 Furious co-star Tyrese Gibson returned for this film as well, delivering an amiable, funny performance as Roman. Meanwhile, rapper-turned-actor Ludacris (another cast member from 2 Fast 2 Furious) is equally entertaining as Tej. Heck, even Sung Kang is good here - this is his most tolerable performance in the series to date. The best of the bunch, though, is without a doubt Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson playing the tough-as-nails Hobbs. An intimidating badass, Johnson is at long last proving that he still has what it takes to be the next Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he's inarguably the strongest antagonist the series has seen to date.

Fast Five runs a mammoth 130 minutes (making it the longest entry in the series by a good 20 minutes), but it's never boring; the pacing is strong and there's always something interesting going on. Put alongside its subpar predecessors, this is an excellent offering of action entertainment; slickly-directed, well-paced and irresistibly entertaining. And be sure to watch until the end of the credits for an exciting set-up for the inevitable sixth film that this reviewer is actually looking forward to it. (I cannot believe I actually just wrote that...)

8.1/10

2009's Fast & Furious is officially the fourth instalment of the Fast and the Furious series, but it seems more like a direct sequel to the 2001 original than a continuation of 2 Fast 2 Furious or Tokyo Drift. On top of Paul Walker's return to the series, Fast & Furious also brings back Vin Diesel, Jordana Brewster and Michelle Rodriguez, making it a true reunion. And surprisingly, in spite of palpable sequel fatigue and the unshakable question of "Why the hell do we need yet another one of these films?", Fast & Furious is the strongest entry in the franchise so far. It's a routine follow-up, but it surpasses its predecessors in terms of technical proficiency and pacing, which compensates for dumb scripting.

Still hijacking trucks many years after the original film, Dominic Toretto (Diesel) cuts ties with his gang and flees to Panama after a job goes awry. However, when tragedy strikes and someone close to him is murdered, Dom returns to his old stomping ground of Los Angeles where he reunites with sister Mia (Brewster). Vowing to exact vengeance, Dom looks to infiltrate a gang of drug traffickers who were responsible for the murder of his loved one. However, his investigation soon leads him to cross paths with old friend Brian O'Conner (Walker), now an FBI agent working undercover to catch the same drug kingpin. Due to their shared goals, Dom and Brian reluctantly team up, infiltrating the gang of traffickers and acting as drivers for them for a drug smuggling operation.

Perhaps the most glaring things about this picture is how fucking inept the title is - the makers merely removed two uses of the word "the" from the first film's title and called it a day. What's wrong with The Fast and the Furious 4? Then again, it'd probably be erroneous to expect any sort of intelligence or rational thought in this series...

Fast & Furious' story is reminiscent of 2003's 2 Fast 2 Furious to an unmistakable extent. As a matter of fact, if Vin Diesel returned for the second entry then it most likely would've played out exactly like this fourth film. Nevertheless, Fast & Furious is surprisingly well-designed despite the (expected) familiarity. The film is more dramatically solid than its predecessors - it's a leaner, more well-paced film which cuts out as much melodramatic nonsense as possible. And let's face it, this type of approach is more preferable for such a B-grade actioner. However, leaner introduces problems of its own. The story is paper-thin, but the mechanics are frustratingly hard to decipher. Events suddenly occur without sufficient explanation, and the film confusingly jumps between locations (when and how did the gang get into Mexico?). Perhaps the filmmakers should've excised the superfluous romantic angle (which is undernourished as it is) and left more room for requisite plot exposition or development.

But we never expected a Fast and the Furious film to be backed by impeccable scripting, let's face it. What matters is the action and the direction, and in this sense the movie succeeds. Directed by Justin Lin, the film kicks off on a high note with a marvellous assault on a tanker truck across a perilous mountain road. Well-shot, well-edited, and extremely intense and exciting, it's indeed a riveting way to begin the film; immediately signifying that Lin has improved his filmmaking technique since the disastrous Tokyo Drift. Mercifully, it's also for the most part easy to follow the action scenes thanks to the skilful filmmaking (the shaky-cam/quick cutting nonsense is not as pronounced here). If you come to Fast & Furious seeking thrills, you will be rewarded with a thoroughly enjoyable actioner. The only technical downfall is that there are a few obvious uses of cartoonish CGI, which detracts from the appeal of old-school mayhem that the franchise is more or less built on.

The biggest surprise of this film is that Paul Walker doesn't suck. Walker was awful in the previous Fast and the Furious movies, so one would logically expect a repeat performance here. Fortunately, Walker has improved as an actor in his six-year absence from the series - his performance as Brian is grittier and more believable. He's not brilliant, but he's easily passable for this type of action film. Likewise, Vin Diesel was dismal in the original picture, but has returned to the series with style - he looks legitimately tough, and his acting is strong. The other performers fare worse, however, with John Ortiz making for a weak villain and with a wooden Sung Kang making a brief appearance. Meanwhile, Jordana Brewster and a very underused Michelle Rodriguez were recruited to fulfil the purpose of being pure sex objects, and they succeeded; delivering watchable but unmemorable performances.

Fast & Furious is a case of getting what you pay for. The film delivers fast cars, furious action set-pieces and a thin plot, and it doesn't have as many of the drawbacks that weakened its predecessors. This is easily the best instalment in the franchise so far, and fans of the series will no doubt walk away pleased. But while it seems unfair to criticise the expected shortcomings, it would've been nice if more effort went into the screenplay in order to deliver a more substantive production. Unsurprisingly, after this film's box office success, the executives over at Universal ordered another sequel: Fast Five in 2011.

6.1/10