Reviews by PvtCaboose91

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

The last time Warner Bros. Pictures adapted a DC Comics character for the big screen, it resulted in 2010's disastrous Jonah Hex. And now, DC Comics mainstay Green Lantern receives his own splashy summer blockbuster, and the results are just as bad as Jonah Hex. 2011's Green Lantern is an absolute disaster, a cosmic mess of style over substance for which everything that could go wrong has gone wrong. Consulting the big book of superhero movie clichés, Green Lantern is a by-the-book origin tale with formulaic, trite broad strokes but different details and characters. But instead of a successful, thoughtful origin story, this turgid catastrophe comes up short in critical elements like awe, excitement, patient character arcs, humanity, and gripping drama. From top to bottom, the whole production is lifeless and dreary - it's a wasted opportunity considering the limitless nature of the Green Lantern universe with its array of colourful heroes and villains.

An aircraft test pilot, Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is skilled at his profession, but the death of his father haunts him and cripples him with fear. When a planet-gobbling intergalactic entity called the Parallax (voiced by Clancy Brown) mortally wounds a member of the Green Lantern Corps, Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), he crash lands on Earth, and his cosmic power ring chooses Hal as its next bearer. Much to his bewilderment, Hal is subsequently inducted into the Green Lantern Corps, which works from their home planet of Oa to protect the universe. Hal has the will and potential to be a great warrior, but his internal fear limits his abilities and causes the other members of the Corps to doubt him. Meanwhile, eccentric scientist Dr. Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard) becomes infected by the Parallax's powers and begins acting as an earthbound ally for the planet-destroying entity that is determined to eliminate the human race.

The critics tore Green Lantern a new asshole upon its release, and for good reason. Identifying everything that went wrong with this production is challenging because the answer is just about everything. The biggest problem is the screenplay (credited to four writers, including future DC television mainstays Greg Berlanti and Marc Guggenheim), which amounts to a collection of eye-rolling clichés. Rather than using the recognisable tropes to create a substantive superhero origin tale, the film simply rattles along, perfunctorily ticking off boxes on the Joseph Campbell checklist and reviving as many entries in the Big Book of Superhero Clichés as possible. And instead of mining from the rich fifty-year history of the Green Lantern character, the writers basically throw Maverick from Top Gun into the mix and call him Hal Jordan.

Green Lantern is too ambitious - it wants to cover too many bases during its two-hour runtime, resulting in a disjointed mess that hastily rushes through the material, tossing out names and places without giving them sufficient explanation or allowing things to sink in. The makers seemingly believed that brief explanations about Parallax's origins and the history of the Corps would be adequate, and that spectacle would be reasonable compensation. But it does not work, as watching the rushed, wildly incoherent narrative unfold is unengaging and boring. Those expecting ample action involving the Green Lantern Corps should prepare themselves for disappointment, too. What you see in the trailers is pretty much all you get to see of such beloved characters as Tomar-Re (Geoffrey Rush) and Kilowog (Michael Clarke Duncan). All of the marketing efforts that portrayed the film as a sprawling superhero tale about an epic army of intergalactic warriors? It was all LIES and deception! The film eventually sputters out with a rushed climax that concludes before you realise that the climax has even arrived. Hector Hammond's treatment is especially pathetic in this respect, with the character receiving an underwhelming demise.

If nothing else, we should at least expect Green Lantern to be an entertaining, glossy blockbuster...right? With competent action director Martin Campbell (Casino Royale, Edge of Darkness) at the helm and a budget exceeding $200 million, expecting some eye candy or exhilarating action from the film would not be unreasonable. It's too bad Green Lantern fails on that front, too - the usual grittiness and penchant for practical effects and stunts of Campbell's normal output is gone, replaced with a crazy amount of CGI. Visually, the film is drab and uninvolving. Warner Bros. paid dearly for the special effects and struggled to finish them in time for the scheduled release date (they even pumped an extra $9 million into the budget and hired more workers at the eleventh hour). Thus, instead of taking the necessary time to make the effects look good, the effects artists were working towards a preset finish date and just tried to complete the work on time, quality be damned. Big-budget movies should not look this cold and lifeless - the green-screen work is poor, it looks and feels like it was almost entirely shot on sets and soundstages, and the overused digital effects look unremarkable and embarrassingly digital. Hal's suit is wholly digital, and boy, is it obvious. (At least the dreadful suit set Reynolds up for a meta-joke in 2016's Deadpool.) Meanwhile, the original score by the ordinarily reliable James Newton Howard is forgettable and generic, and the action choreography is distinctly pedestrian. There are no redeeming qualities here.

Under normal circumstances, Reynolds is a great, highly charismatic actor, but he looks lost in the role of Hal Jordan - his vanilla performance is without so much as a shred of charm. Perhaps the star grew fatigued very quickly due to acting in front of a green screen all the time. As the trademark love interest, Blake Lively is the very definition of bland. The only cast member who looks like they actually enjoyed themselves is Peter Sarsgaard, whose performance as Hector Hammond is delightfully hammy. The supporting players make no impact, with an instantly forgettable Tim Robbins as Hector's father, while a weak, underused Angela Bassett plays government agent Amanda Waller. Mark Strong is also on hand as Hal's mentor, Sinestro, but the actor makes no effort to distinguish his performance here from everything else he has done in the past few years. The cast is also limited by the dismal way the script uses them. Characters show up momentarily before disappearing, never to be heard from again, while character relationships are poorly delineated. It's just bad writing.

In addition to being godawful, Green Lantern was an unbelievable flop - Warner Bros. pissed away so much fucking money on this piece of shit (on top of the $200+ million budget, marketing costs exceeded $100 million), and it sputtered big time at the box office. Warner Bros. intended for Green Lantern to show that they can make superhero blockbusters on the same level as Marvel, but instead, the film is a substantial creative setback. The studio also aimed to produce a Green Lantern trilogy and spearhead a Justice League of America movie, but those plans ultimately led nowhere; instead, Warner Bros. hired Zack Snyder to kickstart a new DC Extended Universe that does not encompass Green Lantern. The whole production simply reeks of disinterest and half-hearted non-effort. An extended cut was released on home video that restores 10 minutes of excised footage. I have no interest in seeing this version, even out of sheer curiosity, and therefore, I cannot comment on the new scenes' quality (or lack thereof).

1.2/10

Bridesmaids is another R-rated summer comedy from the Judd Apatow humour factory. However, this is not your typical Apatow outing populated by males and sex jokes - instead, Bridesmaids is mostly concerned with females. Do not, however, mistake this for another superficial, harebrained chick flick like Bride Wars or Sex and the City, nor is it simply a female version of The Hangover. Bridesmaids is its own movie with its own identity - it's a poignant comedy-drama exploring tumultuous female relationships and the disenchantment of middle age. The film tells a heartfelt tale which feels real and focuses on a handful of well-developed, three-dimensional female characters. And it's also genuinely hilarious. In this sense, Bridesmaids is the antithesis of the onslaught of amazingly stupid chick flicks featuring the likes of Katherine Heigl and Kate Hudson.

Annie (Wiig) is in her 30s, stuck in a nowhere relationship with a prick (Hamm), and has worked a lowly job at a jewellery store ever since her beloved bakery went out of business. When her lifelong best friend Lillian (Rudolph) announces her engagement and impending marriage, Annie is given the maid of honour responsibilities, much to her excitement. However, as she begins organising events leading up to the big day, Annie finds herself threatened by the sophisticated, rich Helen (Byrne), who begins assuming control of everything and trespassing on Annie's turf as Lillian's best friend.

Bridesmaids is an unapologetically R-rated comedy (unsurprising for a Judd Apatow production), but not in the sense that it's packed with excessive language or gross-out gags which push the boundaries of bad taste. Instead, writers Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo used the freedom of the R rating to pen an uncompromising, honest script which treats the story and characters with the realism and care that they demand. A lot of mainstream comedies reduce female characters to materialistic shopaholics or quirky supporting characters, but Bridesmaids explores the deeper facets of real-world females. In the real world, women don't merely cry a lot and shop compulsively - the gender has its own voice and humorous sensibility, and the film brings this out. One of the biggest successes of the script is how well-written the characters are, from the flawed and troubled Annie to the hilariously eccentric Megan. Helen could have easily been written as materialistic and shallow, but the role has genuine depth which is gradually revealed as the film progresses.

Director Paul Feig's last feature film was 2006's Unaccompanied Minors, after which he worked a lot in TV (including the American version of The Office). Despite being Feig's first feature in five years, Bridesmaids is a skilfully-made picture, and it's clear that Feig has a firm grasp of comic timing. Additionally, the film for the most part flows at an agreeable, brisk pace. However, like other Apatow pictures, Bridesmaids runs over two hours, which is about 15-20 minutes too long. A comedy like this requires more focus and tighter editing, but instead the film meanders here and there. It doesn't drag too much, but as a whole the picture feels too long in the tooth, especially since the laughs become too scattershot in the final half-hour.

Let's not mince words here - the underrated Kristen Wiig is brilliant as Annie; she's appealing, relatable, hilariously unrestrained and at times genuinely touching. Wiig has bounced around the sidelines of comedies for years and has always shined (see Whip It, MacGruber and Paul, just to name a few), so it's fantastic to see her finally getting the lead role in her own film. Bridesmaids may contain a sizable ensemble of excellent female performers, but this is Wiig's film. Speaking of her co-stars, Wiig's interactions with Rose Byrne are often hilarious, and the two play off one another perfectly. Maya Rudolph (Wiig's co-star in 2010's MacGruber) is friends with Wiig in real life, and their genuine friendship has translated to a terrific on-screen chemistry. Another standout in the cast is the hilarious Melissa McCarthy as Megan, who has an air of Gary Busey about her (i.e. she doesn't seem to be all there in the head). Like Wiig, McCarthy has the capacity to handle both drama and humour extremely well. Then there's Irishman Chris O'Dowd as the charming, kind-hearted Office Rhodes. O'Dowd is a delight in the role, and male viewers will likely find him the easiest to relate to (this reviewer did).

It's virtually impossible for Bridesmaids not to win you over. The film is destined to be a comedy classic, as it's a crowd-pleasing, entertaining, hilarious and heartfelt comedy which isn't in bad taste and doesn't succumb to empty-headed stereotypes. Male or female, you can relate to Bridesmaids in some capacity.

7.8/10

Rango can best be described as a loving animated spoof-cum-ode to classic Spaghetti Westerns, most notably those directed by the iconic Sergio Leone. And the influences run deeper than that - while director Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean 1-3) clearly channelled Leone, composer Hans Zimmer was obviously influenced by Ennio Morricone, and the film also parodies aspects of the 1966 western Django. And if that isn't enough pedigree for a mainstream animated movie, the voice cast includes the likes of Johnny Depp, Alfred Molina, Bill Nighy, Stephen Root, Timothy Olyphant and Ray Winstone, not to mention Rango is the animated feature debut of Industrial Light and Magic (ILM). For those unfamiliar with ILM, they are one of the top-tier pioneers of cinematic special effects, so it's hardly surprising that Rango is the best-looking animated movie to date. It's a bit of a shame, then, that John Logan's script is hit-and-miss.

After accidentally falling off the back of a car, a cloistered chameleon (Depp) is abandoned in the vast, scorching expanses of the Mojave Desert armed with nothing but a passion for acting. His dramatic chops soon prove useful, however, when he stumbles upon the drought-stricken town of Dirt and manages to convince the town's denizens (an array of desert creatures, ranging from toads to rodents of all shapes and sizes) that he's in fact a dangerous gunslinger named Rango. Through a series of standoffs in which Rango accidentally comes out on top, the desperate townsfolk see the wily lizard as their saviour, and he's tasked with the role of sheriff as they battle a water shortage problem. During this, a romantic interest for Rango emerges in the form of desert iguana Beans (Fisher), and secrets are gradually revealed involving the shady dealings of the town's corrupt mayor (Beatty).

As evidenced in at least the first Pirates of the Caribbean production, Verbinski is a terrific action director. Consequently, Rango comes alive during the breathtaking action beats, including a delightful set-piece involving giant bats that hilariously parodies the Flight of the Valkyries aerial assault from Apocalypse Now. Rango may be ILM's first animated feature, but the George Lucas-founded studio have nailed it right out of the gate - their decades of special effects experience have translated to a succulent visual feast guaranteed to impress even the most curmudgeonly of movie-goers. Each frame bursts with immense artistry and vitality, easily topping motion-capture movies like A Christmas Carol and The Polar Express in terms of both realistic movement and detail. The character designs impress too, as the lizards and rodents actually look somewhat cute and cuddly. Acclaimed cinematographer Roger Deakins (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, 2010's True Grit) was even hired as a visual consultant, and his cinematographic instincts clearly benefitted the movie to a tremendous extent, resulting in sweeping shots of desert vistas and dynamic photography during the action sequences.

But Rango is a strangely mixed bag. While it looks gorgeous, it suffers from poor pacing, which is likely a direct cause of Verbinski's inexperience with animation. The story (reminiscent of Roman Polanski's 1974 film Chinatown) is very thin and familiar, and there was no reason to pad it out to an unreasonable 110-minute runtime. The pictures invigorates from time to time, but the dialogue is frequently flat and the movie often feels as if it's on autopilot. A film like this should be infused with high energy levels to keep the pace brisk, but Rango unfortunately meanders. Most problematic is when the titular character is taken seriously and pathos emerges in an attempt to introduce themes and messages. Ultimately, though, such material feels forced and unearned in what should be a fluffy, easygoing comedy. It also doesn't help that the overzealous quirkiness of the material grows old quickly.

On a more positive note, the voice cast is pitch-perfect from top to bottom. Leading the pack is the always-reliable Johnny Depp, who essentially married his Captain Jack Sparrow and Hunter S. Thompson personas to create the endearing titular chameleon. While it's disappointing to see Depp starring in more safe, high-profile studio releases than daring indie pictures, you can never accuse Depp of delivering a lazy performance; he is 100% dedicated to every role he undertakes, and Rango is no exception. Another standout is Ned Beatty as the mayor of Dirt; his performance gives a credible, sinister edge to the morally dubious role. Bill Nighy pops up momentarily as well, and his menacing vocal performance as Rattlesnake Jake sounds very similar to his work as Davey Jones in the first two Pirates of the Caribbean sequels. Timothy Olyphant also appears briefly to voice what is essentially Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name character. Astonishingly, Olyphant sounds somewhat like a young Eastwood. Isla Fisher and Abigail Breslin are in the cast too, and both of them are strong in their respective female roles. Various other names also loaned their talents to the movie, and suffice it to say all of them are solid.

For the most part, children are likely to be delighted by Rango. When it doesn't plod, there's enough visual artistry to keep them enthralled, and there are a number of fun set-pieces as well. But it's merely good instead of great - it was clearly meant to be a comedy, but laughs are too occasional and the pacing is too uneven.

6.6/10

Fright Night is good old-fashioned '80s cheese - there's no better or more accurate way to describe this classic horror-comedy hybrid. Written and directed by Tom Holland (who carried out the same double duty for Child's Play), this is a true B-movie in every sense of the word that brings a bunch of traditional B-movie clichés out to play: high school students, hammy performances, campy special effects, nudity, cheesy music and so on. The product is awesome; a true gem mixing witty, self-referential humour with old-school vampire rules within an interesting narrative, and it's all wrapped up in a delicious '80s wrapping. They just don't make movies like this anymore (they just remake 'em).

17 years old and fatherless, Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) begins witnessing suspicious behaviour after the vacant house next to him becomes occupied by the charming Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon). After a series of local murders, Charley becomes convinced that Jerry is a bloodsucking vampire. His suspicions are confirmed, but everyone around him refuses to believe such nonsense - the local authorities believe that he's crazy, his mother (Dorothy Fielding) dismisses his ramblings, his friend Evil Ed (Stephen Geoffreys) merely laughs at him, and he starts to fall out with sweet girlfriend Amy (Bearse). He also stirs up a lot of trouble with Jerry and his roommate Billy Cole (Jonathan Stark). Desperate and fearful for his life, Charley turns to aging, washed-up veteran horror movie star Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall) who's renowned for playing vampire hunters.

Tom Holland's screenplay doesn't bore us with excessive detective episodes spotlighting Charley sneaking around looking for evidence to support his claim. Holland instead plunges us straight into the plot's meat and potatoes, with Charley's suspicions beginning in the very first scene before being confirmed not long afterwards. While this may imply that the script skips character development to simply toss a few bland faces into the fray, the characters are actually developed as the story progresses. However, the script does have a rather large hole in it. Charlie is a horror fan who watches horror marathons on a constant basis, but he feels the need to consult Evil Ed for vampire advice? Evidently the resultant scene was a device to allow for old-school vampire rules to be stated out loud for viewers, but it seems like lazy writing. And there's an air of predictability that mars a few ineffective scenes; for instance, when a character announces that they don't believe in vampires right before randomly strolling into a dark alley.

If you're seeking old-fashioned vampire action, Fright Night scratches that itch. In the era of the insipid Twilight phenomenon, it's indeed refreshing to look back on the 1980s when vampires actually killed people in gory ways and were allowed to look horrific when going in for the kill. This gives way to genuinely chilling set pieces benefitting from impressive special effects and terrific make-up. Holland's direction is generally strong, though the first half is not quite as well-paced or as interesting as the second half. But once the film does hit the home stretch, things pick up big time with an extended climax that's funny, scary, exciting and effective. Added to this, Fright Night is imbued with tongue-in-cheek humour that separates it from more run-of-the-mill vampire outings. Charley and Evil are horror buffs, while Peter Vincent is a star of vampire movies himself. It's amusing to watch them discuss cinematic vampire rules and point out which rules prove to be true.

Front and centre in the cast is William Ragsdale, who effortlessly convinces as Charley. He always seems completely in the moment, which is a rarity when it comes to B-grade horror flicks. Chris Sarandon, meanwhile, is fantastic as Jerry Dandridge; he manages to be deviously affable and debonair with a hint of menace, and he suits the role to the ground. The film's best performance, though, was delivered by the late great Roddy McDowall as "vampire hunter" Peter Vincent. McDowall is endearing and fun to watch, yet he also manages to sell fear and intensity as well. His work is simply excellent. On the other hand, Amanda Bearse is admittedly not as good in the role of Amy. Bearse was able to sell her character well enough, but she's at times too grating. Stephen Geoffreys fares better as Evil Ed, however - it's clear that Geoffreys had a lot of fun playing such a goofball.

In addition to everything else, Fright Night also serves as a nice time capsule that provides a snapshot of '80s life. Concerns about virginity are introduced, and the film encapsulates the atmosphere and essence of the decade. And then there's the awesome '80s music derived from two sources: Brad Fiedel's deliciously cheesy score and the hilarious techno music that plays during a memorable scene in a nightclub.

Fright Night is an awesome, offbeat little gem. It has hip, tongue-in-cheek dialogue, humour, scary moments, memorable set-pieces, lots of energy, a handful of great performances, and even gay undertones (just what exactly is Jerry's relationship with his day watcher?). It may be dated and cheesy, and some scenes may be hilariously bad, but that's precisely why it's so awesome and deviously enjoyable. While you can't label Fright Night as great art, you can definitely call it great fun.

The film was remade in 2011 and was followed by a sequel: 1988's Fright Night Part 2.

8.5/10

It's not uncommon to behold theatrical movies based on television shows (Bean) or skits (Wayne's World, The Blues Brothers). Johnny English, however, is a feature-length expansion of a series of British credit card commercials in which Rowan Atkinson played a bumbling English spy with a tendency to become entangled in embarrassing situations. While the name of Atkinson's character in the ads was changed for the film, the concept is identical. And surprisingly, despite a harsh critical reception, the translation from television ad to feature film actually works - Johnny English is more fun and assured than it had any right to be. Additionally, it represents the ultimate twist on the usual James Bond secret agent spoof - it's a British production, it was written by 007 veterans Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, and Atkinson even had a minor role in the unofficial James Bond movie Never Say Never Again back in the '80s.

England's most inept spy, Johnny English (Atkinson) works a lowly desk job at MI7 but dreams of a more distinguished position in the service. When MI7's top agent is killed in action and the rest of the senior agents are killed by a bomb blast, Johnny and his assistant Bough (Ben Miller) are the only ones available to be recruited for active duty. Their first assignment is to oversee the unveiling of the recently restored Crown Jewels, which are stolen on the night of the unveiling. Their adversary, as it turns out, is rich French industrialist Pascal Sauvage (John Malkovich) who looks to claim the throne of England for himself and transform the country into a large prison. During his investigation, Johnny encounters Interpol agent Lorna Campbell (Natalie Imbruglia) who's also looking to thwart Sauvage's evil intentions.

In the years since its release, Johnny English has become one of the most maligned productions on Atkinson's filmography to date. Yet, in this reviewer's opinion, the film is a bright, charming and bubbly action-comedy, and it's a perfectly serviceable few hours of escapist entertainment. The film is consistently well-paced thanks to Peter Howitt's lively direction, while a decent amount of jokes pervade the 100-minute running time. Admittedly, the jokes are overly sophomoric and dumb since the production relies on predictable slapstick and even toilet humour at times, but the film is often amusing nevertheless. Plus, even when the jokes cease or become dire, high energy levels ensure that Johnny English is never a chore to get through, which is more than what can be said for most generic Hollywood comedies. Admittedly, however, a few more clever Mr. Bean-esque belly-laughs would definitely have been beneficial.

Atkinson's presence is the driving factor which allows the gags to actually land. As evidenced through his work on stage and screen (Mr. Bean, Blackadder, etc), he's a funny-looking man and is the master of facial expressions, not to mention he excels at selling gags with a straight face. His Johnny English role can best be described as the Frank Drebin of James Bond spoofs. Alongside Atkinson is Miller as his sidekick Bough (another character from the original ads). Miller's performance is on par with Atkinson; he has all the trappings of a great, amiable comic performer, not to mention the character is just so easily lovable. And then there's Australian singer-songwriter Imbruglia as Lorna Campbell - an odd choice for an action movie heroine, who is merely okay here. One of the most important aspects of a Bond movie is the girl, so it's a shame that Johnny English doesn't hit a home run in this respect. Rounding out the cast is Malkovich, who chews the scenery with a hilariously hammy French accent in the role of Pascal Sauvage.

Best described as a combination of Get Smart, Austin Powers and The Pink Panther, Johnny English is a pleasant action-comedy diversion completely undeserving of the scathing reception it endured. Okay, so it's pretty juvenile, but it's also innocuous fun that benefits from the inclusion of several good laugh-out-loud scenes (there's a particularly notable beat involving ABBA's Does Your Mother Know that had his reviewer in fits of laughter). If you enjoy dumb humour and can temper your expectations, Johnny English is fun, funny, and never boring. It even spawned two sequels - Johnny English Reborn and Johnny English Strikes Again - the latter of which landed a whopping fifteen years later.

6.9/10

In a nutshell, Your Highness is a contemporary medieval swords-and-sorcery parody. And by "contemporary", I mean that it accommodates a lot of profanity, modern language, sex jokes and stoner humour. In a sense, it feels as if the film was conceived by a bunch of dudes who watched Monty Python & the Holy Grail while smoking weed one evening and decided to make a similar movie. (Actually, it wouldn't be surprising if that's how Your Highness in fact began life.) Considering the names attached to the project - it was directed by David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express) and it stars James Franco, Danny McBride, Natalie Portman and Zooey Deschanel, just to name a few - one would likely expect brilliance. Alas, while it's at times amusing, Your Highness is not as funny or as good as one might have hoped.

Constantly overshadowed by his brother, Prince Thadeous (McBride) is a lazy slob who spends his time smoking, slobbing around and procrastinating with manservant Courtney (Hardiker). His brother Prince Fabious (Franco), on the other hand, is handsome and heroic. Upon returning from his latest valiant quest, Fabious intends to wed the beautiful, virginal Belladonna (Deschanel). However, powerful warlock Leezar (Theroux) invades the ceremony on wedding day, stealing away Belladonna with plans to fulfil a wicked prophesy by impregnating her. Fabious sets off to save his bride-to-be, and drags along his reluctant brother Thadeous in the hope that the quest will facilitate a closer bond between them. During their journey, Thadeous and Fabious team up with tough, beautiful warrior Isabel who also wants Leezar dead.

It's an age-old story of myth and legend: a king has two sons, one of whom is a heroic warrior while the other is a disappointment. Your Highness uses this familiar premise, constructing a linear medieval story that could have been played seriously...but was instead inhabited by foul-mouthed, Judd Apatow-style characters. Taking into account those involved in the film's creation, it's no surprise that profanity, crude sex humour and stoner gags constitute the film's comedic backbone, but it's disappointing that the gags stem from pretty much only that instead of anything truly witty. Apparently no script was used during the filming process; instead, script notes were consulted and the dialogue was improvised. This fact is constantly obvious. While there are a few good laughs here and there, the dialogue for the most part sounds like it was lifted from a piece of high school improvisation. With the production serving up more throwaway instant gratification laughs than large, memorable comic payoffs, Your Highness is too disposable and too low on worthwhile laughs.

On a more positive note, director David Gordon Green is a talented filmmaker. Your Highness is a skilfully-assembled little comedy, with vivid sets, lush cinematography and above-average CGI creating an impressive medieval fantasy universe. Green showed that he could handle action with Pineapple Express, and here the director has further proved his aptitude. The results easily trump films like Season of the Witch in terms of scope, scale and even atmosphere. No matter which way you swing it, the production values are impeccable, and it's therefore a shame that they were squandered to make such an underwhelming picture. With a stronger script and more focus, Your Highness could have been a terrific cult comedy. Heck, for all we know, maybe the unused script was stronger and more focused. Or maybe there was never a script in the first place... Whatever.

Danny McBride can be a strong comic performer, but here he seems entirely uninvested in the material. All of his laughs lines seem self-aware, giving the impression that McBride was convinced that he is the king of hilarity. Even if he does score a few laughs here and there, McBride's performance lacks wit and characterisation. James Franco fares better, though, in a performance that's amusingly hammy. Franco was born for comedies, so it's a bit of a shame that he wasn't given better material to work with here. And then there's superhot Natalie Portman, who easily puts her co-stars to shame. Portman gets laughs because her performance is completely straight, and she doesn't seem to be in on the joke. Also in the cast is the adorable Zooey Deschanel, whose appearance reminds us why all members of the male movie-going public have a monster crush on her. The role asked for Deschanel to play a naïve beauty, and she managed to sell the part well enough without being a standout.

I wanted to like Your Highness more than I did. It comes alive in isolated places, but it's too hit-and-miss, and as a whole it underwhelms with its repetitive nature and hazy comic focus.

5.1/10

Kim Ji-woon is arguably one of the greatest talents to emerge from the Korean film industry over recent years. Through movies like A Tale of Two Sisters and A Bittersweet Life, Kim has displayed tremendous versatility; crafting films of various genres, and twisting each genre formula to make it feel fresh and renewed. 2010's I Saw the Devil represents Kim's unique spin on serial killer flicks and revenge epics, resulting in a riveting ultra-violent thriller that mixes Silence of the Lambs and Oldboy, with maybe a hint of No Country for Old Men thrown in for good measure. Unflinchingly graphic, Kim's latest magnum opus aims to shock, disgust, infuriate, and even challenge viewers in a thoughtful fashion. A dumbed-down Death Wish remake this is not - I Saw the Devil is a meditation on the cost of revenge, and its themes are conveyed without sacrificing the viscera that viewers are likely seeking.

In Korea, merciless serial killer Kyung-chul (Min-sik Choi) begins murdering vulnerable young girls, taking great delight in graphically murdering and dismembering his victims. His latest target, a young woman (San-ha Oh), is the fiancé of secret agent Soo-hyun (Byung-hun Lee) and the daughter of a police section chief. Emotionally devastated, Soo-hyun vows to exact revenge on the killer in the most brutal way he can. Working off a list of suspects provided by his would-be father-in-law, Soo-hyun soon encounters Kyung-chul and starts to implement his simple revenge plan: inflict as much pain as humanly possible without killing his victim. As Soo-hyun elongates the vengeful suffering and toys with Kyung-chul over days and weeks, his moral code begins to evaporate.

While we've seen violent revenge films before, we have never seen one quite like this. It's director Kim's treatment of the material that makes I Saw the Devil so special - as an orchestrator of white-knuckle suspense set-pieces and as a visual filmmaker, he's difficult to top. Kim excels when it comes to moody cinematography, nail-biting tension and graphic violence. Seriously, this is one of the most brutal, wince-inducingly violent movies ever made. However, the term "torture porn" does not exactly apply to I Saw the Devil, as the film is concerned about more than mere exploitation - the graphic bloodletting seems to be in the service of the plot, not the other way around. Kim is a more accomplished filmmaker than someone like Eli Roth, and his stylish directorial hand ensures that the violence is riveting and intense rather than just plain unpleasant. Plus, all of the repulsiveness exists within the context of thematic complexity. If the violence was toned down, the film's messages and thematic density would also be weakened. Kudos to Kim and his crew for sticking to their guns and retaining artistic integrity in order to deliver such an uncompromising piece of work.

Hoon-jung Park's screenplay also deserves credit for shrewdly playing around with typical serial killer genre clichés. I Saw the Devil could've been a predictable, run-of-the-mill revenge actioner, but the film is instead more thoughtful and twist-laden. Running at a mammoth length of about 140 minutes, the film admittedly feels a bit like a workprint version awaiting additional trimming, but sluggish patches are very scarce - for the most part, I Saw the Devil moves with breathtaking efficiency. Director Kim's dexterity when it comes pacing, atmosphere and suspense has a lot to do with this. Not to mention, Kyung-chul is established as such a monster that you'll want to keep watching in order to see the guy get his comeuppance in the most satisfyingly brutal way imaginable. Through this, it's hard to tear your eyes away from the screen.

To many, Min-sik Choi will be recognisable as the grizzled star of 2003's Oldboy. His role here of a brutal, dangerous serial killer suits the actor's abilities tremendously well. Choi's performance is memorably intense and chilling; he's a standout. Meanwhile, Byung-hun Lee (star of Kim's previous films The Good, the Bad, the Weird and A Bittersweet Life) is a dashing, amiable protagonist (though "anti-hero" is perhaps a more appropriate term). The two are a terrific pairing, as the story pits Chois brute strength against Lee's sleek martial arts skills. The fights stemming from this contrast are exhilarating.

With a handful of excellent films already under his belt, it seems there's nothing director Kim Ji-woon cannot turn into excellence. It's also hard not to get excited about the prospect of Kim's future motion pictures. If you have the stomach for this type of graphic violence, I Saw the Devil is a treat.

9.0/10

Insidious sees Saw creators James Wan and Leigh Whannell collaborate with the producers of Paranormal Activity, and the result is one of the most outstanding supernatural horror movies in recent memory. Although there is nothing ostensibly exciting about Insidious since it is a PG-13 horror flick about a possessed child, Wan and Whannell robustly defy the odds, overcoming the derivative narrative and limitations of a commercially friendly rating to create a thoroughly chilling and riveting horror experience. Since Wan recognised that Saw's intense violence and gore put off specific viewers who dismissed the original film as torture porn, the director wanted to demonstrate his ability to create another original horror movie without intense blood or viscera. Insidious also proved influential in subsequent years, as the movie established producer Jason Blum's modus operandi for overseeing genre pictures on tight, efficient budgets, and it verified Wan as one of cinema's all-time great horror filmmakers. For those who enjoy watching scary movies, Insidious is a treat.

School teacher Josh Lambert (Patrick Wilson) and his aspiring musician wife Renai (Rose Byrne) move into a spacious new home with their three children: sons Dalton (Ty Simpkins) and Foster (Andrew Astor), and infant daughter Kali. However, the day after seeing a mysterious entity in the attic and hitting his head from falling off a ladder, Dalton inexplicably slips into a coma that baffles his doctors. Dalton is fine from a medical standpoint, showing no signs of brain damage, but he simply cannot wake up. After several months in the hospital with no improvement, Josh and Renai bring their son back home. However, the family soon begins to experience unexplainable paranormal occurrences and terrifying visions of strangers lurking around their residence. Although Josh tries to be supportive by agreeing with Renai to sell their home and move, similar supernatural events immediately happen in their next house. Bewildered by the extraordinary state of affairs, Renai seeks help from spiritual expert Elise (Lin Shaye) and her two paranormal investigators, Tucker (Angus Sampson) and Specs (Leigh Whannell).

Essentially Poltergeist meets Paranormal Activity, Insidious gets practically everything right - the atmosphere, soundtrack, cinematography, direction, writing and acting are all top-notch, combining to create 2011's most skin-crawling mainstream horror picture. Wan did not have big bucks on his side here, with reports placing the budget at an impossibly scant $1.5 million, and filming took place in a mere three weeks, but the limited scope works to the movie's benefit as the "less is more" approach effectively heightens the unbearable tension. Although there are a few jump scares, these moments are often effective thanks to the stylish digital photography and Wan's keen eye for sinister images. Most importantly, the PG-13 rating does not hinder Insidious - the material never seems neutered because Wan recognises the importance of atmosphere and story, two vital elements for creating a successful horror movie. Joseph Bishara's superbly atmospheric score is another immense asset, adding a chilling edge to the story and making the horror imagery even more unnerving. The film transforms into a bit of a macabre funhouse towards the climax as Josh explores a purgatory realm known as "The Further," with a smattering of campy humour releasing the tension. The demonic designs are memorable and sinister, with the red-faced demon becoming an iconic genre image. However, there are a few weak spots, such as a lousy-looking shot of a demon crawling along a wall towards the end.

Whannell wrote the screenplay for Insidious with a list of horror clichés beside him to ensure that he avoided as many as possible, which prevents the movie from feeling trite or predictable. It is easy to respect the characters and believe in them because they seem like realistic, intelligent human beings instead of contrived script puppets. For instance, the script addresses the lingering question of "Why don't they just leave the house?" by letting the characters move to a new residence after one exceedingly terrible night. Then, when the paranormal occurrences persist, they track down experts for further insight. Additionally, Josh seems level-headed and reasonable, showing credible reluctance to believe in the paranormal. Wan and Whannell pay attention to the story's all-important human element, reinforcing the inherent terror of the situations in which the protagonists become entangled.

Run-of-the-mill horror pictures often falter on the acting front, but Insidious excels with an above-average cast. Front and centre is Australian-born actress Rose Byrne (Get Him to the Greek, Knowing), who submits a nuanced and naturalistic performance as Renai. Byrne effortlessly and believably conveys fear and anxiety while coming across as likeable, making her easy to latch onto. Alongside her, Patrick Wilson (Watchmen, Hard Candy) is equally charming and engaging, turning Josh into a believable father and family man who grapples with the extraordinary events that unfold. Wan has also found a terrific child actor in Ty Simpkins (Revolutionary Road, The Next Three Days), who spends most of the movie in a coma but still makes a positive impression. Meanwhile, Angus Sampson and Leigh Whannell appear as Ghostbuster types who investigate paranormal occurrences, and they both do a great job of selling humour and intensity. Rounding out the leading players is Lin Shaye (a veteran of horror and comedy movies), who plays a psychic with a personal connection to the Lambert family. Shaye's performance gives the material a tremendous amount of gravitas.

Whannell's script borrows structural elements from movies like The Amityville Horror, Poltergeist and The Exorcist, but originality in the horror genre is not always essential. Instead, a horror movie merely needs to scare viewers with a genuinely well-made excursion into pure terror. Insidious achieves this goal with remarkable confidence. The movie is similar to a funhouse ride in a theme park, as it takes viewers on a tour of creepy images and spooky things that pop out at them, and the terror does not let up until the ride concludes. It also shares similarities with Sam Raimi's style of terror, most notably Drag Me to Hell, where unnerving images, a bombastic soundtrack and a cats-walking-on-instruments score generate the thrills and chills. The terrifying final scene closes the movie on a memorable note, setting up its 2013 sequel, Insidious: Chapter 2.

8.2/10

Somewhat competent yet unremarkable, Assassination Games is another low-budget action-thriller of the well-worn hitman subgenre variety. The big draw of this otherwise undistinguished action fare is that it stars aging action icon Jean-Claude Van Damme and rising star Scott Adkins, both of whom are incredible fighters both on and off the screen. However, while Assassination Games is moderately entertaining throughout, director Ernie Barbarash and writer Aaron Rahsaan Thomas chose to craft not an all-out, cheesy action fiesta but rather a gritty revenge flick more concerned with melodrama, thus failing to capitalise on the phenomenal ass-kicking potential of an Adkins/Van Damme team-up.

Ever since his wife was gang-raped and beaten into a coma by unsavoury gangster Polo (Kaye), world-class assassin Roland Flint (Adkins) has lived in self-imposed exile. Years later, an opportunity presents itself for Flint to exact revenge: Polo is being released from jail, and there's a price on his head. Little does Flint realise, though, that he's being set up by dirty Interpol agents who want to kill him and recover the money he stole from them. Added to this, another assassin named Brazil (Van Damme) is already committed to the Polo contract. After initially butting heads, Brazil and Flint realise that they can help one another, and decide to team up. Meanwhile, the shady Interpol agents opt to partner with Polo to further their own vendetta.

Assassination Games delivers in the action department from time to time, but writer Aaron Rahsaan Thomas ostensibly aspired to create something more than just another typical direct-to-DVD action film. Thus, the focus is not merely on the story's inherent violent conflicts, but more on the protagonists' inner turmoil, resulting in a higher volume of quiet dramatic scenes than action beats. Brazil and Flint are thoroughly clichéd (like the narrative in general), but it's nonetheless somewhat laudable that an action film in this day and age at least tries to be more than a brainless action buffet. On the other hand, Thomas' script is not nearly as skilful as it wanted to be, and the dramatic elements are routine, almost boring. Consider the "hooker with a heart of gold" subplot involving Brazil - we've seen it done before millions of times, and the film doesn't do many new or interesting things with it. It's a bit of a head-scratcher than such an utterly clichéd action film is so story-driven, character-focused and unwilling to let loose, and the realistic approach is all the more baffling due to how half-hearted and drab most of the drama is.

Reports place the film's budget somewhere between $4 million and $8 million, so Assassination Games was shot on the cheap, and it shows. Like pretty much all low-budget direct-to-DVD action films, Assassination Games was filmed in third world Eastern European locations, and is therefore visually flat, resulting in pacing issues. On the upside, director Barbarash and his team did not succumb to the dreaded "shaky-cam/quick-cutting" syndrome - the action scenes here are, for the most part, crisp and easy to decipher, not to mention pulse-pounding. It's just that there's not enough of them. Since the bad guys make stupid decisions and cannot shoot straight, would it have been too much to ask for a larger group of gun fodder and a few more extended shootouts, or at least a competent fighter to give Adkins or Van Damme an exciting run for their money?

Now in his 50s, the weathered Jean-Claude Van Damme has aged gracefully, and he demonstrates here that, with suitable material, he can actually act to a decent extent. In Assassination Games, Van Damme was asked to play an emotionless assassin; a role befitting of his usually wooden line delivery. Alongside him, Scott Adkins is terrific as the skilled, vengeful assassin. Adkins was able to sell his part effortlessly, mixing incredible athleticism with genuine charisma. Assassination Games also benefits greatly from the chemistry between Adkins and Van Dammage - the pair are a terrific twosome of lethal killers. Outside of these two, though, there isn't much acting skill to be found. Ivan Kaye is credible enough as gangster Polo, but nobody else makes much of an impression.

Despite tremendous potential, Assassination Games is not as brilliant as it could've been with a more generous budget and a better creative team. There are inspired flashes of kinetic action, but not enough. Barely 10 or 15 minutes' worth of combined action in a 100-minute movie like this simply doesn't cut it, as the filmmakers were not competent enough to pull off a genuinely riveting story-driven revenge film; a feat they clearly strived to achieve.

6.1/10