Reviews by PvtCaboose91

With such movies as Dumb & Dumber and There's Something About Mary under their belt, writer-directors Peter and Bobby Farrelly have continually shown that they excel in the art of delivering bawdy, salacious, un-PC humour in a bid to achieve one goal: make people laugh. On top of this, the Farrelly Brothers are also talented at constructing interesting stories and amiable characters around the humour to ground the outrageousness in at least a modicum of reality. Me, Myself & Irene represents another home run for the brothers, and it's one of their most consistently hilarious motion pictures to date. You see, not only is this a Farrelly Brothers production, but a Jim Carrey flick as well, and the amalgamation of their comic styles represents a match made in cinematic heaven.

"Holy Jesus in heaven... It's a giant Q-tip!"

Carrey plays Rhode Island State Trooper Charlie Baileygates, who's such a nice guy that people walk all over him. Even his beloved wife (Leoni) divorces him in favour of a black midget (Cox), leaving poor Charlie with their African American triplets (hilariously played by Anderson, Mixon and Brownlee). After a lifetime of internalising anger and avoiding confrontation at the cost of his dignity, Charlie finally snaps, inadvertently unleashing his alter ego Hank. The complete opposite of Charlie, Hank is never shy about coming forward with all guns blazing. Diagnosed with "advanced delusionary schizophrenia with involuntary narcissistic rage", Charlie is prescribed pills for the problem. To get some time off, Charlie is assigned to escort young Irene Waters (Zellweger) back to New York following her wrongful arrest. Unfortunately, Charlie and Irene are soon on the lam with corrupt cops on their tail. To make matters worse, Charlie loses his medication, and as a result frequently turns into the up-to-no-good Hank...

If anyone comes to a Farrelly Brothers picture expecting a thoughtful plot or thematic complexity, they're a fucking idiot - the gags are the main attraction. Me, Myself & Irene's plot is flimsy to be sure, but it's entirely serviceable as a clothesline on which to hang the laughs. If this type of un-PC humour is to your taste, Me, Myself & Irene is a complete hoot from beginning to end, and is jam-packed with memorable lines and situations you'll be laughing about for days. Not to mention, you will probably still laugh your ass off on repeat viewings no matter how many times you watch this film. As to be expected from the Farrelly Brothers, the script delivers a lot of gross-out humour, scatological jokes, sexual innuendo, and a sizable sprinkling of obscene language. And it's all fucking hilarious. There are gentler gags as well (yes, the Farrellys are actually familiar with the word), such as the ongoing guffaws provided by the fact that Charlie was left with kids he believes to be his despite all of them being African American.

Naturally, Jim Carrey's trademark overacting represents a tremendous contribution to the laugh quotient. As the '90s drew to a close, Carrey chose some dramatic roles to prove his versatility as a performer, and Me, Myself & Irene saw the star back in top comedic form. With the split personality conceit, Carrey could be both an amiable goof and a rubber-faced, over-the-top psychopath, meaning the film has both of Carrey's strengths rolled into one. Carrey is especially funny as Hank, when he was permitted the chance to completely go for broke. And my word, he earns a lot of laughs. Carrey is the type of comic performer who runs with any humorous opportunity, leading to countless laugh-out-loud moments. Alongside him, Renée Zellweger is serviceable as Irene, but the film positively lights up whenever Charlie's three sons show up in the form of Anthony Anderson, Mongo Brownlee and Jerod Mixon, all of whom are side-splitting. The three actors share a comfortable camaraderie, making their interactions all the funnier and wittier. They work extremely well with Carrey as well. In smaller roles, Chris Cooper and Richard Jenkins are decent, but do not truly own their characters like their co-stars.

Me, Myself & Irene is ultimately a lightweight comedy for the masses. The Farrellys did not set out to imbue the film with much depth - in fact the film seriously lulls during the more serious moments which attempt to display maturity - and one should therefore judge it on a less demanding criteria. Me, Myself & Irene works because it will make you laugh loudly and frequently as long as you can appreciate humour of the un-PC variety.

7.9/10

Over the course of a few years, the Pirates of the Caribbean series degenerated from a hot item to a boring, convoluted mess. While 2007's third instalment, At World's End, was assumed to be the end, Disney made a killing at the box office, meaning that a forth instalment was an inevitability. Considering the iffy quality of the last two movies in the series, 2011's Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides should have given the ailing franchise a new lease on life. And for months, those behind the movie tried to have us believe that it would be more stripped-down than the talky, soulless, long-winded, empty-headed excess of Dead Man's Chest and At World's End... But alas, their words are simply untrue. On Stranger Tides begins with mild promise, but its leaden pace is detrimental, and the decision to foreground Johnny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow was very ill-advised indeed.

After a few shenanigans in London, the inimitable Captain Jack Sparrow (Depp) is kidnapped and forced to participate in a hunt for the Fountain of Youth. The adventure was spearheaded by old flame Angelica (Cruz) and her father; the infamous, ruthless pirate Blackbeard (McShane). Meanwhile, King George II (Griffiths) also assembles a party to head out in search of the Fountain of Youth, as news reaches his ears that the Spanish have begun their own expedition. A lot of convoluted twists and turns stem from here, which would be exhausting to list.

Series veterans Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio were called back to pen On Stranger Tides, and they clearly did not learn from past blunders. The film is shorter than its immediate predecessors by a considerable margin, but the script remains just as bloated and needlessly drawn out. This is not a lean, exciting adventure with good ol' Captain Jack, but instead a laboured affair filled to the brim with superfluous plot detours and subplots, necessitating plenty of time in which momentum flags, narrative progression halts, and the characters sit around delivering stale dialogue. Plus, with Will and Elizabeth having been extracted, the writers crudely shoehorned in an undernourished, contrived romance between a captive mermaid (Bergès-Frisbey) and a young missionary (Claflin) that fails to resonate. A romantic angle is perfectly fine, but not if it's as utterly lifeless as this. Added to this, directly because of the inclusion of far too many characters, you will not care about who wins when everything comes to a head in the climax - you'll only care about whether or not Jack survives. And to make matters worse, Blackbeard possesses unexplained supernatural powers which he seems to forget about unless the plot calls for it.

Why Rob Marshall was chosen to direct such a large-scale blockbuster is a mystery for the ages. His only prior filmmaking credits include Chicago, Memoirs of a Geisha and Nine, none of which demonstrated that the director could be capable of handling a Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Lo and behold, his direction is frequently incompetent - absent is a sense of peril and excitement, and there's no swashbuckling sparkle which should be present in a production like this. For proof of his ineptitude, look no further than a chase sequence through London which occurs in the first third - not only is it too long and narratively unmotivated, but sluggish and unengaging as well. It's as if Marshall just filmed a rough rehearsal being performed at one-third speed, as nobody seems to be genuinely in the moment. And just prior to this, Jack makes a wholly improbable escape from the centre of a palace. None of the soldiers try to shoot the trouble maker as he makes his very ostentatious escape, nor do they seem to actually be trying to stop him. The whole sequence is flat.

The film's budget was rumoured to have ballooned up to $250 million, so production values are expectedly slick and handsome, as is Dariusz Wolski's photography of the gorgeous Hawaiian locales. However, the action scenes are a mixed bag. Some action beats are handled well, while other scenes suffer from poor lighting, shaky-cam and quick editing. The same type of principal applies to expository scenes as well - some are enjoyable enough (there are two or three good Jack Sparrow moments), but others are boring and flat. It feels like On Stranger Tides was directed by two entirely different people, one of whom wanted to craft a quality product while the other simply wanted to get another Pirates of the Caribbean movie in theatres as quickly as possible. Speaking of the sense of greed which plagues the project, Disney chose to deliver the film in 3-D. While the movie was shot with 3-D camera, costs were cut by rendering the digital effects in 2-D before converting them to 3-D. By all accounts, the 3-D is dreadful and eye-gauging - lighting is dimmed to the point that you cannot tell what's happening, and the sword fights induce headaches.

Making Captain Jack Sparrow the protagonist of his own movie was a good idea in theory due to his popularity, but disastrous in execution. Jack worked so well in the first Pirates of the Caribbean film because he was a quirky, scene-stealing supporting character who merely bounced around the sidelines of the movie while other characters took care of narrative-related duties and underwent character arcs. With Jack having to shoulder these burdening responsibilities in On Stranger Tides, the shtick lacks its former spark. Johnny Depp's paycheque for On Stranger Tides was a whopping $55.5 million, meaning he received about a quarter of the budget! Perhaps this role is the best choice for Depp financially, but not creatively. The shtick has gotten old, and Depp had to play Sparrow far too straight, meaning his little bursts of quirkiness are much too few and far between. Geoffrey Rush also returned, but his performance as Barbossa is just as disheartening. Instead of a menacing pirate, he's an agent for King George and thus a faint shadow of his former self. Fellow returnees Kevin McNally and Keith Richards are merely okay as Gibbs and Jack's father (respectively), but their presence seems based on nostalgia rather than necessity. Ian McShane also tried his hardest as Blackbeard, but doesn't make much of an impression. Then there's Sam Claflin and Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, who are frankly D.O.A. - their performances are vanilla, and they share little chemistry. At least Stephen Graham shows up to enliven things from time to time with a fairly exuberant performance.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides features zombie pirates and killer mermaids, so it's bewildering that the film is so frequently boring. Everything about On Stranger Tides was wrong from the get-go: wrong writers (why not bring in fresh blood?), wrong director (why hire a dance choreographer?), wrong angle (Captain Jack Sparrow should not have been the protagonist), and wrong mindset (it was green-lit for the money, let's face it). There's no reason to see it unless you're a completist or a diehard fan of the franchise.

5.1/10

I said it two years ago - 2009's fourth Final Destination instalment carried the definitive-sounding title of The Final Destination, implying that the Grim Reaper had finally come for the franchise instead of the characters. The 3-D sequel turned a nice profit, though, so the studio were not going to let the series end just yet. Thus, here we are in 2011 with the more appropriately-titled Final Destination 5. Shockingly, though, this fifth instalment is more assured than one might expect from a high franchise number. Directed by Avatar's second-unit director Steven Quale and written by Eric Heisserer (2010's A Nightmare on Elm Street), Final Destination 5 introduces a few fresh ideas, allowing it to emerge as something more than a rote retread of its predecessors. Add to this a new selection of creative kills and a high amount of technical competency, and the film does its job more skilfully than it had a right to.

Unsurprisingly, Final Destination 5 retains the proverbial set-up - a young person has a mysterious premonition moments before an impending disaster, and manages to save a group of people before the disaster happens. Afterwards, the Grim Reaper begins to take the souls who avoided their fates. Young aspiring chef Sam Lawton (D'Agosto) has the trademark premonition while on a tour bus with a bunch of co-workers en route to a corporate retreat. Armed with a vivid vision of his friends dying in a grisly bridge collapse, Sam manages to clear out the bus just in time. This, of course, incurs the wrath of Death, who begins killing off the survivors in elaborate accidents.

2009's The Final Destination relied on gimmicky 3-D and overzealous gore to see it though, and it was so comfortable with the established formula that the filmmakers did not attempt any form of inventiveness. The rote script literally felt as if it was regurgitated by a computer. Those behind Final Destination 5, on the other hand, seem to have actually put a degree of thought into the screenplay. Surprisingly, the main characters are relatively well-written - they are adults with jobs, and there's not a high school kid among them. Most of the roles are archetypes, to be sure, but at least they're fleshed-out and somewhat amiable, and actually seem like real people. Added to this, new franchise ground is finally broken by Final Destination 5, and the film is cleverly tied into the original film (the ending is a jaw-dropper). With that said, though, a lot more could - and should - have been done, especially since the film only clocks in at a hair over 80 minutes. The lingering question remains unaddressed: why do characters have these premonitions?

Prior to making his directorial debut here, Steven Quale worked extensively with James Cameron. Clearly, his work on Cameron's movies perfectly prepared him for Final Destination 5, which is a slick and handsome horror movie. Production values are solid and special effects are spectacular (the excellent bridge collapse scene looks like something from a $100 million action blockbuster), not to mention the gore effects often seem practical as opposed to digital. And for the sequences in which Death begins prepping a character's imminent doom, Quale did a terrific job of building nail-biting tension. The Final Destination series is frequently marred by death scenes that are ludicrously elaborate, but #5 is not much of an offender in this sense. Sure, the deaths are somewhat elaborate since they are the bread and butter of the franchise, but most of them feel as if the could actually happen. Final Destination 5 was also delivered in 3-D like its immediate predecessor, which permitted Quale the chance to throw big gooey chunks of inexperienced actors into the faces of cinema audiences. Happily, the film was shot in 3-D rather than being post-converted, but the extra-dimensional effects remain squiffy - the 3-D adds nothing to the experience except for an unreasonable surcharge.

Final Destination 5 also signifies the return of a franchise staple: naming main characters after icons of the horror genre. Thus, we have characters named Peter Friedkin, Candice Hooper, and so on. It's a nice touch. Another positive asset of the film is that the actors are actually decent. Nicholas D'Agosto is an amiable protagonist who never comes off as bland or awful, and Emma Bell is extremely believable as Sam's on/off girlfriend. The star of the show, though, is Tom Cruise lookalike Miles Fisher. Fisher's performance as Sam's friend Peter is full of intensity, and the climax in particular represents a terrific showcase of the actor's skills. Surprisingly, comic actor David Koechner was also situated amongst the horror mayhem, and he also did a pretty good job. Meanwhile, Tony Todd returned to reprise his role here of the mysterious coroner who knows quite a bit about the whole "you can't cheat Death" thing. Todd (of Candyman fame) starred in the first two Final Destination movies and had a vocal cameo in #3 before going MIA for #4. As to be expected, Todd's performance oozes gravitas and menace. However, a lot more could've been done with his character, and he's too underused.

Easily the best in the series since the second film, Final Destination 5 is an absolute must-see for the franchise's diehard fans who will appreciate the plethora of blood and gore as well as the attempts to finally do something interesting with the stale formula. There's plenty of tension, a few good scares, and a bunch of masterfully-executed set-pieces.

6.8/10

Horrible Bosses is a delightfully refreshing dose of R-rated comedy in a summer season otherwise devoid of such pleasures. Due to the cadre of familiar parts used to construct the film, one could easily perceive this as another attempt to recreate the unexpected success of 2009's The Hangover. After all, Horrible Bosses has three male leads finding themselves in all sorts of outrageous madness, not to mention the film contains a few fun cameos and the script is full of vulgar dialogue. And you know what? It actually works to a certain degree; easily surpassing The Hangover's recent sequel in terms of both laughs and creativity. How ironic it is that the film has the word "horrible" in its title, but it's not nearly as horrible as some of the other comedies which were released during 2011.

At the centre of Horrible Bosses is a trio of regular guys: Nick (Bateman), Kurt (Sudeikis) and Dale (Day). As the title implies, the boys are having trouble with their bosses - Nick is consistently tortured by sadistic megalomaniac Dave (Spacey), Kurt's new boss Bobby (Farrell) is an incompetent cokehead, and Dale is being sexually harassed by his boss Julia (Aniston). Due to the shaky job climate, the guys have no choice but to grin and bear their daily humiliations...until one drunken night they decide to kill their bosses. During a search for an assassin, they encounter criminal Motherfucker Jones (Foxx), who promises to help the boys take care of their undesirable superiors.

If you have had a job, there's a good chance you've had a horrible boss. (And if you've never had one, maybe you're a horrible boss yourself. Shame on you.) At some point or another, the majority of us have probably fantasised about killing our insufferable employer, which is why Horrible Bosses works so well. Here's a script imbued with a premise that's entirely plausible and easy to relate to, and has a thing or two to say about corporate douchebags (though the workplace satire is not quite as biting as Mike Judge's 1999 classic Office Space) within the context of a witty, constantly uproarious comedy suitable for a guys' pizza 'n' beer night. It's not one of the greatest films you'll ever see, but you'll be hard-pressed to find another recent comedy this downright original, which certainly says something in an age where three movies about fuck buddy relationships can be released within the span of 8 months.

Director Seth Gordon cut his filmmaking teeth with the documentary The King of Kong before moving onto the disappointingly bland 2008 comedy Four Christmases. Horrible Bosses thankfully sees Gordon getting his act back together - he has skilfully crafted a well-paced and sprightly cinematic diversion. His efforts here easily rival that of Hangover director Todd Phillips, who is presently recovering from back-to-back disappointments (Due Date, Hangover 2). Gordon was perfectly content to let his ensemble of actors roam around earning scores of laughs, but not to the point that the film feels undisciplined - on the contrary, the editing is sharp and narrative focus is never lost (Judd Apatow's team should take notes). The only real problems with Horrible Bosses stem from the script by Michael Markowitz, John Francis Daley and Jonathan M. Goldstein - it's not quite funny enough, and the best belly-laughs are a bit too sporadic. While the film is never boring due to the engaging central conceit, there are segments which simply lack the comedic personality of the film's greatest moments. It's a bit of a shame the film isn't more amusing, as it could have been this decade's Office Space with a funnier script.

Horrible Bosses' biggest asset is the cast. Jason Bateman (Paul), Charlie Day (TV's It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia), and Jason Sudeikis (Hall Pass) are a brilliant central trio who share great chemistry, and they get a lot of comic mileage out of the script. Bateman is always watchable no matter what movie he's in, and he represents the straight man of the trio. Alongside him, Day goes for broke and Sudeikis is hilariously over-the-top. However, the film belongs to the triumvirate of titular bosses, all of whom were brought to life through a show-stealing bunch of performances. Jennifer Aniston has never been this loose, sexy and downright vulgar, while Spacey is simply a hoot as the smug, psychotic boss who loves to put Nick through hell. And then there's Colin Farrell, whose over-the-top performance as Kurt's boss mirrors Tom Cruise's turn in Tropic Thunder. However, Farrell seems a bit too underused - further office antics would have definitely been beneficial.

At the end of the day, it's tough to imagine anyone walking away from Horrible Bosses with a dissatisfied feeling. Despite a few sluggish patches, this is a delightful film which shows that even mainstream comedies can still be armed with inventive premises. Sure, a more thoughtful treatment on the same subject matter would likely have yielded a better movie, but Horrible Bosses is an admirable attempt nonetheless. If you're seeking a fun & funny diversion, this is one to have on your radar.

7.7/10

Fluffy, lazily-constructed Hollywood comedies are all the rage, which makes it all the more refreshing to behold studio-produced comedies like 1999's Bowfinger that are genuinely good. Fuelled by a colourful cast, Frank Oz's amiable directorial touch and a delightfully witty, endearing screenplay written by Steve Martin, Bowfinger is one of the best films of its kind. On top of providing a solid hour-and-a-half of endlessly delightful, light-hearted, lull-free entertainment, Bowfinger gleefully and effectively takes the piss out of the Hollywood movie industry with its complicated politics, pretences and superficiality. However, the film also reinforces the well-worn but nevertheless heart-warming message that lies at the centre of Tinseltown: that you can achieve your dreams if you have the determination and drive.

The title character, Bobby Bowfinger (Steve Martin), is a struggling wannabe movie producer attempting to get his next project off the ground. Pushing fifty years of age, the optimistic Bowfinger reads a script written by his accountant, Afrim (Adam Alexi-Malle), and is immediately blown away. Entitled Chubby Rain, Afrim's script is a cheesy science fiction story about aliens arriving on Earth in raindrops. Bobby cannot secure Hollywood's hottest actor, Kit Ramsey (Eddie Murphy), for the leading role, but, in a moment of weakness, he lies to his loyal crew and tells them that Kit has agreed to star. To deal with their obvious problem, Bobby decides to follow Kit and secretly film the star while his actors simply approach him and say their lines. None the wiser about the whole scheme, Kit soon starts to believe that aliens are actually trying to abduct him.

Bowfinger is dynamite in terms of story, with the unique premise allowing plenty of leeway for a series of hilarious gags and set pieces. It is especially amusing to watch the inventive Bowfinger finding a solution to address every problem. For instance, to covertly light one scene, he has a crewmember holding a reflective "Work for Food" sign nearby. Meanwhile, the scenes of Bowfinger's actors interacting with the unwitting Kit are side-splitting. Yet, the film is not merely a string of dumb laughs, as each comedic set piece is beautifully sewn into the fabric of the narrative and serves a purpose. Frank Oz's masterful understanding of comedic timing and pacing is also a tremendous asset. Even when the jokes slow down, Bowfinger is still zippy and entertaining because, unlike lazy comedies, the film has forward momentum, a legitimate plot and a group of characters you care about. And when you think it's all over, the film concludes with an excerpt from Bowfinger's next magnum opus that is guaranteed to have you rolling on the floor in fits of laughter. Indeed, the sense of fun never wanes, and you will be left yearning for more movies of this comic calibre.

Bowfinger is also more thoughtful than standard-order mainstream comedies, as it is primarily a biting satire of contemporary Hollywood. It's to Tinseltown what This is Spinal Tap is to rock stars. The clever satire is most prominent in the depiction of the cult religious group "MindHead," an obvious send-up of the Church of Scientology. Additionally, Martin and Oz take several satirical jabs at the big, successful studio executives who are not overly passionate about the film industry and only care about the bottom line. See, Bowfinger is a lowly wannabe filmmaker who wants to make movies because he loves doing it, not because of the money. Like the infamously bad Ed Wood, Bowfinger lacks talent but is dedicated and enthusiastic, two characteristics missing in both the egotistical Kit Ramsey and the self-centred bigwig movie producer played by Robert Downey Jr. (in a performance predating his breakout success in the noughties). Fortunately, despite all of this thematic material, Bowfinger is not pretentious - it just has layers of thoughtfulness that give way to hilarious moments and a few genuinely touching, heartfelt scenes.

Martin is a delight as Bowfinger; his performance is as energetic, appealing, and hilarious as his script. Rather than an over-the-top caricature, Martin's keen movie producer is likeable, down-to-earth and innately human. Sure, Martin is not Oscar-worthy, but acting this well-nuanced is a rarity in mainstream studio comedies. Meanwhile, Eddie Murphy is equally remarkable in his dual role playing both Kit Ramsey and Kit's brother, Jiff. Murphy pulls off both characters remarkably well, but Jiff is the standout. Meanwhile, as wannabe actress Daisy, Heather Graham's performance is delightfully high-spirited and giddy, while Christine Baranski is fabulous as one of Bowfinger's loyal cast members. Also worth mentioning is Bowfinger's crew of illegal Mexican immigrants they collect from the border who become proficient and cinematically literate throughout the production of Chubby Rain. The list of standout performers goes on and on - suffice it to say, each and every one of them hit their marks brilliantly, and there is not a weak spot to be found.

Bowfinger is good, clean entertainment. It's a thoughtful and heartfelt story about Hollywood wannabes who yearn for success at any cost, even if it means bending the law just a little bit and using an actor who does not know he's the star. The energy and enthusiasm of the cast is infectious, and the movie achieves easygoing laughs without sacrificing narrative integrity or stooping to the level of flatulence jokes or bathroom humour. With gags and insights throughout the picture, it entertains while sending up Hollywood's vanity and shallowness. And it has infinite replay value.

8.9/10

Now this is what I'm talking 'bout! Awesome and rousing, Captain America: The First Avenger is a damn good home run of a blockbuster, showing up late in the summer derby to put most of its cinematic competition to shame. After Thor a few months prior, Captain America is summer 2011's second Marvel-produced action picture to provide a proverbial origins tale and function as a precursor to 2012's much-anticipated superhero mash-up The Avengers. Fortunately, the film doesn't feel like an extended trailer or an expensive advertisement for Joss Whedon's upcoming Avengers epic - rather, it feels like a wholesome, enjoyable action film that tells a good story and introduces a Marvel icon in a satisfying fashion.

A 90-pound asthmatic burdened by health problems and physical ailments, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is determined to join the army during WWII to serve his country, but is always rejected. Steve's valiance and determination is soon recognised by a German doctor (Stanley Tucci), who chooses the puny would-be soldier to participate in a military program designed to create super soldiers. Following the experiment, Steve is transformed into a muscular, physically sound specimen with superhuman abilities. Alas, Steve is kept away from the battlefield to perform in shows and films, and act as America's golden boy to provide morale boosts. However, he is eventually compelled into duty when villainous Nazi officer Johann Schmidt/Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) takes possession of an energy source powerful enough to change the course of the war...and control the world. With agent Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) and Col. Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) on his side, and with Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) on-board to provide him with the technology to kick some serious ass, Steve begins undertaking adventures as Captain America.

While Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk took place in present day, and Thor bounced between present-day Earth and fantastical worlds, Captain America: The First Avenger is a through-and-through period piece which takes place during World War II. And this is precisely what makes the film so refreshing. After all, introductory superhero pictures often adhere to the same origins formula, with the mould staying the same while the characters and settings are changed. With Captain America occurring during WWII, the competent script is an intimate character piece, a proverbial origins tale, and a sprawling World War II epic spanning several years. More commendably, a compelling plot emerges beyond Steve's origins story, and neither storyline feels underdone. Also, the old-fashioned world domination scheme cooked up by the Red Skull is slightly reminiscent of classic James Bond adventures, making for a narrative of unadulterated, awesome fun.

Once director Joe Johnston begins focusing on the side of the titular character that everyone wants to see, Captain America is a blast. While a few action beats are somewhat awkwardly staged, the action is otherwise awesome and highly satisfying. The 2011 summer season has, after all, mostly concerned superheroes with mutant abilities and giant robots pounding on one another, so it's refreshing to watch a patriotic action hero take down the bad guys in a more old-school fashion, with kickass hand-to-hand combat and some nifty gadgetry (the shield is especially cool). It's also quite amazing just how much violence the filmmakers were able to get away with in a PG-13 comic book movie (the gunshot wounds are notably bloody). As to be expected from a superhero action movie, though, Captain America is a bit dumb - the baddies can't shoot straight, the good guy casualties are unrealistically low, and the technology being showcased is absurdly advanced for the 1940s.

Unsurprisingly, Captain America's special effects are constantly phenomenal. The crowning achievement is the depiction of "skinny" Steve Rogers, which is both an amazing CGI feat and an immaculate use of seamless digital effects to serve storytelling. When the action sequences grow more ostentatious late into the picture, the special effects do become a tad cartoonish, however. On a more positive note, the criminally underrated Alan Silvestri's score is spectacular, while the production design is gorgeous. The period detail is to be commended, with the 1940s being effortlessly recreated by Johnston's creative team. Captain America, like all prior Marvel movies, contains perceptive nods to other Marvel productions as a way to set up The Avengers. Yet, these necessities do not get in the way of creating a solid self-contained movie. The not-very-revealing post-credits teaser trailer for The Avengers truly feels like a great way to end the blockbuster and tantalise viewers about what's to come for its titular hero. The end credits even close with a nice little "Captain America Will Return In The Avengers" caption.

Captain America: The First Avenger was yet another victim for the 3-D craze, as it underwent a completely unnecessary 3-D conversion in post-production. I did not see the film in 3-D, but by all accounts the extra-dimensional effects are eye-gauging and unnecessary. It was perfectly fine in 2-D, and, if anything, the 3-D would be detrimental to the experience.

The character of Captain America was created back in the early 1940s, when Joe Simon and Jack Kirby sensed eventual American involvement in WWII and set out to create a jingoistic superhero. Joe Johnston and writers Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely changed virtually no facets of the character's origins, and retained the Captain's fervid patriotism. Luckily, it works. And in the title role, Chris Evans is excellent - he competently conveys the character's coyness and kindness. And with his buff physique, Evans genuinely looks the part. In the supporting cast, Hugo Weaving exudes menace as the Red Skull, and he's close to being the best thing about the movie. Weaving played the role as a mix of Col. Hans Landa (from Inglourious Basterds) and Arnold Schwarzenegger's interpretation of Mr. Freeze (from Batman & Robin), and topped off the mix with a Werner Herzog accent. Also making an impression is Tommy Lee Jones, who's a whole lot of fun as Col. Chester Phillips. Jones has a gift for comedy, and the script gave him plenty of leeway to exploit this gift. Meanwhile, the amazingly hot Hayley Atwell did everything she needed to do as the token love internet, and Stanley Tucci adopted a completely believable accent playing the German doctor behind the program that births Captain America. Rounding out the cast is Dominic Cooper who excellently embodied the role of Howard Stark.

With Christopher Nolan's trademark dark, gritty approach to superhero stories being adopted so often, something like Captain America: The First Avenger is a refreshing breath of fresh air. The film reminds us that dark and brooding does not automatically mean a movie is a masterpiece, and that a well-crafted, retro comic book action blockbuster can be just as much fun (and arguably better).

8.2/10

Michael J. Bassett's Deathwatch is an interesting specimen. The feature-length debut for its writer-director, Deathwatch is a low-budget English horror picture set in the trenches of World War I. In other words, it mixes action/war with outright horror, resulting in something altogether unique and conceptually sound. If the genres are taken singularly, Deathwatch breaks no new ground, but by juxtaposing the genres and developing a thoughtful subtext, writer-director Bassett had an ideal platform on which to express anti-war sentiments in an innovative fashion. With that said, though, Bassett lacked the fundamental screenwriting skills to entirely capitalise on the potential of the delicious ideas he cooked up.

The story begins in France during World War I, as British soldiers from Y-Company are forced into a fierce battle. Among them is terrified young rookie soldier Charlie Shakespeare (Bell), who follows his unit as they charge against a German trench defended by machine gun placements. The morning after the battle, Shakespeare and the men find themselves lost and blinded by thick fog. Soon, they happen upon a shoddily-guarded, corpse-laden German trench, which they secure while waiting for reinforcements. However, it fast becomes clear that there is something inherently evil about the trench, and supernatural attacks begin to drive the men insane, leading them to murder one another.

Where most horror/slasher flicks concern a gang of substance-abusing, sexually active teens who are ripe for the picking, Deathwatch centres on a crew of hardened soldiers. Unfortunately, despite the change, the characters are not a great deal smarter than the average horror victims, and are not immune to being picked off by a marauding killer. On the positive side, the protagonist at the centre of the film is an interesting twist on most genre heroes - he is a coy, reluctant soldier with virtues seen all too rarely in wartime: mercy and empathy. Throughout the film, Bassett took advantage of all opportunities for thoughtful anti-war posturing, while there are also a few sly jabs at the messy British class system. However, the main metaphoric message of the film - that all soldiers in war are already dead and are facing judgment - is easy to overlook because it's poorly delineated. And if one does not glean Deathwatch's message, it loses a great deal of impact, so this is a big issue. It's no help that the ending is laughable.

Deathwatch was Michael J. Bassett's first screenplay, and his inexperience is obvious in the dull dialogue and general failure to explore the film's themes to their fullest extent. It is also obvious that Bassett had not directed a movie before, as the pacing is generally sloppy. Not to mention, the murky photography makes it difficult to distinguish what's happening in the trenches, and the dialogue is difficult to make out due to poor sound mixing. With that said, though, the production values are to be commended. The period details are remarkable, with mud, corpses, rats and barbed wire contributing to the atmosphere, while the costuming adds authenticity. Deathwatch's colour palette is muted for the most part; giving the film a sombre tone. It's a shame that a better director was not at the helm here, as the production values could have yielded a remarkable horror movie if only Bassett exuded more passion and skill.

Jamie Bell's breakout performance was in the acclaimed Billy Elliot. It was therefore a rather curious choice for the actor to star in this WWI ghost story as his next starring vehicle. Alas, Bell is not especially good or memorable. Maybe it had more to do with the demands of his character, but Bell simply lacks presence - he's forgettable and underwhelming. The other actors carried out their duties well enough, but the majority of them are too interchangeable and lacking in characterisation, which is all the more baffling since the film begins with a curtain call. Furthermore, most of them were saddled with two-dimensional soldier stereotypes, though the use of such stereotypes does admittedly assist in the conveyance of Deathwatch's anti-war message. The standout in the cast as Andy Serkis, who relished the chance to go over-the-top with his Kurtz-like character.

In final analysis, Deathwatch is a mixed bag. If taken as a low-budget supernatural horror movie, it is at least watchable, and its intentions are to be lauded. But considering the fascinating ideas, the film could have been a lot more. Horror junkies will probably get the most out of Deathwatch, but casual movie watchers and film buffs should probably look elsewhere for entertainment.

5.2/10

New York journalist and vehement animal rights activist Beth Winters (Judy Morris) travels to the small Australian outback town of Gamulla to investigate the sinister kangaroo slaughtering industry. Beth is not exactly popular in Gamulla, however - the colourful locals make her feel unwelcome, and nobody is unwilling to speak to her. When Beth mysteriously disappears and news of her disappearance reaches New York, Beth's partner Carl (Gregory Harrison) travels to Australia in search of answers. After an encounter with the unsavoury Benny (Chris Haywood) and Dicko (David Argue), Carl meets the kindly Sarah (Arkie Whiteley) and her friend, embittered hunter Jake Cullen (Bill Kerr). Jake knows all too well that a marauding razorback with a taste for human flesh threatens the community, but Sarah is the only one who believes him.

Solely focusing on a killer pig terrorising an outback community would have provided adequate material to sustain a 90-minute exploitation movie. Unfortunately, with a screenplay credited to Everett De Roche, Razorback is weighed down by an unnecessary subplot concerning thuggish kangaroo hunters which detracts a degree of focus, momentum and fun. The angle provides the impetus for Beth's interest in Gamulla, but the razorback fundamentally becomes a fringe threat as the film struggles to find its primary narrative focus. A revenge angle between Jake and the razorback is initially introduced but fades into the background, while themes about violence in the outback and animal conservation are never properly explored. Razorback is a bit of a mess, in other words. Additionally, a portion of the film tracks Carl aimlessly wandering through the desert searching for Beth, even hallucinating during his travels. Mulcahy embraces this tangent, evoking his music video experience as he experiments with striking, colourful imagery, giving Razorback its distinct cinematic identity. It may be a mess, but it's a beautiful mess.

Unlike more basic or pedestrian '80s horrors, Razorback is exceptionally stylised, befitting of a collaboration between Mulcahy and Oscar-winning cinematographer Dean Semler (Max Mad 2, Dances With Wolves). The resulting cinematographic routine is manic, beset with point-of-view shots, surreal imagery and close-ups of the razorback’s tusks and mouth, while dominant lighting and filters create shots bursting with extreme colour and shadows. Barely a scene goes by that’s not rich with atmosphere, which is a testament to the filmmakers' ability to both make the most of their budget and jazz up an unexciting premise with visual panache. Complementing the visuals is a synth-heavy score courtesy of Iva Davies, further establishing the film's unique flavour. A sizeable portion of the reported $5.5 million budget was expended to bring the titular boar to life, but by all accounts the resulting animatronics are not completely believable. Therefore, Mulcahy adopts the Jaws model by only showing the monster in quick bursts, and never letting viewers get a clear glimpse of it until the third act, with a climactic showdown inside an insalubrious dog food factory. The attack sequences are fast, vicious and gory, with smart editing by William M. Anderson (Gallipoli) masking the razorback's lack of realism. The results are serviceable enough. In its (rare) uncut form, Razorback is even better, with more exploitative (Ozploitative?) gory violence.

It is apparent that the visual styling took precedence over plotting and acting, with Mulcahy not exactly an actor's director, but at least the performers are not necessarily awful. Kerr impresses the most, confidently slipping into his role of a gruff razorback hunter and doing his best to give the movie some gravitas. As the stereotypical (American) hero, Harrison is believable and watchable though by no means outstanding, while Whiteley evinces an appealing charm and innocence, and Morris makes the most of her somewhat thankless role. Haywood and Argue portray the story's proverbial human villains, and they appear to have come straight from the set of a Mad Max film due to their manic behaviour and garish costuming.

Although mostly enjoyable, Razorback is unquestionably a product of its time, restricted by a meagre budget as well as the special effects limitations of the early 1980s. Unfortunately, despite the movie's distributors having confidence in the final product, Razorback struggled at the box office in both America and Australia during its 1984 theatrical release. However, it found its audience on home video, ultimately transforming into a minor cult classic. Heck, Jaws director Steven Spielberg is an admirer of this outback monster movie, while Quentin Tarantino can also be counted among the film's self-confessed fans.

6.7/10

Written and directed by David Michôd who makes his feature-length debut here, Animal Kingdom persuasively demonstrates that plenty of life still remains in the contemporary Australian film industry. Fundamentally the Australian Goodfellas in the suburbs of Melbourne, it ostensibly looks as if Animal Kingdom was specifically produced to capitalise on the recent success of the acclaimed TV show Underbelly. Truth be told, though, the picture was a decade-long passion project for writer-director Michôd, who spent years working on the script while often doubting the quality of his writing. Michôd's insecurities may have persisted throughout Animal Kingdom's filming and post-production, but his efforts have paid off in spades with this enthralling, thematically dense and award-winning masterpiece.

When his overprotective mother dies of a heroin overdose, socially withdrawn teenager Joshua (Frecheville) has little choice but to seek shelter with the very people his mother wanted to shield him from. Hesitantly moving in with his grandmother Janine (Weaver) and his uncles, Josh is drawn into a grim world of drugs and crime, struggling to maintain both his morality and his relationship with the sweet young Nicky (Wheelwright). Killings and police pressure bring about the beginning of the family's unravelling, leaving Josh to choose his path and decide whether or not to partake in the lifestyle that neither he nor his late mother wanted. Into Josh's life also steps Nathan Leckie (Pearce), a detective who's optimistic that he can convince the impressionable teen to turn on his family and help bring the criminals to justice.

Unwaveringly bleak and visceral, Animal Kingdom was admittedly constructed using conventional genre parts, but the familiarity is overshadowed by brilliant execution and a unique Aussie flavour. Rather than providing a clichéd saga of a crime family with a coy newcomer learning the ropes as his innocence is shattered, Michôd adopted a more fresh-feeling batting stance; refusing to concentrate on the more glamorous mechanical aspects of the organised crime business like heists and shootouts. Instead, Michôd's focus is on the perilous consequences of a criminal lifestyle and the effects of paranoia on a crime family. What's most impressive about Michôd's writing is that it does not sugar-coat the subject matter, nor is the material drenched in sentimentality. Animal Kingdom depicts a dreary, brutal world in a ruthless fashion, and any character - no matter how likeable or prominent - can be killed at any moment. Indeed, this veneer of sheer unpredictability generates a great deal of power, leading to a shocking climax. The dialogue, too, is not snappy or witty like a Martin Scorsese picture, but raw and realistic instead.

Comparisons to the works of Francis Ford Coppola and Scorsese are not unwarranted, since a lot of crime films of yesteryear appear to have influenced Animal Kingdom. The mood and atmosphere is different here, however, with the story being more intimate and personal, not to mention the protagonist has far more difficulty adapting to his new environment. Atmospherically and visually, Animal Kingdom is a home run. Over the past few years, Aussies have begat a handful of accomplished, gritty movies (see The Square), and Michôd's efforts follow suit. The filmmaking here is not over-stylised or ostentatious; instead, it's somewhat raw yet subtly enthralling, with a well-judged colour palette and an accomplished sound mix that effortlessly encapsulates the look and ambience of Aussie suburbia. While the pacing is usually deliberate, it is confident, and Michôd does manage to quietly ensnare you in the narrative's proceedings. Topping this off are the haunting melodies provided by composer Antony Partos, contributing to both the atmosphere and overall production's power.

For her role of Janine, Jackie Weaver has received a lot of press - she was even nominated for both a Golden Globe and an Oscar. And my word, her performance is worth all the attention; it's intense and focused, not to mention it genuinely feels like she is Janine. But do not let Weaver's acclaim fool you into thinking she's the only acting standout, since Animal Kingdom is packed to the rafters with exceptional performances. As Josh, newcomer James Frecheville is a real find; strong, subtle and believable. And as Pope, the de factor family leader, Ben Mendelsohn is utterly flesh-crawling. The horrible nature of Mendelsohn's character is not derived from the things he does, but instead the genuinely unnerving demeanour that flawlessly permeated Mendelsohn's performance. The most recognisable member of the cast is Guy Pearce (Memento, The Proposition), who's completely convincing as Detective Leckie. The remainder of the cast, from Dan Wyllie to Joel Edgerton to Laura Wheelwright and beyond, are all exceptional - there is not a faulty performance to behold. After all, Animal Kingdom received a staggering 7 Australian Film Institute Award nominations just in the acting categories!

Speaking of the Australian Film Institute Awards, Animal Kingdom received a record-making 17 nominations in total, and won 9 of them, including Best Film, Best Direction, Best Editing, Best Lead Actor, Best Lead Actress and Best Supporting Actor. Suffice it to say, Animal Kingdom is sublime from top to bottom; cobbling together a riveting and altogether powerful organised crime story that's as good as anything Scorsese and Coppola have ever done.

9.0/10

Ivan Reitman's first filmmaking endeavour since 2006, No Strings Attached is an attempt to explore "fuck buddy" relationships within the context of a mainstream romantic comedy. In other words, it delves into the same territory as 2010's Love and Other Drugs with a heavier smattering of cliché. In terms of positive assets, the central pair of lovers (and the actors portraying them, for that matter) have genuine chemistry, while the rest of the acting ensemble sparkle with wit and charm. On the downside, No Strings Attached is far from perfect, even if it's just taken as a fluffy comedy. It may be just passable enough that you'll endure the flick for its entirety, but afterwards you will likely be left with a resoundingly bland taste in your mouth. Not to mention, you won't come away from No Strings Attached thinking that it's one of 2011's funniest or most romantic cinematic offerings.

Since their early teenage years, Emma (Portman) and Adam (Kutcher) have found their lives to be intertwined; running into one another every few years, but avoiding a relationship in spite of an obvious mutual physical attraction. In present day, Emma is a hard-working medical intern with no interest in a serious relationship, while Adam is stuck as a lowly production assistant on a Glee-esque television show. After crossing each other's paths yet again, the two impulsively have sex, and in coming days Emma proposes that the two begin a "fuck buddy" relationship free of commitment. Adam gleefully embraces the idea. However, while Adam still retains hope that something more serious will eventually develop, Emma is far too hesitant to take things to the next step.

No Strings Attached melds romantic comedy with edgy subject matter, promising to provide an incisive exploration of the consequences of sex without emotional attachment. However, the film plays it far too safe, so you know precisely how the proceedings will play out. After all, there's no way in hell that studio executives were going to let a star-studded rom-com end audaciously and unconventionally (à la 2009's brilliant indie (500) Days of Summer), because an average couple (and, thus, the target audience) want to leave a cinema with a warm, fuzzy feeling. Bolder equals less profit, after all, and nobody knows that better than Hollywood executives. No Strings Attached was produced for a measly $25 million which should have allowed leeway for the film to be daring, but making as much money as possible was more important, especially since it would've taken a Herculean struggle in itself just to have the film be R-rated. Rom-com consumers who love the formula in all its forms may appreciate the comfort associated with No Strings Attached, but the unabashed conventionality of Elizabeth Meriwether's screenplay will most likely come across as pure laziness to more casual film-goers.

To be fair, No Strings Attached is not excruciating. Ivan Reitman has helmed a number of worthwhile comedies during his career (including Stripes and Kindergarten Cop), so the film is often entertaining enough. From a technical perspective this is a solid effort as well, with handsome production values and a constantly enjoyable soundtrack made up of charming, delightful tunes. In terms of laughs, the film delivers from time to time, though the laugh quotient is not as high as one might expect from a production like this. The film also plods during certain sections, unfortunately - there are a few laugh-free stretches of pure rom-com formula (for instance the "break up to make up" section) which are meant to be mistaken as evidence of cinematic maturity, but Reitman was unable to enliven them.

Movie sex scenes with Natalie Portman are like eclipses or sightings of Hayley's Comet - they're very rare, and you just hope that you'll witness at least one in your lifetime. In terms of her actual performance, Portman acquits herself quite well; nailing the various facets of her role. Alongside her, Ashton Kutcher was traversing more familiar terrain as Adam. He's well-known for playing a good-hearted puppy dog of a romantic lead, and thus No Strings Attached at no point challenges his acting abilities. Nonetheless, Kutcher is strong in his role, and he shares great chemistry and camaraderie with Portman. In this type of romantic comedy, supporting roles are usually just thankless throwaways, but in No Strings Attached, the typically thankless roles were energised by excellent writing and an ideal bunch of actors. Kevin Kline in particular is a scene-stealer, delivering a bunch of amusing lines and generally emanating hilarity. The extensive roster of memorable supporting characters was further filled out by the unbelievably adorable Greta Gerwig as one of Emma's roommates, the always-reliable Cary Elwes as a doctor, and the hilarious Ludacris as one of Adam's witty best friends, just to name a few.

With its mainstream-pandering vibe, No Strings Attached sacrifices thematic integrity in order to widen its appeal as much as possible. Unfortunately, the film attempts to have it both ways; trying to generate a veneer of maturity while dishing up laughs and the clichés that casual movie fans will be comfortable with. Suffice it to say, the merger of these two distinct styles is rather squiffy, resulting in a fun enough surface-level ride that would have been easily superior if the screenwriter simply chose one specific style and stuck with it.

5.5/10