Reviews by PvtCaboose91

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

Out of all the unlikely sequels to materialise over recent years, Johnny English Reborn would have to be the most unexpected. While 2003's Johnny English enjoyed a healthy run at the box office, it endured a harsh reception from both critics and audiences, and sequel prospects were never really discussed. Arriving eight years after its undeservedly bashed predecessor, Johnny English Reborn is not exactly a laugh-a-minute return to form for our beloved Rowan Atkinson, but it is a rather solid effort all-round that scores a few good belly laughs while pulling together an interesting plot which wouldn't look out of place in a James Bond movie.

Once MI7's top spy, Johnny English (Atkinson) goes into exile in a remote Buddhist temple after one of his missions goes tragically wrong. Years later, the Chinese premier is scheduled to visit London, and MI7 has learned of a credible threat to the premier's life. Much to the chagrin of MI7 head Pamela Thornton (Gillian Anderson) and pretty much everyone else, the service is left with little choice but to draft the unorthodox Johnny English back into action at the request of an informant. Brought back to London after spending years training his body and mind, English is equipped with an array of gadgets and given a young partner (Daniel Kaluuya) as he sets out to take down a mysterious organisation of international assassins.

It has been four years since Rowan Atkinson was last seen in a theatrical motion picture (in 2007's Mr. Bean's Holiday), and the man's presence has frankly been missed. Atkinson has an unparalleled comic energy, and it's always a pleasure to witness his brand of humour on the big screen. It's a bit of a shame, then, that Hamish McColl's screenplay is not quite up to Atkinson's brilliance. Hackneyed slapstick and gross-out gags constitute too much of the humour, and only a few of these silly jokes actually land. Put against other spy spoofs (the original Get Smart TV show, the riotous Austin Powers series), Johnny English Reborn is serviceable, but the best laughs are too scattershot. And instead of going for the subversive, too often the filmmakers went for the easiest, cheapest gags, not to mention there are a few scenes that are more uncomfortable than funny due to their blatant predictability. It's doubtful you'll even remember much of the comedy a day after you watch the film, let alone quote lines. On the other hand, though, the climax is full of belly-laughs and impressive action - it's almost worth the price of admission alone, and it almost compensates for the more lethargic stretches.

While Johnny English Reborn is not quite as bubbly and charming as its predecessor, Oliver Parker's direction - and the filmmaking in general - is skilful all-round. One of the best creative decisions was to take the James Bond parody one step further and produce a Bond-esque opening title sequence guaranteed to have viewers in fits of laughter. Another plus is that the film at times feels like a big-budget James Bond blockbuster, especially during the large-scale climax set in the Swiss Alps. The special effects, too, are impressive considering the modest budget. Interestingly, the tone for this follow-up is wholly different to that of its predecessor - while the first film was a hammy, entirely non-serious farce with nothing much at stake, Johnny English Reborn could've passed for a James Bond film or a serious action-thriller if not for English's daftness. The jury is out as to which tone is better, but both styles work to an extent.

Rowan Atkinson is the only notable cast member of the original film to return here. Disappointingly, Johnny's brilliant original sidekick Bough (played by Ben Miller) does not return for this sequel (his only scene was cut). However, Johnny's new partner - played by future Get Out star (and Oscar nominee) Kaluuya - is an adequate replacement, though not outstanding. Dominic West (Punisher: War Zone) is also effective as fellow MI7 agent Simon, while an amiable Gillian Anderson features as the head of MI7. Also in the cast is Rosamund Pike as the token love interest, playing behavioural psychologist Kate. Pike is great here, and it's undeniably fun to witness her tackle such a character almost ten years after she was an actual Bond girl in 2002's Die Another Day. Pike plays her role absolutely straight - much like West, Anderson and Kaluuya - which is a huge asset since nobody looks as if they are in on the joke. Despite all of this talent, Johnny English Reborn is ultimately Atkinson's show, and the man's talent as a performer is on full display here. Atkinson also executive produced the film which exemplifies his dedication to the project, and this is carried over to his completely game performance as the lovable titular buffoon. 

For unfinicky audiences who can temper their expectations, Johnny English Reborn should prove to be an enjoyable enough night at the movies. It's an all-round mixed bag, though. The film could have and should have been funnier and more creative, but it has a few laughs, the technical presentation is sound, and it's nice to see Atkinson back in action on the big screen. Stick around for the end credits, too - one of the best gags is saved for last.

6.1/10

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