Reviews by PvtCaboose91

Drive Angry's writer-director Patrick Lussier and co-writer Todd Farmer were at no point deluded into believing they were creating high cinematic art with this exploitative action flick. Rather, the duo were completely aware that they were making a batshit insane actioner, and they knew how to play to their niche audience of gore hounds and explosion seekers. Thus, Drive Angry 3D's appeal is similar to that of Machete or Piranha 3D - it was produced to allow viewers to bask in the glory of giddy ludicrousness. More or less a live-action comic book and a throwback to a bygone era of grindhouse cinema, Drive Angry shifts into fifth gear in its early stages and keeps piling on the revs to sustain its high speed. It's the movie that Quentin Tarantino's disappointing Death Proof could've been if only it had the balls to fully embrace the pedigree it aspired to achieve. Critically analysing or thinking about Drive Angry is the wrong was to approach this production - you have to just watch and enjoy it for what it is.

The deceased John Milton (Cage) recently escaped from the maximum security prison known as Hell and has a grave score to settle. With his daughter murdered and his granddaughter kidnapped, John races across the American South in pursuit of the man responsible: Satanic cult leader Jonah King (Burke), who kidnapped the infant with the intention of ritualistically sacrificing her. As luck would have it, John stumbles upon smokin' hot, feisty waitress Piper (Heard) who has nothing to lose, a useful pair of fists and a beautiful American muscle car. Together, the two of them pursue Jonah and his cult, while a mysterious demonic minion known as The Accountant (Fichtner) remains hot on their tail.

Despite the demonic undercurrents, Drive Angry is not scary, the villains are not overly menacing, and it never seems like the protagonists are in genuine danger. The fact that John Milton is already dead and therefore immortal only lessens the sense of peril. There aren't many surprises in who dies and lives, and this is in no way a cerebral experience. Luckily, though, the film for the most part gets it right in terms of playful fun. Free of any morality or anything approaching thematic content, Drive Angry emphasises fast driving and butt-kicking. The pacing is usually brisk, the violence is frequent, and tongue-in-cheek humour is plentiful without it overwhelming the material. Even the plot barely matters and is sorely underwritten, since it just exists as a means to get the insanely hot Amber Heard in the same car as Nic Cage so they can fill the screen with as much sexiness, noise and gore as the MPAA allowed the filmmakers to get away with.

Director Patrick Lussier began his career as editor extraordinaire, with such credits as Red Eye and the initial Scream trilogy against his name. Drive Angry is Lussier's second 3-D film, having made the My Bloody Valentine 3D remake in 2009. Here, Lussier was completely willing to have cheesy fun with the 3-D effects and throw things at the audience (which look peculiar in 2-D). While the best 3-D is unobtrusive 3-D, these tricks at least make the gimmick more fun. However, a major flaw of Drive Angry is the use of woefully obvious digital effects which are at times distracting and therefore out-of-place in a film representing a throwback to a cinematic era before the advent of CGI. Another drawback is that the film's final third is not quite as lively as everything which preceded it. Plus, there's the constant threat of an infant who's about to be executed, which is inappropriate for a film like this because you can't laugh along with it. Also, unlike Machete or Planet Terror, Drive Angry is just a fun time - nothing memorable or lasting. Don't expect to remember it a few hours after you watch it.

Nicolas Cage is no stranger to taking roles in terrible movies, and he's particularly wooden here as John Milton; growling his lines with only the barest of conviction. But he is at least mildly fun in the role. The star has become a bit of a joke due to all the recent bad films on his résumé, but by starring in films like Kick-Ass and Drive Angry it's like Cage is making fun of the fact he has become a joke. Meanwhile, Amber Heard makes for a capable action heroine, and she was allowed to kick some serious ass. And then there's William Fichtner, who clearly had an absolute ball with his role. His dry delivery and utter nonchalance in the most absurd of situations generates a great deal of welcome humour. Rounding out the cast is the suitably hammy Billy Burke as Jonah King, and a curiously underused David Morse whose acting gravitas is welcome in such a B-grade action fare.

Drive Angry 3D delivers all the elements that its target audience yearns for. You want mindless nudity and sex? Do you want gratuitous gore? You feel like seeing a slow-motion gunfight during a sex scene? Well, Drive Angry has all of the above, so have at it! This is not a good film, but it never strives to be. C'mon, this is a story about a zombified father escaping from Hell to wreak havoc on some scumbags. If you're in the right mood, Drive Angry is a blast.

6.2/10

Filmmakers Carlo Ledesma, Enzo Tedeschi & Julian Harvey clearly took heed of the philosophies and techniques of renowned scare-meister Alfred Hitchcock for 2011's The Tunnel, namely his mantra that less is more: it is not always what you see that scares you, but what you imagine. A low-budget horror pic filmed in 14 days and made for peanuts, The Tunnel is an Australian member of the notorious "found footage" genre. While it does not offer anything overly new or novel in terms of narrative (in fact the story closely resembles the 2001 film Mole), it does offer an inherently eerie location, a bunch of strong performances from the little-known cast members, and plenty of atmospheric thrills & chills. It is essentially The Descent mixed with The Blair Witch Project and [Rec].

The Tunnel is the story of an investigative news team: reporter Natasha (Deliá), cameraman Steve (Davis), producer Pete (Rodoreda) and soundman Tangles (Arnold). In 2007, in order to deal with Sydney's ongoing water shortage problem, government officials planned to use the vast collection of abandoned railway tunnels below the city to build a water recycling facility, though the plan was controversial because it would disrupt the homeless population residing down there. However, the closely-guarded project is quietly abandoned by the Australia government, prompting Natasha to aggressively seek more information. Making the story more tantalising is the fact that reports begin to surface of homeless people disappearing, and that the government refuses to recognise this - they even refuse to admit that homeless people live down there in the first place. Even though Natasha is unable to obtain a filming permit, she drags along her loyal team to explore the pitch-black tunnel systems. Unfortunately, it isn't long before they get lost and discover that something is living down there which may or may not be human, and seems to have a taste for human flesh.

Interestingly, The Tunnel is played as a straight-up documentary like an episode of I Shouldn't Be Alive, with the footage taken underground being interspersed with survivor interviews filmed after-the-fact. It's an altogether unique and less frustrating take on the found footage concept which for the most part worked seamlessly for this reviewer. The fact that The Tunnel was designed to seem like a slickly-produced television documentary is bolstered by the meticulously researched introduction, wherein Natasha talks about the in-depth investigation she undertook prior to heading into the tunnels. The attention to detail is astonishing as the history of the tunnels is discussed (bear in mind these tunnels actually exist and filming took place in them); deftly weaving truth, fiction and speculation into an altogether engaging horror/thriller tapestry. There is enough factual detail within the film to keep you on the fence regarding the material's veracity.

Most contemporary horror/thriller pictures are more concerned with getting into the nitty-gritty as quickly as possible; brushing off character development as an unnecessary hindrance. Smartly, a solid portion of The Tunnel is dedicated to the build-up, with the makers providing an appreciable dose of worthwhile character development before the news crew head underground. Not to mention, the post-event interview footage allows for a more complete picture of the main players. And things rapidly escalate once the film heads into the tunnels, with plenty of nail-biting tension and an unshakable sense of dread. The true star of the picture is the tunnels themselves, which are dark, grimy, eerie, and filled with graffiti. The atmosphere is accentuated by the ambiance that's generated by the creepy surroundings, and said ambience is only interrupted by the occasional piece of interview footage or effectively moody music. Given the lack of budget, director Carlo Ledesma and his writers focused predominantly on lighting and atmospherics, and were up to the task. Thankfully, the stalker is never fully glimpsed - it is only seen in blurry, under-lit footage, and each fleeting sighting is petrifying under these conditions.

As effective as the filmmaking is, the picture does have its faults in the scripting department - it is stupid at times. For instance, in one scene the stalker picks up a video camera and plays with it, and even knows how to zoom. Huh? And towards the end, Natasha gets a mobile phone from a bystander to call emergency services, but does not ask the surrounding people which train station they're in! The crew also fall for a number of classic horror movie eye-rollers: they never look for weapons, there are a few instances of poor planning, and Natasha screams and acts hysterical when she should be quiet. Christ, is it too much to ask for a level-headed female protagonist who doesn't scream her head off at the first sign of danger? Despite all of this, though, the main characters are not complete idiots, and most of their decisions feel like the logical actions of a terrified, trapped group of explorers faced with horrifying unforseen events. Heck, they even decide to stick together when the shit hits the fan, which is astonishing. The performances are also excellent, with the actors seeming very natural in both the "documentary" footage and interviews. Steve Davis as the cameraman is a particular standout.

There is a fascinating story behind the creation and release of The Tunnel. Writer-producers Enzo Tedeschi and Julian Harvey raised the film's budget by selling individual digital frames of the film for $1 apiece. To make things even more unusual, the film was released online and could be legally downloaded online on top of being available in stores on DVD. It's interesting that the makers chose such an unconventional release method, since The Tunnel is a high quality horror offering which deserved a fully-fledged theatrical run. While the story breaks no new ground and while the script is not exactly airtight (not to mention this is a picture you admire more than you conventionally enjoy), the film was managed so creatively that it makes for an engaging, scary viewing exercise in horror.

7.1/10

Smartly rebooting the X-Men series after two substandard instalments (X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine), Matthew Vaughn's X-Men: First Class proves there is still mileage left in the blockbuster brand; not only living up to high expectations but also exceeding them with confidence. A discontinuity prequel which remains true to the already-established series mythology while at the same time revitalising the franchise with new ideas and fresh blood, the X-Men series is finally in the hands of filmmakers truly able to handle the mix of big action, genuine intelligence and drama the series demands, not to mention First Class is grounded in the socio-political allegory for civil rights, conformity and social misfits that made X-Men more than your average comic in the first place. Rather than a generic action film, this is a character-focused story, though the material never plods thanks to stylish technique, proficient pacing, and engaging dialogue. In a solid summer season (with Thor exceeding expectations in particular), First Class has arrived to declare itself the new king of summer 2011.

We first meet Charles Xavier (McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Fassbender) as kids during WWII; Charles grew up privileged in Westchester and took in fellow mutant girl Raven, a.k.a. Mystique (Lawrence), while Erik suffered in a Nazi concentration camp at the hands of Sebastian Shaw (Bacon). As adults in the early 1960s, Charles is a powerful telepath and swinging bachelor who attends Oxford specialising in genetic mutation, and Erik has matured into a killing machine looking to exact vengeance on Shaw. At this time, though, Shaw has gathered a powerful group of mutants and is determined to wreak nuclear havoc on a global scale. With Shaw and his mutant team organising a master plan to initiate World War III off the shores of Cuba, C.I.A. agent Moira MacTaggert (Byrne) recruits Charles who in turn begins assembling a team of mutants in the hope of stopping Shaw. In the midst of this, a tentative friendship is struck up between Charles and the frustrated Erik which is threatened by Erik's recklessness and unpredictability.

Bryan Singer claimed producer and story credits for First Class, and his influence reverberates all throughout the production. Fortunately, this film was in sturdy hands with Matthew Vaughn (Kick-Ass, Layer Cake) and his trio of co-writers, who made First Class respectfully reverent to its predecessors while also doing enough to prevent it from feeling like a retread. Interestingly, the film kicks off with a recreation of the opening of the original X-Men film from 2000, as child Erik finds his powers while trying to save his mother in a Nazi camp. It may seem redundant to remake an 11-year-old scene, yet the occurrence is an essential part of Erik's traumatic origin story which is further explored throughout the film. By allowing this prequel the room to develop characters and thus breathe and percolate, First Class is a more real and personal story, making it far more thoughtful than typical superhero actioners. The film also dips its toes in other genres, with the globe-trotting narrative and villainous machinations reminiscent of a classic James Bond film, while team recruitment scenes possess the hip energy of a crime caper like the Ocean's Eleven remake. First Class' only narrative flaw is that it rushes a few details and tries to cram all the essentials into a single 130-minute picture.

Director Vaughn was originally scheduled to helm X-Men 3 but dropped out at the last minute due to lack of creative control. He ultimately cut his teeth in the superhero genre with last year's Kick-Ass, but First Class is far removed from Kick-Ass in both style and tone. Luckily, as heady and grave as First Class is at times, it's also fun, with a vibrant colour palette allowing the picture to actually look like an X-Men movie. Photographed by veteran John Mathieson, the film additionally possesses an authentic edge rather than feeling like a dull trudge through studio sets. The action sequences are big and inventive, with a handful of oddball character zipping around the place using their various powers in combat, but it all feels real and immediate on top of being fun. By the time the impressive climax in Cuba arrives, the excitement and thrills feel well-earned after focusing on dramatic growth. The digital effects are solid for the most part but occasionally a little rocky, probably due to the rushed post-production schedule. Henry Jackson's accompanying score is generically engaging and suitable, though it may've benefitted from a more John Barry-esque zing to fit the setting, and it lacks a proper distinctive hero theme.

Another strength of X-Men: First Class is the almost faultless cast. The boundlessly charismatic, solid James McAvoy plays a Charles Xavier that's utterly foreign to us. A walking, drinking, womaniser with a full head of hair, McAvoy's interpretation is less staid and noble, and more human. In fact, his take on the soon-to-be Professor X is so refreshing that, as the finale approaches and familiar characteristics begin to surface, it's somewhat disappointing. Michael Fassbender is equally excellent as Erik/Magneto, who grows up to be a globe-trotting, multilingual Nazi hunter with a splash of James Bond and a touch of Hannibal Lector. Fassbender afforded a badass edge to the role and has an indomitably strong presence. More than that, Fassbender's portrayal keeps Magneto in the gray zone between good and evil where he belongs. McAvoy and Fassbender do not look much like their elderly counterparts from earlier X-Men films (Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan, respectively), but the stars do effectively capture both their souls and the tricky bond they share. Meanwhile, as Sebastian Shaw, Kevin Bacon obviously had an absolute ball; hamming it up and chewing the scenery accordingly. The supporting performances are almost all terrific, with each one individualising themselves even if their roles are comparatively compact. Nicholas Hoult (About a Boy) is particularly good as Hank McCoy, whose transformation into Beast makes for an intriguing character arc. (It's also fascinating to see Hoult all grown up!) The only thing approaching a weak link is January Jones, who lacks range as Emma Frost.

X-Men: First Class works so well on multiple levels. As an origin story it's patient and respectful of its source material. As a summer blockbuster it contains a handful of outstanding action set-pieces complementing a tense plot that's politically relevant despite its '60s setting. And finally, as an X-Men movie it taps all the right geek chords (there is one surprise cameo in particular that's beautifully played and absolutely hilarious). Vaughn and his crew were able to keep First Class connected to the previous films while also launching it as its own series. The fact that blockbusters of this high calibre can still be produced within the Hollywood system (and not be in 3-D!) gives hope for the future of summer filmmaking.

9.2/10

You could be easily forgiven for suspecting that Unknown is merely an unofficial sequel to 2009's surprise hit Taken. The trailers depicted a formidable Liam Neeson manoeuvring the back alleys of a European city full of unsavoury characters who need an ass-kicking. Yet, this is not Taken 2. With Unknown, director Jaume Collet-Serra (Orphan) and his writers (adapting the novel Out of My Head) have produced a thriller paying homage to the likes of Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, John Frankenheimer and other directors who enjoyed putting a conventional everyman through the wringer. More or less an amalgam of The Bourne Identity and The Fugitive, 2011's Unknown may remind you of other films, but it does not recycle much in terms of narrative twists; pulling together a unique, original story that's sufficiently intense, bursting with intrigue and capable of withstanding scrutiny.

With the intent of attending a biotechnology summit, Dr. Martin Harris (Neeson) arrives in wintry Berlin with his beautiful wife Liz (Jones). Realising his important briefcase was left at the airport, Martin takes a taxi back to retrieve it but becomes involved in a near-fatal car accident along the way. Upon waking up from a coma four days later without his ID or passport, Martin's memory is foggy. Leaving the hospital against his doctor's orders, Martin finds that the world has ostensibly rejected him - Liz denies his identity, while another man (Quinn) claims to be the "real" Martin Harris and has the paperwork to prove it. Upset, disorientated and frustrated, Martin hits the streets to uncover what seems to be a conspiracy, hiring the investigative skills of a former Stasi agent (Ganz) while searching for the taxi driver who was with him at the start (Kruger) to help solve the mystery.

Perpetually keeping the suspense and intrigue quotient high is the utter hopelessness of Martin's situation, and his bewilderment that's forcing him to second-guess everything, including his own sanity. For a premise like this, we can only accept the concept as long as the writers have a legitimate explanation up their sleeve, and as long as the thrills can keep us engaged. Unknown delivers on both counts. The film is not as action-packed as Taken since it is more of a restrained thriller than a brainless action fiesta, but there are a few exhilarating set-pieces throughout leading to the final nail-biting climax. As for the central riddle, the filmmakers did a great job of guarding it. Minor clues are scattered throughout the picture pertaining to what is actually happening, but the twist is hard to figure it out. And when the final reveal arrives at long last, it is well-judged. While a lot of potentially premise-destroyed questions arise throughout Unknown, the eventual explanation deals with them all. However, it's a tad disappointing that the film succumbs to the "I tell you everything before I kill you" cliché.

The proceedings of Unknown unfold in Berlin, unlike the book. It was a smart creative decision to set the film in Berlin - to outsiders, the city is cold and forbidding. There is a vague whiff of Cold War mystique compounding the inherent unease of Martin's situation. By shooting in Berlin, more tension is automatically afforded to the atmosphere. Technical contributions in this respect are solid - Flavio Martínez Labiano's cinematography is icy and crisp, and it sets an impeccable atmosphere that's heightened by the tense score by John Ottman and Alexander Rudd. Director Collet-Serra also managed to keep even the most mundane happenings interesting, with early scenes being pervaded with an intense, engrossing vibe (for instance, the scene in which Martin first confronts his wife after the accident is riveting). The only technical downside is a tendency to rely on contemporary "shaky-cam/rapid-fire editing" techniques for the action, which can be disorientating. There are one or two occasions when the geography of a scene is poorly established, and these techniques exacerbate the confusion.

Liam Neeson is an inherently authoritarian screen presence. He is the point of identification, and his acting gravitas provides weight to what could have been a forgettable thriller. Neeson is in Taken mode here, which is to say he's more of a traditional action hero. With that said, though, his acting talents are better used here - he was more of a blunt instrument in Taken, whereas in Unknown his abilities are stretched for the drama of the story (though to be fair, he is an awesome blunt instrument). Alongside Neeson, January Jones' performance as Martin's wife is extremely blank, and Aidan Quinn carries out his duties well enough in the role of the other Martin Harris without being spectacular. At the other end of the spectrum, Diane Kruger, Frank Langella and Sebastian Koch fare a lot better, while Bruno Ganz is an utter scene-stealer as the former Stasi agent who agrees to help Martin. Ganz's brilliant scenes seem to have been pilfered from another, smarter movie. While that may sound like a bad thing, it improves Unknown's overall dramatic weight and scope, though it's unfortunate the film built around these scenes is not quite as mature as them.

Unknown is smart, diverting entertainment. It is well-plotted, with a story that allows for plenty of intrigue and a few nice action scenes, not to mention some tantalising foreshadowing and clues that add texture without explicitly giving away the final reveal. Sure, the film remains mainstream in the way it leans on Hollywood conventions to see it through and deem it marketable, but it's smarter and more thoughtful than your usual slice of action-thriller entertainment.

7.8/10

The Mechanic can best be described as a typical Jason Statham action film in almost every possible way. There are a number of explosions and action sequences involving both gunplay and fisticuffs, and the plot is pretty standard-order but executed in a way that is not unduly boring. In short, it's a respectable action effort which compensates for lack of depth and drama with tight pacing and a number of tense, exhilarating action sequences. The "hook" of 2011's The Mechanic, though, is that it's a loose remake of the largely forgotten 1972 Charles Bronson action vehicle of the same name. However, this is one of those remakes done right; retaining the basic premise and a few plot twists, but updating various aspects of the story, changing narrative elements, and generally producing a fresh take of the classic which spawned it. Sure, there is not much difference between this and some invisible direct-to-DVD/Blu-ray action flick except for a bigger budget and laudable technical competency, but The Mechanic is a fun action ride destined to please its niche audience.

A high-value assassin known as a "mechanic", Arthur Bishop (Statham) specialises in developing intricate schemes to eliminate his targets; either framing other people for the murder, or staging the deaths as accidents. When Bishop's mentor Harry McKenna (Sutherland) falls under suspicion of leaking sensitive information pertaining to the company Bishop works for, Bishop is assigned to kill Harry, which he reluctantly does. Soon thereafter, Bishop happens upon Harry's depressed and angry son Steve (Foster), who haphazardly vows to avenge his father's death. On a whim, Bishop takes the reckless young man under his wing and chooses to train him in the art of assassination as an apprentice. An adept pupil, Steve soon begins carrying out assignments and accompanying Bishop to kill marks, but his apprenticeship was not sanctioned by the company...

A picture aimed squarely at the male demographic, The Mechanic racks up a large body count, serves up a few good explosions, contains gratuitous sex scenes, and generally supplies the goods for 90 minutes as if nothing but pure testosterone and adrenaline was in the script's fuel tank. The story is a simple one, and the driving force is action rather than dramatic growth. Unfortunately, the juicy dynamics that define the Arthur-Steve relationship are not explored to their fullest or most satisfying extent - here was a story ripe for psychological underpinnings and intense character interaction, but these ideas were reduced to minor sound bites since the filmmakers were more interested in the superficial. With that said, though, it is relieving that the script by Richard Wenk (16 Blocks) and Lewis John Carlino (who wrote the original 1972 film) never tries to play grandiose and tie what's happening into a larger, more topical world view. The world of these professionals is established, and the scope is narrowed, making for a good fun time at the movies without being weighed down by any unnecessary detours. The Mechanic eventually wraps up with an ending that will polarise viewers. On the one hand it's extremely badass, but it does lack the delicious irony of its predecessor.

At the helm of The Mechanic was Simon West; a capable action director whose previous credits include Tomb Raider and Con Air. West's adept touch when it comes to action and pacing goes a long way to making The Mechanic so much fun. Skilfully crafted, the film runs smoothly and refuses to pause for any great length of time in between the action. Of course, the action scenes are not overly unique, but they are hypnotic and badass, with old-school mayhem unfolding, bullets being sprayed, and blood splattering all over the place (though some of it is digital, unfortunately). Excellent stunt work and fight choreography bolsters the action, as does the use of practical effects - for car crashes and vehicular mayhem, the filmmakers employed an old-fashioned trick known as crashing cars and destroying actual fucking vehicles. This stuff makes the action more intense, exciting and visceral than CGI ever could. Logic is usually thrown to wind, but, with solid production values, who cares?

What's interesting about The Mechanic is that there are no good guys here, just stoic assassins, evil corporate bigwigs, and a few douchebags waiting to be killed by assassins. However, Arthur Bishop is at least given some depth and shown to have a soft side. With Bishop carrying out multi-million dollar contracts, he can afford a quaint house decked out in fine art and soothing music, making him a man with an interest in culture on top of his killing instincts. A throwaway subplot is also present involving an understanding, good-spirited woman (Anden) who has sex with Bishop in passing. Said subplot is underdeveloped, but it at least affords a degree of humanity to Bishop's character. And in the role of Bishop is Jason Statham. While it's true that Statham has become typecast, he remains one of the few true action stars left, and his tough guy persona is fitting for the role previously played by Charles Bronson. Statham does not step out of his comfort zone here, but who cares? He can kick ass with the best of them, and gets to do a lot of that in this flick. Meanwhile, in the part of Steve McKenna, Ben Foster is intense and serious-minded, coming across as a stoic, efficient killer. Tony Goldwyn and Donald Sutherland also appear, both of whom afforded a great deal of convincing intensity to their roles of Dean and Harry (respectively), as well as adding a bit of class to the film.

The Mechanic was designed and marketed as a Jason Statham vehicle, and it ticks all the boxes in this respect. The nitty-gritty of the story might not have been fully explored and it's not as good as the original film (which was more of a character study), but director Simon West once again proves he has not lost his touch. Perhaps The Mechanic is underdone and empty, but it delivers so well in the entertainment department and thus it does what it says on the tin, so who cares about its inherent deficiencies?

6.7/10

Once upon a time, a small-budgeted comedy entirely devoid of bankable stars entered multiplexes with unremarkable fanfare only to become an acclaimed and much-liked cultural phenomenon that earned a mint at the worldwide box office. It was called The Hangover, and it was one of the most profitable motion pictures of 2009. Soon, a second round of mayhem was hastily ordered up by the greedy studio executives, and now two years later we have The Hangover Part II. Logically, high expectations surrounded the production, compounded by apprehension (especially since director Todd Phillips and star Zach Galifianakis churned out the excruciating comedy dud Due Date in the interim). Alas, this follow-up is somewhat disappointing. Instead of designing a brand new mishap for the Wolf Pack to encounter for The Hangover Part II, the makers opted to essentially remake 2009's monster comedy hit - "redux" is a more suitable label than sequel. The lack of screenplay ingenuity is disheartening, but this Xeroxed construction does come alive in places as it stumbles down a familiar path to a familiar conclusion.

A few years after the fateful Las Vegas adventure, Phil (Cooper), Doug (Bartha) and Stu (Helms) are ready to fly to Thailand for Stu's upcoming wedding. Fearing a repeat of the Vegas events that befell them, Stu decides against a bachelor party and only very reluctantly agrees to invite the eccentric Alan (Galifianakis) to his nuptials. On the eve of the big event, the boys - along with Stu's future brother-in-law Teddy (Lee) - enjoy a celebratory toast on the beach...then the next thing they know, it's the morning after, and Stu, Phil and Alan are in the middle of Bangkok without any recollection of the previous night's events. With Teddy missing, Teddy's severed finger on ice in the room, and crime lord Chow (Jeong) unconscious on the floor, the boys set off into Bangkok's chaotic underbelly seeking clues and witnesses.

The majority of The Hangover's cast and crew returned for this sequel, though screenwriters Scott Moore and Jon Lucas were replaced with Craig Mazin (Superhero Movie) and Scot Armstrong (Semi-Pro) who were assisted by Todd Phillips. But frankly, The Hangover Part II plays out as if the writers just went back to the original film's script and wrote new jokes over it on a scene-by-scene basis on top of adding "again" to the end of several dialogue lines. It’s doubtful any sequel has ever hewed so closely to the structure of its predecessor before (even Die Hard 2 had the good sense to do something comparatively creative and fresh despite rehashing the basic conceit of the first film). Heck, the first five minutes of The Hangover and The Hangover Part II are identical beat-by-beat: people are setting up a wedding, the bride is frantically calling the boys to find out where they are, and Phil calls Doug's wife to tell her everything has gone wrong before the credits play over a location montage. The Hangover was genuinely inventive, with the ingenious structure and the nature of the storytelling (which was more of a murder mystery) giving the film a memorable spark. Without anything new or inventive, part deux feels rote and lazy, with the makers playing things far too safely.

Of course, the biggest change here is that Bangkok takes over for Las Vegas as the generator of mayhem. Admittedly, the scenery change was nicely handled, with the Eastern mood being set by drug-dealing monkeys, frequent power outages, and "ladyboy" prostitutes. And on top of retaining the first film's structure, The Hangover Part II stays true in other areas, with Stu singing an offbeat song about the situation and the end credits playing alongside a slideshow of photographs from the big night. Though to be fair, these two aforementioned components yield hilarious results. See, it's not that The Hangover Part II doesn't have laughs - believe me, it has its moments - but it lacks the creative spark and wit of the 2009 blockbuster which spawned it. The Hangover was one of the most quotable comedies of recent years and every scene was funny, whereas part deux relies more on sight gags and shock value, making this a darker, meaner, less clever film than its predecessor with a smaller laugh quotient.

Zach Galifianakis stole the show and earned his big break with The Hangover, but the star is starting to lose his comedic spark after Due Date and now this. Galifianakis massively exaggerates the character of Alan here, going as over-the-top as possible. Alan used to be socially awkward, but now he's borderline mentally challenged, making him more sad than offbeat or endearing. While Galifianakis has his moments, it is clear that his 15 minutes of fame are coming to an end. Luckily, the other returning cast members fare better - Ed Helms, Bradley Cooper and Justin Bartha all capably slipped into their roles as if no time had passed. Ken Jeong's Chinese gangster Mr. Chow was given a bigger role in the proceedings here, but he's less funny as a main player - the character worked better in small doses. Also present is Paul Giamatti, who classes things up a bit in his minor role. Meanwhile, Nick Cassavetes has a one-scene cameo as a tattoo artist. This role was originally meant to be played by Mel Gibson, but protests from cast and crew led to him being replaced by Liam Neeson, who shot the scene but was unavailable when a reshoot was necessary... It is a tremendous shame that Gibson missed out on playing the role, as he could have been a tremendous comic asset. Cassavetes is, unfortunately, flat.

Watching The Hangover Part II is essentially the same experience as viewing The Hangover - it is the same film in terms of formula, narrative and resolution, except it's louder, cruder, grosser and more profanity-ridden. Such duplication robs this sequel of any element of surprise, which is half of what made the original film such a hit in the first place. Perhaps Phillips and co were just afraid to think outside the box in fear messing up, or maybe it's just pure laziness. Whatever. Look, it may seem like I'm being harsh on The Hangover Part II... Make no mistake, it does indeed provide laughs and an enjoyable time, and maybe you won't even care about the laziness. But for this reviewer, the unshakable sense of déjà vu is disappointing.

6.0/10

In popular culture, the story of Little Red Riding Hood is well known: Red visits her grandmother one morning only to find that she's been devoured by a wolf, and then a lumberjack swoops in and saves the day. With Hoodwinked!, a bunch of filmmakers have reinvented and produced a fresh new take on the time-worn tale. A Rashômon-style approach has been adopted to deconstruct the story and allow the four central characters - Red (Hathaway), the Grandmother (Close), the Big Bad Wolf (Warburton) and the Woodsman (Belushi) - to give their own accounts of what they did that caused the well-known events to transpire. See, a string of crimes have transpired in the area, with unique recipes being stolen by an unknown bandit. The policemen who show up to question the four principals believe that the events may be linked to the "Goody Bandit" crimes.

By telling the story out of chronological order and setting the plot up as a mystery, the experience of watching Hoodwinked! is like viewing a PG-rated, kid-friendly cartoon version of a Quentin Tarantino production; assuredly setting the picture apart from other recent animated efforts. The picture may seem slight the first time around, but it demands multiple viewings - it is more enjoyable the second or third time around simply because it's easier to catch more things. For instance, the narrative substantially resembles The Usual Suspects on top of the obvious Rashômon homage. Meanwhile, the Big Bad Wolf wears the exact same outfit sported by Chevy Case in the classic '80s comedy Fletch. Heck, entire sequences reference moments from Fletch, complete with variations on the music. However, Hoodwinked! remains more conceptually clever than completely satisfying. The picture gets bogged down in the middle and goes overboard with the climax. The ideas behind the picture work fantastically well, but the writing and pacing are not quite up to scratch. Hoodwinked! isn't biting or funny enough to be Shrek, nor is it polished enough to be Finding Nemo or The Incredibles.

To state the obvious, Hoodwinked! was clearly made on the cheap as it flaunts some of the poorest computer animation in recent memory. The characters have plastic looks, while the backgrounds are too simple, colourless and one-dimensional. On more than one occasion, it looks like a cheap television show. Compared to the visual standards set by Pixar and DreamWorks, Hoodwinked! is far below the curve. Though, to be fair, one has to feel sorry for the filmmakers behind the picture (Cory Edwards, Todd Edwards and Tony Leech). These guys conceived of a genuinely clever idea, began producing the movie on laptops in their apartments, and spent years working on it. And then the Weinstein Company picked it up and attached such names as Anne Hathaway, Glenn Close, Anthony Anderson and Andy Dick. Due to the low-budget nature of the animation, crowds who came to see Hoodwinked! were decidedly underwhelmed. And now, for the rest of their lives, the filmmakers have to footnote "we only had 15 million!". Oh well, the boys made themselves a nice profit, with their movie grossing about $110 million worldwide. Not too shabby considering the humble origins and incessant criticisms...

The voice work of Hoodwinked! is stellar, fortunately. Anne Hathaway is a good fit for the role of Little Red Riding Hood; ably bringing a sarcastic teenage ambience to the character. Patrick Warburton (immediately recognisable as the voice of Joe in Family Guy) was an excellent choice as the lovably goofy Big Bad Wolf, who is in fact an investigative newspaper reporter. Meanwhile, Glenn Close created a fun, crackly-voiced Granny, and James Belushi is bursting with bluster and buffoonery as the Woodsman. In the supporting cast are such names as Anthony Anderson, Andy Dick, David Ogden Stiers and Xzibit, all of whom are uniformly solid.

Like most computer animated feature films released in this day and age, Hoodwinked! is brimming with pop culture references, frenetically-paced humour and a cheeky attitude. The quality of the computer animation pales in comparison to similar recent releases, but a number of bright spots and clever ideas are almost enough to overcome these technical shortcomings. At least there is a bit of humour, even if the movie could have been funnier. In truth, Hoodwinked! has enough positive elements to make it an enjoyable viewing experience, but it seems like more as a direct-to-DVD flick or a TV special than a theatrical offering.

6.1/10

If Groundhog Day was gang-banged by 24, The Matrix and Murder on the Orient Express, Source Code would be the outcome. Written by Ben Ripley, this sophomore effort of filmmaker Duncan Jones (Moon) is a completely original piece of science fiction which works so well due to a mind-bending plot and several clever narrative gyrations. Added to this, viewers are also given a reason to care, as the makers paid attention to developing sympathetic, warm characters. How ironic it is that every smart sci-fi released since mid-2010 is compared to Inception as if that movie was the be all and end all of the genre, yet Christopher Nolan's overrated Oscar nominee came up short in the character department.

Confused and disoriented, Captain Colter Stevens (Gyllenhaal) wakes up inside the body of school teacher Sean Fentress on a commuter train bound for Chicago, but last he checked he was a marine fighting alongside his battalion in Afghanistan. Seated across from him is sweet-faced, flirtatious colleague Christina Warren (Monaghan), who seems to know him well. Eight minutes later, the train explodes and everyone is killed, forcing Colter back into a steel pod where he carries on video communication with army officer Goodwin (Farmiga). He soon learns that he is being placed into a phenomenon called the "source code", allowing him to take over the mind and body of Sean during his final eight minutes of life within an alternate reality. Handed the same eight brief minutes time and time again, Colter is instructed to investigate the passengers in order to deduce the identity of the terrorist bomber and hopefully prevent future attacks. The more time he spends in Sean's body, the more determined he becomes to find a way to save Christina and the rest of the passengers from their untimely fates.

Like Christopher Nolan did with Memento, Source Code initially refuses to provide the same information that Colter lacks, thereby placing a viewer in the same bewildered mindset as the protagonist who has to rely on a computer monitor through which Goodwin instructs him and assures him that his confusions and questions are outside the scope of the mission. Luckily, Source Code is well-paced and often intriguing since only tantalisingly small pieces of information are provided. Upon close inspection, there are common threads running throughout both Source Code and 2009's Moon. On top of being intelligent, both films spotlight a protagonist trapped in isolation, and both films explore provocative identity-related questions. Though Source Code is more mainstream than Moon, it is an excellent breath of fresh air. In an era governed by mindless CGI-laden spectacles, it is indeed heart-warming to see the work of a thoughtful filmmaker with original ideas and an innovative vision.

Questions arise throughout Source Code. What would happen if Colter finds the bomber and prevents the bombing from happening inside the source code? Would it trigger an alternate reality or affect present-day? For a 90-minute film that revolves around the same limited timeframe for most of its running time, it's enthralling to watch as Colter's different actions throw the source code happenings on a different course but ultimately lead to the same general outcome in the "real world". The question as to whether the doomed passengers can be saved will also keep your interest levels high. And the ending provides a thought-provoking rumination on the notion of an infinite number of alternate universes. On the topic of the ending, it's outstanding. As well as raising challenging questions, the film closes on a satisfying yet unpredictable note that in no way sacrifices the integrity of the piece and is not a copout. Additionally, it reinforces an impassioned message: people should wake up and stop taking their lives for granted.

What is also impressive about Source Code is how competently the film has been crafted despite this only being Duncan Jones' second feature film effort. The son of David Bowie shows a gift for generating the same brand of energy and excitement that makes a film like Speed stand the test of time without coming off as derivative or forgettable. Jones and his crew did a fine job of making every frame count (thus adhering to the film's own tagline "Make Every Second Count"), and they never indulged in action, explosions or overblown visual effects for the sake of it. Other technical contributions to the film are top-notch as well, particularly Don Burgess' expert lensing, Chris Bacon's pulse-pounding score and Paul Hirsch's rhythmic editing. Only a few logical errors hinder this otherwise fine movie, such as a scene where Colter jumps off a moving train onto concrete without breaking any bones.

As Colter Stevens, Jake Gyllenhaal is solidly engaging; effortlessly providing an affable protagonist for viewers to latch onto and care about. Gyllenhaal's greatest success is the way he was able to meld desperation, intensity and contemplative pathos, not to mention he imbued his character with warmth and amiability to help viewers truly care about his circumstances. In supporting roles, Michelle Monaghan is well-nuanced and charming as Colter's love interest, while the boundlessly talented Vera Farmiga provides a great deal of personality. Jeffrey Wright has copped a lot of criticism for his performance as the creator of the source code, but this reviewer found him to be sublime - he nailed the "corporate douchebag" mentality, as well as coming across as an intelligent human being whose mind runs at a mile a minute.

Expertly written and crafted, Source Code is extremely fast-paced, yet it also spends a sufficient amount of time on dialogue to explain the science behind the central conceit. 90 minutes of Source Code is neither too long nor too short, and it is easy to find yourself invested in the story and the characters up until the very end. Source Code indeed confirms that Duncan Jones is a real talent to watch, demonstrating that the director has a lot of additional filmmaking muscles he did not have the chance to flex in his debut.

9.5/10

A late-2010 picture delivered by the DreamWorks animation factory, Megamind can best be described as Pixar's The Incredibles meets Despicable Me. See, Megamind is a clever dissection of superhero movie conventions which functions as a character study of the supervillain. In the realm of superhero movies, there is always one given: the hero always wins. This leaves the question of what would happen if the bad guy actually won and flat-out killed the hero by some miracle (and if a studio was actually audacious enough to let a narrative play out in such a way). Megamind tackles this particular concept, and examines the life of a supervillain after he has vanquished his nemesis, finding himself free to rule, terrorise and be evil without anyone around to stop him.

In a nod to 1978's Superman, the movie begins as infant alien Megamind (Ferrell) is sent to Earth, but ends up landing in the confines of a prison where he is raised by the inmates and taught to hate good and practice evil. Meanwhile, another alien named Metro Man (Pitt) is sent to Earth, is adopted by a loving suburban family, and grows up to be the superhero to Megamind's supervillain. By adulthood, Megamind has perfected the nemesis routine; constantly kidnapping news reporter Roxanne (Fey) and subsequently sparring with Metro Man. The routine becomes incredibly predictable...until the day Megamind actually succeeds and kills Metro Man, leaving the villainous blue-skinned alien without a do-gooder counterpart to lock horns with. Sinking into depression and finding that his life lacks purpose, Megamind eventually concocts a plan to create another superhero to do battle with, thus restoring balance to the madman's life.

Megamind is pretty much what we have come to expect from fluffy DreamWorks animated flicks with stunt casting. A satire of superhero conventions, it's merely a surface-level diversion that's not on par with the Pixar's usual output or as good as DreamWorks' best animation efforts (Shrek, How to Train Your Dragon). Nonetheless, it remains a perfectly acceptable, serviceable family flick with a lively pace to easily engage children and entertain adults. What separates Megamind from greatness is a lack of sophistication in the script. In general, the humour is effective but fails to be hilarious - the film perpetually seems to be on the hunt for belly-laughs that it unfortunately never finds. Instead, the comedy only provokes smiles or minor chuckles. Also, the picture cannot generate the type of emotional resonance which has become second nature to Pixar filmmakers, rendering Megamind fun in the moment but ultimately disposable. Credit where credit is due, though - the titular Megamind is a great character, and something clever almost always happens when he is on-screen (like a random word mispronunciation or a strange visual element).

Fortunately, Alan J. Schoolcraft and Brent Simons' script doesn't rush Megamind's transformation from supervillain to pseudo-hero; it feels natural, and, in a weird way, we get to understand what this guy is all about. Along the way to the final destination, there are some great set-pieces to keep viewers engaged. Not to mention, the computer animation is delightful (though is that surprising at all?), with intricately detailed characters and sly visual nuances. The action scenes, of which there are plenty, are well-rendered and exciting. To help amplify the excitement of the action, acclaimed filmmaker Guillermo Del Toro was brought in to assist with the editing. Suffice it to say, his input evidently paid dividends. Director Tom McGrath (Madagascar) also deserves credit for keeping the picture moving at an impeccable pace, and never allowing the narrative to lull substantially. Even if things get a tad overblown in the third act, the film makes a full recovery by the very end; closing the story without sacrificing the charm of the characters or strength of the premise.

Thankfully, both Will Ferrell and Tina Fey submitted terrific voice performances as Megamind and Roxanne (respectively), with the roles seemingly tailor-made for the stars. In particular, there are times when one can catch a glimpse of Ferrell through the animation due to body language. At one stage, Ferrell was even given the chance to parody Marlon Brando's Superman role; a task he pulled off with hilarious results (only adults will understand the joke, but it doesn't matter that kids won't get it). Jonah Hill's efforts are also commendable as Roxanne's cameraman, but the rest of the big-name cast members - like Brad Pitt, Ben Stiller and J.K. Simmons - seem to be a simple case of stunt casting: they were included to increase the budget and marketability without improving the movie's actual quality.

The creators of Megamind do not reinvent the wheel in terms of formula, and the heart and dramatic undercurrents of Pixar's typical output eludes them, but vivacious animation and some delightful set-pieces help to compensate for the movie's blunders. Megamind is not destined to be a classic, but it is good entertainment for kids and adults alike.

6.6/10

Sharktopus was born from a collaboration of two legends of campy cinema: Roger Corman and the Syfy Channel. Unsurprisingly, the love child of these two legends is the new reigning king of so-bad-they're-good movies. Astonishingly, Sharktopus is not wretched - in fact it's really enjoyable; a picture so unbelievably cheesy and intentionally bad that it manages to be oddly endearing. This is a film that is under no pretensions at all - it is not a movie with plot, or good acting, or tension. Instead, the majority of Sharktopus focuses on the genetically engineered titular beast that's half-shark, half-octopus, and all awesome. Luckily, the makers of Sharktopus worked to let viewers in on the joke, and let them know that this is an exercise in fun not to be taken with a straight face.

The S-11 - or "Sharktopus" as it is better known - is a hybrid creature engineered by the Blue Waters corporation to be a military-controlled weapon. However, due to unforseen consequences, the deadly creature shakes off its electronic equipment and goes rogue. So the Sharktopus does what any respectable low-budget movie monster would do: he swims to Mexico where it's cheaper to film. The creature's designer Nathan Sands (Roberts) and his daughter Nicole (Lane) are tasked with reeling the bad boy back in, and opt to call upon some extra muscle to help: former Blue Waters employee Andy Flynn (Bursin), who has settled into a comfortable life of drinking and womanising. As Flynn and the others chase down S-11 to get it back under control, innocents continue to die, and news of the rampaging aquatic mutant begins to spread.

Intelligent plotting? Absolutely not. Insightful dialogue? Not a chance. Nuanced acting? Forget about it. Great special effects? Fuck no. Sharktopus is a pure cheese sandwich, and proud of it. A lot of cheap monster movies are rendered unbearable if a self-serious tone is adopted, which is why the masterminds behind Sharktopus never ask us to take anything seriously. Roger Corman is a long-time creator of low-budget cinema, and he has mastered the craft - he knows precisely what the people want, and he gives it to them. The movie is not full of fleeting glimpses of Sharktopus to tease the viewer until the final reveal... Quite the opposite has happened here: the movie is filled with full-on shots of the monster kicking ass within increasingly ridiculous set-pieces. And the monster itself has been brought to life using some of the worst CGI glimpsed in a motion picture for a while. In fact, the digital effects are so bad that they often look unfinished. Not to mention, the attack scenes are often incompetent to the point of unintentional hilarity. And Sharktopus' roar is fucking hilarious.

The primary narrative concerns Blue Waters scientists hunting down Sharktopus, but a lot of extra vignettes were concocted focusing on characters who are introduced only to be killed off. The victims are mostly just beautiful-looking males and females in great shape who lounge around on the beach waiting for their deaths. Unsurprisingly, the acting is just this side of terrible. Veteran Eric Roberts ably holds his own and does his thing with sufficient enthusiasm, but he was hardly clueless as to the type of movie this is. The remainder of the cast alternate between horribly overdoing it and playing to clichés or stereotypes - thus, like the writers, the performers took the easy way out. Fortunately, the cheesy acting is all part of the film's charm. Unfortunately, the film does begin to lose steam about halfway through as the novelty begins to wear off, but this is the only major drawback of an otherwise fun flick.

When it comes down to it, there's no escaping the reality that Sharktopus is a bad movie. Sure, the script is perhaps a touch better than the average Syfy production because of how self-aware it is, but nobody can commend this movie from any serious critical standpoint. In fact, the script can only be commended for how hilariously cheesy the dialogue is (at the end Flynn says he hopes the creature doesn't jump back out at them, but he's reassured "That only happens in the movies"). There is no mistaking Sharktopus for art: this is a fun, cheesy movie which delivers what it says on the box. It's cinematic junk food - the filmed equivalent of a Big Mac from McDonalds: greasy, made fast and cheap, and somewhat damaging to your health, but it hits the right spot when you've had a few beers and do not feel like exerting much effort to nourish yourself. A classic? No. But it is a passable time killer if you enjoy big dumb creature features...emphasis on dumb.

5.8/10