Reviews by PvtCaboose91

Adapted from the pages of a Dark Horses Comics series, 1994's Timecop essentially uses the same type of formula applied to Total Recall: put a popular action star into a science fiction setting, add a few plot twists, and give the action star all the leeway he needs to blast and punch his way out of trouble. A futuristic time travel cop action-thriller produced by Sam Raimi and Robert Rapert (of Evil Dead fame), Timecop ranks among the best films of Jean-Claude Van Damme's filmography, not to mention it is to date his highest grossing theatrical release (earning over $100 million worldwide). With that said though, the film only works as a primal shoot-'em-up slice of action cinema and a guilty pleasure best watched with alcohol. Viewed as a serious futuristic time travel movie, on the other hand, Timecop has some fairly glaring issues.

In 1994, time travel has become possible thanks to new scientific breakthroughs. Travelling into the future cannot be done yet, but travelling into the past has become a reality, and with that reality comes the very real danger of the past being manipulated to alter present-day. In order to maintain the status quo, the Time Enforcement Commission (TEC) is established by the government, sponsored by young hotshot Senator McComb (Silver) who immediately sees the potential for wielding control over the TEC and using time travel for his personal benefit. Enter Max Walker (Van Damme), who works at the agency but whose wife was murdered in 1994 by a group of assailants. Fast-forward to 2004, and Walker learns that Senator McComb is manipulating time in order to amass the necessary funds to buy the Presidency, all the while working to permanently shut down TEC.

If one strips away the time travelling tomfoolery, Timecop is merely a typical Van Damme action flick. With the sci-fi element, though, the film becomes both stupider and a bit more audacious than a more run-of-the-mill effort. See, any film involving time travel is inherently traversing precarious ground, and Timecop is no different - it's marred by a few plot holes and stupidities. For instance, there are no noticeable effects on present-day when Walker travels back to 1928 to kick ass, dodge bullets fired from a futuristic laser canon in front of a lot of people, and leap out a window only to disappear into a wormhole above a busy street. In another scene, a character explains that Confederate gold bullion stolen from the past was carbon-dated to reveal that it was indeed minted back in the mid-1800s. Aside from the fast that gold cannot be tested this way, if it was brought forward through time then it would not test as being 130 years old, right? How does that make sense? And then there is the time travel shuttle launcher which seems to be half though-out. How do the time travellers leave the rocket when they pass through the time portal, but magically reappear in it upon returning to the present? At least the writers did not attempt to explain the science of time travel, which would've sounded ridiculous.

Directed by Peter Hyams and written by Mike Richardson and Mark Verheiden, Timecop is a derivative but entertaining action diversion, and, at a lean 90 minutes in length, it does not outstay its welcome. Ultimately, how much you enjoy the film depends on your fondness for Van Damme (and action movies in general) as well as your ability to turn off your brain for the sake of action and some nifty story twists. Thankfully, director Peter Hyams makes it easy to enjoy the carnage at surface level, as the movie shifts forward at a good pace and there are plenty of competently-executed action sequences unlikely to put anyone to sleep. Hyams saw the movie for what it is - an excuse for plenty of fighting, stunts, special effects and gunfights. Someone like James Cameron could have probably taken both the action/effects and the story seriously enough to hone the concept to excellent, but Timecop is fun for what it is, and over-thinking the film too much would destroy the effortless pleasures it affords. Interestingly, time has not been kind to several of the film's less critical components, such as the hilariously overblown futuristic cars and Van Damme's hairdo.

Jean-Claude Van Damme did not become famous for his acting ability or his thick Belgian accent. Rather, the Muscles from Brussels earned worldwide recognition for his kickboxing abilities, good looks and muscular physique. Fortunately, Van Damme's work here is actually decent; easily watchable, and at no point notably terrible. He lacks the presence of someone like Charles Bronson, but Van Damme exudes more charisma than someone like Steven Seagal. And as the villain of Timecop, Ron Silver is menacing enough and exudes an adequate amount of intensity. The only other notable cast members include Mia Sara (Ferris Bueller's Day Off) who's surprisingly terrific as Walker's wife, and an affable Bruce McGill playing the head of TEC. As a side note, whoever did the hair and make-up gets major plaudits for doing a sublime job of making the 2004 versions of the characters look older than their 1994 counterparts. (Or maybe the actors were made to look younger? It's hard to tell!)

All things considered, Timecop is a fun little reminder of how action films were created back in the early 1990s. The film is carefully calculated to deliver plenty of action, sex, nudity and special effects in every reel, and Timecop is a slickly-produced actioner to boot. If you can engage the film for its duration without the pretence of greatness, this is a fun time-waster. It's definitely cheesy, but this merely adds to its old-school charm.

7.1/10

A cyberpunk action flick, Johnny Mnemonic is based on William Gibson's short story of the same name. To the credit of Johnny Mnemonic's producers, they recruited Gibson to adapt his own story into a full-length screenplay, which in theory should've been the catalyst for a successful page-to-screen translation. Alas, the ensuing feature is a jumble of clichés, terrible dialogue, crackpot ideas and lethally uninspired craftsmanship. This was the first feature film for both Gibson and director Robert Longo (an artist who'd dabbled in music videos), and their inexperience is blatantly obvious. Lacking in heart, soul and intelligence, Johnny Mnemonic is a train wreck of cataclysmic proportions if viewed as a serious science fiction movie. However, if you perceive the film as a campy, comedic '90s cyberpunk action movie, this is a home run. Damn cheesy and irresistibly hilarious, this is the reason why the term "guilty pleasure" was invented.

Set in 2021, Johnny (Keanu Reeves) is a Mnemonic courier possessing a brain implant capable of storing electronic data, making him ideal for black market information transferral. His storage capacity is 80GB, but can be extended to 160GB with the help of a 'doubler' (in an age of 2TB external hard-drives, think about how hilarious this notion is). Johnny wants to quit the business, but is told he must complete one final job (oh, it's one of those plots). Despite the job requiring the transfer of a 320GB file, Johnny agrees. Problem is, such an overload is guaranteed to cause 'seepage', wherein the content leaks into his regular brain and cripples his cortex. Johnny has less than 24 hours to remove the data from his brain before he dies. Further complicating matters is a bunch of yakuza gangsters who are also determined to obtain the data. Also thrown into the mix is the most ridiculous bounty hunter ever: a Street Preacher (Dolph Lundgren) who wears a robe and carries a staff, and who smites both sinners and people with a price on their heads. Fortunately for Johnny, he happens upon Jane (Dina Meyer), who has conveniently-placed friends in high places who can help.

In a decade which bore the release of The Matrix and Twelve Monkeys among others, Johnny Mnemonic is definitely one of the lesser sci-fi films of the '90s. Clearly, the makers of Johnny Mnemonic set out to craft a Blade Runner for the '90s, using esteemed author William Gibson's interpretation of the future and rapidly-advancing technology to give the impression of smarts. The main problem, though, is the dumb as rocks script. Just because the film takes place in a futuristic setting does not mean that all logic and coherence should be discarded. I mean, why store data in the brain when a portable hard-drive would easily suffice? All of the stored data can be accessed by chopping the courier's head off, after all. The dialogue, meanwhile, is amazingly cheesy and unbelievably terrible. Fortunately, Johnny Mnemonic is ridiculously goofy and outright bad enough to be fun, even if it's not a good film at all. The production values are amazingly campy, with "futuristic" sets and effects that often look very cheap - the film looks closer to Mad Max than Blade Runner.

"It's Jesus time!"

Made in 1995, Johnny Mnemonic remains an interesting document due to its laughable vision of 2021. For a film that pondered the near-future, it is already hilariously wrong in 2011. For instance, in ten years from now, do you think a big bulky desktop computer will be essential for accessing the internet? And do not make me bring up the aforementioned discussion of memory sizes. Just don't do it. Meanwhile, Johnny Mnemonic's vision of the future of the internet is ludicrous; a Tron-inspired virtual reality interface constructed with CGI that looks primitive all these years on, though its out-datedness admittedly makes it look nifty. Oh, and there is a scene featuring a cyborg dolphin floating in a glowing green tank. If this stuff doesn't get you laughing uncontrollably, nothing will. Interestingly, in one scene, the titular main character asks for a "Thompson iPhone". It's a complete coincidence, of course, but you'll probably rewind the film and do a double take.

With Keanu Reeves in the title role, Johnny Mnemonic can be perceived as sci-fi practice for the star before his success in the much superior The Matrix four years later. (Incredibly, Reeves here plays a character who wears a simple black suit and a straight tie who is known to his clients as Mr. Smith...) In all likelihood, all of the actors here were told they were making a comedy. Reeves is downright side-splitting in the title role thanks to his overacting and ridiculously hammy line readings. (And does anyone else see the innate humour in the notion of Reeves' brain being overloaded beyond its full capacity?) Alongside Reeves, in her theatrical film debut, Dina Meyer (Starship Troopers) is awful in every frame, but hilariously so. And then there's rapper-turned-actor Ice-T sporting facial tattoos, dreadlocks and a pair of ski goggles. You cannot make this stuff up. Rounding out the most notable players is Dolph Lundgren playing a bearded, homicidal preacher-come-assassin wearing Jesus robes and sporting a large beard, and who at one stage announces his presence by bursting into a room behind a gurney on which lies a woman who was stabbed through the heart with a crucifix. Dolph's dead-eyed, monotone acting is abysmal to the point of hilarity, and he's an absolute scene-stealer. With the actors filling their lines with false, forced intensity, there are a lot of unintentional laughs to be had.

At no point can anyone consider Johnny Mnemonic (Johnny Moronic?) a good or even a decent film, but it has its fair share of cult movie charms, from its cheap-looking sets to the old hat CGI to the surfeit of bad acting (I'm never going to grow sick of Dolph Lundgren waving his staff around). Over-the-top and deliciously hammy, this is an irresistibly fun movie lacking in drama, tension and logic that tries to be intelligent - it's like a mentally challenged person trying to use big words in a bid to sound smart but just comes off as even more moronic instead. It's tough not to like this film on some juvenile level due to how awesomely terrible it is, so watch it with copious amounts of alcohol when you wish to give your brain a rest.

As a serious movie? 4.9/10
As a campy piece of unintentional hilarity? 9/10

A computer-animated picture courtesy of the House of Mouse that was stuck in development hell for many years (Ewan McGregor and Kate Winslet were originally attached to voice the leads) and with a staggering nine credited writers, Gnomeo & Juliet most likely began life as a one-line idea based on a clever pun. Despite these aspects working against it, Gnomeo & Juliet is a bright, boundlessly enjoyable animated romp that amusingly turns William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet on its head. It actually appeals to viewers of most age groups, too - adults will be consistently amused by the references and in-jokes to Shakespeare's famed works (including a snide opening sequence), while the kids will learn a bit about the original play as they become enraptured by the likeable characters and the fast-paced narrative machinations. Sure, Gnomeo & Juliet is on the lightweight side and it in no way can compare to the thematic complexity of Pixar's most accomplished works, but it is fun and easygoing. Sometimes, that's just enough.

Next-door neighbours on Verona Drive in a serene English suburb, Miss Montague (Walters) and Mr. Capulet (Wilson) are sworn enemies whose feud extends to the community of garden gnomes and assorted lawn decorations in their backyards. Coming alive when their human owners are not around, the red and blue-hatted gnomes may be separated by a fence, but they often interact to bicker and compete in lawnmower races in the alley behind their houses. From these two feuding families emerges star-crossed lovers Gnomeo (McAvoy) and Juliet (Blunt), who share a meet cute when their colours are camouflaged and decide to give into their mutual feelings. Working to ensure their relationship is kept a secret with help from friendly plastic flamingo Featherstone (Cummings), Gnomeo and Juliet are confronted with a seemingly impossible uphill battle for neighbourhood peace.

Speaking from a structural standpoint, Gnomeo & Juliet is standard-order stuff. The feature is based on an age-old tale of forbidden love, but the peripherals are entirely derived from the 21st Century computer-animated family film playbook - it feels like Toy Story and Over the Hedge merged with William Shakespeare. The concept of using gnomes is amusing, and this is exploited for gags playing on the inherent limitations of being ceramic. To the credit of the filmmakers, Gnomeo & Juliet is a quick-witted slice of family entertainment, demanding multiple viewings in order to pick up on all the gags. Shakespeare fans will likely appreciate the occasional references to the Bard's work through visual cues (a moving company is called As You Like It) and dialogue (at one stage, a character says "Out, out" and another chimes in with "out spot"), not to mention Patrick Stewart pops in towards the end for a cameo as a bronze Shakespeare statue. The sheer energy of the material is never subdued for any great length of time, and a bevy of classic Elton John tunes (John executive produced) were reworked into orchestral arrangements or used for montages. Alas, not every joke is a home run - a slow-mo fighting sequence parodying The Matrix is a decade late, as is a nod to American Beauty - but at least the picture is never boring.

The world of Gnomeo & Juliet is visually and aesthetically stunning, with animation that borders on photorealism. The gnomes are extraordinarily detailed, and the filmmakers did a superlative job of creating an entire world from what amounts to two insignificant adjoining backyards. Common backyard items were worked into the plot to ingenious extents; making good use of decorative knickknack to either further the story or enrich the humour. However, there is not a great deal to be found below the surface - Gnomeo & Juliet is thematically vacant outside of the "true love conquers all" angle and a few comments on race relations that are a bit too on the nose. (At one stage, Gnomeo and Juliet point out their colours to Featherstone, who replies "And I'm a pink, who cares?") However, this is not too much of an issue. Without reaching the profound thematic depths of Pixar, Gnomeo & Juliet is pure shallow entertainment that works thanks to the concept's inherent cuteness and the quality of the execution.

Not to mention, those working behind the scenes managed to assemble an excellent bevy of talent for the voice cast. Disney have the money to recruit big names, so listen closely for familiar voices in more than just the principal roles - even the likes of Hulk Hogan, Patrick Stewart and Ozzy Osbourne feature in small supporting roles (Stewart in particular brings gravitas with a capital 'G'). As the pair of titular lovers, James McAvoy and Emily Blunt are suitably cute and charming, while Michael Caine and Maggie Smith afford class and substance to their family patriarchs roles. Meanwhile, an underused Jason Statham makes Tybalt sound like a true bully, and Ashley Jensen is bubbly and quick-witted as a garden frog and Juliet's best friend (the counterpart to the original story's Nurse character). Jim Cummings is the standout as Featherstone the flamingo, though - his dialogue is bursting with comedic gusto.

Boasting plenty of chuckles and a whimsical charm, Gnomeo & Juliet is not an instant classic, but it is good enough to win over kids and their respective parents for an easygoing night of family entertainment. While the gimmick of sending up Shakespeare will likely be lost on the kids - who will nonetheless enjoy the vibrant colour palette, fast pace and overall cuteness - older and more literate viewers will be able to appreciate the satire peppered throughout the script. This is not even close to being the definitive Romeo & Juliet retelling, but it's a fun reworking of a familiar tale.

7.1/10

It's surprising that The Roommate wasn't entitled Single White Female: The College Years, since this flick is pretty much just a Single White Female redux for which the filmmakers trimmed a few years off the cast and, just to be safe, also trimmed down characterisation, logic, etc... Simply put, The Roommate is unbearable and uncreative, and it was merely designed to appeal to unstable teen girls unable to think of anything better to spend their pocket money on. Considering how utterly generic this piece of shit is, The Roommate must have been green-lit by a studio with literally nothing else to make. The treatment was probably stitched together during a lunch meeting, the casting directors most likely just chose a few random hot names out of a hat, and in all likelihood the director was chosen by a process of drawing straws. The Roommate is a thriller that's all about the superficial - the people are attractive, the film is glossy and the score is generic, all of which give the picture the appearance of competency...but it is all rendered naught thanks to a lousy script and absolutely no feeling or passion.

A freshman at the University of Los Angeles, Sara (Kelly) has no sooner moved into her dorm and attended her first frat party when she meets her roommate: gifted artist Rebecca (Meester). The two girls initially hit it off fairly well, bonding over their adoration for art and coffee shops, until it becomes clear that Rebecca has a major overprotective streak and a dangerous obsession with Sara. Undeterred, Sara finds love with frat hunk and drummer Stephen (Gigandet), though the time they spend together further disrupts Rebecca's dream of a close bond with Sara. Pretty soon, Rebecca's possessive behaviour spills over into violence, and no-one is safe if they attempt to get close to Sara...

It should not come as a shock to learn that The Roommate is totally and utterly formulaic; stealing elements from a lot of past movies. Traces of 1987's Fatal Attraction, the aforementioned Single White Female, 1993's The Crush and 2002's Swimfan can be detected as the film goes through the generic motions with all the enthusiasm of a fat guy eating a salad. Frankly, The Roommate feels like a science fiction film written by alien life-forms; an utterly peculiar, half-cocked guesswork of what life is like at an American college, permeated with dismal dialogue and a story executed in a moronic fashion. Instead of something approaching a semblance of reality, The Roommate is a film set in a surreal, absurdist alternative universe where everyone is stunningly beautiful, teenagers look closer to the age of 30 than 18, and sleazy professors are a dime a dozen.

The Roommate was marketed as a thriller, but it is not even remotely scary. Sure, it was intended to be more of a psychological thriller than an outright horror movie, but aren't there still supposed to be scares or moments of nail-biting intensity? And no, those generic "sharp musical cues" or "jump out of the shadows" moments do not count, because even those are hopelessly ineffective here. The Roommate was never going to be a good movie in a traditional sense, but it could have been decent or watchable if more attention was paid to suspense or the dynamics of the plot. Instead, it for the most part plays out like a boring, middle-of-the-road teen television show like One Tree Hill or 90210 while a generic-looking chick wanders around giving a generic glare that's more funny than menacing. And it takes itself far too seriously. Heck, if the film merely included sleazy elements like violence or hardcore nudity and sex, I'd have at least enjoyed it and could've gotten drunk watching it. But alas, The Roommate sits in the strange, indeterminate hinterland between straight-faced horror and enjoyable thriller. It's all just really flat and tedious on top of being incredibly, agonisingly boring.

And did I mention the rampant stupidity? Not even half an hour into the film, Rebecca terrorises and assaults a girl in a darkened bathroom. The victim's response is not to warn anyone or go to the police, but to move out of the dorm without a single word spoken to anyone. Rebecca threatens to kill her if she reports the attack, but come on, this girl wouldn't even be threatening to a fucking garden gnome, let alone the police if the attack was reported. And it takes far too long for the characters to notice the warning signs suggesting something is not quite right with Rebecca. Sure, Alfred Hitchcock told us that suspense is when the audience knows there's a bomb under the table and the characters do not, but if the bomb is incredibly fucking obvious and ticks louder than Big Ben, then that is not suspense - it just means we're dealing with a bunch of nitwits.

For the most part, the actors are awful. Each character is physically fit with perfect make-up, and their clothes are straight off of Rodeo Drive, meaning the casting directors just focused on looks and bankability rather than, you know, acting talent. Leighton Meester is in no way intimidating as Rebecca - she just glares at people. If a girl ever glared at me like that, I'd just flip the bitch off. Problem solved. As Sara, Minka Kelly appears to at least be trying, but she's limited by the material. The only cast member I actually liked was Cam Gigandet, because it seems as if he was mugging the camera with intentionally awful acting for the lulz. Brilliant.

At this point in time, it has become a bona fide fact that any PG-13 rated "handsome teenagers in danger" movies will suck. It's not a stereotype or a shallow observation based on a want for boobs or mindless violence...it's a sad fact. The Roommate is irreparably crippled by its fucking obvious PG-13 rating and the lack of realisation that the further you go, the closer you get to a black comedy. Heck, with the right people behind it, this could have been a gripping, twisted, hilarious horror classic. What a shame it isn't. The Roommate was decimated by critics, and the box office returns were entirely middling. Come 2012, nobody will remember this movie, so there is no reason to bother checking it out.

2.4/10

Following their parodies of zombie flicks (2004's Shaun of the Dead) and action films/buddy cop movies/murder mysteries (2007's Hot Fuzz), the endearing British comedy duo of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost turned to road movies and sci-fi for 2011's Paul. However, while Shaun and Hot Fuzz were British movies directed by Edgar Wright, American director Greg Mottola replaced the boys' usual collaborator to helm this American-produced comedy. Thankfully, though, these aspects do not dilute the boys' comic genius. In less adroit hands, Paul would've simply been a wacky comedy with relentless profanity, toilet humour and drugs. With Pegg and Frost having written the script, though, Paul is both a satisfying comedy and a valentine to the sci-fi genre. It is not a satire of science fiction or a parody, but a good old-fashioned road trip comedy that's endowed with a Spielbergian concept and loaded with movie references, fun absurdity and R-rated tomfoolery...and it just happens to feature an alien.

A couple of geeky English buddies with big dreams but little gumption to achieve them, artist Graeme (Pegg) and writer Clive (Frost) have travelled to America to attend Comic-Con. Afterwards, the boys embark on an RV tour through the American Southwest to visit all the "classic" UFO hotspots, hoping to expose their geek minds to some extraterrestrial history. No sooner have they hit the road that the pair happen upon Paul (voiced by Rogen), an alien who escaped from American captivity after spending years feeding Hollywood and the military all of his secrets and ideas. The American government wants to harvest Paul's brain, though, prompting Paul to escape in the hope of getting back home. After an awkward meeting, Graeme and Clive agree to hit the road with the sociable pot-smoking alien. Meanwhile, the Men in Black are in hot pursuit to recapture Paul, and the trio becomes a foursome when they kidnap a Christian zealot (Wiig) who initially believes Paul to be a demon.

With Paul, it seems that there isn't a well-worn genre or a premise that Simon Pegg and Nick Frost cannot make good through their witty touch. It's clear these guys are enormous, geeky movie fans, since everything they've written has been built on a foundation of cinematic homage and referencing (see the TV show Spaced in particular). These qualities are very obvious in Paul, as lines from science fiction films like Star Wars, Predator and Aliens appear in the script, along with nods to other well-known sci-fi pictures like E.T., Star Trek and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Indeed, Paul is pure geek bait - it practically bleeds green. This is heightened by the fact that the film is bookended by scenes taking place at Comic-Con. Heck, Steven Spielberg even agreed to do a voice cameo. And my word, the Spielberg cameo is a great touch.

Paul's humour is of the distinctly British variety despite its American director and setting, which is suitable considering Pegg and Frost scripted the picture. However, while Paul is often a very funny flick, it is not always on the prowl for belly-laughs - most of the highlights are merely cause for loud chuckles or big grins. Yet, this is not a criticism; rather than ladling on thunderous laughs, Paul has an easygoing joviality that works far better. Paul is a genuinely warm comedy, with affable characters embodying sheer humanity and warmth. What's perhaps most remarkable is that the narrative never grows dull or plodding. Most comedies are positively drab in between the belly-laughs, but not Paul - the energy levels never flag. Deep down it lacks the spark of excellence of Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead (perhaps Edgar Wright's exclusion has something to do with this), but it works well enough on its own merits.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are an awesome comedic twosome here. The pair are as amiable as ever, sharing a breezy repartee and an effortless chemistry highlighting their real-life friendship. Admittedly, Pegg and Frost simply play the same type of roles they're frequently associated with, but at least they're actually good at these roles and have personality. In a nod to Spaced, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, there's an ongoing joke about how everyone who meets the boys mistakes them for gay lovers, leading to a number of amusing moments.

Fortunately, Pegg and Frost are not the only talented members of the cast - Paul is one of those rare comedies brimming with talent, and each cast member has a moment to shine. Voiced pitch-perfectly by Seth Rogen (he was born to give personality to CG creations), the titular Paul is a digital creation, yet he effortlessly fits in and it's easy to forget his CGI origins thanks to realistic animation and amusing laugh lines. Alongside him, Jason Bateman is as funny and watchable as ever as Agent Zoil, while Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio score a tonne of laughs as a bumbling pair of government agents. The cream of the crop, though, is Kristen Wiig as Ruth. She's excellent not just because her character has the most interesting arc, but because she is bloody hilarious; a scene-stealer from start to finish. Meanwhile, Sigourney Weaver also shows her comic instincts in her minor role here, and Blythe Danner is predictably good as the first person Paul met on Earth. Rounding out the cast is John Carroll Lynch playing Ruth's religious nutcase of a father.

In the running for the best comedy of 2011, Paul is a close encounter with the comic brilliance of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost that tickled both my funny bone and my geek bone, and it possesses infinite replay value. While it's not as funny as the duo's previous films, this is a flick with heart and a three-dimensional roster of characters.

8.1/10

A fleeting glance at the cover art, trailer or plot synopsis for Romancing the Stone, and it would seem that this Robert Zemeckis-directed picture could have easily bore the title Raiders of the Lost Stone. However, this would be writing off a film that deserves far more credit and attention. While it does at times play out like an Indiana Jones-style action-adventure serial, Romancing the Stone was written before Raiders of the Lost Ark even went into production, and the film's Saturday matinee spirit is merged with outright romance. In addition, a certain kitschy, tongue-in-cheek tone and spirit permeates this little-known 1984 gem, to the point that it could be foremost considered a comedy. In short, this is a superbly entertaining blend of humour, action and romance, all the while retaining a 1980s vibe in terms of soundtrack and flair for theatrics.

Romancing the Stone begins as frumpy romance novelist Joan Wilder (Turner) completes her latest romantic saga and passes it onto her publisher. Not long afterwards, she receives a mysterious package from her sister Elaine (Trainor) and soon finds herself embroiled in a ransom scheme, with a couple of criminals demanding Joan travels to Columbia to deliver a treasure map in exchange for Elaine's life. Fundamentally stepping into one of her own adventure-romance novels, Joan heads to the dangerous jungles of Columbia where she meets dashing treasure seeker Jack T. Colton (Douglas) who agrees to help (in exchange for money). Together, Jack and Joan race to save Elaine, all the while being pursued by a moustachioed villain (Ojeda) who is also determined to obtain the map.

For all intents and purposes, Romancing the Stone should not have been the massive hit that it was. At the time, Michael Douglas was known as a bit player and a producer, while Kathleen Turner had only starred in one movie of note (Body Heat) and screenwriter Diane Thomas was merely a wannabe working in a diner. Douglas hired Robert Zemeckis to take the helm, who hadn't worked in four years and had not directed anything of note at this early stage in his career. The film had all the earmarks of a failure and studio insiders expected it to flop, and yet it was a hit - Romancing the Stone hit a nerve with feminists and hopeless romantics, and was adored by movie-goers simply seeking a good time. In fact, it grossed over eight times its production budget, leading to a sequel (Jewel of the Nile) and allowing Zemeckis to make Back to the Future. The success and long-term staying power of Romancing the Stone can mostly be attributed to the way the filmmakers melded action, adventure, comedy and romance with such ease and charisma. Diane Thomas' screenplay also deserves credit. Sure, the structure is basic and the characters are obvious, but that's the point. It's simple, and it works because of how witty it is. There are enough hilarious one-liners here to sink a battleship. It's a damn shame that Diane tragically died before she could complete another script.

Movies like Romancing the Stone are not about thematic depth or insight, but pure, unadulterated fun ladled up in scoops as large as the audience can swallow. With this film, Robert Zemeckis was handling a large canvas and a bunch of soon-to-be-major stars for the first time in his career, and his efforts are without a fault. Opening with a fast and humorous fantasy sequence, Zemeckis managed to keep the pace taut and the energy levels high from start to finish while effortlessly handling the tonal changes of this multi-faceted jewel with great panache - the comedic scenes are hilarious, the action scenes are fun and exciting, and the moments of peril simply drip with a sense of danger. All these years on, this film still retains its hard-to-nail charm. Furthermore, Romancing the Stone is sure to trigger a nostalgic smile due to the '80s hairstyles, costumes and style, not to mention the delightful, jazzy, instantly recognisable soundtrack.

Of course, the script's brilliant integration of styles, well-written characters and classic love story would mean nothing without the talents of the right stars, and, in this regard, Romancing the Stone is an unequivocal success once again. As Jack T. Colton and Joan Wilder, Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner share a sizzling chemistry that seems to defy the laws of cinematic convention. The relationship they strike up is not only believable, but it feels wholly organic in its formation, progression and solidification; all within the film's 100-minute runtime and all being born out of the action, drama and humour of the story. Douglas' superbly charismatic performance exudes tough guy bravado and is infused with a boorish attitude; the polar opposite of the heroes Joan writes about in her novels. Turner, meanwhile, has never been more beautiful, and she captured the lonely heart spirit perfectly. Another standout is Danny DeVito, who provides an extra dose of humour to help make the experience the utter delight that it is.

Romancing the Stone is straightforward and hokey, to be sure, and not a little silly, yet it is always exciting and light on its feet; never taking itself too seriously, and at no point outstaying its welcome while trying to supply a thrill (or a laugh) a minute. Infused with an '80s persona, this is the type of film which reminds viewers of a time before big-budget superhero movies and CGI infested blockbusters produced on an "everything must be bigger" mentality. They just don't make films as bright, fun and witty as Romancing the Stone anymore. It is easy to fall in love with this overlooked, forgotten little gem.

9.0/10

For this version of War of the Worlds, screenwriters David Koepp and Josh Friedman relocate Wells' story to New Jersey in the 21st Century. The protagonist here is divorced, blue-collar working father Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise), who receives his kids Rachel (Dakota Fanning) and Robbie (Justin Chatwin) for the weekend while his ex-wife (Miranda Otto) heads to Boston for a weekend getaway. Ray's relationship with his children is severely strained, and his inherent parental deficiencies are instantly apparent, but it isn't long before violent lightning storms assault the neighbourhood. The residents are initially intrigued by the oddball weather...until giant alien tripods rise from the ground, and summarily obliterate everything in their path. Faced with a full-scale alien attack, and the possibility of humanity's extermination, Ray and his kids go on the run, journeying around the East Coast looking for shelter and safety in a desperate bid for survival.

Spielberg used to be optimistic about extraterrestrials, with Close Encounters of the Third Kind and E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial reinforcing harmonious messages about intergalactic travellers. For War of the Worlds, though, the filmmaker gives aliens the same type of menace he applied to Jurassic Park's dinosaurs and the shark in Jaws. These otherworldly beings do not come to Earth to make peaceful contact, but instead to exterminate humankind and colonise the planet. Once the attack begins, War of the Worlds briskly moves from one phenomenal action set-piece to the next, though the in-between material is also effective. Amid the violence, Spielberg and the writers exhibit higher ambitions, finding time for incisive societal commentary. Indeed, the film highlights how grim circumstances can bring out the best and worst of human nature, with nasty instances of mob mentality and selfishness more often than moments of selfless bravery. With Spielberg framing this story from the point-of-view of a small family, War of the Worlds possesses a jarring, horrifying immediacy, making the fight to survive feel profoundly real.

Plenty of noteworthy action set-pieces take the breath away throughout War of the Worlds. For example, the intersection sequence which spotlights the tripods' first appearance is horrifying and riveting; executed with astute immediacy that places you in the midst of a nightmare coming true. Even better is the perfectly-realised sequence depicting Ray and the kids leaving their house as tripods obliterate the area. The digital effects work bringing the tripods to life is first-rate and often seamless (the film received a Best Visual Effects Oscar nomination), while the cinematography by Spielberg's frequent collaborator Janusz Kaminski vividly captures the invasion. War of the Worlds is full of striking imagery, from long shots studying the destruction, to eye-level shots of the tripods chillingly obscured by smoke. The tripods' distinctive roar is unnerving, too, and John Williams' reliably bravura score generates immense trepidation during the big and small moments. From a technical viewpoint, War of the Worlds is quite simply impossible to fault. Even though filming began a mere seven months before its world premiere, it does not display the earmarks of a slapdash rush-job.

Even though War of the Worlds is a spectacular blockbuster, it is also traumatic and harrowing, with images of violence and destruction carrying devastating emotional weight. In addition to the striking shots of widespread devastation, the eerily quiet moments hit hard as well, such as a river choked with lifeless bodies. There are visual references to 9/11 as well, which enhances the movie's impact and relevance. However, the film's ending is a letdown, with the alien defeat seeming too quick and easy. Consequently, War of the Worlds feels like two borderline perfect initial acts followed by a truncated, almost non-existent third act. The method of defeat is acceptable (and true to the book), but it feels underdone and out of the blue. Not to mention, the closing scenes are generically Hollywood and feel-good, as if a studio committee decided upon this material to lighten Spielberg's otherwise bleak vision. A few Hollywood stupidities also blemish War of the Worlds - a video camera perfectly operates after an EMP hit, for instance, and Ray's van is completely unaffected after a massive storm in which a commercial airliner crashes right next to them. Rewrites could have easily ironed out these flaws.

8.2/10

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