Reviews by PvtCaboose91

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

If you have not seen Catfish, do not read this review. Actually, do not read anything about Catfish - do not skim any plot outlines or watch the theatrical trailer. You should watch this movie as ignorant and uninformed as you possibly can. All you need to know is that it's definitely worth your time, so view the film and read this later.

Still reading? Then I shall assume you are either already acquainted with the movie's surprises or you are determined to have one of 2010's most absorbing and shocking documentaries be spoiled for you. Catfish is 2010's other Facebook movie, and it functions as an outstanding companion piece to The Social Network - while David Fincher's Oscar-nominated masterpiece observed Facebook's creation, Catfish is an examination of the obsession and potential dangers of social networking sites. The debate is heating up over the authenticity of Catfish, but whether or not the movie is actually a true story does not matter. If it is in fact genuine as the filmmakers claim it to be, it's a stunning account of nonfiction. If it has been fabricated, then directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman are exquisite craftsmen with a long future ahead of them in Hollywood. Either way, Catfish is brilliant - an enthralling documentary with a relevant social commentary providing a one-of-a-kind viewing experience.

In many ways, Catfish is an accidental documentary. When Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost began to document the day-to-day life of Ariel's brother Yaniv (or Nev for short), they had no clue about the strange twists and turns the next few months would hold. It all starts when Nev takes a photo of a ballet dancer which is printed in the New York Sun, and a talented 8-year-old painter named Abby skilfully recreates the photograph with paint. Impressed, Nev allows Abby to paint more recreations of his photos. Soon, Nev friends Abby and her mother Angela on Facebook, along with Abby's older half-sister Megan whom Nev develops a long-distance relationship with based on phone calls, texts and Facebook posts. However, a little detective work uncovers some evidence that suggests the family are not being entirely honest with him. Curious and determined to uncover the truth, Nev decides to drop in on his dream girl and her family unannounced while Henry and Ariel follow him to film everything. And if you're wondering about what the title means, fear not - it is explained, and it makes perfect sense.

The documentary's first act is light, engaging and entertaining as Nev begins receiving packages containing the gorgeous paintings based on his photography while conversing on Facebook with Abby and her extended family. Airy extended montages ensue which keeps the picture moving at a compulsively watchable pace. From there, things gradually begins to unravel, as subtle signs point to something being amiss. It's a commonly held belief that most of the women you meet over the internet (especially young girls) are in fact pot-bellied, middle-aged men. After all, the relative anonymity of the internet allows leeway for people to reinvent themselves, from tweaking personality traits to creating a fictional persona. Catfish is an exploration of this concept, and an excellent one at that. The filmmaking is almost uniformly exceptional throughout - Zachary Stuart-Pontier's editing is accomplished and Mark Mothersbaugh's musical score is absorbing, while Henry and Ariel's use of internet iconography lends the documentary a welcome playfulness.

Catfish begins as a tale about Nev's friendship with Abby and her relatives (which in itself would be sufficient material for a feature-length documentary) before morphing into a cautionary tale for the electronic age. Yet, the marketing executives at Universal have misrepresented Catfish through the advertising campaign - this is not a thriller in the vein of Hitchcock. While an unnerving, edge-of-your-seat quality pervades the movie's final half-hour, it is not for the reason that the trailers suggest. Rather than a Hitchcock-style thriller about murdering psychopaths or the paranormal, Catfish concerns itself with the mysteries of the unknown, and, ultimately, the power of electronic illusion and the struggle to be happy in a life that has not turned out how one might've expected. (Isn't it ironic that a movie so concerned with the obfuscation of reality is employing such tactics as part of its marketing campaign?) As the movie progresses, layer upon layer of artifice is slowly peeled back, culminating in a climax that's genuinely poignant. And just when you think the surprises are over, further revelations are right around the corner.

Those on the fence about Catfish's veracity should look no further than Nev's performance to persuade them otherwise. Veteran actors spend their entire careers attempting to perfect the array of expressions that flash across Nev's face in an all-too-natural instant - the awkward pauses, the blatant shame and humility, the unrehearsed laughter, the raw bewilderment, and the complex blend of muted emotions behind his shaken eyes and uncomfortable smile. Admittedly, not all of Catfish is entirely convincing, as a few scenes appear somewhat unnatural and directed (like Nev and Ariel's first meeting with Angela), while a few segments are too on-the-nose to be believable (for instance, the crew at one stage meet a waitress who has a much-too-convenient tale to tell). Additionally, momentum slowly but surely fizzles out once the big reveal has happened. More effective editing and pacing would have been beneficial.

The debate will continue to rage on as to whether Catfish is a documentary or a faux mockumentary, but either way this is an excellent piece of filmmaking. As a cautionary tale, this is a poignant, timely indictment of online naïveté as well as a potent warning that internet users can easily be dishonest. The film's executive producer Ryan Kavanaugh has also labelled the movie as a "reality thriller", which is an appropriate designation. As a reality thriller, Catfish is a tense, thought-provoking mystery full of unexpected narrative gyrations. No matter the authenticity, Catfish is a first-rate, challenging motion picture.

8.5/10

Released in 1996 and 1997, Scream and Scream 2 remain notable for their savvy satirisation of horror clichés and unnecessary Hollywood sequels by introducing a fresh postmodernist perspective. Veteran horror director Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson successfully revitalised slashers with the first two Scream films, showing that the subgenre still had plenty of life (death?) left in it. They say "third time's a charm," but that is not the case with 2000's Scream 3, as this goofy third instalment neglects the wily cleverness and witty self-awareness that characterised its predecessors. To put it mildly, Scream 3 is the type of unremarkable scary movie that Scream and Scream 2 gleefully ridiculed. With Ehren Kruger serving as screenwriter instead of Kevin Williamson, Scream 3 has its moments thanks to the reliable cast and Craven's direction, but it ultimately comes up short in meaty laughs, frightening scares, and nail-biting tension.

Several years after the events of Scream 2, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) now lives in a secluded house in the woods of rural California, working from her home as a crisis hotline counsellor under a false name. After the brutal murders of Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber) and his girlfriend (Kelly Rutherford) in Hollywood, Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) travels to Tinseltown, where production is taking place for Stab 3: Return to Woodsboro, and Dewey Riley (David Arquette) is working as an on-set advisor. Another Ghostface killer emerges and begins targeting Stab 3's cast members while working to uncover Sidney's secret location, with Detective Mark Kincaid (Patrick Dempsey) working to investigate the murders. The killer hopes to lure Sidney out of seclusion by taunting her over the phone and leaving photos of her deceased mother at every crime scene.

Due to his commitments to other film projects, Kevin Williamson was not available to write Scream 3, and new screenwriter Ehren Kruger (Arlington Road) ignored Williamson's existing treatment for the sequel. Williamson's scripts for the previous Scream movies provided thrilling set pieces while competently juggling satiric and dramatic tones, ensuring the laughs did not undermine the story's stakes. Unfortunately, Scream 3 comes up short in these areas, neglecting the ironic dialogue, genre satirisation and clever references to other motion pictures. There are occasional laughs, but the gags are goofy instead of self-aware, making the film feel sillier than its predecessors. Furthermore, the murderous set pieces are frequently rote and predictable, the reveal of the killer lacks impact, and the finale drags on too long, ultimately losing steam. Additionally, the story's revelations feel forced, and it is debatable whether or not the logic of the narrative holds together in hindsight with the killer's identity in mind. Indeed, in the years since Scream 3's release, the ending has been subject to debate, dissection and discussion amongst Scream fans online. There were last-minute changes to the ending; crucially, this included removing the reveal of the story's second Ghostface killer despite the film still containing several scenes that point to the character in question being one of the killers.

Craven's execution of some key set pieces gives Scream 3 occasional moments of brilliance, including a chase through a replica of the house from the original Scream. Craven personally paid to construct these sets as he wanted to revisit the original film, and the resulting nostalgia is undeniably special. However, Craven's heart was clearly not in it this time, as he only agreed to direct the sequel to obtain the green light for his (forgotten) 1999 feature Music from the Heart. Additionally, in the aftermath of the Columbine High School massacre, the studio demanded an increased emphasis on comedy while scaling back the violence, to the point that executives wanted a completely bloodless sequel, but Craven thankfully pushed back. Nevertheless, due to the studio interference, Scream 3 is the tamest Scream movie to date, diluting the visceral impact of the kill scenes. Another issue is that this third Scream picture falls victim to countless slasher clichés and fails to do anything interesting with them. For instance, the killer is indestructible, invincible, fast, strong, and skilled with all manner of weapons...until they confront the heroine during the climax, at which time they become utterly useless, unable to punch, run, or aim a knife in the right direction. Additionally, if the characters wind up in an old house, it must contain secret passages and hidden rooms where people become trapped. And if the killer stalks a group of characters, they must split up and go in separate directions, ignoring that there is safety in numbers. The previous Scream films added a satiric edge to well-worn clichés, but Scream 3 plays these moments straight and unironically, making this sequel feel as flavourless as the motion pictures its predecessors mocked.

Despite Scream 3's shortcomings, the conceptual ideas behind the story are mostly solid, and there are some fun scenes. In one amusing moment, one of Stab 3's actresses (played by Jenny McCarthy) bemoans that she is playing a 21-year-old despite being 35, skewering one of Hollywood's most frustrating tropes. She also cries out in frustration about rewrites, reflecting Scream 3's troubled production and frequent rewrites. Detective Kincaid even mentions three scripts existing for Stab 3 to avoid internet leaks, a reference to Scream 2's online leaks. But the film's best scene is a beyond-the-grave video lecture by film geek Randy (Jamie Kennedy), who informs the characters about the "rules of the trilogy," giving Scream 3 its only insightful satire. For instance, he explains that the killer in the third film is extremely difficult to kill, the trilogy's final part brings back past sins, and no character is safe, no matter how major. (Although he fails to mention that the third part of a trilogy is usually the worst.) The fact that Randy's video lecture constitutes the best, wittiest, and most energetic scene in the movie further proves that killing Randy was an egregious miscalculation. Indeed, there was severe fan backlash about his death (which the script slyly references at one stage), and the creative team considered retconning Scream 2 by having Randy survive his injuries.

Campbell's commitments to filming the movie Drowning Mona limited her involvement in Scream 3, forcing Craven and Kruger to reduce her role. Consequently, Dewey and Gale are the new protagonists here (with David Arquette receiving top billing), while Sidney adopts a peripheral role and feels more like an arbitrary afterthought. Although Sidney has a bearing on the story and influences the killer's motivation, she does not achieve much in the film. However, Campbell's performance remains incredibly strong, showing genuine character development since playing a teenager in the original movie. Meanwhile, David Arquette and Courteney Cox both submit terrific performances, with Arquette remaining effortlessly charming and lovable while Cox is fiery and engaging. However, perhaps the biggest casting highlight is Parker Posey as a vapid, ditzy actress named Jennifer, who plays the role of Gale Weathers in Stab 3 and takes pride in playing the character even better than Gale herself. It is fun to watch the banter between Cox and Posey. Other well-known actors fill out the ensemble, with Patrick Dempsey as Detective Kinkaid, Lance Henriksen as a film producer, and Emily Mortimer as one of the Stab 3 cast members. Another cute touch is the inclusion of Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith as Jay and Silent Bob, while Carrie Fisher and film director Roger Corman also make cameo appearances. Roger L. Jackson is also on hand as Ghostface's phone voice and continues to bring appreciable menace to these scenes.

With the Scream franchise still continuing nearly thirty years after the first movie, Scream 3 remains the franchise's weak link, with Craven himself even admitting that this instalment is more Scooby-Doo than Scream. At the very least, Scream 3 comes alive in fits and starts, and it remains mostly watchable, but it is not scary or particularly intense, and it lacks the wit and subversion that made Scream a modern classic. It's not awful and is still superior to any number of other brainless slashers, but it is far below the quality we expect from this series.

5.6/10

With 1996's Scream making a veritable killing at the box office and revitalising the slasher subgenre, production company Dimension Films swiftly green-lit a sequel, resulting in Scream 2 hitting multiplexes less than a year after its revered predecessor. However, despite the quick turnaround and last-minute rewrites occurring during shooting, 1997's Scream 2 does not feel like a shoddy rush job of a follow-up. The only movies more ripe for satire and ridicule than mindless slasher films are the endless sequels to mindless slashers, and returning screenwriter Kevin Williamson successfully recognises this fact. Instead of a simplistic or stale rehash, Scream 2 is a satisfying extension of the first film, offering a fresh new story with returning characters while revelling in acknowledging and satirising the clichés of film sequels. With Wes Craven thankfully returning to direct this follow-up, the celebrated horror filmmaker creates another entertaining, humorous slasher that recaptures the magic and intelligence of the standout original, ensuring that Scream 2 is a rare horror sequel worth your time.

Scream 2 commences two years after the Woodsboro massacre. In the ensuing years, investigative reporter Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) wrote a book about the murders, and the events were adapted into a slasher flick entitled Stab. Woodsboro survivors Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) and Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy) are getting on with their lives by attending Windsor College, though the scars persist. Sidney now lives with Hallie (Elise Neal) and maintains a relationship with her new boyfriend, Derek (Jerry O'Connell), while their friend circle also includes Derek's best friend, Mickey (Timothy Olyphant). But with a Ghostface killer slaughtering two college seniors at a preview screening of Stab, the media quickly suspects that a copycat is on the loose, prompting Dewey Riley (David Arquette) to offer Sidney his protection while Gale arrives to cover the case as it unfolds. The killer soon sets their sights on Sidney, seemingly out for revenge after the events that occurred in Woodsboro.

Scream 2 sees several of Scream's key actors returning, but it is a genuine rarity in the horror genre for the same writer and director to return for the sequel. Williamson developed two treatments for potential sequels while writing the original Scream, and Craven signed a contract for two sequels following a successful test screening of the first movie; thus, Williamson and Craven wanted to pursue follow-ups and planned them in advance instead of arbitrarily assembling a hasty sequel at the studio's behest. Despite Williamson needing to conduct extensive rewrites during shooting in response to an online script leak, his writing remains sharp and witty - Scream 2 smartly dissects the clichés and rules of horror sequels and whodunit mysteries, the dialogue is funny and engaging, the characters stay self-aware and fully realised, and the scares still effortlessly induce chills. One of the film's most notable scenes involves a classroom discussion about film sequels, as the characters debate whether they are inherently inferior or can outdo their predecessors. Naturally, the characters mention noteworthy sequels like Aliens, Terminator 2 and The Godfather: Part II, and one character even mentions the 1987 horror flick House II: The Second Story, which is arguably better than the first House. This discussion highlights that Williamson and Craven wanted to produce a follow-up that favourably compares to the first film. Like the first Scream, the characters also savvily reference an array of movies, while other clever jokes (Gale explaining that somebody photoshopped her head onto Jennifer Aniston) also provoke laughs.

Horror veteran Craven remains in fine directorial form for Scream 2, showing a sure hand behind the camera while orchestrating the mayhem. With nearly double the budget of the original Scream, the technical presentation is top-notch, with editor Patrick Lussier and composer Marco Beltrami also making their return and significantly contributing to the picture's immense power. 1996's Scream opened with a bang, with Craven staging an iconic opening sequence that set the stage for the ensuing carnage. Scream 2 aspires to live up to that set piece with an intense opening involving two African American patrons (played by Jada Pinkett and Omar Epps) attending a screening of Stab. The scene is full of incisive and amusing dialogue, with Pinkett's character bemoaning the lack of African American participation in slashers (it, therefore, cannot be a coincidence that Scream 2 features several black characters) and making fun of the characters on-screen. (Additionally, Gale's African American cameraman later tries to leave, explaining that "Brothers don't last long in situations like this!") Craven and Williamson let loose a torrent of tongue-in-cheek creativity for the "movie within a movie" sequences, gleefully making fun of the first Scream and '90s horror conventions in general. Stab features Tori Spelling as Sidney, Heather Graham in the role played by Drew Barrymore, and Luke Wilson as Sidney's boyfriend. Sadly, glimpses at Stab are limited, and it would have been more fun if Craven and Williamson had found time to show lengthier excerpts.

Thankfully, Scream 2 features another terrific ensemble of likeable characters who feel like genuine people instead of two-dimensional stereotypes. Returning to the role of Sidney, Neve Campbell remains an ideal slasher heroine, capably communicating fear, emotion, vulnerability and passion. Sidney is more spunky than a typical damsel in distress, even calmly shooting down a prank caller in an early scene by using a caller ID device to identify them. Courteney Cox and David Arquette also return for this sequel, while Jamie Kennedy is his usual amiable self as Randy. Proving he was born to play this role, Kennedy continues to enthusiastically deliver geeky, film-savvy monologues, pointing out that horror sequels always have a bigger body count and more elaborate kill scenes. (SPOILERS: Unfortunately, the biggest flaw of Scream 2 is Randy's death. He was much too great of a character and added ample colour to the films, making his murder a massive misstep by Craven and Williamson. END SPOILERS) The ensemble features several recognisable names who are new to the Scream series, including Sarah Michelle Gellar (who had just debuted as the titular character on Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Jerry O'Connell (Stand by Me) and Timothy Olyphant (who later starred in shows like Justified and Deadwood). Meanwhile, Liev Schreiber, who had a very brief role in the first Scream as the falsely accused killer of Sidney's mother, returns here in a more prominent role to beef up the list of suspects. And as Gale's new cameraman, Duane Martin (White Men Can't Jump) provides further comic relief.

Unfortunately, Scream 2's finale feels a bit on the sloppy side. Although the plot twists are compelling and surprising, the typical Hollywood "reveal everything before I kill you" speech is a tad silly, not to mention the climax is too long. This shortcoming aside, Scream 2 is briskly funny and thrilling, representing another successful merger of horror and comedy. Once again, it is a pleasure to behold a meta, postmodernist slasher film that maintains respect for the genre and the audience while making fun of well-worn clichés. It may not be a better film than its predecessor - or quite as excellent - but it remains one of the better horror sequels in history.

7.8/10