Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"It's a soldier's duty. You wouldn't understand."

To this day, 1988's Akira is worshipped as one of the best anime features in history. And, frankly, this reviewer has no comprehension as to why the film continually receives such praise. Scripted and directed by Katsuhiro Ôtomo who adapted his own manga series, Akira is a super-violent epic which borrows liberally (if unimaginatively) from Mad Max 2, Blade Runner, Japanese disaster movies and the works of science fiction writer Alfred Bester. The product is the equivalent of the dullest of all computer games. At best, it's a brisk synopsis of over twenty volumes of manga. At worst, it's a slow-paced train wreck devoid of energy or anything of interest. A lot of people claim Akira has thought-provoking messages and a deeper meaning. While that's all well and good, the makers of Akira failed to provide something of substance to engage viewers. Where are the likeable characters or the engaging concepts? Where are the positive elements in general that can allow one to like a movie?

Set in 2019, Akira takes place 21 years after World War III when the city of Tokyo was decimated by an atomic bomb. Built on the ashes of its predecessor, Neo-Tokyo is a booming metropolis filled with unsavoury denizens. When night falls, collections of biker gangs take to the streets in order to participate in territorial motorcycle jousting. Meanwhile, there are a group of revolutionaries trying to overthrow the oppressive government. The final part of the story concerns the government, who are performing experiments with a mysterious invention known as "Akira". Akira is part bomb and part God, and, when it's injected into a human being, that person is endowed with apocalyptic strength.

Akira is comprised of roughly 160,000 cells of animation. Admittedly, the colour design is quite spectacular, from the brightness of Neo-Tokyo to the damp darkness of the sewer. However, while the animation is decent, it's far from great. Each frame bursts with a lot of detailed artistry, but the movement is jerky and jumpy to a distracting degree. It's easy to see where the frames have been linked. Watching the movie is the equivalent of playing an action game on a lethargic computer. Anime fans may complain that Disney movies are for the masses, but at least Disney animation is more smooth and fluid. Even Disney releases from the '40s and '50s were blessed with superior craftsmanship. On the bright side, Akira benefits from an exceptional soundtrack, and there are at least a few note-worthy set-pieces in amidst the moments of abject boredom.

The crucial problem with Akira is the narrative, which was condensed from over 2000 pages of manga. As a result of rushing from plot point to plot point, the movie comes across as an absolute mess with very superficial, boring characters and with a distinct lack of substance. Character motivations also seem at the convenience of the plot - at no point do the characters come into their own, and only rarely can we understand precisely why they do the things that they do. In fact, as a direct consequence of this, character identification can be difficult. Everything seems haphazard here; thrown together at random from various bits and pieces of stock sci-fi concepts with little coherency. There is an underlying moral here about mankind's lust for power, but it never emerges from the incoherent spectacle of destruction and violence. Dedicated Akira fans will probably retort "stick to dumb American action movies, then", but at least American action movies usually fulfil the fundamental movie requirements of plot coherency and clear motivations.

Some movie enthusiasts have completely immersed themselves into anime as both an art form and a film genre, while others simply "don't get it" or assume that anime is simply a children's medium. This reviewer falls into neither of those categories. As an avid film-watcher, this reviewer loves good movies whether they're live-action or animated. For good anime, see the exceptional works of Hayao Miyazaki (Spirited Away). Yet, the appeal of Akira is bewildering - the animation is jumpy, and the story proceeds without coherency or logic. People may retort "read the manga to understand it better", but this denotes a crucial failing on the part of Akira's writer-director Katsuhiro Ôtomo since the film should be able to stand on its own. Why should a viewer have to conduct hours of additional homework in order to completely understand the film? It doesn't help that the movie itself is inherently uninteresting. For some reason, people still claim this is the be-all and end-all of the Japanese animation industry. Let's be grateful that it's not, and that there are far better instances of anime out there.

4.1/10

"Remember; you have to make it home to get paid."

Fundamentally equal parts Apocalypse Now, The Passenger and any commando movie ever made, The Dogs of War is an examination of the morals of life as a hired killer. Although released during the '80s (the heyday of rock 'em sock 'em action flicks) this is no twin brother to such gloriously violent actioners as Commando. Instead, the film - based on the best-selling novel by Frederick Forsyth - is a thoughtful war drama; demonstrating the kind of intelligence which is rare in movies aimed at the regular action-adventure crowd. While action and gunplay features in both the beginning and the climax, The Dogs of War is for the most part concerned with dramatic growth and story. With that said, however, a sluggish pace renders the film at times enjoyable but at other times a chore to get through.

In the film, Christopher Walken plays a mercenary for hire named John Shannon. Not long into the film, Shannon is assigned a mission of reconnaissance - to travel to the tiny African dictatorship of Zangara to evaluate whether the government can be easily overthrown. Utilising the smokescreen of a bird photographer, Shannon heads to Zangara to gather the necessary information, but unfortunately suffers terrible torture from the African guards who are suspicious of his purpose. Following his eventual deportation from the nation, Shannon begins assembling a team of elite mercenaries to return to Zangara to perform a coup d'état and remove the dictator from power. However, while carrying out the dangerous mission, Shannon starts having severe doubts about the ethical nature of the assignment.

The title of The Dogs of War is derived from a phrase used in William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar - "Cry, 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war". Suitably, this quote prefaces the film.

Speaking from a narrative standpoint, The Dogs of War is a pretty standard fare (unsurprisingly). In particular, Shannon's initial surveillance is conventional stuff - he meets a nosy Englishman who's fed up with local politics preventing him from filming a documentary, he encounters a local security chief who takes an interest in Shannon, there's an enigmatic woman who acts as Shannon's guide, and there's the obligatory arrest. For the original two-hour cut (the cut being assessed in this review), the interlude between Shannon's surveillance and the final assault is too lengthy - it becomes bogged down by a subplot concerning Shannon's relationship with his ex-wife. This is a standard, clichéd distraction which was included to afford Shannon's character a degree of depth, yet it's rather superfluous and leads nowhere. The subplot is murder to the pace, and is without a payoff.

Retaining the extraordinary detail present in Frederick Forsyth's novel, The Dogs of War provides an exhaustive examination of all the intricate ins & outs of what it takes to remove a dictator from power. It covers the logistical problems of recruiting a team of mercenaries, crossing borders, obtaining money and weapons, and making sure all of these things are in the target country at the right time. The Dogs of War is basically Staging a Military Coup for Dummies. On the other hand, all this incredible detail does not mean the film is necessarily entertaining. John Irvin's direction is meticulous to a fault; to the extent that he neglected to consider pacing. The majority of the movie is devoted to the endless preparation preceding the rather short assault. As a result, The Dogs of War is short in the machismo department, and - for a war movie - there is just not enough war. Thankfully, the battle sequences which bookend the film are well-staged, and the cinematography by Jack Cardiff is consistently solid. The action does not quite compensate for the sluggish middle section, but it's a step in the right direction (the opening is particularly outstanding).

In terms of acting, there's not a lot to complain about, though some of the supporting cast are a tad forgettable. In the role of Shannon, Christopher Walken is strong and convincing. Walken exudes cool here, and his acting is fantastic as well. The actor usually affords something out of the ordinary to his performances, and The Dogs of War is no different. In particular, Walken excels at conveying the sense that he's not completely there - that a part of him is spectating, and he's not entirely wrapped up in the actions of the moment. This attribute suits Shannon's jaundiced view of the operation, and as a result Shannon's behaviour at the film's end is believable. Great support was provided by Tom Berenger as a fellow mercenary, as well as from Colin Blakely as the English filmmaker who pops in and out of the story to no great effect. Other supporting roles were filled by competent actors who fail to stand out, most notably JoBeth Williams as Shannon's ex-wife.

The Dogs of War was not a breakout success due to its realism - there are no action-adventure movie clichés, hyped melodrama, large-scale action sequences, or much excitement. At the end of the day it's a decent motion picture which has its moments, but it's not a film to watch repeatedly due to its meandering nature.

6.2/10

This film was on during a lecture, but... It fucked with my head, and not in a good way. I became irretrievably bored and annoyed at it. Slept through some parts. I don't believe I'll ever sit down and watch the full movie. But here are my full uncut thoughts on what I saw:

Orlando is fucking terrible. It's not that I'm not open to the bending of convention or a bona fide mind-fuck movie. I adore those styles. Brazil, Shutter Island and Fight Club are examples of good mind-fuck movies. A recent Coen Brother's pic called A Serious Man is a great example of a brilliant movie which did not offer any closure at all (it literally ends in mid-scene). To bring something like this to the screen, a filmmaker needs something resembling an artistic soul - or at least a bit of filmmaking skill. Orlando's writer-director Sally Potter has neither.

To be blunt, Orlando feels like a Year 8 Media Studies project created by someone who wanted to be self-consciously smart and claim they've made something "challenging". There's a distinct difference between challenging cinema, and cinema that will just plain piss people off. There's a difference between being genuinely clever and being a self-consciously clever, pretentious git. Sally Potter, you fabulous idiot.

With the film constantly keeping us at arm's length, it's impossible to get engaged in anything that happens. Minus a solid emotional core, any characters to latch onto and so much as a modicum of humour, Orlando is 90 minutes of irritating nothingness which proceeds without logic or coherency.

I can only sum up my thoughts with one visual image:

"You can do a hundred things right, but it takes only one mistake to destroy everything."

If Brian De Palma collaborated with somebody like Douglas Sirk to create a Korean action-thriller, the result would probably resemble Ji-woon Kim's A Bittersweet Life; an amazingly violent, brutal revenge flick that simultaneously manages to be a fascinating character study. Much like the pictures of Park Chan-wook (Oldboy, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance), director Ji-woon Kim cranked up the melodramatic aspects of the story for this picture, but interspersed them with exhilarating bursts of violence. On top of this, Kim's expert touch leavens the frantic action beats with moments of comedy, touching silence and physical bravado. Admittedly, A Bittersweet Life tells an unoriginal, highly derivative story. However, what the film lacks in originality it more than compensates in style and verve, to the extent that you'll be far too involved in the movie to care.

For several years, Sun-woo (Byung-hun Lee) has worked as an enforcer for one of Korea's largest crime syndicates while providing himself with a cover by working at a restaurant. Sun-woo's boss President Kang (Yeong-cheol Kim) is involved in a relationship with a young woman named Hee-soo (Min-a Shin), but becomes convinced that she is cheating on him. With Kang leaving for the weekend, he asks Sun-woo to follow Hee-soo and look for signs of treachery. Sun-woo is instructed to kill Hee-soo if she is in fact seeing somebody else. When Kang's suspicions turn out to be true, Sun-woo makes a decision that seals his fate and has serious repercussions for everybody. When somebody in Sun-woo's line of work makes a bad decision, a lot of people are going to end up dead...

Despite the hackneyed premise, A Bittersweet Life succeeds due to its top-notch execution. While the film admittedly takes a good hour to get into gear, the at times painstakingly sluggish set-up is worth it for the film's final half. In terms of the action, this flick does not disappoint. The action sequences here are spectacularly brutal, bloody and nihilistic, with moments of violence that Tarantino would be proud of. While watching Sun-woo stroll around slaughtering gangsters with the cool of Steve McQueen and the cold, focused efficiency of a Terminator, you could be forgiven for believing Tarantino or John Woo directed the flick. Due to the utterly unapologetic level of violence, it is not going to be everybody's cup of tea. With that said, though, the movie at its core is more concerned with concepts of honour, love, chance, choice and, ultimately, the meaning of life in a brutal, cruel world of violence. A Bittersweet Life additionally benefits from a thought-provoking final scene which leaves room for people to interpret the movie however they wish.

The cinematography and art direction for the film is absolutely gorgeous to observe. Even during the film's slower first half, the visuals are a treat for the eye due to the interesting colour schemes and the stylish camera angles. The style of the film is very measured - shots were clearly given due consideration, as edits range from quick to remarkably slow. The fight scenes are an effective demonstration of this; a viewer is actually given the chance to watch and appreciate the elegant choreography. In a way, the visuals resemble Michael Mann's work, but the overall style is highly distinctive. While several moments throughout the movie become too ridiculous to take seriously, humour continually shines through to reassure us of its absurdness. For instance, a scene involving Sun-woo desperately trying to beat an arms dealer to the punch by attempting to assemble a firearm when his identity is exposed, or a scene of banter between a Russian and a Korean before Sun-woo just gets fed up with them.

In the role of the stone-faced Sun-woo, Byung-hun Lee is pitch-perfect; playing the character with a tremendous amount of cool, and coming off as a consummate mobster perpetually wearing a neat black suit who never cracks a smile. The bravura performance is surprisingly profound, as well. Sun-woo is not a thoughtless killing machine. As the wheels of his life begin to come off, he runs through a full swath of emotions - compassion, anger, disgust, exasperation, disappointment - each of which is accompanied by a stab wound, a bullet wound, or a punch to the face.

There's no deep meaning to A Bittersweet Life, and it would be foolhardy to assign one to the film. This is a simple story, but the visual dexterity ensures the film is a consistently entertaining and engaging ride with a story that's easy to follow. Writer-director Ji-woon Kim even refrained from including an obvious, unlikely romance, which is laudable considering the nature of typical Hollywood action movies.

8.2/10

"This one who's blind. She's the one that can see."

Despite being decades old, Nicolas Roeg's Don't Look Now remains an uncompromisingly honest and staggeringly evocative motion picture which tackles the mysteries of life, death, fear, hope, love and grief. The movie stems from the pen of English writer Daphne du Maurier, whose works of literature are a rich source for filmmakers - her stories also formed the genesis for such Alfred Hitchcock movies as The Birds, Rebecca, and Jamaica Inn. While Don't Look Now is not quite of the calibre of Hitchcock's masterworks, Roeg succeeded in bringing to the screen the inherent eroticism that underpins Maurier's writing which starkly contrasts the fear and tension of her themes. In translating the film to the big screen, a few significant changes were made to Maurier's story, but the basic elements of the narrative remain in place.

As the story begins, it's a dreary afternoon for the Baxter family until young Christine Baxter falls into a nearby pond and drowns. An undisclosed amount of time later, John (Sutherland) and Laura (Christie) Baxter are in the Italian city of Venice while John assists in the renovation of a local 16th Century church which is in a state of disrepair. While having lunch together, Laura meets two elderly sisters - Heather (Mason) and Wendy (Matania) - at a restaurant, the former of which is a blind psychic who claims she saw Christine safe and happy in the afterlife. The information visibly renews Laura's psyche, and her demeanour improves dramatically. While initially sceptical and rather humoured by the event, John becomes increasingly disturbed as Laura obsesses about using the elderly sisters to communicate with Christine. When further messages reveal that their lives may be in grave danger, strange events begin to occur and John starts seeing a mysterious hooded girl, leading John to question whether the warnings may be for real.

The city of Venice was transformed into a character in itself here; mist-shrouded, labyrinthine and gloomy. The maze of streets seem to have been specifically designed to make unwary tourists lose their way, which in turn clouds John's consciousness; rendering him unable to figure out exactly what's happening. Don't Look Now is usually categorised as a horror film of the supernatural variety, but it's nothing conventional. There are no detectable poltergeists or spirits...or are there? Director Roeg possesses the canny ability to make the mundane appear sinister, and Don't Look Now is consequently a fiendish exercise in keeping the audience wondering what things are significant, what things are merely happenstance, and what things are genuine signs that something horrible is right around the corner. This is the type of film which demands repeat viewings, as it needs to be studied frame-by-frame to fully grasp how intricately it was assembled.

For Don't Look Now, Roeg and screenwriters Alan Scott and Chris Bryant set up a maze of subtle clues and suggestions which match the ominous labyrinth of alleyways, bridges, canals and streets which populate the Venice setting. Throughout the film, events from the past and the present intersect, often leaving you unsure as to whether you're seeing a flashback, a flash-forward, or an event taking place in the present. While this works on one level to build tension, it works thematically as well due to the fact that the film is primarily concerned with the uncertainty of time. This theme is underscored by the numerous scenes in which characters arrive too late. Augmenting all of this is Roeg's direction - he managed to build a powerful sense of impending doom throughout. Don't Look Now is not the type of movie which relies on cheap thrills or exploitation elements to see it through.

Anthony Richmond's cinematography and lighting is superbly atmospheric; painting the autumnal months in Venice with a spookily drab yet realistic colour palette. The colour red continually pops up throughout the film to symbolise two diverse things: memories of Christine, and possible threats toiling in the mundane. Due to the colours being so deliberately muted, red stands out each time it appears. However, there's a great deal of symbolism throughout which grows increasingly heavy-handed and is too thickly ladled on. As a result, the film feels meandering. This is the type of movie that film students spend hours dissecting and writing thesis papers on, but this does not necessarily mean it is always entertaining. On the contrary, in fact - Don't Look Now would've been superior and more effective if only it had been more direct. Fortunately, the wait is almost worth it for the finale, which is absolutely unforgettable.

As John and Laura Baxter, Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie are utterly remarkable; essaying a married couple who never feel anything less than authentic. A sex scene between the two is breathtakingly intimate, and their love-making is interspersed with subdued snapshots of them preparing to go out for dinner. For years, rumours have circulated that Sutherland and Christie got carried away and actually did the sexual deed on-camera. Roeg has insisted this is not true, but it's easy to understand how the rumour got started - the scene is incredibly erotic, honest and raw in a way that's rarely seen in films anymore.

Despite the film's meandering nature, Don't Look Now for the most part sustains a high level of tension through brilliant characterisation, white-knuckle set-pieces, and a constant fear of the unseen that's seriously unnerving. Hollywood simply does not produce thrillers of this calibre anymore.

7.3/10

"What if the world's havin' a party and we're missing it 'cause we're stuck here?"

The "big dreams, small town, no chance" premise is a recognisable refrain in literature and motion pictures. Directed by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, 2010's Cemetery Junction is yet another feature to examine this particular quandary. If Gervais and Merchant sound familiar, it's because they are the dynamic duo responsible for the original British version of the TV show The Office as well as Extras. However, Cemetery Junction is not exactly classic Gervais and Merchant in a strict sense. While the film exhibits wit and provides a number of hearty laughs, at its core it's a serious drama about life, hope, family, friendship, taking chances and following dreams. Sure, the film never strays far from formula and its conclusion is highly predictable from the outset, but there's an assurance to the storytelling in addition to several likable characters, strong production values, and a solid blend of humour and heart. Due to these factors, it stands as one of the better pictures of its kind.

Cemetery Junction is set in 1970s England - specifically in Reading, Berkshire where the titular town is located. Freddie Taylor (Cooke) grew up in Cemetery Junction and ends up working at a local factory with his father (Gervais). However, Freddie has larger ambitions - he quits his factory job and begins working for the Vigilant Life Assurance Agency, which is run by former Cemetery Junction resident and local success story Mr. Kendrick (Fiennes). Leaving behind his '70s attire in favour of slipping on a business suit, Freddie sets out to make a name for himself and kick-start a more affluent future. Not only is this against the wishes of his father, but it also bewilders his two best friends: the reckless Bruce (Hughes) and the absentminded Snork (Doolan). Complications ensue (as they always do) when Freddie reconnects with long-lost crush Julie Kendrick (Jones), who is not only Mr. Kendrick's daughter but is also engaged to Kendrick's right-hand man (Goode).

Gervais and Merchant were behind The Office and Extras, but, surprisingly their collaborative film debut is not in the "comedy of awkwardness" vein - rather, Cemetery Junction is a low-key, period coming-of-age tale. It has its amusing moments, sure, but the mood has a tendency to bounce from light-hearted to serious. Unfortunately, Cemetery Junction sticks slavishly to familiar story conventions: Freddie is embarrassed by his friends, misunderstood by his family, and pines for his childhood crush who is engaged to a self-centred dickhead. What's impressive, though, is how elegantly Gervais and Merchant were able to turn such clichéd plot points and characters into something involving and fresh-feeling. Unsurprisingly, character interaction is one of the strongest aspects of Cemetery Junction; it's witty and it flows naturally. However - and this is a rather large flaw - the film does not quite connect on any emotional level. It's difficult to genuinely care about the characters and their situations, though the characters are admittedly likable.

The script was competently translated to the screen through Gervais and Merchant's fluid, engrossing direction, complemented by absolutely superb production values. The sense of time and place in Cemetery Junction is immaculate. The soundtrack is filled with retro '70s tunes, demonstrating that the pair of directors have as strong an ear for music as their eyes are for visual composition. This is an unusually beautiful looking British film, as Gervais and Merchant gave the film a lush, warm colour scheme. Remi Adefarasin's cinematography is so skilful that Cemetery Junction actually looks like a nice place to live in despite Mr. Kendrick's constant proclamations to the contrary. This is a gentle, sentimentalised 1970s without the menace or depression evoked in, say, the British version of the television series Life on Mars.

Cemetery Junction additionally benefits from several strong performances, particularly courtesy of Christian Cooke and Tom Hughes. Both Cooke and Hughes have limited acting experience, yet each of them wonderfully acquitted themselves with their roles. Cooke is boundlessly charming as Freddie, while Hughes is a scene-stealer as the rebellious yet internally conflicted Bruce. And as Snork, Jack Doolan is the film's comic relief and was saddled with more conventional Gervais/Merchant material. Doolan's performance admittedly lacks the depth of Hughes and Cooke's work, but the actor nonetheless provides a number of inspired moments. Meanwhile, Ralph Fiennes and Matthew Goode clearly had great fun as pig-headed misogynists, with the former nailing insensitivity and with the latter turning up the sleaze dial to 11. Also in the cast is Emily Watson, who's heartbreakingly touching as Fiennes' long-suffering wife. And finally, Gervais is as hilarious as ever as Freddie's father - his banter with Anne Reid is side-splitting.

Thematically and narratively, Cemetery Junction is not all that much different from other coming-of-age stories. Nevertheless, the film possesses genuine warmth and was skilfully executed. It demonstrates that Gervais and Merchant are more than capable of handling a 90-minute comedy-drama despite their cinematic inexperience.

7.4/10

"I'm so excited to see those little Fockers!"

Back in 2000, Meet the Parents earned big bucks at the box office by pitting Ben Stiller's patented tightly-wound schlub persona against Robert De Niro's potentially homicidal tough-guy persona. See, the former persona wanted to propose to the daughter of the latter persona, and hence hilarity ensued. While Meet the Parents was highly enjoyable, the 2004 sequel Meet the Fockers arguably improved upon the formula, as De Niro's outlandish suspicions and sabotage at long last met their match in the face of Stiller's freewheeling hippie parents. The next logical step in the series was to introduce children into the equation, and 2010's Little Fockers complies with this logic (why not Meet the Little Fockers, though?). Despite the change in director (Paul Weitz replaced Jay Roach) and the mostly negative reviews, Little Fockers is far more entertaining and amusing than a second sequel has any right to be. When it comes to harmless family entertainment, you could do far worse than this.

Many years have passed in the Focker household. Little Fockers finds male nurse Gaylord "Greg" Focker (Stiller) and his wife Pam (Polo) raising twins Samantha (Tahan) and Henry (Baiocchi) in a suburb of Chicago. Facing mounting bills and about to move into a new house, Greg agrees to shill an erectile-dysfunction drug for attractive pharmaceutical rep Andi Garcia (Alba). At the start of the film, the twins' birthday is fast approaching, meaning that grandparents and friends will soon be arriving in Chicago. The birthday is complicated by two factors, however. Principally, that Pam's father Jack (De Niro) has a minor heart attack and deems it necessary to select a patriarch to lead the family's next generation, and decides to hand the role to Greg. In order for Greg to attain this title, however, Jack has to consider him worthy, which leads to meddling, spying and background checks. On top of this, Pam's insufferable ex-boyfriend Kevin (Wilson) has dropped in for a visit.

Interestingly, despite the title implying that the focus has been shifted to the younger Focker generation, Little Fockers is still predominantly concerned with the adult cast. Nonetheless, while the kids do not receive a great deal of screen-time, they still have a fairly substantial bearing on the story (the birthday party does set the plot in motion). However, there's not much of a story here anyway; Little Fockers is a lot of vignettes connected by a lazy script. The random plot threads lurking within - such as the attempt to get the twins into a distinguished school, the troubles with the builders working on Greg and Pam's new house, and the attempts to market the erectile-dysfunction medication - do not lead to payoffs, as they merely hit brick walls and are never brought up again (a lot of re-writing and re-editing occurred during post-production, so perhaps the resolutions of these plotlines were left on the cutting room floor). At least Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers had their respective plot strands resolved. Speaking of the previous movies, little mention is made of characters such as Denny and Little Jack, which is disappointing.

Yet, while plot and story are not a strong suit in the case of Little Fockers and while Jack being mistrustful of Greg is highly reminiscent of the previous movies, this second sequel nonetheless delivers its fair share of belly laughs (including a very amusing Jaws homage). After a slow start, the movie eventually settles into an amiable groove and holds steady; remaining highly entertaining until the very end. Paul Weitz afforded the film a gloriously brisk pace, though anyone expecting start-to-finish laughter will most likely walk away disappointed. In particular, there are not enough scenes taking advantage of the family dynamic. Despite John Hamburg having a hand in the scripting (he co-wrote Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers), there are a few sections which are devoid of genuine laughs. However, Little Fockers at least never grows excruciating in between the belly laughs - there's a great deal of energy. This is more than what can be said for a lot of other comedy duds which were unleashed upon the world in 2010, such as Grown-Ups and Vampires Suck.

Unsurprisingly, Stiller and De Niro kept doing their usual shtick here. Stiller neither stands out nor underwhelms, while De Niro gets a fair amount of laughs. For all of De Niro's attempts at self-parody, his character of Jack Byrnes remains vividly-rendered. And De Niro has a scene in which he fights with a role played by Harvey Keitel. It's doubtful this is the old-age reunion that De Niro and Keitel imagined while working together on Taxi Driver back in the '70s. Also in the cast is Owen Wilson, who has more screen-time than ever as Kevin. Wilson leaned on his usual shtick here, and the result is a serviceable but unremarkable performance. Despite her role amounting to a glorified cameo, Blythe Danner is her usual endearing self as Dina Byrnes, while Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand are often amusing but underused. Hoffman is especially absent - he did not take part in principal photography; instead, he came back for reshoots, and consequently plays no real part in the story (not that there's much of a story, mind you). Delivering more effectively in the laughs department are Jessica Alba and Laura Dern.

There's not a great deal else which can be said about Little Fockers. It is what it is - comfort food for the masses; an unthreatening, unremarkable comedy. If you find this movie hilarious, you'll love it. If this type of humour does not appeal to you, you'll hate it. Admittedly, Little Fockers is sillier than its predecessors and not as funny as its predecessors (and, frankly, not funny enough), but it's difficult to imagine fans of the franchise walking away bitterly disappointed. With an A-list cast like this pulling off exuberant personalities, this is a predictable but not entirely unwelcome addition to the Focker family.

6.1/10

"If your family's circle joins in my family's circle, they'll form a chain. I can't have a chink in my chain."

Meet the Parents concluded with one of the most obvious "a sequel is coming" moments in movie history, as Robert De Niro's Jack Byrnes comes to the realisation that he will have to meet the parents of his future son-in-law. Let's face it, though: when has a comedy sequel actually been any good? 2004's Meet the Fockers, however, is a pleasant surprise. This is not a stale follow-up which disgraces the original film - for once, here's a comedy sequel that revisits its world without banally repeating the same old stuff, and manages to improve the formula in addition to actually topping its predecessor in the laughs department. If you liked Meet the Parents, you are more or less destined to love Meet the Fockers. On the other hand, if you detest Ben Stiller and hated Meet the Parents, look elsewhere for entertainment and let the rest of us enjoy this top-notch comedy.

The story takes place a few years following the events of Meet the Parents. Gaylord "Greg" Focker (Stiller) - the well-meaning but accident-prone male nurse - is still engaged to his fiancée Pam (Polo) after winning the approval of Pam's father; former CIA agent Jack Byrnes (De Niro). With the wedding approaching, it has come time for Jack and his ever-patient wife Dina (Danner) to meet Greg's parents: free-wheeling hippies Bernie (Hoffman) and Roz (Streisand). Also along for the ride is Jack's grandson Little Jack (played by the Pickren twins). Jack has been led to believe that Bernie is a lawyer and Roz is a doctor, but the truth is that Bernie stopped practising when Greg was born and Roz is a sex therapist for senior citizens. Before long, the families' different ideologies begin to clash and Murphy's Law once again takes hold.

Despite its bawdy humour, Meet the Parents was firmly grounded in recognisable truths about family life and courtship. While the situations and characters were exaggerated for the purpose of comedy, there was always a sense of truth throughout which made it easier to identify with Greg and everything he was willing to endure for the sake of love. For this sequel, Bernie and Roz are not overly realistic, and this is exactly why Meet the Fockers is so funny. Watching Greg's over-the-top parents interact with the more "normal" characters is hysterical. Plus, we can relate to situations in which parents humiliate their offspring to no end. Admittedly, the conclusion to the film is predictable, but for a comedy it's the journey that counts. Fortunately, the journey throughout Meet the Fockers is, for the most part, a hoot; providing an almost non-stop barrage of genuine laughs. With this film, director Jay Roach once again demonstrated why he is one of the best comedic directors of all time. He has a firm understanding of comic timing, and he's deft at keeping his films moving forward at an agreeably brisk pace.

Screenwriters Jim Herzfeld and John Hamburg relied on a number of scenarios and jokes that will be familiar to anyone who has seen Meet the Parents (especially since the duo also wrote the first film). Thus, expect a few Focker name jokes, and expect Jack to use his old CIA methods in an attempt to expose "the truth". It would be easy to dismiss these aspects as being unoriginal, but it all comes together nicely. Why act like a grumpy film snob and complain about something which really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things? Meet the Fockers only stumbles in its final act with Tim Blake Nelson appearing as an overzealous cop who precipitates the obligatory confrontation between Greg, Bernie and Jack. During this section, the laughs cease and the pacing slows to a crawl. Thankfully, the very last scene compensates for this slow patch, as does the tremendous amount of laughs contained within the film's first two-thirds.

Robert De Niro's deadpan style once again works like a charm for the role of Jack Byrnes. Much like the first movie, De Niro's facial expressions are particularly hilarious. And if you've ever wanted to see De Niro wearing a fake latex boob, Meet the Fockers is your movie. Ben Stiller also provides a great deal of funny moments, and his interactions with De Niro are constantly amusing. However, it's Dustin Hoffman as Bernie Focker who steals the show in this sequel, and Barbara Streisand is equally side-splitting as Roz Focker. The interplay between Hoffman and Streisand is priceless. The two stars have known each other for decades, and their long history shows in their very natural portrayal of a long-married but still deeply affectionate and sexually active couple. Meanwhile, Blythe Danner is great as the dignified Dina, and Teri Polo carried off all that was required of her as Pam. The names are huge, and together they make an incredible cast. However, the spotlight is constantly stolen by the Pickren twins who appear as Jack's grandson Little Jack.

Meet the Fockers has endured criticisms for feeling too much like Meet the Parents from a narrative standpoint. While Meet the Fockers is indeed reminiscent of its predecessor, it's better that way. The film would have been a disaster if the formula was heavily tweaked and "improved". Happily, by staying with what worked in Meet the Parents and building from there, this sequel is far better than it had any right to be. Meet the Fockers is not perfect by any stretch, but it is a highly enjoyable laugh riot that's completely free of pretensions, and the exuberant personalities which were executed by a pitch-perfect cast make the film all the more entertaining. Since the film made in excess of $500 million at the box office from an $80 million budget, yet another sequel was produced: 2010's Little Fockers.

7.9/10

"I will be watching you and if I find that you are trying to corrupt my first born child, I will bring you down, baby. I will bring you down to Chinatown."

The experience of dating can be harrowing in itself, and meeting the parents of a loved one may be the most intimidating part of the ritual. Helmed by comedy veteran Jay Roach (Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me), Meet the Parents presents an amusing exaggeration of the worst aspects of the ordeal. Interestingly, this is the remake of a 1992 film of the same name, though the original script was heavily rewritten. The original Meet the Parents, although not seen very widely, was greeted with a positive reception, and it's therefore unsurprising that a reworking with big-name actors was eventually green-lit. Fortunately, unlike most remakes, Meet the Parents is actually good - consistently hilarious and perpetually enjoyable. Over $160 million in domestic ticket sales and a perpetual spot near the top of DVD sales charts would indicate that movie-goers loved Meet the Parents about as much as this reviewer did.

In the film, Ben Stiller plays a Jewish male nurse bearing the unlikely (unfortunate?) moniker of Gaylord "Greg" Focker (pronounced just the way it sounds). On the verge of proposing to his girlfriend Pam (Polo), Greg realises he'll have to ask permission from Pam's father before he can propose. Thus, Greg and Pam head off to visit Pam's parents. Unfortunately, things go wrong for Greg from the beginning as his suitcase gets lost at the airport. And while Greg has no problems winning over Pam's mother Dina (Danner), her father Jack (De Niro) is a whole other story. Jack is a loving family man, but he's a retired, paranoid CIA agent who's mistrusting of Greg from the beginning. Greg's quest for approval becomes seriously sidetracked as Murphy's Law soon takes hold and a string of mishaps turn him into a master of disaster in the eyes of Pam's family and friends.

Meet the Parents is a comedy of errors, and a great one at that. It's also one of the most squirm-worthy comedies you will ever see. The humour is laugh-out-loud hilarious, and dances around the trepidation that guys normally have about meeting their prospective spouse's parents. The movie plays this tension to a farcical degree, yet it actually feels somewhat real, as odd as that may sound. Greg is unable to do anything right, and the harder he tries, the deeper he digs himself in. His quest for acceptance is continuously hindered by the hard-nosed Jack, whose frank disposition and minimal sense of humour terrifies Greg. Jack has a set of inviolable standards, each of which Greg is sure to violate. And no matter what Greg says, Jack will intimately analyse it, question it and reinterpret it. Rest assured that throughout the majority of its running time, Meet the Parents delivers inspired hilarity, as it leaps from one hilarious set-piece to the next.

Director Jay Roach, who rose to fame with Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery and its sequel, did a remarkably restrained job with Meet the Parents in comparison to the Austin Powers movies. Roach managed to keep the characters on this side of hyperbolic ridiculousness, and consequently the patently weird happenings at the Byrnes manner are all the funnier. However, the film takes a turn for the worst during its final third. Following the initial 60 or 70 minutes of innocuous fun and eye-watering hilarity, the "dump the crap on Greg" routine grows old. Eventually, it stops being funny, and you will likely begin shouting "Oh come on, enough already" rather than laughing. There's only so much torture you can watch a human endure before you flat-out feel sorry for them, and this is the point where you can no longer laugh. Admittedly, too, the ending itself is sappy and telegraphed quite far in advance.

As Greg, Ben Stiller is Ben Stiller. For basically every movie he does, Stiller plays the same role: the poor, well-intentioned, harmless soul adrift in circumstances beyond his control. Nevertheless, Stiller's performance is effective alongside Robert De Niro - their interactions are frequently hysterical. De Niro is a talented comic actor, and he's in wonderful form here; seething with machismo and a thinly-veiled disdain for Greg. De Niro managed to use his tough-guy image to perpetually keep us on the edge of our seats; wondering when he'll explode and do something outrageous. De Niro's nuanced facial expressions in particular are a constant source of amusement. The rest of the cast members are equally good, from Blythe Danner as Dina to the endearing Teri Polo as Pam. Owen Wilson is also great as the too-good-to-be-true ex fiancée.

The negative aspects of Meet the Parents are dramatically outweighed by the positive attributes. A large majority of comedies come and go without a second glance, and have little replay value because the punch-lines are no longer funny after being delivered once. Meet the Parents, on the other hand, is one of those rare comedies with almost infinite replay value, as the back and forth between Stiller and De Niro never grows stale. Director Jay Roach and screenwriters Jim Herzfeld and John Hamburg have created a flawed, yet genuinely funny and enjoyable comedy with enough personality to overshadow the noticeable kinks. It should find a tremendous audience with both males and females, and it deserves to do so. Due to the film's tremendous commercial success, a sequel followed in 2004: Meet the Fockers.

7.7/10

"Love sure is a funny thing. Makes you happy, makes you sad, makes you do all sorts of things you never thought you'd do before."

At the start of I Love You Phillip Morris, the words "This really happened" appear on-screen. And to reinforce the point, the filmmakers also added the words "It really did". Indeed, this Jim Carrey vehicle is the type of film you would not believe unless you knew it to be true. Additionally, for those who were expecting this to be another Carrey comedy featuring the actor's trademark over-the-top, rubber-faced antics, prepare to be surprised. Based on the novel Prison Breaks as well as the memoirs of the main character, 2010's I Love You Phillip Morris functions as a reminder of how good Carrey can be if he's not tied to a generic Hollywood crowd-pleaser. Without a doubt, this is a unique motion picture which melds drama and dark comedy in a surprisingly effective fashion. Armed with a zippy pace, the film barrels through sufficient plot to form a miniseries, and, though it's a tad uneven, this is a supremely entertaining motion picture.

After surviving a nasty car accident, married former police officer Steven Russell (Carrey) has a life-changing epiphany. No longer able to conceal his secret homosexuality, Steven comes out to his understanding wife Debbie (Mann), splits from his family, and moves with his boyfriend to Miami Beach. He finds his new lifestyle to be murder on his bank account, though, and Steven is soon committing every type of fraud under the sun until his actions are discovered and he is subsequently arrested. In prison, Steven meets fellow homosexual inmate Phillip Morris (McGregor), and the two instantly fall in love. Once their sentences are over, Steven and Phillip move in together. Thus begins a whirlwind love affair both in and out of prison, with Russell's inability to avoid crime continuously affecting their relationship.

The truly original, unique I Love You Phillip Morris denotes the directorial debut for Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, who wrote such motion pictures as Bad Santa and Bad News Bears. The comedy peppered throughout I Love You Phillip Morris is therefore marvellously dark and nasty. The premise is familiar (consider it the gay cousin of Steven Spielberg's Catch Me if You Can), but the tone is what allows it to stand out - it's kind of a darker, weirder Catch Me if You Can with the sick-joke nastiness of Bad Santa and the type of side characters you'd expect to see in a movie by the Coens or the Farrelly Brothers. Ficarra and Requa were able to keep the film frothy throughout while still developing an at times affecting sincerity. There's a self-assuredness to the material that's very heartening. As a comedy, I Love You Phillip Morris is genuinely clever and sly. As a biopic, it's beguiling and informative. And finally, as a love story, the film is genuine and heartfelt.

Admittedly, the jam-packed plotting does not always make for a smooth-running picture, as Requa and Ficarra ended up relying a lot on voiceover narration. Also, the tonal shifts are at times rather sudden. Aside from these flaws, this is a sure-footed motion picture with a number of notable comedic moments. The matter-of-fact sexuality is admirably blunt, even if the traits of homosexuality are occasionally used for cheap laughs. As first-time filmmakers, Glenn Ficarra and John Requa exhibit a knack for smooth photography and imaginative montage (the assemblage of Steven's various prison escapes is particularly jaunty), as well as a firm, savvy understanding of comedic composition. I Love You Phillip Morris also benefits from the bouncy score courtesy of Nick Urata. In particular, the recurrent main theme is highly enjoyable.

The believability of the relationship between Steven and Phillip is one of the strongest elements of the film, as there's no doubt about how the men feel about one another. The motivations of the two are palpable and understandable - we can grasp the reasons why they do what they do. Of course, the casting helped tremendously in this department. Carrey adopted a southern drawl for his role of Steven Russell, and eased up on his trademark overcaffeination. Carrey's performance is eccentric (though comparatively restrained) and charismatic; blending Carrey's best absurdist stuff with the emotional range witnessed in such movies as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Carrey's work is particularly admirable in the sense that he was able to make the otherwise deplorable role into someone likable - no matter how many lies he tells or how much destruction he causes, it's possible to be moved by the more tragic moments in his life. Yet, while Carrey is definitely the star of the film, Ewan McGregor is the emotional anchor. McGregor delivered a tender, sweet performance as the soft-spoken Phillip Morris. Also in the cast is Leslie Mann (Judd Apatow's wife) who's charming as Steven Russell's former wife.

One would think that, in 2010, homosexuality would not be an issue in movies anymore. Yet, studio executives in Hollywood fretted over what to do with I Love You Phillip Morris for a couple of years. Due to the film's frank depiction of love and sex between two consenting adult males (one of whom happens to be a borderline psychotic conman), it has been shuffled around for a while seeking a potential distributor. It's fortunate the film was eventually released, as it's more thoughtful and a lot less unsettling than the parade of pathetic heterosexual romantic comedies that blemish multiplexes every year. Unfortunately, it flopped hopelessly. Admittedly, the lightning-fast pace prevents the film from being anything too substantial, but I Love You Phillip Morris remains a sweet, at times amusing piece of entertainment.

8.1/10