Reviews by PvtCaboose91

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

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

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

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

Throughout his filmmaking career, Frank Capra directed a number of revered classics, including It's a Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Arsenic and Old Lace, and others. Also on the director's résumé is 1934's It Happened One Night; a funny, breezy romantic comedy which hit the right spot with Depression-era audiences. Due to favourable word-of-mouth, the film was a box office smash that put Columbia Pictures (a "Poverty Row" studio) in the big league as a real player. Interestingly, while this is one of the most beloved movies in history, during pre-production the screenplay was deemed so uninspired that numerous stars turned down the chance to appear in it, and even the eventual leads expressed reservations. Despite such concerns, and in spite of the fact that It Happened One Night is essentially a light and fluffy comedy, the film went on to win all the Oscars for which it was nominated: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress and Best Screenplay (i.e. the five major categories). Try to imagine something like When Harry Met Sally or Sleepless in Seattle accomplishing that!

The story of It Happened One Night is simple, and was based on a short story called Night Bus which was featured in Cosmopolitan magazine. Ellie Andrews (Colbert) is the spoiled daughter of a rich Wall Street newspaper magnate who's used to having her own way. Ellie married fortune hunter King Westley (Thomas) against the wishes of her father (Connolly), but her father retrieved her before the marriage could be consummated and practically holds her hostage on his boat. To escape, Ellie jumps overboard and swims for shore. Incognito, she boards a bus bound for New York City to go see Westley. On the bus, she meets Peter Warne (Gable), a down and out reporter who has been sacked by his editor. The two immediately dislike each other, but soon form a pact: Peter will get the inexperienced Ellie back to her husband in order for them to have a "proper" wedding if Ellie gives him the exclusive story.

While this masterpiece was hardly the first screwball comedy (or, according to some, a screwball comedy at all), it proved to be very influential for the burgeoning madcap genre which dominated Hollywood during the tail end of the 1930s. Unlike most modern rom-coms and screwball comedies, Capra's film takes time to develop its characters. Ellie would have been unlikeable and unrelatable if she was left as a stereotypical spoiled rich girl, but Capra unobtrusively included glimpses of her back-story to allow us to see her as a virtual prisoner and a rebellious spirit against her pampered existence. Admittedly, It Happened One Night begins wearing thin towards the end, especially when the story creates a misunderstanding that results in Ellie almost going through with her ill-advised marriage. The pacing slows to a crawl for this section, yet it's truly worth the wait for the picture's final moments, which make good on the longstanding promise to bring "the walls of Jericho" crashing down.

The screenplay by Robert Riskin was so well-written that one may almost believe the hook-up is not going to happen. The pacing throughout is almost uniformly perfect, teasing us until we cannot stand the thought of Ellie and Peter being apart. Far from lovey-dovey or mushy, the dialogue is sharp, witty, and at times heartless. The outcome may be obvious from the onset, but the road to this predictable destination is paved with anger, arguments and misunderstandings. The road is also frequently funny, clever and at times risqué (especially for a '30s movie). Being a Capra film, It Happened One Night was blessed with several Capra-esque flourishes. Yet, unlike other notable movies such as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, It Happened One Night does not have a real social commentary. Instead, the storyline is surface-level; purely revolving around the warring couple and how they change, with Ellie realising she knows little about the real world and with Peter softening his hardened exterior.

Frank Capra was not exactly a technical director - he did not have a knack for setting up exciting shots or utilising new ideas with his camera. Capra was, however, a master of getting the most out of his simple, linear directorial style. It's not always about complicated set-ups or fancy shots - it's about getting the characters from point A to point B, and ensuring a viewer will enjoy the ride. It would seem Capra had a firm understanding of this, and that's why he stands among the greatest directors in history. Like the best romantic comedies, It Happened One Night is primarily fuelled by the interactions between the protagonists - not only the comedic bantering, but additionally the slow burn that melts away their friction and reveals the full bloom of unlikely love. This is not a forced motion picture - the story flows naturally and the characters seem real, and therefore we can laugh at the jokes, find the romance heartfelt, and follow along with the message about love and not short-changing people.

As the script for It Happened One Night was deemed by many to be uninspired, Capra was unable to recruit the pair he originally wanted for the lead roles (Myrna Loy and Robert Montgomery). Consequently, the director ended up settling for Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert, neither of whom were exactly enthusiastic to do the gig. Remarkably, considering the reluctance of the pair to participate, Gable and Colbert's fabulous chemistry is what makes the film so endearing. Gable displayed a playfulness here that's not often evident in his work, while Colbert managed to make her spoilt brat role likeable. Needless to say, Gable and Colbert were happier about their work when both of them earned Oscars. Gable was nominated three times in the Best Actor category (also for Gone with the Wind and Mutiny on the Bounty), but It Happened One Night earned the actor his only Oscar. Likewise, this was Colbert's only recognition by the Academy. Interestingly, Friz Freleng noted on several occasions that the fast-talking manner of Bugs Bunny is based on Gable's performance here, right down to how he eats a carrot.

Seen in the 21st Century, It Happened One Night feels more familiar than it did back in 1934, but this is a case of a movie being victimised by its popularity and influence. Countless copycat stories have been produced over the decades with similar plots which diminish the freshness and spontaneity associated with Capra's original masterpiece. Nevertheless, nothing can diminish the strength of Gable and Colbert's performances or Capra's deftness in crafting this type of feel-good movie. The screwball comedy elements of It Happened One Night work as effectively as the love story, which is almost unheard of when it comes to romantic comedies.

9.2/10

In the decades since its release, 1947's Miracle on 34th Street has become just as indelibly part of the festive season as wrapping paper, mistletoe, overeating, and long lines at local shopping malls. Hollywood may believe that Christmas has become synonymous with comedies nowadays, but one merely needs to watch Miracle on 34th Street to understand what the spirit of the holiday is truly about. Light chuckles were sprinkled throughout the movie, but the most memorable feeling it leaves you with is that of warmth and charm. Thus, prolific writer John Hughes and director Les Mayfield took an audacious (ill-advised?) step in deciding to remake such a classic. Admittedly, this is not a terrible remake and it's above the usual standard for remakes, but at the end of the day it simply cannot compare with the 1947 original, and merely comes across as unnecessary. Additionally, this remake adopts a more serious tone, with the focus more on corporate greed and corruption.

For this remake, Macy's department store has been replaced with Cole's department store, but not much else has changed. The movie commences as the white-bearded Kris Kringle (Attenborough) berates an inebriated Santa Claus who was hired to take part in the annual Cole's Thanksgiving parade. When the drunk makes a fool out of himself, parade director Dorey Walker (Perkins) realises she needs an emergency replacement. Given the appearance of Kris, he is her first choice. Kris' tremendous success on the parade lands him a job as Santa in Cole's on 34th Street, where his uncanny ability to communicate with children and adults brings about a huge leap in holiday sales. Soon, Kris begins asserting that he is in fact Santa Claus himself, though nobody believes him (besides the legions of children who flock to Cole's everyday to sit on his lap). Outraged by the newfound success of Cole's, a rival department store sets out to put Cole's out of business. This culminates in a legal trial that attempts to answer the question of whether or not Kris is actually Santa Claus, in which Kris is defended by Dorey's friend Bryan (McDermott).

Like the original Miracle on 34th Street, the message here is one of hope for a society which has grown increasingly cynical and jaded. The message is that, even in these modern times, people can still look beyond their selfish interests to see and react to the needs of others. Kris is not just a red-suited man sitting in a department store who claims he's the real Santa, but a symbol of all that is good about Christmas - a symbol of the human ability to suppress the selfish, hateful tendencies that rule the major part of our lives. The film argues that if people no longer believe in Santa and all he represents, the world will become a miserable, hopeless place. Dorey and Susan are both non-believers, as they deem Santa to be a myth passed down from parents to children. Yet, their lack of faith leeches away the magic of the season for them.

Believe it or not, there were two made-for-TV remakes of Miracle on 34th Street in the years between the 1947 original and this 1994 version. This reviewer is not opposed to remakes per se, but Hollywood needs to realise which properties should be remade and which ones should not. 1947's Miracle on 34th Street was flawlessly executed, to the extent that it has warmed the hearts of movie-goers over countless decades, and its charm has only improved over time. It's truly the definition of timeless cinema. Why attempt to recreate perfection? Sadly, the late and great John Hughes went the "bigger and better" route in writing this remake, and it tarnishes the magic of the story. As questions arise regarding whether or not Kris is Santa, Hughes' screenplay tells a story of corporate espionage, with simplicity thrown out the window. Dorey's daughter Susan (Wilson) asks Santa not just for a house, but also for a father and a brother. Kris is not only fluent in foreign languages, but he can also speak to the deaf using sign language.

In addition to the above, a few other changes were made for this version of Miracle on 34th Street. For instance, the resolution to the court case was altered, but altered for the worse. The entire internal logic of said resolution is untenable, and far less dramatically effective than the 50,000 letters to Santa that were delivered to Kris in the original. While this Miracle on 34th Street is not a line-for-line remake of the 1947 masterpiece, Hughes wasn't bold enough to drum up any real plot or thematic expansions exclusive to this version. Thus, it struggles under the burden of sameness and predictability. Had the 1947 film never existed, this version might have made more of a mark, but with the original still out there, this remake seems completely unnecessary.

One of the greatest problems facing any remake is the fact that comparisons with the original are absolutely inevitable, and normally not in favour of the remake. Such is the issue with Miracle on 34th Street. Richard Attenborough's performance as Kris Kringle is perfectly charming, yet he'll always be in the shadow of Edward Gwenn who pulled off a landmark performance in the 1947 film that was jollier and infinitely more mysterious than what Attenborough accomplished here. In supporting roles, Elizabeth Perkins and Dylan McDermott are bland, and much less likable than Maureen O'Hara and John Payne from the original. Perkins is particularly underwhelming; she's far too cruel and cold to win any sympathy. As Susan, Mara Wilson gives off a distinct "child actor" vibe that's too cutesy and put-on for her own good. Wilson may look adorable, but she falls far short of Natalie Wood's performance in the original film.

1994's Miracle on 34th Street is not an awful movie - it was just unnecessary. Despite a few questionable choices by John Hughes during the writing process (there was no need for corporate greed and religious beliefs to be injected into a story which helps people realise the value of Christmas), the rest of the movie was executed fairly well. Director Les Mayfield handled the material competently, the production values are exceptional, the writing is not too bad, and the film is enjoyable. It's just that with the superior original version out there, it's hard to find much of a reason to watch this remake. Interestingly, the movie is also an unintended exercise in irony. It was obviously a Hollywood money grab, yet the film blatantly speaks out against corporate greed and doing things for the sole reason of gaining a few bucks.

5.9/10

Enter the Dragon is the zenith of cinematic martial arts experiences, and has been since its release back in 1973. Among fans, it is revered as the feature which legitimised the martial arts genre for Western audiences and brought the very capable Bruce Lee into the global spotlight. Bruce Lee's name has become synonymous with martial arts cinema, and the man - who tragically died at the age of 32 - has achieved an almost mythical status since his untimely demise. Prior to Enter the Dragon, Lee was only known to martial arts fans or to those who saw him in The Green Hornet on television, but Enter the Dragon was the one that broke him into the big time. Alas, before the film had even premiered, he was dead. Fortunately, all these years on, Enter the Dragon is not just a historical curiosity but a highly watchable, enjoyable action commodity. It may not have the slick special effects of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or the Kill Bill films, but Lee and his co-stars more than compensated for this in charm and stunning action sequences of boundless grace.

Like most action films, the plot is very simple and uncomplicated. A Shaolin master known as Lee (played by Lee) is approached by law enforcement officers to infiltrate a fighting tournament on an island run by a gangster named Han (Shih). Han is a renegade Shaolin monk who has a lucrative business in slave trade and opium dealing. As a result, he has disgraced his and Lee's temple with his heinous behaviour. Additionally, Han forced the suicide of Lee's sister, so Lee has a double motive for revenge. Thus, Lee is sent to the tournament to uncover evidence against Han in order for the authorities to come in and arrest him.

To say the least, the story itself is not much to brag about. The novelty of the deadly tournament (a concept which served as inspiration for countless video games and movies) peters out before the halfway point, as only a small amount of fighting in the arena is actually shown. Like many action pictures of the late '60s and early '70s, Enter the Dragon borrows heavily from the James Bond franchise. For the most part, the film is a spy thriller with palpable echoes of Bond as Lee carries out his investigating. The climax, too, is highly Bond-esque. Meanwhile, Han carries a fluffy white cat and surrounds himself with lethal female bodyguards. Yet, the undeniable similarities to the Bond franchise do more than increase the film's appeal for a Western audience - the contrast between Lee and 007 additionally provides a useful vehicle for illustrating the intrinsic similarities and differences between Chinese and Western culture.

Obviously, Enter the Dragon is not a profound drama of human emotion and romance. However, it is chock full of great action, all of which was choreographed by Bruce Lee himself. Decades on, Lee is still regarded as one of the world's greatest martial arts choreographers, and the reason for his enduring reputation is obvious while watching Enter the Dragon. Lee was a master of his craft; an immaculately-honed machine whose lightning-fast and beautifully choreographed fight scenes remain both exciting and visceral. Not only are these some of the best martial arts sequences you will ever see, but they were also executed without the aid of wires or modern digital effects, which makes them all the more impressive. In addition to crafting excellent fights, Lee worked tirelessly as an ambassador for Chinese culture. He aimed to bring the elegance and philosophy of Asia to audiences around the world. Unfortunately, though, during the time between Lee's death and the premiere of Enter the Dragon, the film was trimmed down to remove some of the more philosophical elements which Bruce had campaigned to include.

In terms of acting, it's hard to deny that Enter the Dragon is rather B-grade. The acting is passable but unspectacular, and - typical for martial arts pictures of the period - the ADR work and dubbing is at times atrocious (the film was shot without sound). The standout of the cast is Bruce Lee, whose screen presence is electrifying and who delivered a measured, understated performance. It's easy to see why Lee was such a big star - he had a charm and charisma that few actors have. John Saxon (A Nightmare on Elm Street) - the only 'recognised' Hollywood actor in the bunch - is passable as Roper, while Jim Kelly (Black Samurai) reeks of blaxploitation. The film even features Jackie Chan, in a blink-and-you'll-miss-him cameo appearance (he plays a henchman who's killed by Bruce Lee). The rest of the cast is composed of martial artists and actors from Hong Kong, and they're undeniably second-rate. Their performances are hidden below the mask of the aforementioned awful dubbing.

While Enter the Dragon is a perfectly enjoyable action film, it's still flawed - the cartoonish sound effects are unintentionally laughable, the cinematic techniques have dated, and dialogue is definitely not a strong suit. Also, if boiled down to its basic constituents, it's an unspectacular action film that's marred by the usual genre trappings but benefits from the spectacular talents of Bruce Lee. Thus, Enter the Dragon is not so much a masterpiece as it is enjoyable and influential.

7.6/10

Helmed by film critic-turned-director Lindsay Anderson, If.... is an acidic assault on the imbalance of power and an experimental ode to revolution. Due to the nature of the movie, the executives at Paramount Pictures hated it and subsequently shelved it when they first received the final product in late 1968. Months afterwards, Barbarella flopped and a replacement was needed, and this lead to the emergency release of If.... in 1969. The studio feared it would perform terribly, but were shocked when If.... became a tremendous critical and commercial success. In fact, the film unexpectedly attracted huge queues stretching for kilometres outside of cinemas. Today, Lindsay Anderson's film strikes a powerful chord, with the message as well as the methods by which the antiheroes get their vengeance now coming across as eerily prophetic.

If.... begins with a picturesque examination of a day in the lives of several boys who are committed to an education at a traditional English boarding school. The school, however, is governed by a strict, archaic set of rules. Hair must be a certain length, freshman boys are required to know the names of the seniors, and specific materials must be in specific drawers in each boy's desk. The authority over the students is placed with appointed seniors known as the Whips, who rule with an iron fist and abuse power at every turn. If the Whips feel that the boys have stepped out of line, they mete out punishments ranging from cold showers to humiliating beatings. Resisting the rules is a trio of seniors: Mick Travis (McDowell), Johnny (Wood) and Wallace (Warwick). The film traces the characters' transition from smart-aleck punks to outspoken rebels.

Director Lindsay Anderson paints an ugly, scornful picture of the boarding school and the English system that enforces these sadistic, meaningless rules to maintain discipline. Anderson clearly sides with the rebels throughout, even if they resort to violence. The so-called headmaster (Jeffrey) is shown to be a phoney who mouths platitudes about accepting social change but never allows for this change to occur. One of the many charms of If.... is in the title: there's the lingering question of how much is real, and how much is fantasy. As the film wears on, Anderson weaves more and more fantastical elements into the narrative, to the point that you have no idea how much is real. A lot of controversy particularly surrounds the infamous final scene. During graduation, Mick and his friends smoke out the congregation and begin shooting at them from a rooftop. By this point, Anderson has blended fantasy, reality and surrealism to such an extent that it's difficult to tell if the final scene is real or fantasy. Thus, If.... is filmmaking at its finest; engaging your brain, staying with you, and leaving lingering questions long after the end credits have expired.

Throughout the film, Anderson keeps us on our toes by constantly shifting gears. Scenes fluctuate from colour to black and white, and weird things appear to be happening constantly. Some scenes border on the mundane, while others shift between hilarity and horror. Cinematographer Miroslav Ondrícek was unable to adequately illuminate the interior of the church for the film, so the cash-strapped director opted for black and white photography. For effect, Anderson selectively added several other black and white sequences. Whenever the shift occurs from colour to monochrome, the entire mood shifts with it. For these sequences, the absence of colour affords a surreal gravitas - they automatically come across as more serene than the colour scenes. Additionally, the B&W scenes have a narrative importance, and thus the switch signals that something crucial is about to take place. If.... is also positively bursting with talent. Along with Ondrícek's competent photography, future director Stephen Frears (The Queen) served as assistant director, while Chris Menges was a camera operator (Menges would go on to photograph The Reader and The Killing Fields, to name a couple).

Although the cast is an ensemble, Malcolm McDowell undoubtedly stands out more than the rest of the actors. One would imagine that this is due to the career that McDowell ended up enjoying, but even if one divorces themselves from fandom, McDowell is absolutely magnetic and enthralling whenever he's on the screen. There are a handful of other fine performances within If.... courtesy of such actors as David Wood, Richard Warwick and Christine Noonan, but McDowell's face and eyes take charge of every frame in which they appear. Stanley Kubrick even admitted to watching this film many times, and consequently If.... became McDowell's audition for his most iconic role as the lead in A Clockwork Orange.

Palpably inspired by Jean Vigo's 1933 picture Zéro de conduite: Jeunes diables au college (a.k.a. Zero for Conduct), Lindsay Anderson's If.... remains a haunting classic. Admittedly, it's a bit of a chore to get through from time to time and it's more of curiosity than an enjoyable film, but these are the only drawbacks of an otherwise fine motion picture. Seen today in the light of massacres at such educational establishments as Columbine and Virginia Tech, If.... is sadly prophetic and almost unbearably relevant, but back in 1968 Anderson made the film as a precautionary tale, hence the title. Despite its shortcomings, the film remains a vicious indictment of the shocking class system in the United Kingdom, and will most likely be remembered as a satiric masterpiece which feels all too real.

8.2/10

At Christmastime, everybody loves a good turkey. Santa with Muscles, however, is an example of an insufferable turkey of the cinematic variety. It's not even a "so bad it's good" turkey in the vein of Plan 9 from Outer Space, but instead a dreary, dull, enervating motion picture lacking so much as a modicum of personality. Directed with all the flair of a Disney Channel original movie, Santa with Muscles is hopelessly marred by a script loaded with unfunny puns and broad, excruciatingly unfunny slapstick. The cast members seem barely awake, and the cinematography can best be described as workmanlike. Thankfully, it swiftly exited cinemas after its 1996 release and rapidly slipped into obscurity, and now the majority of the world is blissfully unaware of its existence. Perhaps there is a God.

Hulk Hogan plays a soulless millionaire named Blake who has made a fortune from selling his own brand of protein powders and other assorted bodybuilding supplements. Through a number of contrivances too ludicrous to go into, Blake ends up on the run from the police. He ends up hiding in a shopping mall wearing a Santa Claus costume. After a knock on the head, Blake suffers from amnesia and one of the mall elves manages to convince Blake that he is in fact Santa Claus. Through several other contrivances too depressing to go into, Blake ends up at a local orphanage which is in trouble. See, some conventionally evil scientist (I think) named Ebner Frost (Begley Jr.) wants to buy it or close it or something... I'm unsure about the specifics, as I stopped paying attention after five or six minutes. Screw all the orphans, I say! Burn down the orphanage and sell the kids into slavery!

Once the story is in place, there are a lot of pratfalls, car chases, car crashes and instances of silly fisticuffs, along with a few elaborate stunts and some low-rent special effects. None of this stuff is particularly inspired, however. The screenplay is equally dreary. The orphans are cloyingly cute, the bad guys are frenetically cartoonish, and the humour is broad and painfully unfunny. Several questions sprang to mind while I viewed this film. Firstly, "Why the fuck did studio executives agree to fund this dirge?", followed by (in no particular order) "What were they thinking?", "Was everyone on drugs while making this?" and "Why the fuck did I decide to watch this?". For God's sake, a few people must have had a conversation about making this movie, and decided it was worth spending several million dollars on. They must have commissioned a script and hired other people to work on the movie, too. How the hell does this stuff happen?

Everything about this motion picture is completely inept, from the painful puns to the incompetent action scenes to the thick layer of sappiness and schmaltz which covers the entire enterprise. For crying out loud, bad puns include "Santa, you sleigh me". It hurts. It deeply, profoundly hurts. And the cheesiness puts Disney movies to shame (I shit you not). According to the Internet Movie Database, the original screenwriter felt that his draft was changed so much that he sued to have his writing credit removed. Such a move is totally understandable. And hell, the three still-credited writers for the film have never written anything else before or after Santa with Muscles. Director John Murlowski may still be working as of 2010, but his efforts here are atrocious. Amateur YouTube users are capable of more coherent, exciting, fluid action set-pieces than those which are on display in Santa with Muscles for viewers to enjoy (endure?).

During the noughties, several professional wrestlers made the transition to questionable acting careers (The Rock, John Cena, and so on). Many people forget, however, that a handful of popular '80s wrestlers had significant roles on the big screen as well. Roddy Piper chewed gum and kicked ass in John Carpenter's They Live, and André the Giant played Fezzik in The Princess Bride. And then there's Hulk Hogan, who had a cameo in Rocky III before headlining Suburban Commando and Mr. Nanny. Hogan's tragic acting career continued with such straight-to-video duds as The Ultimate Weapon and Thunder in Paradise. Somewhere amidst this malarkey, he found time to star in Santa with Muscles. Hulk Hogan has always been an atrocious thespian, but his terrible performance here is dumbfounding. The analogy is overused, but Hogan truly sounds as if he read every line off a cue card. Meanwhile, Mila Kunis, in her second film role, plays one of the orphans here. In an ironic twist, Don Stark, who would go on to co-star with Kunis on That 70's Show, is also in the film as Hogan's elf. The cast additionally includes such other actors as Clint Howard, Garrett Morris and former wrestler Brutus Beefcake, who plays an oriental (?!) mad scientist.

From the woeful writing to the shoddy production values to the subpar acting, Santa with Muscles is straight-to-video quality, period. Hence, it's mind-boggling that the movie did in fact receive a theatrical release. According to Box Office Mojo, it opened in a scant 98 theatres across America and earned a total of $220,000. It can only be hoped that director John Murlowski has discovered God since helming Santa with Muscles, and will quit the filmmaking business pronto in favour of a life of quiet reflection in a monastery in some foreign country. Otherwise, we may have to kill him. 10-year-old boys - especially those who are established Hulk Hogan fans - might find enough within Santa with Muscles to keep them entertained, but everyone else should avoid this dreck at all costs. Unsurprisingly, since its inception, this film has remained on IMDb's Bottom 100, and is currently ranked lower than Santa Claus Conquers the Martians...

1.5/10

If one mentions the name David Lean, the director's grand, big-budget spectacles will likely come to mind. Among them are such motion pictures as Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai and Doctor Zhivago. Yet, one of the most enduring of Lean's works is 1945's Brief Encounter; an intimate, romantic film which eschews Lean's trademark grand style in favour of taut melodrama. The result is a masterpiece of style, mood, acting and direction. An expansion of Noel Coward's short play Still Life, Brief Encounter - while rightfully regarded as a classic in this day and age - was a box office failure upon release in 1945. Lean - who was nominated for a Best Director Oscar for his efforts - attributed this commercial failure to the presence of middle-aged actors, the lack of recognisable stars, and the downbeat tone which contrasted the desire of post-war movie-goers to embrace expressions of optimism. Additionally, it could not have helped that the overlying theme of infidelity was a little scandalous for the period.

The story of Brief Encounter is simple to tell. Doctor Alec Harvey (Howard) and housewife Laura Jesson (Johnson) briefly meet at a railway station when Alec removes a speck of grit from Laura's eye. This chance meeting begins a remarkably chaste yet overwhelmingly passionate affair. Both are happily married and have children, yet their relationship rapidly deepens. In the weeks to follow, Alec and Laura meet every Thursday to talk, have lunch and go to the pictures. Though they only see each other once a week, their meetings gradually become more charged with passion, and ultimately they both realise that they have fallen in love.

Brief Encounter begins with a painful scene of Alec and Laura saying their final goodbye to each other at the railway station where they first met. We have not seen any of their relationship yet and hence there is no context, but the sad expressions on the characters' faces effectively convey what's happening. Suddenly, one of Laura's chatterbox friends enters the room, and, unaware of the situation, sits with them to begin rambling. By this point, the movie has not formally introduced either character yet, but Laura and Alec's longing for each other is instantly evident, as is their frustration that their final moment together has been ruined by an intrusion. A few scenes afterwards, Laura begins narrating, and flashbacks illustrate the circumstances under which Laura and Alec met and ultimately fell in love. Certainly, their romance is mundane; primarily consisting of eating lunch together, seeing movies, going for drives in the country, and stealing kisses in dark tunnels while trains rumble overhead. Yet, the mundane, everyday details coalesce into a stark realism that makes the romance more affecting.

The screenplay was written by Noel Coward in conjunction with Anthony Havelock-Allan, Ronald Neame and director Lean, but it bears the stamps of a solo Coward effort. Simply put, the script is extraordinary; pinpointing the essential characteristics of the protagonists, the lives they lead, the social restrictions they live under, and the dreams they have. All of the above were perfectly and efficiently captured through precise, subtle, eloquent dialogue for which the words hint at a far deeper meaning. Additionally, Brief Encounter is very much tied to a specific time and place; a post-war England which is permeated with particular attitudes that are virtually unrecognisable compared to the circumstances involved in 21st Century extra-marital affairs. Even the locations where Alec and Laura's furtive encounters take place seem strange and part of another epoch. Beneath all of the trappings and mannerisms of the period, though, it's the human qualities at the heart of the film which remain timeless. Lean's masterful ability to bring these qualities out of Coward's words and breathe life into them is what ensures the film's greatness.

In the hands of another filmmaker, Brief Encounter would have been a recipe for disaster - not a great deal actually happens, the ending is telegraphed at the very beginning, the sets are mundane, and the leading roles were not portrayed by enduring stars. Lean overcame these obstacles, though, by employing interesting filmmaking techniques. Lean especially exhibits a mastery for catching little details. Nothing in the film feels out of place or exaggerated, and each scene was held for just the right amount of time. There are a few minor lulls, but for the most part the 85-minute runtime flies by at an immaculate pace. Additionally, Robert Krasker's black-and-white cinematography is superb - the combination of stylisation and low-key realism enhances the story with the right shades of mood. Meanwhile, Sergei Rachmaninoff's music was put to good use; it highlights the overpowering emotions of the characters and contributes to the haunting atmosphere.

Lean was additionally aided by the remarkable performances courtesy of Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard, both of whom were blessed with exceptionally expressive faces. The performances may be old-school, but only in so much as they are of the bygone school of stage acting; studious, refined, and capable of tremendous subtlety and nuance of expression. The gradual development of Laura and Alec's affair feels so organic and unforced that it's never precisely clear when it moves from friendly companionship to romance. Johnson's voiceover narration sets an elegaical tone for the film, while Howard is ruggedly handsome and very British.

It's extraordinary that such a simple, unassuming little movie could work such powerful magic over so many movie-goers for so many generations. Superficially, there's nothing about Brief Encounter to be excited about, yet Coward's words, Lean's filmmaking and the performances elevate it above the ordinary.

9.5/10