Reviews by PvtCaboose91

Due to the decline in quality across the Rocky series, in addition to the lengthy period of time since Rocky V, the notion of sixth Rocky movie seemed scoff-worthy. Yet, against all odds, 2006's Rocky Balboa proves the naysayers wrong, as Sylvester Stallone (serving as writer, director and star) manages to deliver a heartfelt and entertaining conclusion to the long-running Rocky series. Generally speaking, the Rocky sequels were more concerned with Rocky, his nemesis and the fight, but, to conclude the franchise, Stallone dials back the excesses to recapture the bygone gritty milieu of the 1976 original. Rocky Balboa is a character study concerning the titular character, and the boxing match is more like a footnote. It is a great pleasure to report that Stallone found an ideal way to bring Rocky back to ground level, while additionally providing the fist-pumping and goosebump-inducing moments that made the series so enduring.

A widower of many years following the death of his wife Adrian, the fifty-something Rocky Balboa (Stallone) resides in his Philadelphia hometown where he spends his time running an Italian restaurant (named after Adrian) and telling stories of his glory days to patrons. After seeing a computerised boxing bout between himself in his prime and the current heavyweight champion Mason "The Line" Dixon (Antonio Tarver), Rocky's interest in the sport is suddenly sparked again and he plans to start fighting in local clubs. Meanwhile, the computerised battle suggested that Rocky would win the match by knockout, which inspires Dixon's greedy promoters to begin planning the real deal: an exhibition fight between Rocky and Dixon. Despite the odds being firmly stacked against him, Rocky eventually agrees to the match.

Soon enough, the film enters the land of training montages and "hurting bombs" as Rocky prepares for battle. These sequences are a cornerstone of the series, and they're highly satisfying in this particular instalment. Following about an hour of well-paced character development and dramatic growth, the strains of Bill Conti's exceptional Gonna Fly Now begin to blare. I defy any audience member to not cheer or find their senses roaring to life as they watch Rocky jog up the front steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art once again. And, of course, the climactic fight still stirs the soul. In fact, the final bout could be the greatest in the series, evincing a more refined, mature sense of realism and emotion than prior Rocky films. Perhaps the biggest reason for this is that, for the first time, just about every punch you see is real.

Rocky Balboa does an incredible job taking us down memory lane and reminding us why we loved the original Rocky so much. Stallone returns the series to its roots in an effective way, with the tempo slowing down to allow for character development, and with gentle, poignant moments depicting Rocky as he deals with age and loss. These scenes are incredibly affecting. While Rocky Balboa is formula with a capital F, this works in the film's favour. After all, it would be silly to try and improve or update the formula (Rocky V tried and failed), as fans of the series want to see Rocky being put through the motions one last time, proving that heart, sweat and decency will forever trump ego and fancy workout equipment. The Rocky series has always been about the power of the human spirit as embodied in the title character, and Rocky Balboa continues this tradition. The only flaw is that character behaviour seems perfunctory here - Rocky's decision to get back in the ring feels more at the convenience of the script, while Rocky's son (Milo Ventimiglia) deciding to come around feels undeveloped and rote.

In Rocky Balboa, Stallone delivers some of the best acting of his career. His portrayal of Rocky is warm and nuanced, serving as a reminder of how good the star can be when he cuts down on the machismo and doesn't let vanity pick his roles. Ageing also helps Stallone humanise the character - heart and soul imbues the performance, as he regains sight of what originally made Rocky such a cultural phenomenon. This is the same Rocky we knew and loved in the '70s - he's not very bright, but he is a generous and loveable gentleman who struggles to hide his emotional pain. In writing the script, Stallone also inserts elements of his own personal philosophy, revealing his hurt at once being so highly regarded for his work before being mercilessly torn down by the same system that once celebrated him. This is exemplified most notably in a monologue Rocky delivers at one stage to his son; it's a poignant speech, one of the most affecting moments in the entire series. Meanwhile, in the supporting cast, Burt Young is his usual gruff self as Paulie, and Tony Burton is reliably solid as Duke. Young, Burton and Stallone are therefore the only actors to feature in all six Rocky films. Ventimiglia is believable as Rocky's son, while Tarver pulls off his role of Mason "The Line" Dixon with just the right amount of arrogance and machismo.

Rocky Balboa is not a gimmick, nor is it a last-ditch attempt to capitalise on the profitable series and earn a few bucks. Instead, it's an excellent, warm, engaging film, and far better than it ought to be. Stallone couldn't do much with Rocky except take him to the same places we've seen before with predominantly the same results. Yet, the film has heart, and the character has finally returned to his affable self once again. Rocky Balboa is as strong as the original film, and a fitting requiem for one of cinema's most popular heavyweights. If the series had ended with Rocky V, it would have remained a joke. With Rocky Balboa, Stallone has given Rocky a proper, dignified burial and told a genuinely heartfelt, entertaining story in the process.

8.7/10

The original Rocky from 1976 was a masterpiece. Its first follow-up, 1979's Rocky II, was a strong sequel that retained the charms of its exceptional predecessor. Rocky III and Rocky IV followed in subsequent years, and the series deteriorated into a generic, cheesy action movie series without the heart or soul that initially characterised the franchise. For Rocky V, Sylvester Stallone cut down on the '80s excess and attempted to bring the titular character back down to earth. In an attempt to guarantee success, Stallone even hired John G. Avildsen - helmer of the original Rocky - to direct. But alas, this manufactured endeavour to capture the spirit of the original is a cloying, silly, awful cinematic abortion which completely lacks everything that made the Rocky series so endearing. Rocky V is not fun, nor is it uplifting, inspiring or motivating. As a drama it falls flat on its face, and as a piece of entertainment it's a dismal failure.

Fresh from his upheaval of the evil Soviet empire in Rocky IV, Rocky Balboa (Stallone) returns to the United States to discover that his plane took ten years to land, and his son Rocky Jr. (played by Sly's son Sage) is now a teenager. Also, Rocky soon learns that he has irreparable brain damage and that all of his money has been lost by an unscrupulous financial advisor. Rocky is thus forced to retire from the ring and move back to his old low-rent neighbourhood in South Philadelphia with his wife (Shire) and son. Soon, Rocky begins coaching an up-and-coming boxer named Tommy "Machine" Gunn (Morrison).

For lack of better word, Rocky V is a piece of shit. Those unfamiliar with the franchise will find it to be a naff, badly-written, boring drama, while Rocky fans will simply be depressed about how far the series has fallen. For starters, Balboa is never in the ring - he coaches (WTF?!) while Tommy Gunn does all the boxing. Even worse is the fact that the contrived plotline about Rocky losing his insurmountable fortune boils down to Paulie mismanaging their finances. Rocky and Adrian put Paulie in charge of their money?! Plus, what the fuck happened to the characters we used to know and love? Rocky is reduced to a pathetic shell of himself, living vicariously through a young punk boxer while his son - who is hurt and confused - stands by and watches his father become an asshole. A few films ago, Rocky was a lovable, humble, kind and gentle soul. Here, his behaviour is frequently embarrassing and his verbal bluster is no longer endearing. Rocky is an idiot here who ignores his family and gets duped along the way. Unlike the other Rocky films, this entry is dark and depressing throughout, with no redeeming payoff at the end.

Due to the shift in focus and the decision to mangle the proverbial formula, all of the elements from prior Rocky movies - the underdog tale, the training montages, and the big climactic boxing fight - are absent, and the picture is worse for it. Without this stuff, the film is utterly flavourless. Even Bill Conti's score is terrible here - the trademark Rocky music was entirely excluded. Incorporating formula elements would have rendered the film by-the-numbers, sure, but at least it would have been fun. Worse, instead of a climactic boxing match, there's a street brawl that's as contrived as it is unsatisfying and cringe-worthy. On top of all this malarkey, there's a subplot about Rocky's son getting bullied at school. It's unrealistic, silly and poorly handled - essentially, kids steal Rocky Jr.'s lunch money and nobody does anything about it, so Rocky Jr. trains himself and dishes out brutal payback. Wouldn't there be consequences of such violence? Both parties could be charged for assault. Adding insult to injury, Rocky Jr. befriends the bullies after beating the snot out of them. What...the...fuck?!

It's easy to understand why Stallone chose to cast his real-life son Sage as Rocky Jr., but the boy is far older than Rocky Krakoff (who played the role in Rocky IV), and it's obvious. This film takes place immediately after the events of its predecessor, but it's impossible to believe this because of the boy's age. In addition, Sage's performance is strictly average, and the silly earrings he adopts when he turns rebellious are just laughable. And, unfortunately, Sylvester Stallone's performance as Rocky ranks among his worst as an actor. For his work here, Sly copped a wholly deserved Razzie Award nomination for Worst Actor. Talia Shire was also nominated for a Razzie, and it's not difficult to ascertain why. Shire is simply awful here - she's shrill and annoying as Adrian. Meanwhile, boxer-turned-actor Tommy Morrison is serviceable as Tommy Gunn, and Richard Gant did a reasonable job as the arrogant boxing promoter.

On the bright side, Rocky V was at least well-crafted by director Avildsen. However, the film still sucks due to the awful Razzie-nominated script that's beset with WTF moments and abysmal, cringe-worthy dialogue. While writing the script, Stallone chose to return Rocky to a life of poverty...which is exactly why this film is so wrong. What is the point of the entire series if all of Rocky's wealth is taken away at the end of it? In 2008, Stallone told BBC interviewer Jonathan Ross that if asked to assign a star rating to Rocky V, he would give it a zero. Surely that's a red flag? If you are a Rocky fan, Rocky V will drain your will to live. Give it a miss, trust me. Instead, after Rocky IV, go straight onto the far superior Rocky Balboa.

1.8/10

By this point in the Rocky series, Sylvester Stallone had transformed the once sincere and humble Rocky Balboa into a muscular action hero who has more in common with Arnold Schwarzenegger than Robert De Niro or Al Pacino. Despite this, 1985's Rocky IV is a guilty pleasure - this mind-blowingly ridiculous film is easy to enjoy due to the inclusion of so much testosterone and cheese. In this sense, the quality of Rocky IV drastically varies depending on how you perceive it. As a Rocky movie, Rocky IV is abysmal - the human element has been drained from the series, and the flick contains a number of scenes which the original Rocky from 1976 would've found repugnant. However, if judged as an '80s action film, Rocky IV scrapes a passing grade - it's just so damn entertaining, with a barrage of enjoyable pop songs, a few exhilarating boxing bouts, and manliness seeping from every pore.

In the film, a Soviet boxer named Ivan Drago (Lundgren) travels to the United States hoping to make his mark on the country. Drago is a superbly conditioned athlete who was scientifically trained in the USSR, and his people propose a fight against World Heavyweight Champion Rocky Balboa (Stallone). However, Rocky's good friend and former adversary Apollo Creed (Weathers) wants to be the first man to battle Drago in the ring. Unfortunately, Drago is too strong for Creed, and Creed is killed during the match. Rocky blames himself for the death due to his failure to throw in the towel before the crucial moment, and in an act of retribution he challenges Drago to a boxing match. With Apollo's former trainer Duke (Burton) by his side - along with his brother-in-law Paulie (Young) - Balboa travels to the USSR in order to prepare to take on Ivan Drago.

For Rocky IV, it's clear that Stallone forgot about all of the elements which made the original film such an unmitigated masterpiece. Rocky was a delightful, affecting movie populated with unique, lovable characters. Balboa was a clichéd character to be sure, but his colourful language and humble disposition made it easy to overlook the clichés. Rocky II retained these charms, but Rocky III marked a tremendous decline in quality for the franchise. And then along came Rocky IV. Punctuated by countless MTV-style musical montages, Rocky IV boasts a brilliant soundtrack, but the series has come a long way (in the wrong direction) from the human story that was the original Rocky. In fact, the title should have been Rocky IV: The Music Video, as more time is spent progressing the plot through lengthy, heavily-edited '80s-style montages than scenes of dialogue, drama or character development. At about 90 minutes, Rocky IV is the shortest entry in the series, and it's very lean. Similar to Rocky III, the antagonist comes out of nowhere, with no background or even a motivation. Meanwhile, you'll only root for Rocky based on his appearances in the first three movies.

After Rocky III, the pressure was on Sly to deliver another Rocky film before he became too old for the part (how ironic, looking back), and Rocky IV is therefore plagued with all the hallmarks of a rush-job. The dialogue is incidental and seems improvised, the acting is as mechanical as Paulie's robot, and the narrative is so painfully by-the-numbers that even those unfamiliar with the series will be able to figure out the ending a mile away. Also, Stallone appears to have cheated because he got away without actually telling a story - Rocky IV is a couple of fight scenes sandwiched between half a dozen montages. But fortunately, the film is not without its entertainment value. The formula still works, and Rocky IV is slickly-produced. The Balboa vs. Drago boxing fight is still fist-pumping and goosebump-inducing, even if it's the furthest thing from realism.

And then there's Dolph Lundgren, who looks more dopey than menacing as Ivan Drago. Dolph is a woeful actor, but at least his presence is tolerable and he delivered a few classic lines ("I must break you" is rock solid gold). However, Brigitte Nielsen - Stallone's wife of the period - was horribly miscast, and her Russian accent falls somewhere in between "woeful" and "offensive to actual Russians". In addition, Rocky IV is imbued with blatant, in-your-face jingoism which is about as subtle as one of Drago's jabs. Tunes like Living in America are on the soundtrack, while the stereotyping is offensively simplistic (USA = Good, and Russia = Evil). The pro-American propaganda is so prominent that another more appropriate title would have been Rocky IV: The Italian Stallion Enters The Cold War. Such content may have been relevant in 1985, but it's a problem that there's more flag-waving than human drama here. Added to this, it's clear that Stallone's stardom got to his head and made him slightly delusional - when the Soviets begin cheering for Rocky at the end, it's impossible not to roll one's eyes in disbelief.

Yet, while Rocky IV is atrocious from any respectable critical standpoint, it all works beautifully. The film is disposable franchise filmmaking at its best, and an exhilarating guilty pleasure - it's difficult not to love the film on some kind of juvenile level. The Rocky series had definitely run its course by this point, but Rocky IV is enjoyable if you approach it in the right mindset.

6.2/10

Against all odds, 1976’s Rocky garnered three Oscars and earned in excess of $100 million at the domestic box office from a $1 million budget. Three years later, Rocky II grossed over $200 million worldwide from a similarly small budget. Considering the immense success of these movies, a third Rocky flick was inevitable. Unfortunately, though, Rocky III - similar to the titular protagonist - was the point where the franchise became more civilised, trim and glamorous. With a shorter runtime, the character-based drama of prior Rocky movies was diminished here in favour of action and cartoonish fight scenes (just listen to the embellished sound effects). To be sure, Rocky III is enjoyable if merely perceived as a cheesy '80s action movie, but it's not exactly a worthy follow-up to the Oscar-winning 1976 original.

Like Rocky II, this third Rocky picture kicks off with a brief recap of the climax of its immediate predecessor; reminding us that Rocky Balboa (Stallone) has defeated Apollo Creed (Weathers) and earned the title of Heavyweight Champion of the World. Following this recap, a brisk montage illustrates the next few years of Rocky's boxing career as he defends his title and basks in the trappings of fame, wealth and success. At the top of his profession, Rocky decides to retire from the ring. However, an aggressive, arrogant up-and-coming boxer named Clubber Lang (Mr. T) possesses a genuine hunger for the title, and begins bullying Balboa into agreeing to fight him. Pride and complacency leads to a boxing match between Lang and Rocky, but Rocky ends up losing the match to his merciless competitor. With the title lost and his trainer Mickey (Meredith) dead, Rocky is depressed, humiliated and has lost his passion for boxing. However, Apollo Creed soon steps into the picture and offers to train Rocky for a rematch against Lang.

During the three-year gap between Rocky II and Rocky III, Sylvester Stallone slimmed down his body and built up a lot of muscle to turn himself into a lean, mean fighting machine. It would seem that the star applied a similar philosophy to this movie, which he again scripted. Rocky III is a lean movie - it's twenty minutes shorter than its two predecessors, and the focus is more on boxing action and confrontations. Elements such as character progression, dramatic growth and insightful dialogue were kept to a minimum here. Furthermore, by this point in the series Stallone was happy to follow the same old boring formula, and in the process neglected the heart and soul that allowed the first two movies to belie their formulaic nature. For lack of better word, Rocky III is a commercial vehicle which situates the trademark Rocky characters within a simplistic revenge tale. It almost goes without saying that character behaviour in the film is predictable to the point of being groan-worthy, and the outcome of the climactic boxing match can be figured out long before it occurs.

On the upside, Rocky III benefits immensely by the presence of Mr. T and Hulk Hogan. The boxing/wrestling crossover which constitutes Hogan's cameo is absurd, but it's fun and enjoyable nevertheless. Meanwhile, the Mr. T vs. Rocky battles are entertaining, well-crafted and fist-pumping. Not to mention, Mr. T is the true highlight of this feature. With his mohawk and feather earrings, Mr. T is a brutal beast to behold, and, though his performance is single-note, his presence affords the film a touch of personality. After all, Mr. T's role is more convincing as a boxer than Carl Weathers' Apollo Creed who was more of a showman. And it was here where Mr. T first uttered the immortal line "I pity the fool". Added to this, Rocky III was produced before Mr. T shot to fame as the popular B.A. Baracus in The A-Team, and thus it's interesting to watch this film in an historical sense. Another of the movie's greatest assets is the famous Survivor song Eye of the Tiger, which subsequently became a radio staple and was catapulted to the top of the charts. The song remains a widespread favourite to this day.

While Mr. T is a fun villain, the depiction of Rocky Balboa is unfortunately lacking in this particular instalment. As presented here, Rocky has lost a degree of his lovable edge. Not to mention, Stallone's performance is lazy and, at times, utterly naff. For an example of this, witness Stallone moping over Mickey's corpse - it's almost painful to see acting that woeful. Despite this - and despite the film's cheesiness, simplicity and lack of human drama, as well as its adherence to a painfully familiar formula - Rocky III still delivers a number of the pleasures associated with the series. It's slick, polished, fun to watch, overflowing with testosterone, and it will motivate you to go out and exercise.

6.2/10

Back in 1976, nobody had anticipated Rocky to be the commercial success that it turned out to be, particularly on account of its minuscule budget and lack of big stars. Yet, over the course of a few months, the film was catapulted from an unremarkable minor release to a full-blown phenomenon. Thus, with the unexpected success in mind, the inevitable sequel was ordered by the studio, which Sylvester Stallone not only wrote and starred in but also directed. Unlike most sequels to excellent films, 1979's Rocky II is a worthy follow-up - the heart and soul of the original was successfully replicated, and the film progresses the story of Rocky's life in a believable fashion. While unable to achieve the daunting brilliance of its predecessor, Rocky II is a solid motion picture which in no way tarnishes the 1976 original.

Following a brisk replay of the climax of Rocky, this sequel begins where the original ended, with Rocky Balboa (Stallone) and World Heavyweight Champion Apollo Creed (Weathers) being rushed to hospital with critical injuries sustained during their 15-round boxing match. As both fighters were left standing after the bout, Creed was declared winner by split decision, yet victory is not so sweet for Creed - in ensuing months, Apollo's fans begin to taunt him that the match was fixed, while others believe that Balboa should have been declared champion. Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the fight, Rocky enjoys his financial success and announces his retirement from boxing. However, he ultimately begins to struggle in the new life he has made for himself, and realises he can no longer escape his true calling. With Apollo longing for a rematch and with family resources rapidly dwindling, Rocky makes the decision to get back into the ring with Creed.

For fans of the Rocky series, Rocky II is the forgotten franchise entry - it's not as brilliant as the first movie, but not as flashy or cheesy as later entries. People often brand Rocky II as the most depressing film in the series, as well, since a lot of the subplots delve into pretty heavy territory, with Adrian in a coma and Rocky struggling to adjust to his affluent lifestyle. Fortunately, this is balanced with moments of tender humour (including a hilarious set-piece involving a chicken) as well as a very uplifting and poignant finale. The only area where Rocky II severely falters is in the narrative - it's more or less a rehash of the first movie, and character behaviour is far more predictable. Seeing the burgeoning family dynamic and watching how Rocky reacts to his sudden influx of money is definitely interesting, but the core conflict - Adrian's reluctance to see Rocky get back into the ring - is underdeveloped and rather perfunctory.

Due to the huge success of Rocky, Stallone had more money to play with for this follow-up and it shows - the film looks cleaner, brighter and smoother. With all of the rough edges of the original movie hewn away, though, it means Rocky II lacks the grimy authentic edge that made its forerunner such a standout. Additionally, Stallone took the reigns as director here, but his work cannot match up to the efforts of John G. Avildsen (helmer of Rocky) in terms of pacing, and thus Rocky II tends to grow a tad dull at times. With that said, however, the original Rocky was so good due to it being a character drama rather than a sports film, and Rocky II retained that approach commendably. It digs deeper into Rocky's relationship with others, and the two-hour runtime comfortably accommodates scenes of character development. More importantly, Rocky II is a tremendously uplifting and motivating film. The training montages and the finale are incredibly affecting in addition to being fun to watch. Bill Conti's once-again exceptional score heightens the film's emotionality, as well. Added to this, the final boxing match is notably well-crafted. None of the other boxing matches in the series are as brutal, visceral, sweaty or nail-biting as the climax of Rocky II.

One primary factor which makes Rocky II so endearing is Sylvester Stallone's tender, finely-tuned portrayal of Rocky Balboa. The character is generous, humble and disciplined. He's a loving husband and good friend to boot. Up against the cardboard heroes of many other action movies, Rocky stands out as a true champion. It's worth noting that there's a scene leading up to the boxing match wherein Rocky bellows to a priest, asking him for a prayer in case he gets badly injured in the fight. Afterwards, he cheerfully tells the priest he'll see him on Sunday. It's a natural, lovely scene which reminds us why the character resonates so well - it's the sincerity behind him. He may not be bright, but he's a man you can feel nothing but sympathy and love for. Meanwhile, virtually every cast member of the original film made their return here. The standout is Burgess Meredith who's excellent as Mickey, while Carl Weathers is also great as Apollo Creed. Talia Shire and Burt Young additionally carried out what was required of them as Adrian and Paulie (respectively), with satisfying results.

It would be easy to brand Rocky II as a sequel that was produced purely for financial reasons, yet the film is far better than these superficial observations might suggest. It may not be as exceptional as the 1976 original, but there's heart and soul here, and the inspiring climax is guaranteed to trigger goosebumps.

8.1/10

The Rocky series may have ultimately degenerated into a flashy, soulless boxing franchise, but this first instalment is unlike the majority of its follow-ups - it is a remarkable, heartfelt, inspirational sports drama and a poignant character study concerning the determination of one man. It's easy to dismiss Rocky as just a motion picture about boxing, yet it works on several levels - the film is an inspiring fable of the underdog, a warm love story, and a dramatic tale of unrealised dreams all wrapped into one. While a low-budget picture without major backing, Rocky was a hit; earning a mint at the box office, transforming Sylvester Stallone into a star, and collecting three Academy Awards (Best Director, Best Editing, and Best Picture). The weight of multiple sequels and several imitators may have tarnished Rocky, but the movie nonetheless stands as a true highlight of classic American filmmaking, and one of the greatest movies of all time.

Rocky is the story of the Philadelphia inhabitant Rocky Balboa (Stallone), who earns a living by partaking in small-time boxing matches and working as an enforcer for a local loan shark. Whenever Rocky is not in the ring or twisting the arms of indebt Philadelphia residents, he socialises with the shy, reserved Adrian (Shire) and her brother Paulie (Young). By all accounts, Rocky's life is unremarkable, but he is soon given the chance of a lifetime. Heavyweight boxing champion Apollo Creed (Weathers) is seeking an opponent for his next fight, and decides that giving a low-ranked boxer a shot at the title would be a terrific publicity stunt. Apollo chooses Rocky on account of his moniker “The Italian Stallion”, and believes the fight will be a walk in the park. Rocky, on the other hand, perceives the fight as an opportunity to go the distance with the champ and gain some respect.

Sylvester Stallone's inspiration for Rocky was derived from the boxing bout between Muhammad Ali and Chuck Wepner. In the 1970s, Wepner was a low-ranked boxer who surprised everybody (and probably bankrupted a few bookies, too) when he almost lasted 15 rounds in the ring with Ali while the champion was still wearing his belt. Impressed by Wepner's determination, Stallone (with a measly $106 in his bank account) worked in his kitchen to pen the screenplay for Rocky in 86 hours. He soon began shopping around the script, and insisted that he be the one to star as Rocky instead of a big-name actor. Producers Irwin Winkler and Robert Chartoff ultimately agreed, and the movie was filmed in 28 days on a diminutive $1 million budget. The rest, as they say, is history. While Stallone faced ridicule in subsequent years for ham-fisted acting within brain-dead action films, it cannot be denied that he created a magnetic character in Rocky Balboa; a figure whom many perceived as an inspiration to overcome the ostensibly impossible in their own lives. Rocky may adhere to clichés, but Stallone managed to effectively apply them in a way that captivated viewers and did not seem over-the-top.

The brilliance of Rocky is that it's primarily a drama concentrating on characters rather than sports. It would be erroneous to state that the climactic boxing match is unimportant (it is the centrepiece), but the production is not just about the action. In the lead-up to Rocky's match with Apollo, time is spent developing Rocky as a person. He is not traditional hero material - he's boorish, somewhat dumb, and has limited aspirations. Yet, there's something inherently endearing about Rocky, mainly due to the gentle, caring way he treats his new girlfriend Adrian. The relationship between Rocky and Adrian affords the film its emotional core, and it's key to making the ending so triumphant. Plus, it is a joy watching Rocky progress through the proceedings with confidence in himself while at the same time realising his limitations. Several dramatic moments within Rocky have been mocked over the years in parodies and knock-offs, yet it's still easy to let yourself be absorbed by this masterful film.

Rocky is widely considered to be Sylvester Stallone's movie since he wrote the screenplay, played the protagonist, and choreographed the boxing sequences. However, he did not direct the movie - John G. Avildsen was at the helm. Avildsen was a director of no particular distinction in 1976, yet the success of Rocky propelled him to a moderately rewarding career. And Avildsen's efforts should not be underestimated - while Stallone deserves some credit for generating the film's heart, Avildsen's directorial work was equally beneficial. Most impressive is the climactic fight, which in the hands of Avildsen feels like a real boxing match. There's a great deal of tension, too - you do not know who will emerge victorious. The definitive touch was Bill Conti's music. With an exceptional main theme, an equally exceptional title song (the Oscar-nominated Gonna Fly Now), and an all-round engaging score, Conti's contributions topped off the movie immaculately.

Prior to his performance in Rocky, Sylvester Stallone was virtually an unknown. Yet, this movie launched Stallone's acting career that catapulted him to the highest orbit of action stars where he ranked among the highest paid actors in Hollywood. In Rocky, Stallone displayed legitimate acting talent, and even acquired an Oscar nomination. He truly brought the titular role to life in endearing ways. We love Rocky not just because he's an underdog but because he's honest, caring, generous, humble and disciplined. It's nothing short of amazing that Stallone created a schmalzy character and a maudlin story, yet made the elements feel completely believable rather than sugar-coated. The supporting cast, meanwhile, is comprised of a number of low-profile actors. Burgess Meredith is a standout as Mickey; the old timer who trains Rocky. A colourful and tough performance, Meredith pulled off the role with commendable passion and conviction. Also in the cast is Talia Shire, who was known at the time for her role in the Godfather movies. Shire's performance as Adrian is tender and endearing - it's easy to understand Rocky's love for her. And as Apollo Creed, Carl Weathers is terrific, while Burt Young is excellent as Paulie.

Decades on, a lot of cynical movie-goers and critics still proclaim that Rocky did not deserve Best Picture at the 1977 Academy Awards over two of its competitors, Taxi Driver and Network. Nonetheless, this reviewer whole-heartedly believes that Rocky deserved Best Picture. Not only was it arguably better than its competitors, but the movie, like its protagonist, was the underdog - this low-budget film grabbing the Best Picture Oscar was as unlikely as Rocky going the distance with Apollo Creed. Added to this, the film was an allegory for Stallone's life in the mid-'70s. Prior to '76, Stallone was a low-ranked actor, but Rocky gave him the opportunity to become a big star. Much like what happened to Rocky Balboa, the gamble paid off. The film's success even spawned five sequels, beginning with Rocky II in 1979.

10/10

Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes production company have so far produced remakes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Amityville Horror, The Hitcher and Friday the 13th, so it was only a matter of time before they tackled A Nightmare on Elm Street. However, what should have been the best remake of the bunch (considering the legacy, characters, themes and ideas of the series) is instead a motion picture with no purpose, rhythm or heart. Music video director Samuel Bayer and the duo of screenwriters simply recreated a few famous scenes from the original Nightmare on Elm Street and positioned them in the midst of a barely-cohesive narrative surrounded by subpar acting, dull characters, uneven pacing, generic atmosphere, and a Freddy Krueger who looks more like a deformed space alien. Wes Craven's original film was a chilling, creative horror flick concerned with female empowerment, but this remake/reimagining is a standard slasher picture with tragically watered-down character nuance.

In the film, teenager Dean (Lutz) begins complaining of visions of a badly burned figure stalking him in his dreams, but his claims are dismissed as side effects of his medication. However, when he appears to kill himself at a roadside diner, Dean's friends begin to suspect that he may not have been so crazy after all. Soon, a bunch of local teens find that they, too, are all being hunted by a horribly burned, disfigured slasher named Freddy Krueger (Haley) who's armed with razor-sharp blades lining his right-hand glove. If Freddy kills you in your sleep, you die for real. With the neighbourhood parents seemingly withholding information regarding Freddy's true identity, Nancy (Mara) and her friend Quentin (Gallner) set out on their own; desperate to stay awake while hunting for the reason as to why Freddy is pursuing them.

Despite what you may believe, Wes Craven's original A Nightmare on Elm Street was more about Nancy than Freddy. Nancy was the central focus, while Krueger was the demon in the background that motivated events without being at their centre. Unfortunately, because Krueger developed into such a recognisable figure across the '80s and '90s, he was allotted a more prominent role in this new version. Alas, greater exposure diminishes Freddy's impact. It's also worth noting that A Nightmare on Elm Street is not a franchise that will take to a reboot easily. Much of the appeal of the original film was rooted in its '80s, identity, from the virginal valour of the protagonists to the safety and protection of the suburban setting which Freddy penetrated with joy. This is 2010, and things have changed. To be fair to the film, though, it's not explicitly a remake of the 1984 picture - the thrust of the story in this version veers away from the original, and it openly questions Freddy's guilt while portraying the adult characters as possibly villainous rather than manically overprotective.

Director Samuel Bayer has an impressive résumé of music videos, and was personally recruited by Michael Bay for the project. Unfortunately, Bayer was considerably more concerned with refining the visuals of the film than adequately developing the characters or helping the actors bring them to life in a convincing fashion. A Nightmare on Elm Street hastily sprints into conflict without developing the community of characters or even offering so much as a hello. In particular, Nancy gets the shaft in terms of characterisation. While this new Nightmare on Elm Street is visually appealing and thus fairly enjoyable from start to finish, the film is unable to sustain momentum or create enough genuine tension. There's no reason to care about the one-dimensional caricatures which are passed off as the heroes, and consequently there's no emotional kick or any nail-biting Freddy attack scenes.

For a reimagining, 2010's A Nightmare on Elm Street is disastrously low on creativity, too. Most detrimental is the lack of genuinely memorable kills and gore in general - the kills are all workmanlike and unremarkable. This is especially unforgivable considering that even the weakest Nightmare sequels boasted a few creative scenarios. Additionally, several iconic images and moments from the 1984 film were recreated here, but these only serve to provide the movie with a frequent "been there, done that" feel. They also seem cold and routine, and, while slick in appearance, they are less impressive than the practical effects used in Craven's original. In the original, the image of Freddy appearing out of the wall above Nancy's bed was achieved practically. In this 2010 version, the image was achieved with obvious-looking digital effects, and it weakens the impact. The filmmakers behind A Nightmare on Elm Street clearly banked on making money by capitalising on the name and general appearance of Craven's film, but neglected to replicate the underlying spirit that made the original picture such a genre classic.

In terms of acting, the standout is Jackie Earle Haley who delivered a suitably intense performance as Freddy. Fortunately, it does not feel like a simple retread of Robert Englund's work in the role - it's a laudable interpretation, and his voice is menacing. However, the make-up is unimpressive - Haley looks vaguely reptilian, like an old man with a bad skin condition. Apparently the aim was to make Freddy resemble a real burn victim, but why is "reality" important in a movie which deals so forcefully in dreams?
As for Rooney Mara as Nancy, the actress is awful; mumbling her lines and transforming the role into a mopey wuss. Mara conjures up no sense of personality or bafflement - she simply stares at her equally monotonous co-stars. Kyle Gallner is tolerable as the potential love interest for Mara's Nancy, but both Kellan Lutz and Katie Cassidy are dreadful in addition to looking far too old to be playing teenagers. Perhaps there's another Johnny Depp to be found in this cast (Depp was, after all, unimpressive in Craven's original), but that's unlikely.

The magic of the original 1984 film was Freddy's monster status and the way that this hysteria generated a neighbourhood mood of confusion and bewilderment. Bayer's 2010 reimagining is only interested in the gore shots that Freddy brings, rather than the curse of Freddy. This leads to the ultimate point about the film: it's watchable, but disposable, unnecessary and unremarkable, and it pales in comparison to the cherished original.

4.1/10

Knight and Day was blessed with all of the constituents to make a successful summer blockbuster, with big action scenes, a plot encouraging global warfare, and two popular, attractive stars with an assured click of chemistry. It's certainly difficult to argue with the package. And for a while, the film capitalises on its potential, but it soon deteriorates into a forgetful, laboured motion picture which is clearly unsure of what it aspires to be. Knight and Day fails to snowball into a rollicking good time; instead, it only adrenalises in small doses, and is ultimately unable to build momentum or take advantage of everything it has to offer.

The story begins at the airport, with June Havens (Diaz) and Roy Miller (Cruise) literally bumping into one another on a couple of occasions. Eventually, they find themselves conversing on the same flight that's bound for Boston. On the plane, Roy reveals himself to be a particularly skilled secret agent accused of going rogue. Reluctantly, Roy takes June with him as he sets out to both defend himself and protect an energy-sustaining battery created by a teenaged genius (Dano). From there, the film hops, skips and bounces all over the world as Roy evades various American agents and an army of assassins led by a European arms dealer (Mollà) who are out to get him.

For roughly its first 45 minutes, Knight and Day lives up to and surpasses expectations. A slick action-comedy-romance hybrid, it's possible to be intrigued and delighted by the snappy dialogue, James Mangold's smooth direction, and the palpable chemistry between Cruise and Diaz. The tone is right, the action is excellent, the pace is brisk, and it's engaging when we do not know where the film is headed. However, after this period, the film falls apart; degenerating into a laboured, tedious hodgepodge of ludicrous ideas, extraneous globetrotting and sloppy storytelling. The screenwriting is unbelievably lazy - on several occasions, Roy and June are in the midst of an action scene before June is drugged or knocked out, and the film cuts to a new location without letting us see how the conflict ends. Action scenes and connective tissue are missing. Furthermore, there are dead spots and the film outstays its welcome - it feels as if the material is being stretched out too much. Eventually the film ends with a whimper, with an underwhelming action sequence followed by a conclusion that's so sugar-coated it could rot your teeth. Watching Knight and Day is the equivalent of devouring a delicious bowl of chocolate ice cream before eating a plain rice-cake.

The films helmed by director James Mangold - Walk the Line, 3:10 to Yuma, Girl, Interrupted, and Kate & Leopold - display an inclination towards stories about characters in intense relationships or situations. Knight and Day continues this tradition, though in a far less serious manner than Mangold's prior features. To the credit of Mangold, the action was excellently shot and edited. There's no lazy shaky-cam or rapid-fire editing - instead, there are just coherent action set-pieces you can see and be involved in. Also, the film works with crackerjack glee at times; never taking itself too seriously during the cartoonishly over-the-top action sequences, and letting viewers in on the joke. With that said, the digital effects are atrocious - it's as though the effects artists were actively trying to get people to stop watching the movie. For a big-budgeted blockbuster, this is especially disappointing. Additionally, for an action-comedy, Knight and Day does not offer nearly enough comedy. The best lines were all in the trailer.

Tom Cruise is easily film's biggest asset. For the first time in years, Cruise has regained the form that allowed him to become one of the biggest stars of the '80s and '90s. While watching Cruise slip effortlessly into this role and willingly lampoon his Mission: Impossible character, it's easy to forget the actor's irrational off-screen behaviour and ludicrous tabloid-fodder personal life. Knight and Day is vintage Cruise in the best sense of the word, with the smile and a devilish twinkle in his eye that recalls the early days of his career. Between this and 2008's Tropic Thunder, Cruise has wisely utilised humour as a way to ingratiate himself back into people's good graces after his couch-hopping incident. At the other end of the spectrum, however, Cameron Diaz is not so impressive. June mostly stands aside and squeals, though Diaz made the most of what the role is. Meanwhile, supporting players such as Peter Sarsgaard, Viola Davis, Paul Dano and Maggie Grace are unfortunately wasted in thankless, underdeveloped roles.

Knight and Day is a motion picture of two parts. The first is a superb, jokey action-comedy which will run your hopes high about what's to come. However, what comes next is a real downer; a rote, half-hearted, familiar-feeling escapade with narrative imbalance and middling energy levels. The action becomes perfunctory, while the romance is sidelined until the end. A superior film is lurking on the fringes of the final product, and it's too bad that there are only a few glimpses of the magic that could have been. Oh, and please note that the title makes no sense. The "Knight" sort of comes into play, but there's no reason for the "Day" attachment. As a whole, the title of Knight and Day is meaningless. Nine writers (eight uncredited) worked on the script, yet they could not paste together something decent or even slap it with a worthwhile title. What a mess.

5.1/10

After rendering audiences momentarily brain-dead and polluting multiplexes back in 2008 with the positively apocalyptic one-two punch of Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie, I honestly thought and hoped those movies would be the end of the writer-director duo of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Unfortunately, Hollywood is always on the hunt for a fast buck, and thus the go-to spoof movie hacks have made their return with the unreasonably woeful Vampires Suck. This time, the sights were set on the easiest target imaginable: the Twilight saga. The material here is played far more broadly than in the actual Twilight films, but is somehow even worse than the Stephenie Meyer adaptations - and even less funny. Once again, Friedberg and Seltzer relied on jokes which relate to people getting kicked, punched, smacked in the face and beaten up, and such "humour" is unable to compete with the painfully sincere cornball dialogue found in the real Twilight flicks.

After her mother abandons her to pursue Tiger Woods, Becca (Proske) moves to the small town of Sporks to live with her estranged sheriff father (Bader). In Sporks, the vampire population is rampant. At her new high school, Becca is inexplicably drawn to the brooding, pale-faced vampire Edward Sullen (Lanter). (Get it? Sullen? It rhymes with Cullen, and describes the faggot vampire in a truthful manner.) Soon, for no good reason, Edward falls for Becca, but leaves town when he gets frightened about what might happen if they get too close. Hoping to divert Becca's gaze is the burgeoning werewolf Jacob (Riggi) who's madly in love with Becca for no good reason other than because the plot demands it. With prom right around the corner, the twisted love triangle is destined to come to a head.

To begrudgingly offer a glimmer of positivity, Vampires Suck is the best film that Friedberg and Seltzer have unleashed upon movie-goers. For starters, the production values are slightly improved and borderline impressive. Secondly, there's something resembling a narrative here as opposed to an incoherent succession of barely-connected sketches. On that note, the film manages to highlight the long-winded nature of Twilight - the first two films are condensed into 80 minutes here, and nothing important feels excluded. Also, with a few exceptions, Vampires Suck is primarily a spoof of the Twilight movies, as opposed to previous spoof flicks which were grab-bags of anything that had been culturally significant within the past year. However, this is all faint praise, as Friedberg and Seltzer's concept of what constitutes a parody movie remains unchanged. For Vampires Suck, the duo did what they always do: they crammed in as much product placement as possible, included a barrage of uncreative gags, and smashed the ensemble in the face. The makers clearly adore body trauma, as it constitutes 70% of the humour. It's not remotely amusing, but Friedberg and Seltzer firmly believe that brutality equals laughter, and nothing can persuade the morons otherwise.

Making fun of Twilight is the equivalent of fishing with dynamite, but Friedberg and Seltzer were unable to conceive of any humour that's worth a damn. Their idea of comedy is to replicate key scenes from the Twilight movies and conclude said scenes with something colossally unfunny such as a crude sex joke or someone getting smacked in the head. Whenever Friedberg and Seltzer grew tired of this approach, they reverted back to groan-worthy piss-takes against Indians or Canadians, or tabloid mainstays like Lindsay Lohan and Chris Brown. There are even references to unrelated items such as Dear John, Alice in Wonderland, Gossip Girl and even Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the Buffy lookalike is so woeful that the joke had to be blatantly spelt out). Even with all of this filler, the film barely makes it to feature-length status. There's a lot of painfully unfunny and depressingly pedestrian stuff, too. For instance, Jacob's werewolf clan are a pack of dancing homosexuals, and Becca's dad has a relationship with a blow-up sex doll. Worse, the humour is never so stupid it's funny, but so stupid that it's just very, very stupid.

Furthermore, some jokes don't even make sense. For instance, one of the Sullens goes crazy when Becca gets a paper cut and starts bleeding. The gag is that he's so hungry that he envisions Becca's head as a Big Mac. This is illogical, though, as vampires do not like or eat Big Macs. It's like Elmer Fudd envisioning Daffy Duck as a bag of blood rather than a roast duck. Even worse is the fact that Vampires Suck is unable to truly mock the "acting" work of the Twilight heartthrobs (Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner and Robert Pattinson). Anyone familiar with any of the Twilight movies will recognise the blatant flaws in all of their performances which are perfect for ridicule. Instead, Friedberg and Seltzer aimed low...and still missed. Why skilled performers such as Ken Jeong and Diedrich Bader are here is anybody's guess. It's uncomfortable witnessing these talented stars floundering on camera looking distinctly embarrassed. Added to this, all of the actors appear to be in on the joke, which makes it far less funny. They appear to be broadly mugging for laughs, and that's exactly why they aren't funny.

Running at about 80 minutes, Vampires Suck is so empty-headed and lacking in everything that it fast becomes an interminable endurance test. To quote YouTube reviewer Jeremy Jahns, the film "has the comedic appeal of an Al Qaeda hostage video". Oddly enough, 2010 denotes the 30th anniversary of the best spoof movie in history: Airplane!, which was masterminded by the ZAZ trio (David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker). Three decades on, and the art-form has disintegrated into this numb-skulled nonsense. How bad is Vampires Suck? It's worse than all of the Twilight movies so far, that's for sure. It's also so bad that those who passionately hate Twilight will come away thinking that the saga deserves a better spoof than this.

0.8/10

It must not have been difficult to obtain the green light for 2010's Red. All the correct elements for a lively, successful action-comedy were in place - it's based on a graphic novel, and the cast is comprised of a number of excellent actors who are now in their autumnal years. The cast is by far the biggest selling point of the enterprise, but this half-hearted action-comedy merely proves that even Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren, John Malkovich, Brian Cox, Karl Urban, Ernest Borgnine and Richard Dreyfuss cannot enliven an incredibly substandard screenplay and a boring storyline. Despite the cast, director Robert Schwentke (Flightplan) infused Red with an appalling sense of kinetic movement - the film alternates between stale, static dialogue scenes and hyper-stylised action set-pieces. With boredom perpetually setting in between the sprays of bullets, the film is forgettable and underwhelming.

Retired black-ops CIA agent Frank Moses (Willis) is having trouble adapting to his new mundane lifestyle in the suburbs of Cleveland. The best thing in his life is a phone relationship with Sarah (Parker), a daydreaming government employee. When a hit squad attacks Frank's home and attempts to assassinate him, he realises that something is afoot, and slips back into action in order to investigate. After picking up Sarah to protect her, Frank's investigation leads to him discovering that there's a special list targeting him for assassination. For assistance in cracking the mystery, Frank recruits his old pals Joe (Freeman), Victoria (Mirren), and Marvin (Malkovich). Assigned to hunt Frank down is CIA agent William Cooper (Urban), who soon learns of Frank's RED status, or "Retired, Extremely Dangerous". Eventually the convoluted plot ends up involving the United States Vice President (McMahon) and a rich industrialist (Dreyfuss).

Based on Warren Ellis' comic book series, Red is hindered by an unnecessarily convoluted plotline filled with betrayals, conspiracies and assassinations. Evidently this confused director Schwentke, who was visibly keen to liven things up during the action scenes but was unaware of how to handle the clunky story which he had to tend to before the serious bloodshed could commence. Unfortunately, the screenplay is not as limber or lively as Schwentke would like, and the result is a motion picture that succeeds in the surface details but is a ponderous bore in terms of suspense and intrigue. Red simply limps along, with Schwentke unable to grapple with the tonal shifts or inject requisite energy into the dialogue scenes. Humour beats are generally held too long and feel out-of-place, while actors such as Dreyfuss and Malkovich appear to be given free reign to mug as much as they like. When it wants to be, Red is fun enough, and it certainly has its moment from time to time. It's therefore unfortunate that there's far too much narrative flab and not nearly enough action, wit or energy.

To the credit of the makers behind Red, the film begins with promise. It opens with an interesting examination of Frank's struggle to settle down into a suburban lifestyle after years of dedicating himself to his profession. Screenwriters Joe and Erich Hoeber afforded a welcome sense of humour to these early scenes, and the phone flirtations between Frank and Sarah are pleasant enough. Had the script continued to concentrate on Frank and Sarah's relationship once their lives come under fire, Red might have proved to be something special. Instead, the interplay fades into the background as the humdrum story takes centre stage and the supporting characters are introduced. And the larger the story gets, the further it drifts from the good stuff. It's hardly surprising that the script is so anaemic, flat and disjointed, as Joe and Erich Hoeber were also responsible for the woefully inert 2009 actioner Whiteout.

Bruce Willis was clearly on autopilot in the lead role of Frank Moses. Willis adopted his typical screen persona, but his work is distinctly dry - he seems uninterested, and there are not nearly enough one-liners for Willis to disperse. In fact, the star's cameo appearance in The Expendables, which amounted to five minutes, had more worthwhile humour. Also in the film for the pay-cheques are Morgan Freeman and Helen Mirren, whose roles are strictly one-dimensional. John Malkovich appears to be playing an extension of his role from Burn After Reading, but he was tragically restricted by the PG-13 rating which forbade extensive profanity. Mary-Louise Parker, meanwhile, is amiable enough. However, the less said about the remainder of the cast, the better - even Richard Dreyfuss and Brian Cox are boring. Urban is compelling enough, but he does not truly own the role - he's very interchangeable.

Red is long-winded, predictable, conventional and monotonous. It's also irretrievably neutered due to the PG-13 rating - it constantly feels as if the film is pulling punches, with awkward cutaways to avoid capturing bloodshed, and people just dropping to the ground without any discernible bullet-wounds. With the freedom of an R-rating (the picture was produced for a mere $50 million, after all), Red could have been superior - if ever so slightly. But this is half the problem. The other half is the lack of sparkling wit in the screenplay. With all intrigue having faded by the third act, the film becomes a sluggish chore which takes too long to reach its climax. The action beats are at times enjoyable, but there are too many potholes in the pace to justify seeing the film in its entirety.

3.8/10