Reviews by PvtCaboose91

Romance sells at the box office. Stephanie Meyer (the Twilight saga) knows this, Nicholas Sparks (The Notebook) knows it, and all of Hollywood knows it. 2010's Dear John is exactly the type of romantic tearjerker to be expected from an adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel, and it's awful. Look, I admit that this film was not made with me in mind - it's doubtful that the filmmakers told themselves "Let's make this film for a young bloke with a proclivity for hardcore action films". On the other hand, though, I'm not immune to the pleasures of a terrific romance - Titanic is among my favourites, and I'm one of the five people on the Earth who'll defend Meet Joe Black and Australia. But pulling off a successful romance requires a deft touch, and such skill eluded the filmmakers responsible for Dear John.

On leave from military service, Special Forces Sergeant John Tyree (Tatum) returns home to visit his distant father (Jenkins) while also spending time riding the ocean waves. In typical meet cute fashion, John meets college student Savannah (Seyfried), and over the course of a fortnight their relationship rapidly blossoms. Following their initial two weeks together, John returns to active duty and Savannah returns to school. Swearing to one another that their relationship will continue through letters, John and Savannah pour their hearts into their correspondence in the hope that a year apart will seem like weeks instead of months. The romance is again threatened, though, when the 9/11 terrorist attacks unfold and John chooses duty over Savannah in order to re-enlist for further military service.

In the past, director Lasse Hallström has proved to be a superior purveyor of weepy dramas, with What's Eating Gilbert Grape and Chocolat being two esteemed inclusions on his filmography. Dear John, however, is hindered by an overwhelming sense of obviousness. In the hands of Hallström, the film yanks on the heartstrings in practically every scene (Kleenex likely financed the production), yet it's seldom effective - most people may prefer a barf bag instead of a tissue. The writing is atrocious and unfocused as well - once John is back in the Special Forces, the film merely becomes a succession of voiceovers snippets which vocalise the characters' letter-writing while cheesy music frequently intrudes. There are visual accompaniments too, including a montage illustrating the workings of the mail system. Once this formula is exhausted, 9/11 occurs. After John re-enlists, Dear John is further sapped of focus. The screenwriters were clearly unsure of where to take the story - the romance degenerates into a bittersweet afterthought as the emphasis is placed on John's military experiences and his relationship with his father.

Lack of talent aside, the primary problem with Dear John is its clichéd framework and the "been there, done that" vibe that pervades the material. We've seen it all before: the 'kissing in the rain' courtship, the careful, tasteful sex scene, the strain of a long-distance relationship, and so on. Of course, conventions are inevitable and there's nothing wrong with using them per se, but the film is utterly flavourless, hence the conventional nature is hard to forgive. And, while no major spoilers will be divulged, the manipulative nature of Dear John becomes increasingly irritating as well. At one point, a viewer is basically asked not to sympathise with a nice man with cancer; in fact the film expects us to hope for his death. We're expected to buy all of these ludicrous developments and to follow the convenient narrative path, but there's nothing worthwhile to latch onto. The film is a groaning bore.

In terms of acting, none of the performers are worth writing home about. Channing Tatum further demonstrated his limited acting abilities here with this below-par performance: he's stiff as a board, and he recited all his lines as if reading them off a cue card for the first time. Girls may make a case about Tatum being pleasing eye candy (God knows Twilight fans use the argument of "hot boys" in the defence of those putrid films), yet the star has all the acting talent of a fire hydrant. Featuring as Savannah, Amanda Seyfried neither disappoints nor exceeds expectations; she's just there, and at no time does she make an impact or come across as a poor actress. There are a few specific performances that shine, however - Henry Thomas is quite impressive, and Richard Jenkins is excellent as John's father. Then again, Richard Jenkins is always excellent.

While Dear John is not entirely bad from a technical perspective, it does not excel in any area. If you enjoy these kinds of formulaic romance tragedies, you may find something to enjoy here, but there's little of interest for a wider audience. That's the best summary I can offer you.

3.2/10

What do you get when you merge Paul Verhoeven's proclivity for ultraviolent cinema with the characteristics of an Arnold Schwarzenegger action vehicle? The answer is 1990's Total Recall, an exciting, thought-provoking, violent and delightfully entertaining science fiction action classic. With a screenplay credited to Ronald Shusett (Dead & Buried), Dan O'Bannon (Alien), and Gary Goldman (Big Trouble in Little China), Total Recall is an adaptation of Philip K. Dick's 1966 short story We Can Remember It For You Wholesale, and the project's decades-long journey from page to screen was arduous and uncertain. After falling through the hands of David Cronenberg, Bruce Beresford, Russell Mulcahy, Walt Disney, and a bankrupt Dino De Laurentiis, Schwarzenegger convinced Carolco Pictures to purchase the rights and make the movie with him in the lead role. Additionally, after Verhoeven's work on 1987's RoboCop (for which Schwarzenegger was considered in the lead role), the filmmaker was Arnie's top pick to helm the project. Fortunately, Total Recall successfully came to fruition in this form, and the resulting movie is a thrilling futuristic action blockbuster with imaginative production design and philosophical underpinnings to supplement the spectacle.

A mild-mannered construction worker, Douglas Quaid (Arnold Schwarzenegger) experiences recurring dreams about another life on Mars with a mysterious woman, much to the chagrin of his wife, Lori (Sharon Stone). Against the advice of his colleagues, Quaid visits Rekall, a company that implants artificial memories of perfect holidays tailored to each client's desires. Intrigued, Quaid chooses a holiday package set on Mars, where he is a secret agent. However, Quaid wakes up during the procedure and lashes out, believing he truly is a secret agent. Upon leaving Rekall, Quaid learns that his life is a false memory implanted by the "Agency," and Mars' tyrannical ruler, Vilos Cohaagen (Ronny Cox), fears that his visit to Rekall will unlock his old memories. Seeking to reach Mars to help stop Cohaagen and find the mysterious woman of his dreams (Rachel Ticotin), Quaid is relentlessly pursued by armed government agents led by Richter (Michael Ironside).

There are twists and turns throughout Total Recall, with the story's scope consistently expanding as the action shifts to Mars and introduces a team of freedom fighters working to bring down Cohaagen. Luckily, Verhoeven smoothly guides the narrative with maximum coherency despite the political machinations, and the movie is scarcely boring. Total Recall is an extraordinary action movie with a tongue-in-cheek sense of humour (Arnie's one-liners are neverending), but there is surprising depth and thoughtfulness to the picture's construction. The satirical script lampoons everything from commercialism to the perils of excessive government control, and Verhoeven plays shrewd mental games, challenging our perception of reality. Are the events actually happening, or are they part of an elaborate fantasy concocted by Rekall? Verhoeven is unwilling to answer this question definitively, but there is enough evidence to make a strong case for either scenario, and you could potentially draw a different conclusion with every rewatch. This aspect elevates the movie above the ordinary, making it more than just a brainless action fiesta. Total Recall set the benchmark for contemporary sci-fi action movies with a touch of ambiguity, though the picture remains unequalled over thirty years later.

Total Recall is one of the last big-budget action spectacles to feature classical special effects methods: miniatures, location shooting, make-up, puppetry and elaborately constructed sets. Although movie-goers accustomed to crisp, modern CGI-laden films may perceive Total Recall as dated, the elaborate effects here are arguably more convincing than digital imagery, as they carry a tangible aesthetic. The prosthetics and puppets are especially impressive, with the story featuring eccentric mutants that Cronenberg originally conceived during his time on the project. Additionally, Verhoeven is renowned for the explicit content of his movies, be it nudity or violence, and Total Recall is no different, even gaining notoriety for its record-setting body count at the time. Much like RoboCop, many cuts were made at the MPAA's behest to avoid an X rating. The deaths are gruesome, with over-the-top bloodshed, but the humorous tone prevents the movie from feeling sadistic or mean-spirited. Also beneficial is Jerry Goldsmith's note-perfect original score, embodied by the main theme played during the opening credits. Every note of Goldsmith's work exudes outer space, sci-fi and action, amplifying the movie's sense of danger, suspense and intergalactic adventure. One of Goldsmith's best scores, the soundtrack deserves to stand alongside other seminal cinematic scores, such as John Williams' Star Wars music and James Horner's work on Aliens.

Another of Total Recall's biggest assets is Schwarzenegger. Sure, the Austrian Oak is not an accomplished actor, but Arnie's commanding screen presence is why he is such a fantastic action star. The muscular behemoth is right at home cracking one-liners, shooting guns, running, grunting, making love, and shooting more guns - and, luckily, this role plays to those strengths. Additionally, Arnie ably conveys Quaid's anger, confusion and frustration throughout the story with each new plot development, showing that he can actually act. In the supporting cast, the badass Ironside (Extreme Prejudice, Top Gun) is a fantastic villain, exuding authority and giving Richter a chilling edge. Sticking with Verhoeven after RoboCop, Cox shows once again he can play shady corporate types with ease, and he is terrific as Cohaagen, bringing much-needed gravitas to the production. Sharon Stone also submits a fun performance here, playing into the picture's goofy tone. It's interesting to note that Stone has played a love interest for both Arnie and Sylvester Stallone during her career, as she was Sly's love interest in 1994's The Specialist.

With the budget ballooning to $80 million during shooting, Total Recall is a proficient and visually intriguing production that mostly stands the test of time, especially with its intelligence and clever plotting. Although it is sometimes slightly cheesy, this only contributes to the picture's goofy late-'80s charm. There is something exhilarating about revisiting a film like Total Recall in an era of toned-down violence and rampant political correctness. With Verhoeven at the helm, the film is enjoyably over-the-top in every aspect, from the violence to the sparkling one-liners and the garish special effects. Additionally, with tight editing by the Oscar-nominated Frank J. Urioste (Die Hard), it moves forward with sensational momentum. Much like the director's other action films (RoboCop, Starship Troopers), Verhoeven packs Total Recall with more awesome than most people can handle in two hours, including memorable deaths and devilish ultraviolence. Regrettably, the film was remade in 2012, but the remake is an abomination and does not merit further discussion.

10/10

Mention the name James Cameron during a conversation and one will immediately evoke thoughts of The Terminator, Terminator 2, Aliens, The Abyss, Titanic, Avatar and True Lies. That's one hell of an impressive run of movies. Over the course of his career, James Cameron (with his infamous trait of perfectionism) has single-handedly created some of the greatest action and science fiction movies of recent times, and 1994's True Lies is without doubt one of the greatest actioners to emerge from Hollywood during the 1990s. In addition to this being a James Cameron film, it's an Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle, and their respective styles work extremely well together.

When speculation was rampant in the early '90s about who the new James Bond should be, Arnold Schwarzenegger was considered to be one of the long shots. Pierce Brosnan eventually got the gig instead of Arnold, but those of you wanting to see how Arnold would've fared as Bond should look no further than True Lies, as the Austrian Oak portrays a very Bond-esque secret agent. With tongue firmly in cheek, the film commences with a Goldfinger parody as Schwarzenegger's character of Harry Tasker swims up to an elegant mansion to infiltrate a high-class party. When he dumps his wet suit, it's revealed that Harry is wearing a full tuxedo underneath. Very Bond.

Harry Tasker is a secret agent living a double life. At home with his wife Helen (Curtis) and daughter Dana (Dushku), he's a loving, meek husband and father. Harry's family has no clue about his actual line of work, since they believe his cover story of being a dull sales representative for a computer company. The main narrative thread concerns Harry's latest mission: he's on the trail of the leader of a dangerous Middle-Eastern terrorist syndicate who have acquired nuclear warheads with plans to blow up Miami (yes, but can they dance?). This, however, is perceived as a secondary problem to Harry because he's convinced that his long-neglected wife is having an affair.

A Hollywood remake of the 1991 French film La Totale (though an uncredited remake), True Lies is essentially a fast-moving satire of every action-adventure movie in history (most significantly taking cues from James Bond). Interestingly, Schwarzenegger was the one who convinced James Cameron to commandeer this movie. Once Arnie learned that a remake of La Totale had been sanctioned, he wanted the lead role. When he passed the script onto James Cameron, Arnold said he wanted to do the film because he found the protagonist to be interesting. Cameron was shocked, because it was very rare for Schwarzenegger to pick a script based on his interest in a character. Once Cameron entered the equation, he fired the original screenwriters and went about re-writing the script himself. Remember, this is the same guy who carries out his directorial duties while wearing a hat that reads "Head Motherfucker In Charge".

Cameron may spend more money than any other filmmaker (True Lies costed in excess of $100 million), but nobody delivers more bang for your buck. The director's action sequences are gargantuan objects of beauty handled with a phenomenal dexterity that's rarely seen. In addition to the utilisation of mind-blowing CGI for this movie (the special effects are practically seamless), a large portion of the action was pulled off with practical effects and stuntmen. The results are spectacular. True Lies may require a suspension of disbelief, but it's not difficult to overlook logic for the sake of sheer entertainment. Added to this, while True Lies reaffirmed Cameron's ability to keep viewers on the edge of their seats, the film also showed he was capable of making an audience laugh. One of the best things about True Lies is that it's utterly hilarious, with hysterical one-liners and a number of comedic situations. In comparison to the James Bond franchise, True Lies is far funnier. It's more violent, too, as this is an R-rated action film as opposed to a tame PG Bond flick.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is in top form here as Harry Tasker. Arnie has always possessed a gift for comedy, and True Lies provided ample opportunities for the star to put this gift to good use. It is a tribute to Schwarzenegger's burgeoning maturity as an actor that he pulled off one of his best and most appealing performances in this film without being shirtless at any point. Alongside Ah-nold, Jamie Lee Curtis is terrific as Helen. One particular exchange between Arnie and Curtis sums up the tone of the film quite well: when she finds out his identity as a spy, she asks if he's ever killed anyone, and Arnie replies "Yeah but they were all bad". Other highlights of the film include a wonderful comic turn by Tom Arnold as Schwarzenegger's right-hand man, in addition to Tia Carrere as a sexy femme fatale, the side-splitting Bill Paxton as a car salesman, Art Malik as an effective villain, and Charlton Heston who clearly had fun playing the one-eyed head spy honcho.

Granted, True Lies is too long at almost 140 minutes, and the relationship between Harry and Helen drags from time to time. Sure, the film is over-the-top and ridiculous as well. But I can live with that, because this is also a funny, action-packed blockbuster that's easy to recommend. It's Arnie's best work outside of being a prop for Cameron's Terminator movies.

8.8/10

2008's Street Kings is basically Training Day mixed with the television series The Shield, and it's yet another in the never-ending string of films concerning corrupt police officers. In the past, a number of filmmakers have attempted this type of material, resulting in movies ranging from underrated gems like Cop Land to Oscar-recognised films such as The Departed and L.A. Confidential. Speaking strictly from a technical perspective, Street Kings is a proficient effort, but it's also stale. Half the problem with the flick is that this stuff has been done before (usually done better), and is incapable of bringing anything new to the genre. The other half of the problem is the stilted dialogue, the questionable casting choices, a lot of contrived character action and an appalling ending. It's never boring per se, but at no point is Street Kings truly captivating either.

The film's protagonist is police officer Tom Ludlow (Reeves) who's reeling from the death of his adulterous wife (oh, that old cliché?) and whose specialty is bending the law to suit his crime-solving desires. In true Dirty Harry fashion, he has a blatant disregard for any law that prevents him from gunning down criminals. Following one heroic bust (during which Tom started shooting first), the watchful eye of Internal Affairs begins scrutinising Tom's unit. Tom soon learns that a former partner of his, Detective Washington (Crews), has been informing Internal Affairs regarding Tom's methods. When Tom pursues Washington with plans to retaliate, he witnesses the detective getting brutally gunned down by a couple of thugs. To avoid difficulties, the department removes any evidence that Tom was present at the time of the shooting. While the unit's captain (Whitaker) tells Tom to move on, he persists with an investigation to capture Washington's killers. As is often the case with movies like this, the trail leads to a web of police corruption.

Tom ends up pairing with Detective Diskant (Evans). The relationship between the two men makes no sense - initially they're hesitant to trust one another, but then they suddenly relate on a first-name basis and happily collaborate without any explanation of their newfound mutual respect. Meanwhile, the constant discussions of Tom's late wife grow heavy-handed and hinder the pace. Crucially, Street Kings was saddled with a conclusion that's both insulting and improbable. Clearly, nobody knew how to wrap up the story, so the intricate plot was reduced to the simplest solution: Tom shooting everyone. It feels out-of-synch with the rest of the movie. While a bad ending cannot completely wreck an otherwise good flick, Street Kings was a middling effort up until the end. Consequently, the conclusion is detrimental.

While several problems mar the screenplay (which is credited to three writers, including the great James Ellroy), the trite plot is the worst offender. As soon as Washington is killed, it's obvious what's happening and who's behind it. For most of the film, Tom is unable to see what the audience can, which becomes increasingly irritating. Sure, there are twists, but they're never startling. The story is amazingly contrived as well, with characters that feel like automatons in the service of the narrative as opposed to actual flesh & blood humans. Tom's behaviour is ridiculous, and his choices are poorly motivated. Street Kings is director David Ayer's second feature as a director (he previously earned his chops as a screenwriter, having written Training Day and a few other crime films), and his handling of the material is generally impressive. He afforded the film a gritty edge, and the action sequences are of a good standard. Problem is, he's still no Martin Scorsese, Curtis Hanson or even James Mangold.

Keanu Reeves' role of Tom Ludlow is that of a detached, depressed and despondent detective. This is a good fit for Reeves' limited acting range, but his performance is strictly regular. He is unable to bring as much as a modicum of grit or intensity to the character. Even Sylvester Stallone did a better job in Cop Land (in which he played a cop who takes a stand against corruption). Meanwhile Forest Whitaker's performance as the police captain is solid, and Chris Evans is believable as Diskant. Hugh Laurie (a fine actor) also does what he can with his small role. In the supporting cast, Cedric the Entertainer, Terry Crews (utterly wasted), Jay Mohr, Common and Naomie Harris feature in a variety of roles to varying degrees of success, but few make an impact.

On top of the hackneyed dialogue and the generic plotline, Street Kings never offers an exploration of the issues it raises. For instance, Tom is supposed to be a dirty, racist cop, yet this angle is soon abandoned rather than explored in a meaningful way. Street Kings is basically a movie in search of an identity. It features enough recognisable actors, yet there's practically no difference between this film and the slew of other similarly-themed projects which preceded it (some even associated with David Ayer). It's just not audacious enough.

4.9/10

Old School is an early noughties take on an old genre - the college/fraternity flick, which was most memorably embodied in the classic 1978 feature National Lampoon's Animal House. It's perhaps unsurprising that the producer of the defining Animal House, Ivan Reitman, also served as executive producer on Old School. Reitman's involvement is a good omen, as this is a highly amusing comedy as well as an effective take on an ailing genre. This is not the greatest comedy of all time, but it's one of the funniest comedies of 2003 - a satisfying mixture of terrific humour, well-developed characters, and a refusal to go for the cheapest and most predictable gag. In an era burdened by countless below-par "comedies", Old School delivers with surprising effectiveness.

As the story begins, average middle-class guy Mitch Martin (Wilson) returns from a business trip to find his wife (Lewis) about to engage in a gang bang. Fleeing from his broken relationship, Mitch ends up moving into a low-rent house on the outskirts of a nearby University. Following a rather epic housewarming party, the University begin taking steps to repossess the property. But Mitch and his best friends Frank (Ferrell) and Beanie (Vaughn) discover a loophole which would allow them to keep the house: transform it into a fraternity house for anyone wanting to pledge (be it student, non-student, young or old). This idea is a tremendous success, and the house is soon the most popular location on campus. This irks the local University's vindictive dean (Piven), who in turn spearheads a campaign to bring the fraternity down.

To be sure, Old School does not so much tell a story as it simply exploits a funny premise. There's not a great deal to supplement the laughs since the focus is on staging gags, most of which are side-splitting. First things first - this is not a highbrow comedy. Virtually every single gag involves sex, nudity, heavy drinking, stupidity, underage sex, or a combination of the above. Plus, one scene features an unforgettable rendition of Total Eclipse of the Heart with "alternative" lyrics. Director Todd Phillips and his crew of screenwriters managed to keep the laughs and comedic set-pieces coming at a good pace, too. However, a comparison to National Lampoon's Animal House would not be flattering for Old School, as it's not as clever, innovative or as memorable as its '70s predecessor.

A great deal of the comic fodder is derived from the fact that the trio of protagonists are much older than college students yet still adore partying and drinking. There's a bit of appeal to this idea as well - which 35-year-old would not want to party hard with little or no consequences? Additionally, it's amusing watching the characters becoming reacquainted with their bygone lifestyles, most notably the recently-married Frank who reawakens his drinking habits and reclaims his former label of "Frank the Tank". The fact that Old School is painfully by-the-numbers and hampered by predictability matters not in the grand scheme of things, as it feels mean-spirited to point out the foibles of an otherwise enjoyable flick.

This movie also presented a unique opportunity for Will Ferrell, Luke Wilson and Vince Vaughn to do what they do best: create hilarious personalities which we will come to know and love. Ferrell's character easily steals the spotlight as the newly regenerated alcoholic who gets naked and fumbles around a lot. While Ferrell is responsible for many of Old School's best and most memorable moments, Wilson and Vaughn definitely hold their own. Wilson is a master of droopy-eyed normal guy shtick, and he played his role convincingly here. Meanwhile, the film afforded ample opportunities for Vaughn to utilise his hilarious motor-mouth comedy skills that nobody in Hollywood can equal or top. Jeremy Piven also submitted an enjoyably snark performance as the villain for us to root against, though he's not a patch on John Vernon's Dean Wormer from Animal House. Also in the cast is Seann William Scott who's utterly wasted in a side-splitting cameo, Ellen Pompeo as Wilson's love interest, and even young Elisha Cuthbert (Jack Bauer's daughter in 24) as a schoolgirl who is mistaken for a college-aged girl. None of the actors turned in anything of Oscar calibre, but it's easy to believe everyone in their respective roles. Each did a fine job with the material.

The filmmakers who contributed to the creation of Old School cared only about providing a fun time, and in this regard they succeeded tremendously. Elements like plot are inconsequential devices used to move the film from one joke to the next. If you're seeking a good time, the film gets a passing grade. It provides nothing more substantial, however. Make sure to continue watching the movie as the credits roll, as even more laughs lie in wait once the film is over.

7.2/10

Similar to Sylvester Stallone's glorious resurrection of the Rambo franchise, 2010's Predators is a sequel that eschews post-modernist filmmaking in favour of a back-to-basics, '80s-style approach. As a result, this Robert Rodriguez-produced exhumation of the Predator series is a solid, highly satisfying action picture and a worthy sequel to 1987's Predator, surpassing the weak Predator 2 and the even weaker Alien vs. Predator movies. Chief among the strengths of Predators is that it returns the franchise to its natural habitat, with the film observing an anxious group within a jungle setting who gradually come to grips with the alien hunters stalking the area. Predators also carries a unique spin: the titular monsters are not only stalking humans but aliens from other planets as well.

As the film opens, it cleverly places us in the same bewildered mindset as the eight humans who wake up to find themselves falling through the sky equipped with a parachute but without an explanation as to what's going on. Amid the soldiers and criminals from around the world, a tentative leader emerges in Royce (Adrian Brody). Among the group is a sniper (Alice Braga), a Russian (Oleg Taktarov), a civilian doctor (Topher Grace), a member of the Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien), a Mexican (Danny Trejo) and a condemned murderer (Walton Goggins). Studying their surroundings, Royce surmises that the squad have been dropped on a game reserve planet and are the intended targets for a mysterious pack of alien creatures who hunt for sport. As the group navigates through treacherous terrain, they deal with trust and leadership issues, and Royce struggles to find a way to defeat the unseen foes and escape the deadly planet.

The straightforward narrative unfolds at a sturdy pace, with no location or scene outstaying their welcome. Predators excels because of the decision to pitch it as a horror/thriller first and an action picture second, much like the original Predator (and unlike the follow-ups). Hence, the film is not in a hurry to introduce a Predator-centric action scene - instead, the movie spends adequate time developing the brutes, observing them as they apprehensively bond and search for a way to gain the upper hand. Writers Michael Finch and Alex Litvak (working from a screenplay that Rodriguez wrote in the early 1990s) clearly understand that less is more, as the lack of Predator appearances throughout the film's first half is essential for building requisite tension. Unfortunately, there is a lack of machismo and tough guy one-liners (the original Predator is legendary for its one-liners), and the third act is noticeably formulaic. Several cringe-worthy moments impact the experience, including a betrayal that is poorly motivated and inadequately explained. And what of the new Predator designs, I hear you think? It's hard to distinguish the Berserkers from the Classics, to be honest.

Working with a respectable $40 million budget, director Nimród Antal (Vacancy, Armoured) knows how to stage an action set piece. At times, the use of shaky cam and rapid-fire editing is distracting, but for the most part, the action is exciting and satisfying. Thankfully, the Predators come to life through old-fashioned rubber body suits and practical creature effects whenever possible. The gore also appears to be practical, with old-school blood squibs instead of phoney digital bloodshed. Wisely, Antal uses CGI sparingly and only when necessary. In addition, the script brilliantly expands the Predator mythology, as one character explains that the creatures hunt for sport to learn and improve their tactics. This begs the question (that further instalments might address): why are the Predators attempting to emerge as a superior race? Are they planning an invasion of another planet? It is also worth noting that Predators pays homage to the original Predator through music cues (it feels as if the film simply re-uses Alan Silvestri's original score at times) and a few set pieces (most notably the final showdown). Shit, characters even discuss the events of the original film, and the end credits feature Little Richard's Long Tall Sally, a song from the legendary helicopter scene in the original.

Good acting is a rarity in the realm of action cinema, but Predators actually benefits from sturdy performances across the board. Although the actors lack the sheer manliness and testosterone of the original Predator cast, every actor is nonetheless credible in their respective roles. Brody imbues his role of Royce with menace and intensity, and the actor evidently spent many hours in the gym to build muscle for the role. Against all odds, the Oscar-winning performer is an excellent action hero. The only drawback is that Brody lacks Arnie's memorable presence. Perhaps a larger, bulkier actor could have done this role more justice. (Maybe they should've waited for Arnold Schwarzenegger to finish his term as Governor, and hired him instead.) Alongside Brody is an array of strong performers, such as Danny Trejo, Topher Grace and Oleg Taktarov, all of whom confidently hit their marks. Alice Braga is engaging and credible as Isabelle, while Laurence Fishburne also pops up briefly with a memorable cameo that recalls Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now.

Fans of the original Predator should find 2010's Predators more than satisfying after the bad taste left by other instalments. Rodriguez, Antal and the writers know what made the original film such a great ride and work to reproduce a similar brand of visceral thrills. Let's be honest: you want to see a Predator movie for bone-crunching battles and violence, and Predators delivers in this respect. Despite its flaws, this is solid summertime entertainment.

7.6/10

Peter Jackson's work on the highly acclaimed Lord of the Rings trilogy propelled the Kiwi director to fame faster than he could say "My precious", and he followed up the series with the underrated period epic King Kong. After four consecutive features that represented a breakthrough in special effects and served as the very definition of "epic spectacle", Jackson opted for something more low-key for his next project: an adaptation of Alice Sebold's novel The Lovely Bones. To be sure, The Lovely Bones denotes a departure of sorts after Jackson's prior epics, yet at the same time this picture remains true to his talent for affording a grand, visually striking feel to a film which is intermixed with deeper undertones. While the film is indeed an impressive effort, this is still the most disappointing of the director's literary adaptations, as the translation from page to screen has yielded mixed results. Maybe there is some truth to the assertion that the novel is unfilmable, because if Peter Jackson is unable to do it properly, who can?

The narrator of the story, 14-year-old Susie Salmon (Ronan), opens the movie by explaining that she was murdered in 1973 by George Harvey (Tucci), who resides in her Pennsylvania neighbourhood. Since there is no mystery as to who murdered Susie (she reveals who he is via narration), the story of The Lovely Bones is not a murder mystery. Instead, the film follows Susie as she finds herself in the "in-between" world between heaven and earth where she can watch over a world she is not ready to let go of. From here, Susie is able to keep a watchful eye on her family, friends and murderer as she attempts to communicate to the living about where her remains lie and about the identity of the man who killed her.

Despite the simplicity of the storyline, Jackson (who co-wrote the screenplay with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens) extended the film to over two hours, resulting in patches of sluggish pacing. The main problem is that the segues between Susie in her "in-between" world and Susie's family back on earth are not entirely successful. With an inordinate amount of time devoted to Susie, the story of her family is not told in full, resulting in short-cuts and instances of poorly motivated, contrived character action. For instance, the scene in which Jack (Wahlberg) realises that Harvey is the killer was handled poorly, as his leap of logic is unreasonable given the lack of evidence. Additionally, the need to compress bits and pieces of the book into the film has resulted in incomplete character arcs, and the ending (although representative of what happens in the book) is unsatisfying. Added to this, the handling of the timeframe is baffling. What feels like a few weeks is revealed to be 11 months. Crucially, Lindsey (McIver) is established as Susie's younger sister, and would therefore be 14 or 15 by the film's end, yet the last time she's seen in the movie she's about to tie the knot with a boy and is pregnant. Does this seem wrong to anyone else?

On a positive note, Peter Jackson afforded The Lovely Bones with a suitably mystical, ethereal and dreamlike feeling that reinforces the story's themes as well as the contrast of light and dark which is so prominent in the movie. Jackson is also competent in his ability to generate nail-biting suspense and drama. Principally, despite the foreknowledge that Susie will be killed, it's possible for a viewer to forget the pending tragedy as the little girl becomes absorbed in her photography and dreams of having a relationship. Also nail-biting are the scenes between Harvey and Lindsey, when it's difficult to look away from the screen. The computer-generated imagery used to bring to life Susie's "in-between" world are at times less than convincing, however, and Jackson's portrayal of the afterlife is disappointing. The view of heaven is a tad vacuous rather than magical. One more somewhat fatal misstep is the overuse of flashbacks, as certain scenes are replayed over and over and over again. Come on, we get it!

On the other hand, the majority of the actors submitted top-flight performances and inhabited their roles with tremendous conviction. The best performance in the film is courtesy of Stanley Tucci, who was nominated for an Oscar for his frightening, absolutely riveting portrayal of George Harvey. At the centre of The Lovely Bones is Saoirse Ronan's angelic performance as Susie Salmon. With her sharp, searching eyes and an intensity which was used to great effect in 2007's Atonement, Ronan steals the film whenever she appears on screen. While her narration is overused, her voice is pleasant and soothing to listen to. Mark Wahlberg, however (who was chosen at the last minute after Ryan Gosling dropped out), is strictly ordinary as Susie's father Jack, as he appears to simply breathe every word he says (not unlike The Happening). Meanwhile, Susan Sarandon is suitably hammy as Susie's grandmother, Michael Imperioli is effective as the police officer trying to solve Susie's murder, and Rachel Weisz is believable as the mother of the family. Rose McIver is another standout as Lindsey - she's a promising, endearing young actress.

Another factor of note is that The Lovely Bones is a PG-13 production, but the subject matter is better suited for mature audiences and should have thus been R-rated. Consequently, no mention is made of sexual assault (in the book Susie was raped by Mr. Harvey) and the violence occurs off-screen, which detracts a certain punch. In final analysis, though, The Lovely Bones has more going for it than not, and it will divide audiences.

7.3/10

With action superstar Sylvester Stallone unsuccessfully branching out into the comedy genre during the early 1990s (Oscar and Stop! Or My Mum Will Shoot), 1993's Cliffhanger found the actor returning to familiar territory: R-rated, testosterone-fuelled action spectacle. Directed by reliable action luminary Renny Harlin (Die Hard 2, The Long Kiss Goodnight), Cliffhanger is one of the few Die Hard copycats that confidently stands alongside John McTiernan's 1988 action opus and does not look like a pale or lifeless imitation. It is also convincingly superior to the fourth and fifth Die Hard movies. Cliffhanger finds Stallone in his action-hero element, even showing more dramatic prowess than usual, and the film's breathtaking alpine backdrop gives it a unique and appealing aesthetic. Produced in the heyday of hard-R action shenanigans, this is a devilishly enjoyable, thrill-a-minute old-school action ride that scarcely puts a foot wrong.

Ranger and mountain climbing expert Gabe Walker (Sylvester Stallone) attempts to rescue his best friend, Hal (Michael Rooker), and Hal's girlfriend, Sarah (Michelle Joyner), when they become stranded in the Colorado Rockies. However, Sarah tragically dies during the rescue, prompting the guilt-ridden Gabe to give up climbing and leave to start a new life elsewhere. Eight months later, Gabe returns to his former ranger station to gather the last of his belongings and attempt to persuade his former lover, Jessie (Janine Turner), to come with him. Unfortunately, his arrival coincides with a botched midair hijacking of a U.S. Treasury flight that was transporting millions of dollars. After the plane crashes, the armed criminals - led by the psychotic Eric Qualen (John Lithgow) - call in a faux report of stranded hikers, hoping to lure a rescue team to their aid and use their climbing expertise to retrieve the cases of money from the dangerous, high-altitude, icy terrain. Hal heads out to locate the source of the distress call, while Jessie persuades Gabe to help, though Hal still resents Gabe over Sarah's death. Unfortunately, Qualen and his ruthless henchmen promptly take Gabe and Hal hostage. In true John McClane fashion, after Gabe manages to escape, he begins fighting back and hopes to retrieve the money before Qualen.

Following a harrowing, white-knuckle opening sequence that still packs an overwhelming wallop, the movie's adrenaline levels scarcely relent, with Harlin maintaining a firm sense of pacing. Consequently, the beefy 110-minute running time flies by unbelievably quickly. Additionally, even though the odd occasional scene requires a suspension of disbelief, the movie is not ridiculously over-the-top or cartoonish. In fact, Sly himself demanded that a stunt be altered in post-production after a test audience laughed out loud at the scene in question. With digital effects in their infancy, the action here is all practical, with authentic location shooting and stunt performers putting their lives on the line. As a result, the action feels more grounded and authentic, amplifying the sense of danger and tension, though not all of the blue-screen shots confidently stand the test of time. The Italian Alps convincingly stand in for the Rocky Mountains, and the scenery is incredibly eye-catching, with Alex Thompson's cinematography gracefully capturing the location's natural beauty. With the benefit of a $70 million budget, Cliffhanger is well-made and looks spectacular, with plenty of thrilling moments, and there is a gravitas to the production that is not commonly present in B-grade action pictures. Also worth mentioning is the zingy, memorable score courtesy of Trevor Jones, which amplifies the excitement and adds ample flavour.

Considering the high replay value of Cliffhanger, in addition to the sense of adventure, sinister villains, breathtaking visuals and sparkling one-liners, this is one of Harlin's finest directorial efforts. It's a standout that proudly stands alongside other classic '90s action productions (Speed, Face/Off, Con Air, The Rock) for its relentless sense of danger and tension, and its incredibly high entertainment value. Cliffhanger borrows elements from countless other action movies and contains several clichés, including the antagonism between Gabe and Hal, as well as Gabe overcoming his guilt by thwarting Qualen and his men. Written by Michael France and Stallone himself, the screenplay is predictable, but it is bolstered by sharp dialogue, with Lithgow delivering plenty of amusing, dryly sarcastic one-liners. The movie exhibits a healthy sense of humour, which is why it's so entertaining. However, some of the dialogue amounts to clichéd action-movie speak, and there is a noticeably on-the-nose moment when Jessie, in trying to convince the hesitant Gabe to accompany Hal during the rescue mission, tells him, "You're going to be stuck on that ledge for the rest of your life." Fortunately, it is easy to overlook these shortcomings when the movie is this entertaining. Harlin is a competent action director, and the bloodshed is gloriously R-rated, with the gunshots showing a visceral punch that is not present in contemporary PG-13 blockbusters. Many of the film's violent moments were trimmed in post-production, and some of the editing is intermittently awkward as a result, but this is a minor flaw.

Sly mostly grunts, fights, and performs Herculean physical tasks during the set pieces, but the role requires more depth than expected. Gabe Walker is not a one-dimensional hero, as Stallone displays vulnerability and uncharacteristic weakness, making him a more empathetic and engaging protagonist. Many forget that Stallone started his career as an Oscar-winning actor in Rocky, and it is nice to witness him flexing his compelling dramatic muscles between the action. Thankfully, a strong supporting cast accompanies Sly, with Cliffhanger feeling more like an ensemble piece than a one-man action show. The suave John Lithgow is a hoot as Qualen, making for a terrific villain who is surprisingly capable and intelligent. He's heartless, cold and calculating, but his calm and always in-control demeanour gives him a sinister edge. Meanwhile, Rooker brings terrific intensity and believability to the role of Hal, and Turner confidently mixes vulnerability with spunk, in addition to sharing wonderful chemistry with Stallone. Other actors make an equally favourable impression, including Caroline Goodall as Qualen's ruthless female accomplice, and Ralph White (The Waltons), who brings warmth and class to the role of a veteran search-and-rescue pilot. Of course, nobody deserves Oscars for their work here (the film received three Oscar nominations for its technical accomplishments), but the acting remains surprisingly good for an action movie.

Despite the critical beating it received upon its release, Cliffhanger is primo entertainment that mostly holds up over three decades later. A career high point for both Renny Harlin and Sylvester Stallone, Cliffhanger is all about grand-scale action set pieces, violence and one-liners. Although it is predictable to an extent, it is more about the journey than the destination, and this journey is one hell of an adrenaline rush - it's thrilling and action-packed, with a first-rate cast, excellent special effects and breathtaking visuals.

7.8/10

The Back-up Plan is so unbelievably slapdash that it feels like something developed for television. This TV pedigree is further solidified by the "talent" involved in the film's creation. Director Alan Poul's CV is comprised of small screen stuff, and The Back-up Plan denotes his big-screen debut. All of screenwriter Kate Angelo's previous credits are for television as well, while nearly all of the actors here are TV veterans. Completely lacking so much as a modicum of engaging personality, The Back-up Plan is a bland, excruciating romantic comedy for which the filmmakers attempted to subvert the genre with a unique premise. In this sense it's semi-clever, but all the potential was wasted on a dull, utterly laugh-less motion picture.

The predictable story focuses on Zoe (Lopez) who's in her mid-30s and wants to start a family but is without a male relationship to bring it all to life. Fearing she'll never meet Mr. Right, Zoe decides to elect the single parent route and get artificially inseminated. Of course, never does the movie tell us why reproducing is so important to her, or why she is incapable of dating a guy. In the first scene, she's already being inseminated. All we get is a few lines of narration to cover the back-story, because the film has to move quickly in order to cover all the clichés. As these things go, Zoe meets the guy of her dreams just minutes afterwards. The guy is Stan (O'Loughlin), and she meets him because they steal each other's cab. This wacky, unexpected occurrence means the pair must hate each other initially, then meet again, and then fall in love. But, of course, Zoe has fallen pregnant, so Stan will be surprised to learn his girlfriend is expecting a baby. Actually, it's twins! Can you sense the hilarity that's about to ensue?

There's an inkling of a good premise somewhere within The Back-up Plan, yet screenwriter Kate Angelo avoided mining the scenario for legitimate comedy in favour of Screenwriting 101 plot points and non-controversial mainstream fluff. This includes a trademark meet cute, a few grumpy senior citizens, quippy BFFs, cute jobs (Stan owns a goat farm and produces cheese, while Zoe owns a pet shop), and a break-up-to-make-up scenario to set up the film's oh-so-heart-warming climax. The pregnancy aspect was handled in a familiar manner, too, as the focus was on bathroom humour and birth-related gross-out gags. There's even a support group of weird stock characters, one of whom breast-feeds a child able to speak in full sentences. Heck, there's a birth sequence in here as well which would not feel out of place in Rosemary's Baby. This set-piece was clearly designed to be hilarious, yet it's more suited for a horror movie. Good job, filmmakers.

The Back-up Plan could have been different from most rom-coms due to the fact that everything is done backwards, with Zoe getting pregnant before she starts dating and before she falls in love (bit like Knocked Up in this sense). But the courtship of Zoe and Stan is rushed through so rigorously that we never get the sense that they're falling in love. Not to mention, the relationship is amazingly clichéd. When Stan finds out Zoe is pregnant, he's furious, because rom-coms always need people to get angry about a lie they've been told (never mind that Stan has only seen Zoe twice). Mere scenes later, the two have gotten back together and they're suddenly a committed couple? Where's the dating and the falling in love? Where's any evidence of this relationship progressing in a logical manner? Usually it takes an entire film for the leads to commit to a relationship, yet this point is reached in about 45 minutes because the filmmakers were visibly keen to get to the pregnancy shenanigans (Zoe becomes too fat for her clothes, lol). It's like a movie and its sequel were joined together, and both movies suck.

Director Alan Poul failed to push the material along at a brisk pace, and clearly mistook total inertia for bathing in the moment. Considering its ambitions to be a fluffy, fun movie, The Back-up Plan is tragically sluggish, with little energy to keep it interesting. It goes without saying that the PG-13 rating forbade the filmmakers from tackling edgy material, though it's doubtful any of these hacks would've done anything more worthwhile with an R-rated opportunity. Meanwhile, Zoe and Stan's attraction is purely physical rather than soulful, meaning their banter lacks the wit the genre has produced in the past. It doesn't help that Jennifer Lopez and Alex O'Loughlin are a boring screen couple with zero chemistry. Both performers were clearly sleepwalking. Anthony Anderson is responsible for the only worthwhile moments of the film; he plays a father who tells Stan what it's like to have a child. It's a shame these scenes constitute about five minutes of the agonising 100-minute runtime.

For a romantic comedy to genuinely work for those outside the core demographic, an endearing love story with consistent laughter must be created, yet those behind The Back-up Plan failed on both counts. The romance is uninteresting and the laughs are predictable. Seriously, one could pause the movie 30 seconds into any scene and accurately predict what will happen next, as each joke is broadly telegraphed. A drastically vanilla rom-com with sitcom tendencies, The Back-up Plan is simply woeful.

1.8/10

Did you hear about the mind-numbingly predictable, painfully unoriginal rom-com that's rooted in formula and blander than a rice cake? It's entitled Did You Hear About the Morgans?, and it's one of the worst movies to disgrace multiplexes throughout 2009. Rarely are contemporary romantic comedies anything other than awful, as the genre lost its freshness a long time ago. Sure, a decent romantic comedy comes along every so often (2009's (500) Days of Summer is the most notable of recent years), but modern rom-coms are usually just another application of a recycled structure. A quality rom-com has heart, warmth, laughs, sexiness, witty banter, and, most importantly, chemistry between the two leads, but Did You Hear About the Morgans? fails at all of these constituents.

As these things go in Hollywood, Paul Morgan (Grant) is desperate to win back his wife Meryl (Parker) whom he is separated from. With divorce looming on the horizon, Paul is sending her gifts and calling her often, but Meryl has moved on. After a great deal of convincing, Meryl at long last agrees to have dinner with Paul to discuss past infidelities and a brighter future. Their evening, however, is cut short when the pair witnesses a murder. Quicker than you can say "fish out of water", Paul and Meryl are placed in the Witness Protection Program and are whisked off to the small town of Ray, Wyoming under the care of federal marshals Clay (Elliott) and Emma (Steenburgen). A disproportionate lack of hilarity ensues as Paul and Meryl work to repair the rift in their relationship. But by the time Paul and Meryl fall back in love, we stopped caring a long time ago. Nothing at all throughout the movie can convince us we're dealing with believable characters or authentic emotions. I was rooting for the villain.

The main problem with Did You Hear About the Morgans? is the painful fact that writer-director Marc Lawrence (Music & Lyrics) never once attempted to construct something clever or creative; rarely has a filmmaker been so content to simply recycle the same well-worn plot developments. The basic premise, after all, is about big city folks becoming accustomed to the slow pace of the Wyoming countryside. Oh yeah, and Clay & Emma fix a huge plate of pork products for breakfast every morning. Writer-director Lawrence is also unforgivably clumsy in presenting the roadmap of the movie, with developments in the second act predictably setting something up for the third act. For instance, Meryl learns how to shoot a gun. Gee, do you think that will be necessary when the bad guy comes knocking? There's absolutely no suspense at all, because from the beginning it's clear nothing bad can happen to anyone.

At the centre of Did You Hear About the Morgans? is a collection of terribly flat, one-dimensional characters who are hardly more than amalgamations of various stereotypes. Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker have not done anything worthwhile in years, and nothing in this film suggests this pair is capable of anything other than their usual tired shtick. In Grant's case, he simply plays the stammering, befuddled Englishman, and for Parker it's the materialistic, professional New Yorker whose romantic woes prevent her from feeling complete. Seriously, when was the last time either of these actors challenged themselves?! This aside, another serious problem is that Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker lack any form of chemistry. There's nothing between them. No pop or sizzle. The characters say they love one another, yet they feel like actors saying lines without any sense of affection. Heck, there's not even any passion when they fight. The stars look absolutely uninterested as well, with Grant in particular feeling forced and unfocused... He's insufferable. Sam Elliott and Mary Steenburgen are the only true strengths of the movie - both of them carried out their roles with suitable conviction and comic energy.

As plot hiccups continue to arise, Did You Hear About the Morgans? gradually disintegrates into an agonising brew of stilted humour and feeble romance that will linger as one of 2009's lowest points. It's a familiar story full of stock characters, regional stereotypes and generic situations, and it's told without any gusto and energy. So, to answer the title question, yes I did hear about the Morgans, and frankly I wish I had been spared of the excruciating experience.

2.1/10