Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"My father was an exceptional man!"

2010's Death at a Funeral is the American remake of the long-forgotten, years-old 2007 movie of the same name. That's correct - by the time this remake entered multiplexes, barely three years had elapsed since Frank Oz's British original hit cinemas and found cult success. The twist (if it can be called as such) is that this American version features a primarily African-American cast, who were given the almost exact same script as the 2007 picture to act out. However, one word springs to mind while describing this American version: why? Why remake a three-year-old British film (which was in English) and redo the exact same gags? It might work for those unfamiliar with the original, but even that is debatable.

The plot, as with the original film, concerns the funeral of a family patriarch which is being held in his large home by request. Eldest son Aaron (Rock) has taken care of all the arrangements, but becomes faced with all the bills and domestic headaches that come with a family gathering. Added to this, Aaron lives in the shadow of his successful brother and best-selling author Ryan (Lawrence). If this isn't bad enough, Aaron's wife Michelle (Hall) wants to conceive a child, mother Cynthia (Devine) is overwhelmed by grief, and a cavalcade of family acquaintances (including Saldana, Glover, Morgan, Marsden, Glass, and many others) have arrived with their own problems to disrupt what was intended to be a peaceful celebration of life. Also spoiling the funeral is a mysterious dwarf named Frank (Dinklage, reprising his role from the 2007 original) who has plans to blackmail Aaron.

For this Death at a Funeral remake, the biggest mistake was to retain Dean Craig's original screenplay. Aside from a few groan-worthy pop culture references and the occasional new or slightly altered line, this version is practically a gag-for-gag, word-for-word replication of the 2007 film. In order to work, this American version needed the very thing that Craig's sturdy script was unable to provide: a new voice. The best remakes in history are able to offer a fresh take on a premise as opposed to a word-for-word recreation of somebody else's work. The Departed, Ocean's Eleven and Peter Jackson's King Kong are all examples of good remakes. 2010's Death at a Funeral, however, is just flat and useless. The original UK version was a solid, understated black comedy, but when Americanised by an inadequate cast & crew, Death at a Funeral feels weak and forced. The laugh lines seem like precisely that: laugh lines. In a dark comedy like this, it's less amusing if the actor is in on the joke.

Furthermore, Death at a Funeral embodies everything that's wrong with Americanising a movie. The 2007 original was hardly highbrow, but it was not stupid, nor did it assume its audience would be. But the team behind this remake clearly assumed that its audience would be complete morons who can't understand a joke unless the punchline is over-exaggerated, and who cannot laugh at physical humour unless it's overplayed. See, the film wastes time hammering home points that need not be hammered home. At the beginning, for instance, the undertakers deliver the wrong coffin to the family home. In the 2007 original, the joke is low-key and brisk. In this remake, the joke is dragged out, and we see that the man in the coffin is actually an Asian, which underlines the notion that this could not possibly be part of an African-American family. Thus, whereas the British film was excellently nuanced in the acting department and relied on understated wit to generate laughter, 2010's Death at a Funeral is notably louder and stupider.

Chris Rock (The Longest Yard) is usually a supremely talented comedian and a supremely likeable presence, but in portraying Aaron he was restricted to playing the level-headed protagonist, and thus seems miscast. Who would want Rock to play the straight man, anyway? Alongside him, there are a few decent performances, most notably from Zoe Saldana, James Marsden and Ron Glass. The standout in the cast is Danny Glover who's a hoot as the misanthropic, wheelchair-bound Uncle Russell. One of the best lines in the movie is of Glover remarking "I'm too old for this shit"; referencing his Lethal Weapon years. If he replaced the word "old" with "good", he'd be a lot closer to the mark.

To its credit, the film moves forward amiably enough - it's never truly dull thanks to an unexpected energy, but never is the movie hilarious or genuinely good either. Death at a Funeral provides three or four scattered laughs, but not nearly the same quantity or quality of its predecessor, which is strange considering the almost identical screenplay. Additionally, aside from the British original, 2010's Death at a Funeral is strangely reminiscent of another film: Gus Van Sant's 1998 remake of Psycho. In both instances, talented people were squandering their talents and energies on a needlessly restricted project, denying them the opportunity to offer a completely fresh take on another movie.

4.2/10

"All I wanted to do today was to give my father a dignified send-off. Is that really so much to ask?"

Only the English filmmaking industry could successfully employ the concept of a sombre funeral service as a foundation on which to construct an eccentric black comedy. A clever, lively creation, 2007's Death at a Funeral is the latest comedy to be helmed by American director Frank "voice of Yoda" Oz, whose past hits include Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and Bowfinger. Despite having been directed by an American, Death at a Funeral retains a distinctly English flavour, as it's blessed with an English country setting, populated by predominantly English actors, and supported by a witty screenplay courtesy of Dean Craig. While clichéd, at times predictable, and occasionally more awkward than funny, Death at a Funeral is an energetic, wily motion picture. Eschewing flimsy gags and flashy special effects in favour of strong comedic performances and a brisk pace, Oz has crafted a top-notch black comedy.

At the centre of Death at a Funeral is real-life married couple Matthew Macfadyen and Keeley Hawes playing Daniel and Jane; the film's straight men who exist to navigate through the madness that is to come. As the film opens, Daniel is trying to get a funeral underway to give his deceased father a dignified send-off. Daniel is soon joined by a cavalcade of family and friends who are gathering to pay their respects. Plenty of chaotic events unfold throughout the course of a few hours as the eccentric supporting cast are introduced, each of whom have their own troubles to deal with.

The stories of the respective characters play out simultaneously, with the camera leaping from one to the next. It's chaotic, to be sure, and some of the characters are not given enough to do, but this permits a glorious fast pace. With the oddball scenarios, the frenetic antics and the protagonist's struggle to maintain normality, Death at a Funeral is at times notably reminiscent of the classic UK television series Fawlty Towers, except it's without the manic genius of John Cleese. On that note, Death at a Funeral is not as funny as it had the potential to be. It's more of a mild torrent of hilarity than an all-out laugh-fest from beginning to end. Worse, there are flat jokes, with situations that are dark and uncomfortable rather than funny. Due to this, Death at a Funeral received a fairly mixed reception. One's taste for black comedies will determine whether you're a fan, a hater, or somebody in between.

Expanding upon the lack of laughs, Death at a Funeral demands patience, as the first half is lacklustre in the humour department. There are a few laughs, sure, but the pickings are slim for the better part of 40 minutes. Fortunately, though, even during its barren stretches, Death at a Funeral remains watchable and entertaining. Director Oz and screenwriter Craig managed to infuse the film with a pervasively affable atmosphere that effectively compensates for the less-than-hilarious nature of the film's first half. Added to this, the filmmakers managed to do something rare: build momentum. The nearer the film gets to the end credits, the faster and more furious the jokes come. Granted, there's a bit of unnecessary bathroom humour and nudity, but the movie never sinks into the realm of bad taste. Oz and Craig even inserted a eulogy towards the film's end that's heartfelt and touching without seeming forced, tacked-on, or out of place.

Admittedly, the picture is populated with the type of stock characters one would expect to see in a film like this: the cad, the comic relief, the invalid, the favourite son, and so on. Yet, these roles were brought to life by such an ideal cast that it barely matters. Matthew Macfadyen is a terrific straight man capable of delivering side-splitting dialogue without ever seeming in on the joke. Meanwhile, American actor Alan Tudyk (of Firefly and Serenity fame) steals the show here as a character who ingests a potent LSD mixture and gets involved in hilarious shenanigans as a consequence. Veteran character actor Peter Vaughan also deserves full props for effortlessly pulling off the role of Uncle Alfie; a handicapped old man who has a profane expression for every situation. Adding to the insanity is Andy Nyman as the hypochondriac who's constantly left to deal with Alfie, a rubber-faced Ewan Bremner who spends his time at the funeral trying to win back his now-engaged former love interest, and a funny Rupert Graves as Daniel's well-respected brother, just to name a few. Frankly, I feel bad leaving some of the cast members out, as all of the actors are just terrific. Had John Cleese wandered into this funeral, he would have been right at home.

Death at a Funeral is most definitely a black comedy in the traditional sense, as humour is mined from grim situations. It's not perfect, but the positive aspects far outweigh the negatives. With a uniformly strong cast complementing the witty script, this is a lively, enjoyable and sophisticated piece of filmmaking. It's not as laugh-out-loud funny as it had the potential to be, but at least it at no point grows tiresome or aggravating, and that's more than what can be said for most contemporary comedies. Unfortunately, an American remake of the film was released in 2010, and the results were predictably dire.

7.3/10

"Don't get eaten."

Over the years, the Sci-Fi Channel has built up a rather solid reputation for consistently delivering bad made-for-TV movies (see Boa vs. Python and Pterodactyl). Another film can now rest in this compost heap: Lake Placid 2, a name-only sequel to the awful 1999 creature feature Lake Placid. Apparently the original Lake Placid developed into a minor cult classic and has a number of fans, though I've yet to meet any. However, it's doubtful even the mysterious fans of the original would appreciate Lake Placid 2, which was helmed by David Flores (Boa vs. Python), scripted by a couple of reality-TV writers, and was first aired on the Sci-Fi Channel. This killer crocodile action-adventure is a croc of shit, and it's unable to even replicate the few charms that the original possessed.

Essentially a remake of its predecessor produced on a budget that would barely cover the cost of a DVD, Lake Placid 2 takes place in Maine a full eight years after the events of the original film. In these eight years, the giant crocodile incident has apparently been forgotten and dismissed as a myth. (Not like a prehistoric crocodile attack would've been well-documented...) Added to this, a few more giant man-eating crocs have appeared since the first film, and have started feasting on the local population. The plot of Lake Placid 2 is set in motion when (much like in the original) a crocodile attack leaves a man dead, and the local sheriff (Schneider) is alerted to potential danger. He heads to the lake accompanied by a Fish and Wildlife Services representative (Lafleur) and a big-headed hunter (McMurray), along with a few other unimportant supporting characters. Meanwhile, Cloris Leachman stars as the sister of Betty White's character from the first movie. Cloris, too, is feeding the crocodiles, and is woefully underused in a film desperate for comic flourish (indeed, some of Leachman's lines are the funniest in the whole picture).

You might have noticed I used the plural term "crocodiles", as there is more than one croc residing in the lake. How many is there in total? Fucked if I know. An additional croc seems to be added every few scenes.

At every turn, Lake Placid 2 is banal, generic, tedious and unbelievably cheesy. The screenplay is comprised of a merciless torrent of bland exchanges, limp quips, and stunningly terrible banter. Seriously, the dialogue is brimming with lines such as "After a while, crocodile". As punishment for penning this tosh, the scripters deserve to be rectally impaled with a painful writing implement. Furthermore, the film panders to its target audience by providing senseless female nudity and forced gore, while the characters are one-dimensional stick figures not worthy of any emotional investment. Added to this, the acting is not even solid enough for it to be called merely flawed - the performances are flawed in their entirety. Betty White's character from the original has even been replaced with a full-on lunatic and murderer. Worse, the film is meant to take place in the same location as its predecessor, yet the locations in this sequel look completely different. Series continuity does not exist.

I wonder how many minutes on Microsoft Paint it took to draw this thing...

The majority of the movie's runtime is dedicated to a repetitive series of set-ups and kills, with the absurdly unconvincing CGI crocs constantly popping up. It honestly seems as if the filmmakers were not even trying for most of the film. At times, completely futile ancillary characters show up briefly for the sake of watching them get offed in semi-gruesome ways. For instance, two topless models and their photographer get eaten five minutes after their introduction. The randomness and the laziness of this scene is mind-boggling, and those watching the film may wonder if they changed the channel to watch another bad movie for a few minutes. To make matters worse, the editing is appalling - the cuts do not match with the special effects, and continuity is often an issue (most amusing is that the underwater shots of the lake were obviously filmed in a chlorinated pool). Meanwhile, the croc action scenes are absurd and rely on contrived character stupidity. In one scene, a croc chases a couple of characters up to a house. It even bangs on the door before giving up once the door is shut.

The CGI crocodiles in the original Lake Placid were terrible, yet the eight years separating that film and its sequel have only brought about a decline in the special effects department. In Lake Placid 2, the shoddy special effects are a constant source of amusement - in comparison, the CGI of its predecessor looks positively Oscar-worthy. To be fair, Lake Placid 2 is at times so terrible it's funny, and star John Schneider appears to be enjoying himself. But for every fun spot, there's twenty minutes of terrible filmmaking to endure. As a result, the unintentionally funny patches are scarce, and as a whole this movie is just bland and stale. It earns the most problematic of horror movie adjectives: it's boring.

2.1/10

"I'm rooting for the crocodile. I hope he swallows your friends whole."

Lake Placid is a stupid, jokey, abjectly forgettable member of the creature feature horror subgenre. Directed by Steve Miner (Halloween H20) and written by David E. Kelly (TV's Ally McBeal), the film was apparently intended to be a horror-comedy since the filmmakers constructed it with their tongues firmly planted in their cheeks. However, the intentional camp is frequently ineffective, and the emphasis on comedy hopelessly hinders what had the potential to be a decent crocodile flick. With little humour to laugh at and even littler horror to scare genre fans (or anyone else), Lake Placid is not so bad that it's good; it's just so bad that it's really, really bad.

In terms of plot, here's the deal: while swimming in a Maine lake, a scuba diver is torn in half and a reptilian tooth is discovered embedded in his corpse. Following the incident, New York palaeontologist Kelly Scott (Fonda) is dispatched to Maine to examine the tooth. Upon arrival, she meets with local game warden Jack Wells (Pullman) and the town sheriff Hank Keough (Gleeson), along with an entourage of deputies. When they head to the lake (which is not even called Lake Placid, by the way), the team are unexpectedly joined by mythology professor Hector Cyr (Platt). Soon, it's ascertained that a giant, 30-foot-long Asian crocodile (which leaked in from the ocean) has taken up residence in the lake. While Hank and Jack set out to eliminate the croc, Kelly and Hector are inclined to capture it alive.

Thus, the stage is set for a showdown between beast and man. Mayhem ensues, and a few major stars (who, contractually, cannot be eaten) are placed in danger. And this denotes the primary flaw of Lake Placid: it's unable to scare us because literally no characters can be eaten (except for faceless supporting characters played by unknown actors). With the exception of the first victim, nobody is willing to enter the lake's dank, black waters. Thus, the characters can only be in peril if they do something stupid - and they end up doing stupid things on a regular basis. Since the screenwriter only used character stupidity to bring about croc attack scenes (rather than conceiving of anything creative), it's not long before the only viable option is to root for the crocodile. After all, people this dumb should not be allowed access to the world's oxygen supply. To top things off, not only were the characters given below normal intelligence, but so was the crocodile - in one scene, it stares at its potential food for a great length of time, but only attempts to attack once the person is safe.

It's fortunate that Lake Placid runs a mere 80 minutes. Both the dialogue and the characters spouting said dialogue are equally stupid, and dead spots abound. Even worse, the movie attempts to get sentimental about the man-eating beast. As a direct result of this ill-advised sentimentality, it appears that the only villains in the movie are the protagonists hunting this giant crocodile which is simply trying to live its life and maintain a diet of moose, cows and grizzly bears. Former Golden Girl Betty White even points out in one scene that nobody lives on the lake, so it's not much of a threat. Meanwhile, director Steve Miner's execution of the script is terrible - Lake Placid is unmistakably cheap-looking. Admittedly, the animatronic crocodile (courtesy of Stan Winston's team) is highly realistic, but the computer-generated images of the crocodile are beyond cheesy. Once the croc clambers out of the water in all its CGI glory, what's revealed is not the type of monster to strike fear into the heart of a movie-goer.

Despite its flaws, there are at least a few laughs to be hard, intentional or otherwise. For instance, one scene depicts the crocodile attacking a large helicopter. Not only is the concept preposterous, but the character reactions are hilarious. There's also a decapitation that's fairly amusing due to the hopelessly incompetent filmmaking. In the cast, meanwhile, Brendan Gleeson and Oliver Platt are an amusing coupling whose rivalry generates a few notable instances of laughter. Yet, these strong points constitute barely 10 minutes of the film's runtime. Watching clips on YouTube is a better option than enduring this mostly banal creature feature in its entirety. As a horror-thriller, Lake Placid is unable to generate even a slim moment of tension. It's dull and plodding, with nary a decent scare. The only genuinely horrific thing about Lake Placid is that the cast and crew might have believed that they were making a good movie. Also terrifying is that the Sci-Fi Channel produced a few sequels, starting with Lake Placid 2 in 2007.

3.2/10

"The piranha hunt in packs. The first bite draws blood, blood draws the pack."

Piranha 3D is a comedy-horror flick that delivers precisely what it promises on the label: bikinis, boobs, gore and killer fish. A comfortably-budgeted update of the 1978 Roger Corman film, this late-summer instance of schlock cinema is a sensorial assault which stretches out of the screen via 3-D effects to inundate audiences with enough blood and gore to make George A. Romeo's zombie films look positively tame. In essence, the makers of Piranha 3D took the general idea of killer fish attacking members of the human populace, and joyously cranked up the carnage level as high as they could (or as high as the MPAA permitted them). The script is credited to Peter Goldfinger and Josh Stolberg (Sorority Row), but, frankly, it would be surprising if the script was jotted down on anything other than a napkin.

The slender plot unfolds during Spring Break at the fictional Lake Victoria in the Arizona desert, where thousands of scantily clad college students are gathering for a week in the hot sun of getting drunk, getting naked and partying. Keeping all the rambunctious young party animals in line is Sheriff Julie Forester (Shue), who learns that an earthquake has opened up the bottom of the lake. Said earthquake has permitted a swarm of prehistoric piranhas the opportunity to feast on the party animals. A few additional subplots aside concerning characters you probably won't care about, that's all there is to Piranha 3D. Literally, the film feels like it entirely eschews a third act, as it instead ends with a cliffhanger to signal that a sequel is coming down the pipeline.

To be sure, Piranha 3D is thematically vacant and completely surface-level. Every character is a stick figure, the dialogue is bad, and the acting is cheesy, yet these elements are campy enough to let the viewers know that the filmmakers were in on the joke. For B-movie fans, there's little that the film fails to provide. On the other hand, those who prefer more straight-faced horror will likely be irritated by the at times campy disposition. However, with that said, director Alexander Aja still found time to employ shock tactics. Thus, there are portions which seem intended to be taken seriously, but there's still plenty of humour and winks nonetheless. Most interesting are the armada of Jaws references (for those unaware, the original 1978 Piranha owed a lot to Jaws). Underwater shots depicting the POV of the piranhas are present, while strains of John Williams' iconic Jaws music were used, and Richard Dreyfuss makes a cameo. Dreyfuss' role is not Matt Hooper (like in Jaws), but he is named Matt and he does sing Show Me the Way to Go Home. Sly dialogue references are present, as well.

Because the gaggle of characters are as deep as a typical Uwe Boll movie, the first half of Piranha 3D is admittedly too slow-going. Once the prehistoric piranhas begin to attack, though, the film at long last hits its stride. The remaining forty minutes or so are a no-holds-barred, action-packed parade of gore, boobs, spilled guts and severed body parts. Clearly, Aja had an absolute ball devising countless unthinkably gruesome ways for people to be eaten. Meanwhile, a bunch of the film's best moments involve Aja relying more on tension than gore - the murky underwater shots afford the material a genuinely creepy atmosphere. However, the shock value of hot young bathers being reduced to fish food at times overshadows the campy sensibility of the enterprise, especially because veteran Howard Berger's make-up effects are all too convincing. It would appear that Berger and the digital effects artists were not in sync, as the CGI is constantly shoddy, cheesy and cartoonish. The results are baffling, as several of the piranha attack sequences are disturbing rather than light-hearted and satisfying.

Of course, it would not be Piranha 3D without the 3-D aspect, but it would be more enjoyable and easier on the wallet. Once again, a 2010 release has been visually damaged by a shoddy 3-D conversation (though the film was always intended to be a 3-D release). As a result of the conversion, the opening credits are virtually unreadable, and there are scenes that are blurry and indistinct. At least it's not as bad as Clash of the Titans, mind you.

A primary strength of Piranha 3D is Christopher Lloyd's scene-stealing role as the excitable fish expert who's called upon to explain the prehistoric piranha infestation. Lloyd threw himself into the role of a crazed professor with glee; chewing up his lines with every bit as vigour as the on-screen nasties. Echoes of Doc Brown from Back to the Future are evident as well. It's also worth noting that the film contains a scene in which Ving Rhames kills a tonne of piranhas using a boat propeller and a shotgun. It's pretty badass. All things considered, Piranha 3D is a generally fun, ridiculous gore-fest. It's far from perfect and could have been tweaked in a few areas, yet it's still a great ride.

6.2/10

"If you want something bad, you have to fight for it. Step up your game, Scott."

Based on the six-part graphic novel series by Bryan Lee O'Malley, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a hard movie to explain. In essence, it's a cheesy young adult novel mixed with a kung fu movie that's been spiced up like an MTV music video, and the entire narrative proceeds with the visual logic of a Nintendo video game. For daring audiences, this audacious, refreshing, hilarious late-summer blockbuster provides plenty of eye candy to enjoy, yet more cynical or traditional movie-goers may feel that the film is akin to experiencing an acid trip. Similar to 2010's Kick-Ass, Edgar Wright's Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is bold enough to be original in this cinematic age governed by brainless big-budget blockbusters, but its meta disposition made it a tough sell at the box office.

The titular Scott Pilgrim (Cera) is an unemployed 22-year-old Toronto native whose biggest accomplishment is playing bass in a punk rock band called Sex Bomb-Omb. While he's dating cheerful 17-year-old high schooler Knives Chau (Wong), Scott meets and instantly falls head over heels for the elusive, sarcastic, beautiful, seemingly unattainable New York transplant Ramona Flowers (Winstead). Though at first highly stand-offish towards Scott, Ramona fast grows weak to Scott's understated charms. However, when Scott finally convinces Ramona to go on a date with him, he discovers that he's in way over his head. A happy romance with Ramona will come at a price: he must battle each of Ramona's seven evil exes, all of whom have joined together in a league and are out to get Scott.

This plot synopsis barely scratches the surface of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World and does no justice to the film's outlandish narrative detours, yet that's a good thing because the movie should be experienced firsthand rather than spoiled. Your response to the film will either be giddy enthrallment or baffled exasperation, depending on your taste and tolerance for this form of postmodern abandon. If, for instance, you perpetually wonder how the socially awkward Scott is able to defy physics like Superman and fight as gracefully as Bruce Lee, you're in the wrong place for entertainment. Simply going with the flow is required; otherwise you'll be ridiculing the movie for the wrong reasons. However, it's a tad disappointing to report that the film is more of a frenetic overview of O'Malley's graphic novels rather than a fully-fledged adaptation. Perhaps the graphic novels should have been adapted into a couple of movies, as opposed to all six books being compressed into a single two-hour motion picture. As it is, there's not enough depth to the characters - most of them are just ushered in and out of the film far too rapidly to make an impact. Fortunately, though, the main players are allotted a commendable amount of effective character development, and consequently end up feeling like fully-fledged humans rather than caricatures.

In all likelihood, the more familiarity one has with video games (particularly those from the '80s & '90s) and comic books, the more one will appreciate everything that Scott Pilgrim vs. the World has to offer. After all, the story does concern a geeky young adult living out his life in a world governed not by the laws of physics but by the laws of Marvel/DC and Nintendo. All of the battles disregard gravity and logic, with characters confronting each other using blazing swords and unexpected superpowers before the opponent bursts into a shower of coins. The always-reliable Edgar Wright (director of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz) was an ideal choice to translate O'Malley's graphic novels to the screen. Wright's brilliant, highly creative mise en scène is bursting with all the tropes from the last twenty years of pop culture - there's 8-bit music, video-game logic, funny-book captions and wacky sound effects. In fact, the all-but-the-kitchen-sink approach feels more authentically 3-D than all of the actual 3-D failures Hollywood has recently inundated us with. Furthermore, Wright even had fun with the film's profanity. In order to deliver a PG-13 product, amusing ways were concocted to censor the word "fuck" without eliminating it.

After attempting to display a certain degree of range in Youth in Revolt, Michael Cera has returned to his comfort zone: the typecast part of the geeky, awkward dweeb. The persona fits the actor comfortably, though, and it works in this particular instance. Cera's detractors will no doubt complain that he's merely playing himself again, but Scott Pilgrim could be the definitive Michael Cera role. In fact, Cera's wide-eyed innocence and dry line deliveries have never been more appropriate. And in the role of Ramona, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is fabulous. The beautiful actress is a perfect fit for the role, and it's easy to believe Scott falling in love with her at first sight. In the supporting cast, Kieran Culkin is endlessly watchable as Scott's roommate Wallace, whose straight-shooting personality is the only straight thing about him. Meanwhile, Ramona's evil exes are portrayed by a range of colourful, famous actors, including Brandon Routh and Chris Evans. Jason Schwartzman is a particular standout as Gideon, while Mae Whitman is authoritative and funny as Ramona's lesbian fling. Honestly, the name-drops and compliments could go on and on for one of the strongest ensemble casts of 2010.

With all of the stylistic choices in mind, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World could have been a garish, tonally confused, tedious mess, but it's not. With the boundlessly talented Edgar Wright at the helm, the picture is infectiously energetic and well-balanced between the earthbound reality of the story and the anything-goes flights of fancy that Scott undertakes to win Ramona. Sure, it would have been better if the graphic novels were adapted into a couple of movies, but complaining about the nature of the adaptation seems like too much of a critic-ey thing to do - taken as a standalone piece of summer entertainment, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is more than satisfying; it's very enjoyable and very, very funny.

8.5/10

"I'm Johnny Knoxville, and welcome to Jackass!"

How can someone possibly approach a film like Jackass: The Movie with a critical mind? Writing a critique of Jackass: The Movie is uniquely challenging since it's not a "movie" in a traditional sense - there's no acting, story, directing or camerawork to evaluate, and thus the only thing left to analyse is the entertainment value, which is entirely subjective. For those of you unfamiliar with the work of Johnny Knoxville and his troupe of daredevils (idiots is a more suitable term), Jackass is an MTV series featuring all sorts of crazy stunts and antics performed by the titular team. After a few successful seasons of craziness, the Jackass team raised the ante by creating this feature-length movie that could incorporate more profanity, more nudity, and some of the more outrageous stunts that were planned but weren't able to be aired as part of the show.

Let's get one thing straight here: if you're expecting Jackass: The Movie to adhere to some type of forced plot to give the stunts & skits an actual purpose, forget about it. There's no reason for it. Instead, this is simply a longer, more extreme episode of the television show, and the team made absolutely no bones about that fact. Moviemaking does not get much simpler than this: an episodic 85-minute showcase of stunts & skits performed by over-eager morons. There has been controversy towards the Jackass team over the years on account of incidents during which teenagers suffered injuries while imitating the show's stunts, and hence there are disclaimers and warnings at both the beginning and the end of the movie. But seriously, who the hell would want to submit themselves to such pain?!

Granted, there is a fair amount of funny material to behold within Jackass: The Movie (in this reviewer's humble opinion). Yet, there are a lot of misfires as well, and instances for which a viewer will not laugh but instead wince in repugnance or turn away from the screen. As a matter of fact, it's truly difficult to keep watching from time to time. For instance, at one stage Ehren McGhehey urinates on a snow-cone and devours it before vomiting and ingesting the vomit as well. As this unfolded, I was literally unable to watch as I felt sick to my stomach. Meanwhile, there's other material here that's just plain cruel or flat-out painful instead of funny. Put simply, the titular team failed to concoct more than a few genuinely amusing, clever segments. As a result, replay value is shockingly low.

Jackass: The Movie never pretends to be anything more than what it is: a juvenile collection of hijinks, scatological deeds and misdemeanours captured on film. No Oscar aspirations or illusions of excellence exist here, and that's perhaps why the movie is as popular as it is. Without a doubt, this is a film that will polarise viewers - most will either love or hate it, depending on their levels of tolerance for such lewd, puerile material. Me? I'm in the middle. I admit it, I laughed a few times, but not enough. There will be those who will laugh at this movie from beginning to end almost non-stop - that's to be expected. But for my taste, the skits & stunts here just aren't of a uniformly good standard.

4.7/10

After garnering a handful of Oscars and amassing more than a billion dollars in ticket sales with 1997's Titanic, James Cameron elected to take a break from dominating the box office to document a historic trip. Clearly, the filmmaker was not content with the time he'd already spent on the Titanic story, so for 2003's Ghosts of the Abyss he travelled back to Titanic's resting place armed with IMAX cameras and the latest in underwater submersible technology. Documentaries prior to Ghosts of the Abyss had offered glimpses at the Titanic wreck which lies at the bottom of the North Atlantic, but this is the most penetrating, spellbinding view of the wreckage so far - it offers audiences and historians the definitive glimpse of the aftermath of one of the most notorious disasters in human history. It's a nice companion piece to Cameron's Titanic too, with the footage here serving as a grim addendum to the blockbuster.

Ghosts of the Abyss chronicles James Cameron's 2001 expedition to explore the wreckage of the R.M.S. Titanic; the famous ocean liner (thought unsinkable) which struck an iceberg and sunk in 1912 on its maiden voyage. Accompanying Cameron for the expedition was actor Bill Paxton (also of Titanic fame) and artist Ken Marschall, among others. Using two specifically designed and equipped underwater bots nicknamed Jake and Elwood, the crew probed the insides of the sunken luxury liner in astonishing detail. Following the film's efficient opening segment that introduces us to the crew and the technology, we're taken down some 12,500 feet to the bottom of the North Atlantic. There is a lot of jaw-dropping footage to behold here of the eroded and broken Titanic; rooms were even explored that had not been seen by human eyes since the ship sunk. In order to help viewers discern where the team is within the wreckage at certain times, Cameron devised ghostly recreations in post-production which place historic scenes over the contemporary material. It's a masterful touch.

The breathtaking images of the Titanic wreck constitute the film's most interesting moments, so it's a tad disappointing to report that the transitional scenes are awkward from time to time, and sometimes focus is taken away from the sunken ship. For instance, after one dive, a full five minutes is spent watching the crew as they struggle to bring the submarines up out of the water. Furthermore, the film loses steam towards the end when too much time is devoted to a rescue operation of the little bots. This was probably injected to add some action and suspense due to how expensive these machines are, yet this inclusion is extraneous - why should this rescue take precedence over the exploration of the graveyard for 1,500 souls? Interesting stuff, sure, but this material is best saved for a "making of" documentary. It's fortunate, then, that these inclusions are only minor, and the dead spots are rare. However the soundtrack choices are a tad skewiff, and threaten to turn the film into an unintended parody (for instance the use of Just the Two of Us when Jake and Elwood are rescued).

Still, Ghosts of the Abyss is a haunting and fascinating experience. Paxton is an effective spectator whose asides of sheer wonderment will be shared by Titanic enthusiasts, while screen-time is also given to experts and professionals to supplement the on-screen information (most interesting are the discussions regarding facets of the disaster). At some point during the film, too, the adventure is hindered when the crew receive news of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Rather than avoiding the subject or smoothing it over, Cameron integrated it into the narrative in order to highlight the connection between 9/11 and the Titanic disaster, both of which will be remembered due to mankind's obsession with the lurid. Without question, Ghosts of the Abyss is a must-see for those who cannot get enough of Titanic lore.

7.6/10

"There's an old saying: just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."

After headlining a string of entertaining, B-grade action spectacles, Dolph Lundgren (Showdown in Little Tokyo, Universal Soldier, Rocky IV) swiftly established himself as one of the industry's most reliable stars for testosterone-soaked actioners. Among his littler-known efforts is the 1996 action-thriller Silent Trigger, which paired the star with Australian director (and B-grade movie extraordinaire) Russell Mulcahy (Highlander). While not exactly the worst creation to feature on the Dolphster's filmography, Silent Trigger is distinctly mediocre. It's a badass, moderately enjoyable 90-minute ride, but Dolph Lundgren is a surprisingly bland protagonist, the whole thing is forgettable, and the script feels regurgitated by a computer.

There is not a great deal to be said regarding the plot of Silent Trigger, as it's more of a series of vignettes than anything resembling a solid storyline. Essentially, Dolph's character here is a covert assassin named Waxman who's an expert marksman with a sniper rifle. He suddenly and inexplicably gains a conscience during an assignment, and in doing so condemns himself to death at the hands of his rookie spotter Clegg (Bellman). Years later, Waxman has been tasked with another assignment to be carried out in the upper floors of a half-built high-rise building. To Waxman's surprise, the spotter he has been assigned is Clegg, which leads to a number of battles over trust. The two are also forced to deal with a couple of pesky nightwatchmen, one of whom is an obnoxious, seedy man keen to rape Clegg.

Although Sergio Altieri's screenplay appears to be more concerned with rumination than balls-to-the-wall action, Silent Trigger is not a thoughtful blockbuster which successfully provokes ethical or existential questions. It touches upon the moralistic side of being a sniper, granted, but these issues are handled in a naff, inadequate manner. Plus, the flashbacks revealing the morals of an assassin life provide nothing more than an excuse for director Russell Mulcahy to do what he does best: marshal a number of impressive action sequences. On that note, if anyone deserves credit for making Silent Trigger watchable, it's Mulcahy. The stylishly dark tones generate a fair amount of suspense, and the director made the most of the unfinished building where most of the action unfolds. There are technical goofs here and there (in particular some shoddy visual effects work) as well as pacing issues (there are too many dead spots), yet the action is still violent and satisfying enough.

Unsurprisingly, characterisation and plot are feeble in this film. High Shakespeare was not expected, but would a little personality in the characters be too much to ask? In addition, there are plot points which simply do not make sense. For instance, why is Waxman still working for the agency after they issued a kill order on him? Why would Waxman agree to another assignment? Why does Waxman show up to the high-rise a full 5 or 6 hours before his target is due to show up? Why engage the nightwatchmen at all? Meanwhile, Dolph Lundgren is predominantly forgettable as Waxman (though his screen presence is tolerable), and Gina Bellman (of Coupling fame) is not overly good in her role as Clegg - she's only memorable due to her good looks rather than the sincerity of her performance. From top to bottom, everything about Silent Trigger reveals its origins as a low-budget straight-to-video action vehicle - especially the cheesy score courtesy of Stefano Mainetti.

As far as these kinds of action films go, you could do far worse than Silent Trigger. At the very least, it provides an easy viewing experience with a few worthwhile moments. However, you could also do a whole lot better than Silent Trigger. It's worth watching, but only for Lundgren purists or action enthusiasts who've exhausted their supply of quality actioners. In other words, it pampers to its niche audience, but it's nevertheless very pedestrian. Trust me; you will forget you ever saw the movie about 10 minutes after you finish watching it.

5.0/10

"As of now, I take control of this island and who fucks with it, fucks with me!"

Boiled down to its basic narrative constituents, Men of War is The Dirty Dozen meets Dances with Wolves - or, for a more contemporary audience, Avatar meets Rambo. One has to admit, it seems almost superfluous to review action flicks featuring such stars as Dolph Lundgren due to how bad and distinctly unremarkable they usually are, but Men of War is a different specimen. Against all odds, this entry to the mercenary-on-a-mission subgenre delivers exceptional action attached to a well-written script and an interesting story that's not half-bad by generic action flick standards. This is not high art, nor is it Best Picture material, but that matters not - this is a badass, technically sound and infinitely enjoyable instance of action cinema.

Dolph Lundgren's role here is burnt-out, jaded former mercenary Nick Gunar who's encountering difficulties adjusting to civilian life. Not long into the film, Nick is hired by the Nitro Mine Corporation to persuade the natives of a South China Sea island to give up their home in order for the corporation to mine the island's valuable resources. Nick reluctantly accepts, and heads to the island with a team of mercenaries. However, the natives prove to be more tenacious than the team presumed, and, over time, Nick and a few of his friends become charmed by the natives and their way of life. The group is soon fractured, as each man is forced to choose sides. Needless to say, it isn't long before the utopia is transformed into an all-out war zone.

Men of War is in many ways a throwback movie, as it recalls older mercenary flicks such as The Dogs of War and The Wild Geese which possessed a strong moral centre that prevented them from being simple bloodbaths. The screenplay for Men of War does not rush through the characters' change of heart like some action vehicles do; Nick's seduction by the island takes time, and the action is sidelined until the explosive climax. This alone raises Men of War above something like The Delta Force (a Chuck Norris vehicle). Perhaps the successful fusion of action and drama can be attributed to highly respected scribe John Sayles (Sunshine State, Eight Men Out, The Howling) who had a hand in writing the script. Men of War is not exactly Sayles-lite, as there is a satisfying amount of sardonic wit and amusing asides. The cinematography by Ronn Schmidt is easy to admire as well; the stunning vistas afford the film a sheen that belies its status as a straight-to-video action vehicle.

Yet, do not get the wrong impression: Men of War also delivers in the action department with a wallop. There are sporadic bursts of action throughout the film, with the first third featuring a great Muay Thai boxing match as well as a fun barroom brawl sequence. Granted, there are pacing and tonal problems during the middle third when the team are shown bonding with the natives, but the movie gets back on track with a rousing climactic battle in which people are dispatched with bullets, grenades and bazookas. It all culminates with an exceptional one-on-one scuffle between Dolph as Nick and Trevor Goddard as Nick's rival Keefer (who appears to recall Vernon Wells' Bennett from Commando). Director Perry Lang did an impressive job with the action; it's gritty, hard-hitting, violent and coherent, despite a few technical goofs (a man shot with a bazooka literally explodes into paper confetti). A lot of blood is spilt during the climax, which should satiate action enthusiasts and gore hounds.

In the acting department, Dolph delivered an amiable performance that provides the picture with a solid core and a protagonist you can care about. This is not Oscar-worthy stuff, but it's above the usual standard for the genre. The cast is loaded with several other badass performers, including Kevin Tighe (Road House), Tiny "Zeus" Lister, Tom Wright and Don Harvey among others. Trevor Goddard is suitably hammy and over-the-top as the villain, while B.D. Wong is impressive as the native who helps Dolph and his men kick some ass. Also worth mentioning is Catherine Bell - she's terrific eye candy, and her acting is sound. For a straight-to-video motion picture, the acting is highly impressive - in fact, it's difficult to believe that this is a STV movie. On the other hand, for all this praise, Men of War is not perfect. It's a perfectly acceptable diversion which rises above the ordinary, but it's nothing too substantial, and the storyline is both clichéd and predictable no matter where you turn. The characters lack depth, as well.

In spite of its shortcomings, Men of War is far better than expected. I'm positive that most, if not all people will write off the film as a cheap and nasty time waster, but it's more skilful than you may initially think, and it's a shame the film was buried by Miramax at the time of its release (reportedly, the film was not initially intended to go straight-to-video). If you can get your hands on a copy of this movie, it's definitely worth it.

7.2/10