Reviews by PvtCaboose91

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

Produced and directed by the legendary Clint Eastwood (who also plays the lead role), Heartbreak Ridge is a remarkable war-drama which essentially features Dirty Harry in a Marine Corps setting. More or less a space in which the actor-director was able to work out all his feelings and opinions about the American military, Eastwood's film is pervaded with a predictable storyline, but is nonetheless an enthralling motion picture benefitting from strong character development, a sharp script, and an incisive look at the pitfalls of life as a career marine. Additionally, it benefits from memorable one-liners and a great deal of classic Clint to love.

Clint's character here is a decorated soldier from the Korean War, Gunnery Sergeant Highway, who is nearing retirement from the Marine Corps. His personal life has crumbled: he's divorced, he gets drunk in pubs, beats the snot out of men half his age, and is in the slammer quite frequently. When he requests another assignment from the Corps, Highway's superiors place the sergeant in charge of shaping up a Recon platoon; a hopeless, disobedient group of jarheads who are more of a burden than an asset. While facing the assignment of shaping up the out-of-control platoon, Highway also endeavours to sort out his personal life, as his ex-wife Aggie (Mason) lives in town.

Naturally, Highway shows the college commandos a thing or two about being real jarheads. Along the road to maturity, the men are confronted with the challenge of not only proving themselves to Highway, but also to the other units who have long considered them to be a joke. To this end, the narrative possesses a satisfying charm of old-fashioned training tactics colliding with a modernised military outfit. Highway's methods are the perfect tool for getting these misfits into shape, leading to an array of hilarious moments and confrontations. The dialogue in James Carabatsos' script is so hilariously obscene that the image-conscious Marine Corps decided to withdraw all support for the movie that it had previously given. Heartbreak Ridge eventually culminates with the invasion of Grenada for which Highway's unit is called in to fight. This impressive combat sequence is the most serious section of the picture, and brings the proceedings to an agreeable close. Heartbreak Ridge may be perceived as protracted by some, and certainly there is some narrative flab, yet the slower parts are still arguably watchable and interesting. As always with Eastwood's output, the music is fun and the pace is brisk. It's never boring.

In considering the adage "war is hell", one will likely think of destruction, battlefields, death and bullets, yet the adage applies to something deeper. The impact of war is everlasting - war tears at a man's soul, lingers forever and reshape's a man's existence. As José Narosky once said, "In war, there are no unwounded soldiers", and this is the overlying theme of Heartbreak Ridge, which at times concentrates on the effect that war has had on Highway's life. This is contrasted against the undisciplined soldiers Highway presides over who perceive life in the Corps not as life-and-death business but as something more akin to summer camp. From a generalised perspective, Heartbreak Ridge is not much different from other drill sergeant pictures such as Major Payne and Full Metal Jacket (both of which were released after this movie, mind you). The characters, for the most part, are stereotypes, but there's a great deal of depth to them nonetheless (particularly to Highway) that allows the movie to work despite its shallow plot. Plus, the willingness to explore war's effects off the battlefield is extremely effective. As a movie about combat, Heartbreak Ridge works, and as a movie about people, it works.

As always, Clint Eastwood is superb as the gritty, raspy-voiced Gunnery Sergeant Highway who casually whips his inept platoon into shape while surreptitiously studying women's magazines to glean tips on how to win back his ex-wife. For the film, Eastwood adopted his typical gruff, macho Dirty Harry persona and mixed it with his lightness of touch, meaning the film provides the best of both worlds. It's a hilarious, seemingly effortless performance that's eminently quotable and downright awesome. As with most of Eastwood's motion pictures, the supporting cast is terrific as well. Mario Van Peebles is a highlight as "Stitch" Jones, a rap-singing marine who labels himself the "Ayatollah of Rock and Rollah". The scenes between Eastwood and Peebles are priceless. Meanwhile, Martha Mason played Aggie, and is every bit the match for her former husband. Also worth mentioning is Arlen Dean Snyder as one of Highway's friends, and Everett McGill who makes an impact as the total pinhead Major Powers.

Not a standard-issue war picture, Heartbreak Ridge forgoes frequent combat in favour of strong character development and thematic relevancy. Despite the lack of action, the film rarely slows down, and the final act serves as a fine pay-off to nicely round out the film and provide satisfying closure to the story of these engaging characters. Not to mention, Clint Eastwood was fed so many memorable one-liners and opportunities to crack heads that the script's refusal to circumvent clichés barely registers.

8.5/10

One of this documentary's primary strengths is derived from the way the information is conveyed; interspersing narration, quotes from historical figures, and first-hand accounts courtesy of Titanic survivors who were still alive when the documentary was produced. The documentary also covers virtually everything you would want to know about the great ship, and in tremendous detail - it covers the conception, the construction, the ship's departure from Southampton, the stopovers before the ship headed across the Atlantic, the iceberg collision, the sinking, the incompetency of the Californian's crew, the search for bodies, the aftermath, and Robert Ballad's discovery of the wreck.

What I loved most about this documentary was the detail. While discussing the iceberg collision, one historian reveals that the ship may have indeed missed the iceberg if Murdoch had merely ordered a hard to starboard, rather than order both a hard to starboard and for the engines to be reversed. As the documentary details the ship's final moments, it underscores the despair of the passengers (a heartbreaking tidbit explains that a mother was spotted with her small daughter playing the piano awaiting their doom) and the terrifying disposition of the situation (it was pitch black during the ship's final minutes, and those in the water after the ship had gone down would not have been able to see anything). Heck, we even find out Stanley Lord's response to seeing the 1958 motion picture A Night to Remember (Lord was captain of the SS Californian, and failed to heed Titanic's distress signals).

The crowning touch, perhaps, is the choice for the narrator: David McCallum. For those unaware, McCallum portrayed Harold Bride in 1958's A Night to Remember. It's these little nuances, too, which make this a solid viewing experience. Granted, the documentary is not definitive (scientific analysation of the splitting of the ship is lacking, for instance), but it's the most complete documentary currently out there. It's on YouTube, so watch without hesitation. Here's Part 1:

Remember John Hughes' Home Alone? After the tremendous box office success of that flick, John Hughes certainly did, as he proceeded to rehash the central premise for easy money. This ultimately led to the film in question: 1994's Baby's Day Out, which replaces Macaulay Culkin with a 9-month-old toddler. The prolific Hughes wrote and directed several great movies throughout the '80s, yet Baby's Day Out is awful. As Mr. Plinkett stated in his video review, it feels as if Hughes whipped up the shit script in an afternoon in order to earn the money to buy a new boat. Well, no matter what Hughes' excuse is, this movie is total bullshit and the unrealistic premise is impossible to buy for a minute. The film was designed to pull off two things: make you laugh, and warm your heart. It fails at both goals.

Baby Bink (played by the Worton twins) is the infant son of the self-absorbed, wealthy Cotwells (Boyle, Glave) who wish to put Bink's photo in the newspaper. Hence, they hire a professional photographer, but three bumbling criminals (Mantegna, Haley, Pantoliano) show up to the mansion with other plans for Bink - plans that include kidnapping and a $5 million ransom. As the police begin an investigation, Bink escapes the criminals by crawling out an open window to explore New York City. The three hapless kidnappers find themselves perpetually chasing down the little tyke, and succumb to various serious injuries in the process. As it turns out, Bink is using the illustrations of his favourite book as his guide around the city. Yeah, that's right - the little 9-month-old kid has committed the pictures to memory and he manages to stumble across every illustration in the book. 'Kay then...

There's nothing much to Baby's Day Out at all - literally, up to 80 minutes of the runtime are comprised of "comedy" set-pieces as the kid (blessed with the luck of the Irish) wanders around the city and evades the kidnappers at every turn. There is not a modicum of worthwhile humour in the whole movie, as the bashings and burnings the hapless villains receive get tiring immediately. Nothing remotely intelligent is offered here, either - there are just an inordinate number of jokes dealing with male reproductive organs being crushed, mutilated or incinerated. The cartoonish pratfalls that befall the bad guys are not funny - they're just painful, and should have induced serious injuries. This is a movie for kids, sure, but the prime aim is to make people laugh through the pratfalls, and this valuable piece of information eluded the filmmakers. Patrick Read Johnson directed the movie, and he went on to make...well, nothing. He's done a bit of producing and a splash of acting over the years without finding a groove. Directing is definitely not his forte - Baby's Day Out was woefully made, with glaring continuity problems all over the place (see the revolving door scene, or the gorilla sequence) and obvious special effects (see the dummy in the big lady's bag, and the obvious wire work during the gorilla sequence).

On top of this, the villains do stupid things and never use their brains. Their stupidity is not funny in the slightest - it's eye-rolling. Meanwhile, the "comedic" set-pieces are excruciatingly lengthy and awkward (see the scene with the police officers in the park), and none of the civilian bystanders throughout the course of the movie seem to realise that there's a little baby right there in front of their eyes! Bink is in the front doorway of a bus, yet the driver does not notice? When a delivery man is in an apartment building delivering a package, neither the delivery man nor the recipient notices a baby at their feet? This fucking bullshit is never-ending. What's most annoying about Baby's Day Out, though, is the attempt at an emotional message. Bink's mother at one stage tearfully acknowledges her misplaced priorities, and even admits Bink's nanny is a better mother figure than herself. But nothing substantial stems from this; it's just forced emotion. Fuck that shit. And, while the central three performers carried out their duties well enough, the acting as a whole is unremarkable and sleep-inducing. The baby is a more energetic performer.

Young children might laugh at Baby's Day Out, but there's a question as to whether the content is suitable for tots. In Home Alone, the criminals received relatively minor injuries, yet the cartoon mentality of Baby's Day Out was inflated to Wile E. Coyote proportions, with the criminals surviving should-be-fatal accidents. When it happens to people rather than animated creatures, it's flat-out disturbing. Thus, the movie has nothing to offer adults, and is unsuitable for kids. It should be fucking banned.

1.0/10