Reviews by PvtCaboose91

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

Heavens above, Hong Kong cinema is awesome. To be fair, Hong Kong action pictures are never especially smart or original, yet they are nonetheless blessed with a solid entertainment value. This leads us to 1996's Black Mask; a campy, entertaining Hong Kong action extravaganza constructed around a plotline which ostensibly takes inspiration from 1992's Universal Soldier. If you like action served up with a good story and interesting characters to accompany, though, you're shit out of luck with Black Mask. Directed by Daniel Lee and starring action super-star Jet Li, the movie provides nothing but high-flying, old-fashioned action replete with blood, explosions, bullets, mayhem, and Li's martial arts expertise. It's a solid, R-rated guy movie.

Tsui (Li) - or Simon, in the English version - is the product of a government experiment to create super-soldiers impervious to pain for an army fighting force. Once it becomes clear the soldiers are uncontrollable, though, Tsui and his fellow fighting machines are scheduled for termination. Unwilling to let his execution take place, Tsui escapes and adopts a new life as a meek librarian. One of Tsui's only friends is a police inspector known as 'Rock' (Wan Lau), who has started investigating a series of murders and attacks. As it turns out, these attacks are linked to members of Tsui's former unit (all of whom he thought had been decommissioned) who aim to control the underworld. When Tsui realises this, he springs into action as the masked vigilante "Black Mask".

The plot is pure garble which you will not care about, and throughout the course of the narrative a lot of proverbial clichés pop up, including the obligatory romance with an annoying female who exists solely to be rescued. It's doubtful that more than a weekend was spent working on this poor script. When it comes to the action, however, Black Mask delivers with an adrenaline-pumping kick - the amusing comic-book violence and over-the-top, campy action scenes come thick & fast. Jet Li's speedy and flashy stunt-work is jaw-dropping. Added to this, the fights were choreographed by the best man in the business: Yuen Wo Ping, who went on to participate in The Matrix and various other action films. Ping outdid himself here with a series of breathtaking, creative and ultraviolent fights that must be seen to be believed. Since a number of the characters cannot feel pain, they fight ruthlessly when they should be dead.

Li submitted a charismatic performance here, while Ching Wan Lau (billed as Lau Ching Wan) exudes a cool machismo as Inspector Rock. Added to this, Kong Lung is hysterical in his role as the commander - seriously, he's like an Asian Ozzy Osbourne with his yellow sunnies and long hair. Meanwhile, Daniel Lee's direction is adequate for this type of motion picture, and his stylistic camera set-ups captured the balletic fight choreography with consummate skill. Additionally, the film's campy nature is further emphasised by the cartoonish CGI. Equipped with (probably unintentional) hilarity around every corner, Black Mask is a blast, but it would be foolhardy to expect something to challenge your mental acuity.

The greatest problem with Black Mask, though, is the trite plot and at times woeful scenes of exposition, yet the spectacular action should distract you from these shortcomings (it's also worth noting the film was dubbed into English for mainstream audiences, and the dubbing is dreadful). All things considered, Black Mask is neither gripping nor meaningful nor emotionally fulfilling. It was made to fill a niche and give action hounds a fix, and to this end the film delivers something satisfying. If you enjoy a loud, blood-soaked good time, Black Mask fits the bill nicely.

5.9/10

War (a.k.a. Rogue Assassin) is a standard-issue action movie, featuring guns, violence, explosions, car chases and other cool stuff that makes or breaks an actioner based on style and execution. Alas, the execution and style of War is below-par and unremarkable, hence the end result is a forgettable shoot-'em-up not worthy of repeat viewings. There's one prime reason the film is as disappointing as it is: it's a wasted opportunity. War is billed as a battle royale between Jet Li and Jason Statham which could have been awesome, but the filmmakers opted for endless build-up that does not pay off. Rather than allowing the two stars to constantly punch each other in the head, Gregory Bradley's screenplay is too concerned with a generic police procedural plotline, while director Philip G. Atwell was clearly more concerned with filming predominantly indecipherable action set-pieces.

The plot, such as it is, involves FBI agent Jack Crawford (Statham) who is determined to exact revenge on elusive assassin Rogue (Li). Years prior, Rogue killed Jack's partner as well as the family of said partner, and Jack is therefore looking to avenge these deaths. Fortunately for Jack, Rogue resurfaces on the local radar with his own score to settle - he's acting as an assassin for the two rival crime syndicates, and aims to set off a bloody war between them. And that's just about it, folks.

Essentially, War is just another action film with a plot that was likely scribbled on a napkin, and a bunch of characters that are as cardboard as a shoebox. For several lengthy stretches, the film adopts a type of cop-show procedural tone as it endeavours to show the ins and outs of shady betrayals while the hero closes in on the vast network of villains. This is the type of thing Michael Mann (Heat, Collateral) excels at, but nobody of Mann's calibre participated in the making of this movie. While an interesting surprise revelation arrives towards the film's end, the rest of War is as formulaic as they come, with plot contrivances borrowed from other, better films and recycled action scenes we've seen done better countless times before. Speaking of the twist, the final third of the movie becomes utterly perplexing. This is not the sort of confusion for which you just can't figure it out - it's the type that causes you to question motives and sit there thinking "WTF?!". Frankly, it doesn't all add up.

As far as the meat of the movie is concerned, some action sequences work better than others. The set-pieces involving hand-to-hand combat and sword fighting are expertly choreographed and technically sound, and may elevate one's heart rate. On the other hand, a lot of the other action sequences are marred by director Atwell's proclivity for flash cuts that will induce epilepsy and bewilderment. It's a common complaint these days, but it's almost impossible to tell who shot who and which idiot just fell down an elevator shaft. Plus - and this is a biggie - there are times when it's impossible to figure out the ins and outs of a location (the prime offender being the opening shootout). Without an establishing shot and with only close-ups choppily editing together, the result is catastrophic. The routine car chases are pretty humdrum as well. Clearly, no-one involved in War possessed any drive or energy. It feels like a paycheck effort.

Speaking of this being a paycheck effort, the actors clearly phoned this one in too. Jason Statham's charisma is utterly wasted in this one-note role, which called for him to growl and engage in action scenes but not much else. On the other hand, Jet Li's performance is pretty good, but only because he was required to kill without emotion or compunction. It's worth noting this is Li's second film with Jason Statham, as Statham also featured in Li's The One back in 2001 (it's also not their last film together - both feature in 2010's The Expendables). Unfortunately, once Li and Statham's characters eventually engage in a fight towards the end of War, the fight is over before it gets started. The filmmakers forced you to sit through the increasingly humdrum plot to get to the fight, and you'd hope for a satisfying pay-off, but it's far too insignificant. It's basically 30 seconds of half-hearted punches. There's nothing here but a wasted opportunity.

War's purpose was to give action fans a fix, and, to the credit of the filmmakers, the style is the right one - an old-fashioned action movie with a hard edge and plenty of blood. It embraces being a guy movie, yet it still sucks on these terms. Had the filmmakers amped up the pace, jettisoned the generic plot, and just delivered a bunch of mindless high-octane lunacy... War would have been perfectly satisfying. As it is, the film is 90 excruciating minutes of tension-free dullness, with only enough action to fill a half-decent trailer. War could only suffice as entertainment in low-expectation venues - on cable television on a boring, lazy, rainy afternoon, or as the second half of a drive-in bill.

4.3/10

The legend of Robin Hood is a Hollywood staple that has served as fodder for countless adventure films. Due to remakes and reinterpretations on a regular basis, the story was drained of tension a long time ago, leaving almost no new ground to explore. Mel Brooks' Robin Hood: Men in Tights in 1993 was the last cinematic take on the story, though the last serious adaptation was the critically-panned Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves from 1991. Thus, a new Robin Hood flick was overdue since it can be argued that the current generation of movie-goers deserve a new version. Famed director Ridley Scott accepted the challenge of helming this new adaptation, and, to his credit, has succeeded against all odds. 2010's Robin Hood is a darker, grittier take on the character with first-rate production values, which is the way Robin Hood should have been transplanted to film a long time ago.

The Robin Hood equivalent of a superhero origins story, this movie takes place before Robin is an outlaw - and even before he's known as Robin Hood. Before robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, Robin Longstride (Crowe) was an archer in King Richard the Lionheart's crusade army who decided to desert once the king is killed during battle. Escaping into the forests with Will Scarlett (Grimes), Little John (Durand) and Allan A'Dayle (Doyle), Robin assumes the identity of fallen soldier Robin of Loxley, and returns to England to pass on Richard's crown. He visits Nottingham as well, whereupon he's implored by Robin Loxley's blind father Walter (Sydow) to continue assuming Loxley's identity. Meanwhile, the traitorous Godfrey (Strong) tears up the English countryside in a mad plan of profit and murder which would facilitate a French invasion of England.

A lot of recognisable characters from Robin Hood lore make appearances throughout the movie. In addition to Robin himself and Marion (Blanchett), Friar Tuck (Addy) is introduced, as well as the various constituents of Robin's "Merry Men". The proverbial Robin Hood villain, the Sheriff of Nottingham (Macfadyen), was allotted a minor role, and is by no means the central villain of the film.

For Robin Hood, Ridley Scott and his team have laid the groundwork for a version of the legend based in the reality of the period. Essentially, it offers a glimpse into each of the story's characters, and we get a real sense of Robin Hood's influences and personality, giving the film something to do other than detail the do-goodery of Robin's Merry Men. Make no mistake: this is a far different Robin Hood - in fact, this is more Braveheart than a story to do with the hero of Sherwood Forest (Bravehood?). It's a love it or hate it affair, too - either you'll be willing to enjoy a different take on the character, or you'll yearn for colourful Errol Flynn-style antics (it is entitled Robin Hood, after all). In this sense, what people will love about this version is exactly what others will hate. Not that Robin Hood is perfect, mind you - even if you roll with the punches, the film's political machinations lead to a meandering, convoluted, long-winded middle period that swerves too far away from the sense of adventure which constitutes the movie's core. More importantly, it's emotionally aloof when it should be affecting or uplifting. Also, the filmmakers betrayed the character of Marion with a ridiculous third-act gimmick. It won't be spoiled here, but rest assured you will either laugh or growl "WTF?!"

Over recent years, too many directors have grown mesmerised by video-game syndrome that they are positively clueless when it comes to staging action scenes (see Clash of the Titans), hence it's wholly refreshing to witness an action-adventure helmed by a director who knows his craft. There are various battle scenes throughout Robin Hood which were handled great with artistry and skill. Given that Scott's filmmaking trademark is the visual quality of his movies, it should come as no surprise to learn that Robin Hood is visually impressive. The camerawork by seasoned cinematographer John Mathieson (in his 5th collaboration with Ridley Scott) is stunning, and captured the harshness of medieval life with such detail that nothing breaks the illusion of this being set in the 12th Century. Most impressive are the sweeping shots during the battles, often accompanied by the transfixing, atmospheric score courtesy of Marc Streitenfeld. However, a PG-13 rating was mandatory for maximizing box office profits, disallowing serious bloodletting and sexuality. It weakens the film's impact. One must wonder if this is the studio-mandated trim, and if Ridley Scott's vision of the movie is a longer, more fully-formed, more violent R-rated version.

The entire cast is superb from top to bottom. Amidst all the battles and archery antics, Crowe is a completely believable Robin Hood who's a man of both thought and action. To the actor's credit, his performance is underplayed and this lack of bravado seems appropriate for this take on the legend. Cate Blanchett, meanwhile, is a magnificent, tough Marion who manages to be every bit the match for Robin. Mark Strong, who has recently played villains in The Young Victoria, Sherlock Holmes and 2010's Kick-Ass, is still a solid antagonist, though he has become type-cast in these types of roles. Among Robin's Merry Men, the standouts are Mark Addy as Friar Tuck and Kevin Durand as Little John. Both men look their parts, and managed to add a touch of humour to the serious nature of the adventure. The elders of the cast are equally outstanding - Max von Sydow is warm and captivating as Sir Walter Loxley, while William Hurt is memorable as Sir William Marshal. Oscar Isaac, meanwhile, is an effective King John.

Rather than a light-hearted, swashbuckling tale, 2010's Robin Hood presents the infamous character in the context of a dark medieval war epic, and it's a change for the better. Literally, the film ends with the beginning, as King John declares the hero of Sherwood Forest to be an outlaw and a title card proclaims "And so the legend begins". While many will deem this 140-minute prequel long and unnecessary, it's vital for both putting the character into perspective and ensuring this take is something unique. Thankfully, this origins tale is nothing short of enthralling and fascinating.

7.3/10

At its core, Hot Tub Time Machine is Back to the Future mixed with The Hangover, featuring the team of John Cusack, Rob Corddry, Clark Duke and Craig Robinson travelling back through time via a hot tub and some Russian Red Bull. Time-travelling using a DeLorean may make more sense, but it would be best not to ponder it too deeply - absurdity is what Hot Tub Time Machine aimed for, and succeeds at. Written by Sean Anders and John Morris (who penned both 2010's She's Out of My League and 2008's Sex Drive) the film is a good-natured, quirky, almost poignant comedy which makes the most of its one-joke premise. It's essentially 2010's answer to last year's The Hangover.

For the protagonists of Hot Tub Time Machine, life is awful. Adam (Cusack), Lou (Corddry), and Nick (Robinson) have left behind their mid-'80s heyday for a miserable life as adults filled with unfaithful women, divorce, humiliating careers and suicide attempts. Looking to relive their youth and pull their lives out of the doldrums, the three men, along with Adam's nephew Jacob (Duke), head to the ski resort which provided a memorable backdrop to their teenage years. The idea to relive their glory days soon becomes quite literal, as the titular hot tub malfunctions and transports the quartet back in time to 1986. With Jacob flickering in & out of existence (he had not been born yet), the gang struggle to retrace their exact steps from 1986 in an attempt to ensure the future remains intact. And then, of course, there's also the matter of getting back to the future...

Following a 20-minute opening segment designed to convey the monotony of the characters' lives, the shift back to 1986 occurs, which allows the film the opportunity to crack easy but nonetheless amusing jokes about hairstyles, clothes and music. The protagonists even resemble their younger selves to the outside world, leading to a nightmare of recollections as bullies and old girlfriends return to their lives, and the three are compelled to yet again experience the same humiliations that made them the men they became. Most of the fun which stems from this is the way the characters break their pact and set about rewriting the past. Thus, the film's time travel vision predominantly concerns the protagonists being given a second chance, and constructing new and impossibly perfect lives for themselves. There's universal appeal to this idea - I mean, how many of you have pondered the notion of travelling back in time to change something? I have...

Hot Tub Time Machine is, unsurprisingly, chock full of references and tributes to '80s teen flicks that children of the '80s will undoubtedly find amusing. On top of this, the overzealous television commercials from the era were replicated with hilarious accuracy. Further laughs are triggered via the bouncy quips and back-and-forth banter between the central actors, who clearly bonded during the production. John Cusack (who also co-produced) actually featured in '80s teen comedies which Hot Tub Time Machine is reminiscent of, and his presence is a nice touch. The actor hasn't had a role this charming since High Fidelity 10 years prior. Meanwhile, Rob Corddry often steals the show as the self-destructive, obnoxious Lou. He imbued his role with an abundance of comic energy, and even some pathos. In the supporting cast, Craig Robinson provides several big laughs, while Clark Duke managed to get great comic mileage out of his role. Added to this, former Back to the Future cast-member Crispin Glover provokes several laughs as a bellhop who is perpetually in danger of losing his arm (don't ask), while Chevy Chase is at his funniest in years here playing the ambiguous hot tub repairman.

While the majority of the film works, some of it doesn't. Instead of a clever and original script, Hot Tub Time Machine abides by the usual clichés that plague these movies. Characters initially hoping not to alter history or rupture the space-time continuum? Check. Discovering a loved one was a drunk and/or a slut? Check. Encountering old friends and enemies? Check. Preventing someone from being erased from existence? Check. Heck, there's even a scene in which Nick plays with a band to the astonishment of the crowd. When Back to the Future came out 25 years ago, these ideas were clever and fresh. In 2010, these narrative beats are all too familiar. Unfortunately, there are also a number of laugh-free lulls and patches of awkward pacing, though the film never lags for long enough for it to entirely lose its steam. It's also worth mentioning that Chevy Chase's character is not exploited to his full potential, and there aren't as many comic ramifications as one would expect once the boys travel back to the future.

One would imagine that any serious time-travel nitpicker will judge the whole premise as wildly implausible, and will criticise the idea of a hot tub being used as a time-travel device. But that's not the point - honestly, who cares?! Just roll with the punches. Hot Tub Time Machine is not high-brow stuff, but it is a comedy benefitting from genuine laughs and personality. If you're seeking a funny romp to pass a few hours, Hot Tub Time Machine fits the bill.

7.2/10

Even for a consistently reliable studio like Pixar, the notion of Toy Story 3 seemed risky due to the time-honoured tradition of part threes being unnecessary and below-par. The Godfather: Part III, Lethal Weapon 3, Batman Forever, Terminator 3, Alien 3, Jurassic Park 3 and Superman III are a few examples of "threequels" which took a drastic nose-dive in quality after two solid forerunners. But Toy Story 3 is not an addition to this list. Not even close. The folks at Pixar Studios have done it again, extending their unparalleled streak of success stretching back to the original Toy Story in 1995 (their feature-length debut). Arriving 15 years after the first film and 11 years after the sequel, Toy Story 3 is every bit as brilliant as its predecessors and one of the best movies of 2010.

Elements of the narrative are best left unspoiled, so only a brief synopsis will be included here. When we last met Andy (John Morris), he was a little kid who always played with his toys. Many years have elapsed, however, and now he's a much older lad packing for college. This leaves his toys - who are relegated to a spot in an old chest - in a frenzied panic. Their numbers have steadily dwindled over the years, so only a small group remains, including Woody (Tom Hanks), Buzz (Tim Allen), Jesse (Joan Cusack), Rex (Wallace Shawn), Hamm (John Ratzenberger) and Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), to name a few. Although Andy intends to place his old toys (save for Woody) in the attic, a Toy Story-style series of mix-ups results in Andy's mother (Laurie Metcalf) donating the toys to Sunnyside Daycare. From here, a plot unfolds that's too delicious to spoil, but suffice it to say, there is an escape plan involved here.

These are the very basic constituents of the plot. At its core, Toy Story 3 is a beautiful, vibrant tale about memories, mortality, the passing of time and how you treat people in your life. This leads to a conclusion filled with action, comedy and pathos. Truth be told, the climax is slightly overkill, and some bits and pieces don't entirely work, but this can easily be overlooked due to how perfectly the film ends. Anyone who felt the ending for Toy Story 2 was too optimistic will find Toy Story 3's ending to be far more satisfying, as the toys are confronted with their own mortality and are faced with their greatest foe of all: time. The conclusion for the trilogy works on different levels for different viewers - while the youngsters in the audience will understand the importance of friendship, mature-age audience members will find the ending to be a reminder of the fleeting nature of childhood and how all things pass in the blink of an eye. One particular moment emphasises this point but will likely go unnoticed by the kids: Andy experiences an epiphany. This is conveyed so effectively through mere facial expressions rather than words, and this is precisely why Pixar's motion pictures achieve greater respect than those produced by their less ambitious competitors.

Do not mistake Toy Story 3 for a weepy, depressing drama, however - Toy Story 3 is designed to provide a good time, and heavens me, it does exactly that. All the movie's emotional moments do not arrive at the expense of enjoyment, as Toy Story 3 provides huge laughs and enjoyable set pieces (and I'm not spoiling anything). This is one of the most effective and well-paced comedies of the year. No doubt you will be laughing from the get-go at the sight gags, the one-liners and the pop culture piss-takes. Director Lee Unkrich served as assistant director on three previous Pixar features, including Toy Story 2, making him an ideal candidate to oversee this third instalment. Unkrich's greatest talent is attention to detail, as every frame of Toy Story 3 bursts with visual splendour and smart touches. The way the daycare centre becomes an Alcatraz is a stroke of genius - the slide in the playground becomes a watchtower, the bead mazes double as razor wire, and so on. It's astounding how much creativity went into the feature. Unkrich and writer Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine) also clearly spent time watching pre-schoolers, as the film highlights the notion that an unattended child is a walking WMD.

Naturally, Pixar's animation techniques have improved tremendously in the 11 years between Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3. Added to this, the 3-D effects serve to enhance the rich textures within every frame, such as the fur of Lotso (Ned Beatty) and the flashy clothes worn by Ken (Michael Keaton). In 3-D, Toy Story 3 is amazingly immersive. Also, most of the original voice cast make their return here, slipping back into their roles as if no time has passed. Even John Morris (now in his 20s) voices Andy once again. Morris's voice naturally sounds different compared to a decade ago, and Pixar could have recruited anyone else to play this part, but it means something to have the original Andy back. Other returning cast members include Tom Hanks as Woody, Tim Allen as Buzz, Joan Cusack as Jesse, Wallace Shawn as Rex, and many others. The only missing cast member is Jim Varney, who died in 2000. Blake Clark fills Varney's role of Slinky Dog, and the change is seamless. There are several newcomers here, too, many of whom confidently stand out. The scene-stealer here is Ken, who's voiced by Michael Keaton. Keaton has always had impeccable comic timing (see Beetlejuice), and this role fits him like a glove. Jodi Benson (Ariel from The Little Mermaid) had a small part as Barbie in Toy Story 2, but her role is expanded here as she becomes Ken's plastic soulmate. Meanwhile, Beatty is an effective Lotso, Timothy Dalton is wonderfully gleeful as Mr. Pricklepants, and Kristen Schaal is great fun as Trixie.

A hint of familiarity pervades Toy Story 3, yet it never feels overly derivative while you enjoy the experience, which is a testament to director Unkrich's masterful handling of the material. In a nutshell, the film is a rousing adventure, a delightful comedy, a thoughtful drama, and a treasured reunion with a beloved group of fictional pals, and it provides exceptional entertainment for viewers of all ages. Toy Story 3 is also a weeper, particularly during the final 15 minutes, which are poignant and overwhelmingly affecting (even by Pixar's standards). Those irritating 3-D glasses may be beneficial for hiding all your tears. Altogether, the Toy Story movies take the breath away. What a terrific, mature trilogy this has turned out to be. Thank you, Pixar. Thank you for providing three wonderful animation gems and showing the world the difference between paycheque efforts and actual hard labour.

9.1/10

For adults, Shrek was most enjoyable due to its willingness to lampoon the mythology of Disney's fairytales, and this aspect was given extra oomph by the fact that DreamWorks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg was a former Disney employee. Unfortunately, as is the case with successful family-friendly blockbusters, sequels followed. Shrek 2 was enjoyable but unremarkable, while Shrek the Third was an appalling follow-up marred by strained humour and a dull sitcom vibe. Irony of all ironies, the Shrek franchise has become the type of pandering, predictable fairytale franchise that the first film parodied. 2010's Shrek Forever After (a.k.a. Shrek: The Final Chapter, Shrek Goes Forth, or whatever DreamWorks is calling it now) is reportedly the final entry in the series, and that's fortunate. While it's a marked improvement over the woeful Shrek the Third, this fourth film feels forced and, more pertinently, utterly unnecessary. Shrek Forever After is a product of commerce rather than art, though those wanting to say farewell to the Jolly Green Ogre may find it to be a tolerable way to spend 80 minutes.

As the old adage goes, if you're going to steal, steal from the best. It would seem those responsible for Shrek Forever After took this to heart, as the core storyline is lifted from It's a Wonderful Life. Shrek (Myers) has adopted a life of domesticity; he's a father, husband and beloved community icon. Shrek grows tired of this mundane routine, however, and begins pining for his bygone days as a feared monster without any commitments. Hearing the call is the wicked Rumpelstiltskin (Dohrn), who offers Shrek a shady contract which would provide him with 24 hours of his former life. In return, Shrek must pay with a day of his life. Inadvertently, the ogre pays the deal with the day he was born, meaning he never existed. In the alternate reality he enters, he never saved Fiona (Diaz), never befriended Donkey (Murphy), and never encountered Puss in Boots (Banderas), while Rumpelstiltskin has taken the throne of Far Far Away. Realising the gravity of his mistake, and confronted with being erased from existence in 24 hours, Shrek begins racing against the clock in the hope of reversing the contract.

The limp-wristed It's a Wonderful Life premise is at least reasonably well executed. Director Mike Mitchell has provided as much fun as can be had with whatever energy remained in the characters, and there are some laughs to be had despite a few mundane lulls in pacing. These gags are not in the least bit memorable, but Shrek Forever After is at least much more enjoyable than Shrek the Third. The Gingerbread Man steals his scenes, and his limited appearances constitute some of the film's biggest laughs, while new characters like the Pied Piper and a chimichangas-obsessed ogre liven up the proceedings from time to time. Really, there are some isolated moments that shine. As a whole, however, Shrek Forever After does not work, primarily because it fails to justify itself and it does not offer anything new. The whole reason the filmmakers played the alternate reality card is because there was no place for the story to go in the franchise's reality, which must be a red flag. Moreover, 90% of this conclusion to the franchise is akin to a dream (seems a bit worthless, doesn't it?), and the notion of Shrek growing bored of his life was explored in Shrek the Third.

The writers (Josh Klausner and Darren Lemke) simply lack the creative spark that made the first movie so successful, and newcomer Mike Mitchell lacks the deft directorial touch of Andrew Adamson (director of the first two Shrek movies). What started as an original, invigorating fairytale parody has simply transformed into something different; an adventure which has no reason to exist under the Shrek banner. What's most unfortunate is that Shrek Forever After seems predominantly geared towards the little kids more than any other demographic, whereas the original Shrek appealed to young & old. While the idea of Shrek getting fed up with the domestic life raises familiar points for adults, from frame one it's obvious where the film is headed: the well-worn "be grateful for what you have" lesson. And what of the animation? It's as perfect as it needs to be to retain the intended atmosphere. This is also the first Shrek movie to be available in 3-D, but it's a very perfunctory application. There's nothing glaringly wrong with the 3-D effects, but there is nothing right with them either; the added value is minimal. It's not worth the surcharge, as it does not enhance the experience in any effective or note-worthy way.

Naturally, there is plenty of time allotted to Fiona, Donkey and Puss in their alternate reality forms, the most amusing of which finds Puss in a state of kitty obesity. Antonio Banderas steals the show as Puss in Boots, of course, and provides a few big laughs. Eddie Murphy as Donkey, meanwhile, is the same buffoon he's been since the first film, yet the character is still fun. Mike Myers is fine as Shrek, but he's no longer a standout due to the scripting, while Cameron Diaz seemed to have seriously phoned in her performance as Fiona. Whether it's due to fatigue, general disinterest or poor acting, Diaz sounds irretrievably bored. On the other hand, Walt Dohrn - a writer and storyboard artist - is a terrific Rumpelstiltskin.

Perhaps it was unreasonable to expect the Shrek sequels to recapture the magic of the original. After all, the filmmakers certainly never seemed to think it was a priority. Look, it's not that Shrek Forever After is a bad movie; it just didn't need to be made. The original Shrek had something to say and a story to tell, whereas this fourth movie feels like an excuse to revisit the franchise for extra bucks. Still, at least Shrek Forever After ends the series on a better than expected note. It could have been far worse. And let's face it, kids will most likely enjoy this feature because it's good enough by their standards.

6.0/10