Reviews by PvtCaboose91

In 1995, Pixar Studios permanently changed the medium of animation with the release of Toy Story, the first feature-length motion picture created digitally using computers. Before this, computer animation was an intriguing gimmick requiring further refinement and experimentation. However, director John Lasseter and his skilled team of Pixar animators launched a new industry with Toy Story by successfully demonstrating the merit of feature-length CGI-animated movies, showing that the new medium was ready for the big time. Toy Story took international audiences by storm, inspired an artistic revolution, and was a tremendous box office success, earning $360 million worldwide. Pixar never looked back, going on to produce a revered stream of computer-animated titles, including Toy Story 2, Monster's Inc., Finding Nemo, WALL-E, Up and more. Fortunately, Pixar's movies do not solely rely on their slick technical presentation - they contain genuine heart, style and substance, reminding us that computer animation can exhibit the same qualities of Disney's most memorable hand-drawn efforts.

Like most Pixar stories, Toy Story's plot is not overly complicated. The idea is simple: when kids are not around, their toys come alive and enjoy an existence of their own. Woody (Tom Hanks) is an old cowboy doll, and he's the favourite toy of young Andy (John Morris). Andy has many additional toys in his room, including a Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), a plastic dinosaur named Rex (Wallace Shawn), a Slinky Dog (Jim Varney), a piggy bank named Hamm (John Ratzenberger), and a tub of plastic army men led by Sergeant (R. Lee Ermey). Andy's birthday is always a time of tension and anxiety for the toys, as it brings the threat of replacement. Alas, upon Andy's birthday, the young boy receives a Buzz Lightyear Space Ranger action figure (Tim Allen) that immediately takes Andy's attention away from Woody. This sparks a rivalry between Woody and Buzz, leading to them being accidentally jettisoned from the house.

Toy Story mixes buddy comedy (think '80s odd couple cop movies) with adventure, and it ruminates on weighty themes concerning loss, rejection, acceptance, loyalty, and the value of friendship. The only noticeable drawback is how confined the action is and its lack of scope compared to later Pixar efforts. This is forgivable because it is the first feature-length computer-animated movie in history, but it is hard to ignore after all these years. Although the animation is no longer as impressive due to the technological advances in the interim, the movie still looks marvellous. Rich in detail (the texture of wooden floors, the reflections in polished surfaces), the colourful, brilliantly rendered animation represents an industry breakthrough. Toy Story was created on a reported budget of $30 million and required approximately 110 animators to produce. The studio used three hundred computers to render the picture, with individual frames taking up to 15 hours to process. This is why multiple viewings are essential - one cannot fully appreciate the stunning craftsmanship displayed in a single viewing.

In addition to directing, Lasseter developed the story and penned the script with a team of writers. Among his co-writers were Pete Docter (who went on to direct Monsters, Inc. and Up), Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo, WALL-E), Joe Ranft (who contributed to the story for both The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast), Buffy creator Joss Whedon, as well as Joel Cohen and Alex Sokolow. The idea of toys coming to life is probably as ancient as toys themselves and is perhaps something most children ponder, making it ideal fodder to explore in Toy Story. However, expanding this idea to a feature-length motion picture necessitated creative ideas regarding the lives of toys. After all, if toys were, in fact, alive, they would possess a sense of their own existence and role in the universe, and these notions serve to anchor the film's most whimsical scenes and allow the toys to feel like more than plastic creations. They have souls.

Toy Story also demonstrates that, from the very beginning, Pixar had the patience to do everything correctly, paying attention to screenwriting and storytelling fundamentals. The movie features sympathetic characters that audiences can care about, with relatable aspirations and fears, and who undergo complex character arcs. To capitalise on nostalgia, the characters are based on existing toys, except for Woody and Buzz (though they became toys after the film, anyway). Disney veteran Randy Newman also wrote the soundtrack's original songs, which are memorable and enjoyable - the production's best and most iconic song, You've Got a Friend, received an Oscar nomination. Added to this, the movie has action and adventure, while humourous gags balance out the moments of pathos. With accomplished craftsmanship bringing the movie to life, Toy Story is a delightful fable. If one were to sample the animated misfires of following years - Planet 51, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, even Pixar's Cars - one sees what Toy Story could've been in less skilful hands. The film does not live and die by its technological advances.

The voiceover performances are top-notch across the board, particularly Hanks as Woody, Allen as Buzz and Ratzenberger as Hamm. There's even a memorable turn by R. Lee Ermey (Full Metal Jacket), who voices all the plastic soldiers. Lasseter cast actors who can create characters, rather than hiring fancy names for the sake of box office returns. Just as Disney fans will always have a soft spot for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (the first hand-drawn animation feature), Pixar junkies will forever revere Toy Story, and rightfully so. It stands as a wonderful encapsulation of what Pixar is all about - excellent animation, witty dialogue, emotion, great stories and an impeccable voice cast. The film was followed by three sequels, beginning with Toy Story 2 in 1999.

8.8/10

In typical Hollywood style, the '80s television show The A-Team has been revived and reinvented in the form of an over-the-top, big-budget summer blockbuster. With the cheesy source material in mind, this new movie is more or less what you'd expect: chaotic, loud, overwrought, illogical and violent - everything that's wrong with Hollywood movies today. While this somewhat enjoyable film can be admired for living up to its source material in this sense, The A-Team is by no stretch a good movie. Instead, it's a flashy succession of meaningless gags and elaborate set-pieces, some of which work while others don't, but none of which add up to anything substantial. Additionally, it's difficult to watch The A-Team without your nostrils being filled by the stench of commerce - after all, it is a blockbuster adaptation of a popular TV show, funded by the soulless, cash-grabbing folks at 20th Century Fox.

In comic book parlance, The A-Team is infused with an origins narrative designed to show how a group of characters arrive at a familiar point. In the original series, the titular team were an elite group of ex-military mercenaries who were incarcerated for a crime they didn't commit. The basic gist of the set-up is retained in this version, and given a contemporary spin. The team is comprised of the gruff Hannibal Smith (Neeson), the muscular behemoth B.A. Baracus (Jackson), the womanising Templeton 'Faceman' Peck (Cooper), and the unbalanced but brilliant pilot 'Mad' Murdock. After a series of impromptu meetings in Mexico during several unrelated adventures, the four men team up and quickly make a name for themselves as the most successful and effective alpha unit that the U.S. Military has to offer. Towards the end of the Iraq War, the team are framed and sent to prison for a crime they did not commit. Subsequently, they all escape from prison and set out to clear their names.

The A-Team appears to take place in an alternate, cartoonish universe where the laws of physics do not apply and the bad guys are unable to fire guns with any semblance of accuracy. In fact, the only time a member of the A-Team is injured by a bullet is due to friendly fire. The screenplay (cooked up by nearly a dozen writers, who worked on it for many years) has no interest at all in logic or even character motivation, leaving it almost impossible to figure out what the bad guys want, where they are, or who they are trying to kill. A bunch of counterfeit plates constitute the MacGuffin of the plot, yet this MacGuffin is stale and boring. The flat nature of the story is accentuated by a lack of surprises. There's something approximating a plot twist, yet it's not of the truly shocking variety. To the credit of the writers, however, there are a few nice moments of comedy, and the script managed to retain Hannibal's lust for exhaustive preparation, leading to a few hearty weapons-manufacturing montages. The plans that the team conceive, too, are clever and smart. Thus, The A-Team is a bit of a contradictory film in the sense that it's both powerfully dumb and smartly-constructed.

Those wanting to watch The A-Team are most likely wanting to see some action, yet the quality of the action is drastically mixed. It would seem director Joe Carnahan and his team were incapable of filming and editing action sequences in a coherent manner. Action junkies will no doubt be unsatisfied by the embrace of chaotic, "modern" action techniques reminiscent of Michael Bay movies, with ultra fast cuts, a constantly moving camera and irritating close-ups which will likely leave viewers wondering what on earth is going on during the middle of a battle. Even the hand-to-hand combat sequences are muddled and incoherent, not to mention a few crucial explication sequences suffer similarly, which means viewers will have to wait for the smoke to clear until they can determine what just happened. The intended sense of fun manages to come through from time to time, but it's nothing compared to what a more skilled action director could have delivered.

The PG-13 rating no doubt has something to do with the filming style, as the director had to stage action which would not necessitate shots of blood being spilled. While the original television show was PG and nobody was ever killed, this A-Team incarnation indeed features people getting shot. When people are shot and no blood is spilled, it detracts from the reality of the situation. It's also worth noting that, although the film boasts frequent action, there's little in the way of suspense or tension. This is because there's no willingness to kill off any main characters, meaning we know all of the characters will survive every perilous situation. Added to this, the memorable, zingy theme of The A-Team is used only rarely. It would have afforded an added zip to the action, yet the filmmakers continually opted to rely on Alan Silvestri's generic, forgettable score.

Thankfully, the new cast managed to do an admirable job of imitating their 1980s counterparts. The always-reliable Liam Neeson is suitably authoritative, wise and gruff as the A-Team's elder. Bradley Cooper (recently seen making a name for himself in films like The Hangover, He's Just Not That Into You and Valentine's Day) is ideal as Face - he managed to imbue his portrayal of the character with a smug, roguish charm while simultaneously making him a credible military man. In playing Murdock, Sharlto Copley proved that his acting debut in 2009's District 9 was no fluke. Copley's performance is spot-on, and he managed to hide his African accent commendably (though it's used as a joke at one point). The only weak link of the four is Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson as B.A. Baracus, who's neither a good actor nor Mr. T - he comes across as a mere buffoon, not a genuinely intimidating threat. Mr. T is sorely missed (and he reportedly hated this movie adaptation). Jessica Biel, meanwhile, is the eye candy, and she does a weak job in her role as Sosa. As the villains of the picture, Patrick Wilson (Lynch) chews the scenery in his terrific performance, and Brian Bloom (Pike) is adequate.

The A-Team is overly cartoonish, to be sure. But the main problem is that it's not cartoonish enough. In contrast with flat-out insane action flicks like Crank and Shoot 'Em Up, The A-Team asks us to take it seriously too many times, rather than laughing constantly and enjoying the ride. Let's face it, too, if the film was called anything other than The A-Team, you wouldn't put up with its flaws. You'd demand to know why the laws of physics do not apply, or how fugitives are able to travel the world with unlimited resources, money and weapons. You'd also like to find out how all the capers were achieved. This is not a bad film per se, but it's distinctly mediocre, and feels utterly disposable - just like the majority of action movies released in recent years. Had the action been better framed and presented, this could have been one of 2010's action high points. As it is, it's just a barely passable diversion. Oh well, at least it's better than The Losers.

5.9/10

Police Story II (a.k.a. Ging chaat goo si juk jaap) is the second part of an action film franchise. In keeping with the usual philosophy of action sequels, Police Story II is a far bigger film in terms of scope, ambition and execution, with more pyrotechnics and bigger fights. Additionally, in keeping with the usual law of this approach, the filmmakers behind Police Story II forgot that bigger is not always better. There's a lack of freshness hampering this follow-up, in addition to a demand for a bigger suspension of disbelief and far too much downtime in between the memorable moments. When the film is on, my word it is on, but when it's off? My word it's off.

Wasting no time whatsoever, save for recapping the events of the previous movie, Police Story II kicks off immediately following the events of 1985's Police Story. Chan Ka Kui (Chan) has been relegated to uniformed traffic control duty because of his unorthodox approach to his police work. Despite his efforts putting drug lord Mr. Chu (Chor) behind bars, the criminal is now out of prison due to a three-month life expectancy, and has vowed to make Ka Kui's life a misery. Added to this, a group of criminals have started planting bombs in certain locations around the city, and are blackmailing large corporations for money. While Ka Kui wishes to go on vacation with his girlfriend May (Cheung), Ka Kui's superiors want him back on the force to track down the bombers. Before long, Ka Kui is back doing what he does best: kicking criminal ass.

As with the original film, the main reason to check out Police Story II is the action. In this regard, the film earns a recommendation. There are fight sequences inside a restaurant and in a playground, both of which are excellent examples of Chan's stunt style. Interestingly, Chan choreographed the fights on the set, as he would examine the surroundings to decide which props to use and how. Also in the film is a fight with a scrawny deaf-mute, which facilitated moments of Chan getting beaten. Unlike many egocentric action stars, Chan found it fun to let himself get one-upped from time to time. The proceedings eventually culminate with a massive battle in a fireworks factory; incorporating exhilarating fisticuffs, clever use of props, and a massive show of pyrotechnics that remains utterly spectacular all these years on. Chan is, of course, an exceptional director when it comes to this material - all the stunt work and fight moves were done without the aid of strings, and Chan wanted to ensure his cameras captured every moment of the astounding choreography. Speaking from a filmmaking standpoint, Police Story II is head and shoulders above its predecessor. The inventive camera set-ups, creative use of handheld cameras, and general staging of otherwise banal scenes affords the film a more polished look.

Chan's character, Ka Kui, is the consummate everyman; a likeable, and at times puckish do-gooder who may possess superhuman abilities but clearly has to pull out all the stops in order to survive. Fortunately, the comedic elements of Police Story II are less stupid than those within the original film, although there's an obnoxious running gag involving fart jokes. It's also much less fun than its predecessor due to the trite plot. Essentially, were it not for Jackie Chan, this would have been a second-rate Dirty Harry picture. While the action scenes here are of a high standard, there are long stretches without Chan in action. Adding insult to injury, the mid-section is unnecessarily dragged out and unforgivably sluggish. There is seldom any tension throughout this section; it's just observation and pursuing the bomb planters. The elements involving Ka Kui's love life are clumsily handled, as well.

Despite its multiple flaws, Police Story II manages to deliver in the action department at least. Jackie Chan is always engaging on-screen, as he performed top-notch stunts and intricate fight scenes while at the same time providing a bit of comedy to keep things light. There's nothing in the world quite like a showcase of Jackie Chan and his death-defying stuntmen doing what they do best, and this sequel contains all that good stuff. As with the original movie, an ouchtakes montage is played during the end credits, which is filled with behind-the-scenes footage of the stunts that went dangerously wrong.

6.0/10

Jackie Chan's character here is dedicated Hong Kong police officer Chan Ka Kui. During a raid on a shanty town during the opening sequence that goes awry, Ka Kui manages to arrest drug lord Mr. Chu (Chor) as well as Chu's secretary Selina (Lin). Ka Kui's superiors force Selina to testify against her boss in court, and assign Ka Kui to act as Selina's bodyguard in case of attack. From here on in, Ka Kui works to protect Selina and take down Mr. Chu. And that's literally it - the plot is merely a string of vignettes, not unlike typical run-of-the-mill actioners that were all the rage throughout the '80s and '90s.

There are only a few reasons to see Police Story, and none of these reasons include plot or acting. Nay, the main attractions are the extraordinary martial arts action sequences and the stunt work, all of which was performed by Chan and his team of death-defying stuntmen. Chan could not move into Hollywood at this stage in his career because no Hollywood studio would agree to insure him! In the film's opening sequence, Chan latches onto a bus with an umbrella, and is seen trying to clamber inside the bus while criminals are attempting to knock him off. No stunt doubles are used here - Chan is clearly seen risking his life for the sake of his art. The climax in particular is a humdinger of an action sequence; an epic martial arts battle taking place in a shopping mall. In addition to the stunningly choreographed fights here (for which faces smash into display cases and shards of glass fly in almost every frame), there are some breathtaking stunts, one of which landed Chan in hospital. Chan has the eye of a great director, as well. He always lensed his chaotic action scenes from the most dynamic and artful camera angle. He even chose to repeat some of the biggest stunts from different angles just to show that it's real - and to show off.

Written by, directed by and starring Jackie Chan (who also sang the title song), Police Story is very surface-level stuff, since, like similar films, the script was clearly constructed around the action sequences. As a result, the plot is inconsequential and merely a flimsy excuse for Chan and his team to try to kill themselves. With this in mind, the explication scenes are predominantly boring, and the film is undermined by one-dimensional characters, a draggy narrative, and a lack of emotional conviction. Additionally, the entire cast was clearly overacting and there are far too many abysmal moments of goofy comedy. Police Story is never a great film due to this; it's barely a good film. Basically, you could just watch the first 20 minutes, the final 20 minutes, as well as the short fight scenes in the middle, and then happily call it a day.

Police Story is definitely recommended for fans of Jackie Chan as well as martial arts enthusiasts. The stunt work on display here is simply too incredible to miss and the film is undoubtedly enjoyable, even if there are severe problems in the script department. It's the pinnacle of Chan's Hong Kong career and it served as a launching point for his journey over to Hollywood, where his stunts got soft. Make sure you stick around for the film's closing credits, which are played over a reel of behind-the-scenes footage and ouchtakes showing several stunts that went painfully wrong.

6.2/10

Over recent years, the film noir genre has largely served as a reference point for filmmakers, who dress up their movies with snappy dialogue and/or complex, violent stories but neglect the genre's bleakness. In this modern era, the Coen Brothers are often credited as the life support system for classic noir, but the Coens appear to have serious competition in the form of Australian filmmaker and stuntman Nash Edgerton, whose feature debut - The Square - is a brilliantly twisty, gritty contemporary film noir. Nominated for 7 Australian Film Institute Awards (including Best Film, Best Direction and Best Original Screenplay), The Square is a film noir in the classic mould given a distinctly modern flavour. Screenwriters Joel Edgerton (Nash's brother) and Matthew Dabner have constructed the film using several familiar elements: a decent man, the temptation of a young woman, and the dream of living happily ever after away from the monotony of married life.

Like all film noirs, The Square begins with a simple bad decision. Like most of the bad decisions in the genre, it involves a large amount of cash. The principals are lured to said cash, and this leads to horrifying ramifications. In this particular instance, it's young Carla (van der Boom) who finds the bag of money, which was poorly hidden in the attic crawlspace of her house by her shady slob of a husband Smithy (Hayes). Carla has been having an affair with her neighbour Ray (Roberts) for an unspecified amount of time, and she perceives the money as a way out of her marriage. In order for the money to disappear without Smithy noticing, Ray hires an arsonist (Edgerton) to burn down Carla's home. But, of course, it's never that easy, and the theft sets off an unfortunate series of steps that sees Ray, Carla, Smithy, the arsonist, and many others get caught up in a web of murder and deceit.

The title of The Square can be interpreted in several ways. In one reading, it describes Ray; the quiet, straitlaced construction site supervisor. The title also describes the as-yet-unbuilt concrete plaza at the centre of Ray's current worksite, while it could also be interpreted as describing Ray's romantic life as well (which is more complicated than a mere love triangle).

Similar to the films of the Coen Brothers (Fargo, Blood Simple), The Square contains a certain dark humour, with the plan going so terribly awry that it becomes comical. A nightmarish quality remains, though, enhanced by the grim portrayals of the desperate characters who believe they can still salvage this mess. One of the film's myriad pleasures is the way it teases viewers. Edgerton and Dabner's script constructs a house of cards around the increasingly desperate leads who aren't cut out for criminal life. If one card was to be removed, the entire plan would collapse - but there are so many cards that it's difficult to tell which will be pulled out. It's clear the writers knew noir very well, with the plotting reminiscent of classics like Double Indemnity and The Postman Always Rings Twice, as well as more contemporary films like A Simple Plan. Yet, the plot is given a fresh new spin, and transplanted into the suburbs of Sydney, Australia without feeling overly derivative. Even better, this micro-budget Aussie pic could genuinely compete with the masters of the genre.

Additionally, The Square is a potent, twist-laden tension generator, with the filmmakers gleefully upping the ante for Ray at every turn in ways that seem almost insurmountable. Brad Shield, the talented cinematographer, was able to turn the string of murders into breathtaking, nail-biting set-pieces. With Shield's skilful photography and Nash's competent direction, the film is blessed with a gloriously gritty look, conveying a sense of dread that ensures a viewer will never believe any of the characters will survive unscathed. In fact, in a seemingly random subplot involving two dogs, there's an interesting sense of dark humour that underlines the noir-esque theme of love working out for none of the characters.

A large amount of the film's success can be attributed to the exceptional performance of David Roberts as Ray. He's a little-known actor in his home country of Australia, and thus there's little star power in The Square, but this is a classic case of choosing the correct actor for the part rather than choosing a big-name star for the sake of box office returns. Alongside Roberts, the gorgeous Claire van der Boom is never short of convincing, and is guaranteed to hold any male viewer's attention. Co-writer Joel Edgerton (already a recognised actor, having starred in Smokin' Aces, Star Wars II and III, Ned Kelly and King Arthur) also delivers a frightening, jittery performance as the unstable Billy. The remainder of the cast, meanwhile, are all superb in their respective roles (The Chaser's Julian Morrow even has a small part).

Marred only by a rushed climax and an underwritten screenplay (in particular, Ray's marriage is severely underdeveloped), The Square is the type of quality movie that's a rarity in the Australian filmmaking climate. It's small in scope, yet rich in atmosphere, tension, story and character. It's also ridiculously intense, gripping and filled with twists. A crackerjack thriller and a trip into Down Under noir hell, this is a sensational feature debut for the Nash Edgerton.

8.4/10

It's beyond me as to what genre The Bounty Hunter falls into. Romantic comedy? Action comedy? Romance actioner? Romantic comedy actioner? Alas, no matter which of these genres applies to the film, it's a tremendous failure. The romance is stale, the action is more likely to induce sleep than elevate the pulse, and the comedy is flatter than a sheet of paper. At no stage is the film even able to reach the heights of mere mediocrity. There is absolutely no on-screen chemistry between Gerard Butler and Jennifer Aniston, and the movie is both hopelessly forgettable and awfully unappealing.

The story, such as it is, concerns for-rent bounty hunter Milo (Butler). Not long into the proceedings, Milo is assigned a case he expects to relish - track down his bail-jumping ex-wife Nicole (Aniston) and bring her to gaol. As fate would have it, this job is not as fun or as easy as Milo had anticipated, predominantly because Nicole, a dedicated reporter, is working on a big story and there are bad guys who want her dead. Soon enough, Milo and Nicole are on the run together from a bunch of henchmen, leaving room for them to predictably reassess their failed marriage.

It would seem The Bounty Hunter was intended to be similar to Mr. & Mrs. Smith, yet it miserably fails at this questionable goal. Once the whole State of Play-style plot is introduced, though, the movie transitions from woeful rom-com to truly unwatchable pile of shit. The writing is sloppy and laboured, with a by-the-numbers script offering the police scandal subplot merely to provide the principals with something else to squabble about. Naturally, the generic story also forces Milo and Nicole to recognise how much they actually care about one another. From the very beginning, you can guess every beat of the well-worn Hollywood formula. Clearly, it was supposed to be a fun formula exploring the line between love and hate, but the emotion I mostly experienced throughout the movie was hate, and it was aimed at the filmmakers who were responsible for wasting 105 minutes of my life with this bullshit.

As previously discussed, The Bounty Hunter is something approximating a romantic comedy actioner. Allowing director Andy Tennant to handle these elements, though, is the equivalent of handing Burger King the assignment of serving up a high-class steak dinner. Tennant is a bland studio director without a clue about the art of cinematic personality; his prior films include Fool's Gold and Hitch, both of which are watchable but utterly disposable works of film. Even the mediocrity of his previous efforts cannot be retained here. Admittedly, The Bounty Hunter begins well enough, with the initial half-hour providing a couple of amusing moments here and there. Yet, Tennant's incompetent directorial touch when it comes to adventure, action and chemistry soon derails this minimal amount of interest. Eventually, the narrative closes with a blink-and-you'll-miss-it climax intended to be the pay-off to the agonisingly interminable build-up. It's understandable that the director showed such little interest in his picture by the time the proceedings began winding down, though.

The plot is unbelievably contrived, to be sure, with Milo making incredibly stupid decisions (he decides to gamble as opposed to simply, ya know, delivering his irritating ex-wife to the authorities as quickly as possible?) and the inept bad guys doing a terrible job of achieving their goals. This could have been forgivable, since the main aim of the plot is to get the two leads together so a viewer can watch the sparks fly. Unfortunately, once Butler and Aniston are together, the only flying sparks come from a taser. The two actors share sibling chemistry rather than the scintillating type that weakens the knees. Their respective characters spend the majority of their time together bickering like any divorced couple would, but Sarah Thorp's banal script fails to offer adequate reasoning as to why we should care about the pair. Moreover, the banter lacks wit, and the acting appears drowsy. While Butler has his moments, Aniston is woeful from beginning to end; her performance is more of a series of hair flicks than anything resembling characterisation.

If all else fails, there should at least be laughs. 2009's The Ugly Truth with Gerard Butler was painfully formulaic, yet it contained enough moments of laugh-out-loud comedy to make it worth at least a minor recommendation. 2010's Date Night was loaded with laughs and featured an ideal screen couple in the form of Steve Carell and Tina Fey, but the plot was pure formula. The Bounty Hunter, on the other hand, suffers further from a lack of laughs. Thus, with no vital spark between the leads, an absence of laughs and boring action, there's absolutely no reason to sit through this mess. The rules of rom-coms are well-known, so you know Milo and Nicole will end up together. Such foresight could save you from wasting 105 minutes on this lifeless motion picture.

2.8/10

A blatant product of the '80s action market which is reflective of America's political climate of the era, Red Dawn remains an enjoyably cheesy instance of jingoistic action cinema. Fundamentally a combination of The Breakfast Club and The Dirty Dozen, Red Dawn spotlights a number of up-and-coming stars, is built upon an interesting premise, and contains an almost non-stop stream of solid action scenes. It's difficult to accept the proceedings with a straight face, yet this does not diminish the movie's entertainment value - in fact, there's a great deal of unintentional hilarity and camp. Frankly, it's best enjoyed while drunk.

Infused with its Cold War aesthetic, Red Dawn imagines World War III as being perpetrated by the Russians, and being kicked off with a team of Soviet paratroopers landing in the football field of a Colorado high school. Amidst the initial slaughter, a group of teenagers escape into the mountains surrounding their town and hide out. The small band of teens is led by Jed (Swayze), who refuses to surrender to the enemy despite the wishes of some of his friends. Before you can say "1980's musical montage", two teenage girls (Grey & Thompson) are added to the team, and they transform from average high-schoolers into a deadly, savage paramilitary guerrilla outfit who call themselves The Wolverines. As the Soviets maintain their occupation in the United States, The Wolverines begin raging war against the invaders to avenge the deaths of their families and friends.

To state the obvious, the plot of Red Dawn is patently ludicrous. Eight untrained teenagers armed with civilian weapons would have no chance in a battle against professional soldiers equipped with more sophisticated weaponry. How are these guys so adept at using heavy firearms (like AK-47s), and how can they shoot with such accuracy? The teenagers also seem free to wander in and out of town without being identified by the Soviets, despite being known to the enemy. Suffice it to say, a lot of mindless action occurs throughout the film's duration, as well as a few dialogue sequences constructed to lend a degree of substance to the production.

Controversial upon its theatrical release, Red Dawn bears the honour of being the first ever PG-13 rated movie to hit cinemas in North America. It was also considered the most violent film in history by the Guinness Book of Records, with an average rate of 2.23 acts of violence per minute. By today's standards, the blood is fairly tame, yet such carnage was unprecedented back in 1984, particularly for a film marketed mainly towards teenagers. Most powerful and shocking is the early scene depicting paratroopers descending into a high school football field. For the most part, though, Red Dawn is too goofy to work as anything other than a guilty pleasure. If more thought and attention was put into the screenplay, then John Milius (who, ironically, also co-wrote Apocalypse Now) may have been responsible for directing an effective portrait of a possible future, rather than a gung-ho camp classic.

A veritable who's who of rising actors and actresses, Red Dawn functioned as a launching pad for such actors as Patrick Swayze (Road House, Dirty Dancing), Charlie Sheen (Wall Street, Platoon), Jennifer Grey (Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Dirty Dancing), Lea Thompson (Back to the Future and sequels), Powers Boothe (Rapid Fire) and C. Thomas Howell (The Hitcher), whose careers flourished to varying degrees in later years. Unfortunately, at this early point in their careers, most of these guys sucked as actors. The personalities of the characters are one-dimensional and barely distinguishable, rendering most of The Wolverines entirely forgettable. As a matter of fact, there's no character development of any kind in their metamorphosis from terrified teens to hard-faced guerrillas. The Communist invaders are similarly faceless, hilariously incompetent in a fire-fight and never-ending in number. The script, too, is a cheese sandwich, with line upon line of cringe-worthy dialogue. That said, Red Dawn is rarely dull - director Milius (who also oversaw Conan the Barbarian) skilfully managed to keep the story moving along at an agreeable pace.

Watch Red Dawn if ever you're in the mood for a guilty pleasure. You'll snicker at the cheesy, quotable dialogue, and perhaps ponder the fact that, in the real world, America conquered the Soviets without the help of The Wolverines. The film has not aged gracefully, but it has aged well enough, and anyone looking for a fun, old-school '80s actioner could do far worse than Red Dawn. Due to the malleable possibilities of the premise, the film was remade in 2010.

5.9/10

Inarguably, Brazil is the definitive Terry Gilliam movie. In a sense, it's Gilliam's Citizen Kane. Added to this, it was his first post-Monty Python feature. The Python troupe's final motion picture, The Meaning of Life, hit screens in 1983, and Gilliam perceived his liberation from the group as an opportunity to spread his creative wings. Brazil is pervaded with the type of dark humour that owes much to Monty Python, yet the absence of Python members (save for Michael Palin) allows this to emerge as a different animal. A hilarious, paranoid and chilling film, it's somewhat difficult to explain Brazil. In a sense it's several different movies, but it's predominantly a picture about escape; escaping from boredom, escaping from parental rule, escaping from our mundane jobs, escaping reality, escaping authorities, and the eventual escape from sanity. Or is it? Armed with a frighteningly prophetic social commentary, a nourishing dose of black comedy, an excellent sense of visual imagination, and a miasma of great actors, Brazil is classic Terry Gilliam filmmaking in every sense of the word.

Set "Somewhere in the 20th Century", the film's proceedings take place in a needlessly convoluted futuristic society; a giant bureaucratic mess whereby everything requires a signed form and all the world's citizens are being watched by a rather Orwellian Ministry of Information. Sam Lowry (Pryce) is a civil servant working at the Ministry of Information who types his way through a lifetime of meaningless papers. His only escape from this dreary existence is in his dreams, where he can fly away from technology and the overpowering bureaucracy to spend eternity with the girl of his dreams. The basic gist of the plot concerns a paperwork mix-up that leads to the imprisonment of a Mr. Buttle, who was arrested instead of suspected terrorist Harry Tuttle (De Niro). While Sam tries to rectify the wrongful arrest of Buttle, he finds the woman he has been dreaming about: Jill Layton (Greist)

This is the plot described at a very basic level. There are a number of additional subplots which seem unrelated to the narrative, yet serve to emphasise the type of world this is and sound a cautionary note about the direction of modern society. Sam's mother Ida (Helmond) receives frequent facelifts, and this highlights humanity's innate obsession with physical perfection. Jack (Palin) has a smiling ability to ignore the woes of his actions, which reflects politicians and company executives who defend their position without considering the consequences to others. Added to this is all the paperwork, whereby every act requires a signed form with a stamped receipt. While many would scoff if Brazil was filed under "Comedy", this is what the film is at its core - a sharp, comedic satire of the Information Age. The mockery is rarely subtle, yet it's frequently dead-on. Plus, a smattering of amusing physical humour is also on offer from time to time.

Throughout Brazil, a number of conflicting dichotomies are set up by Gilliam in order to pose difficult, complicated questions. It's key to the understanding of the film to realise that absolutely no answers are offered here, and there's no right or wrong. In this way, Gilliam capably engages his audience in a fashion that most moviemakers would baulk at, and he risked alienating and confounding those watching his flick. Clearly, Gilliam desired for his viewers to understand that nothing in life is understandable, and life has no clear-cut corners or any easily conceived answers. With this in mind, Brazil could have been a pretentious, artsy slog, but it's enthralling.

As the most visual member of the Monty Python troupe, it's unsurprisingly that Gilliam ended up as the most prolific filmmaker of the bunch. Brazil transpires within two different realms: the dreary "reality" where Sam spends his waking hours, and the airy fantasy world of Sam's dreams. Gilliam has always had a penchant for breathtaking visuals, and this is strongly evident in the various dream sequences peppered throughout the movie. Sam's reality, on the other hand, has been infused with a 1940s noir feel - more or less a view of what the '80s may have looked like from the perspective of a filmmaker from the '40s. Additionally, the mark of Gilliam's genius is that his visual gags clearly communicate the tyranny of a bureaucratic state. As a result, a 10-year-old could watch Brazil and grasp its message. Perhaps the best definition of Brazil comes from French directors Marc Caro and Jean-Pierre Jeunet: "retro-futurism".

Due to the film's somewhat downbeat nature, Universal executives deemed Gilliam's initial edit unsuitable for release. They desired a picture with wide appeal, rather than an "art house movie". A re-edited version was thus sanctioned that later Gilliam disowned, which has since been dubbed as the "Love Conquers All" bastardisation. The entire "Battle over Brazil" (as it was called) basically boiled down to a public war of words between Gilliam and Universal executive Sid Sheinberg. In the end, Gilliam triumphed and his cut was the version that entered multiplexes. To gain this victory, Gilliam arranged a series of unauthorised screenings for Los Angeles-area movie critics, who in turn named it 1985's Best Picture. Somewhat embarrassed that a film he was holding from release was honoured in such a way, Sheinberg admitted defeat.

At the centre of the movie is Jonathan Pryce's exceptional portrayal of Sam Lowry. The role was written with Pryce in mind, and he responded by submitting this brilliantly nuanced performance of a mousy man desperate to be someone heroic. Gilliam reportedly had trouble casting the part of Jill Layton, and after filming he was dissatisfied with Kim Greist's work, so he cut down her screen-time. Considering this behind-the-scenes dilemma, Greist is surprisingly strong, though she is not as remarkable as the remainder of the cast. Meanwhile, Python regular Michael Palin managed to use his charm to emphasise the duality of his character; loving husband one moment, bureaucratic sleaze the next. Comedian Katherine Helmond's portrayal of Ida is replete with a dash of mad humour, while Ian Holm played Mr. Kurtzmann as a typical bureaucrat. Robert De Niro provided the star power of Brazil, and fought alongside Terry Gilliam for the film's American release. His appearance amounts to a cameo, which was quite a change for the star.

Brazil clocks in at over two hours, which is admittedly a tad long and thus the film tends to drag from time to time. This criticism aside, Brazil is a must-see. If you love Gilliam's work, see this film without hesitation. For those unfamiliar with his films, this is the best introduction to Gilliam's filmography. Interestingly, as many critics have noted, the film is startlingly prophetic. Movie-goers in 1985 scoffed at the concept of terrorists infiltrating the government, and the notion of police arresting people and holding them indefinitely in a secret prison to be tortured. They also scoffed at a world overwhelmed by technology, and where privacy is merely a word. Food for thought.

9.2/10

For his first outing as a director since 2002's Adaptation, director Spike Jonze has revisited the thin line separating reality and fantasy to adapt Maurice Sendak's beloved children's book Where the Wild Things Are. Creating a feature-length motion picture from this source material posed a unique challenge, since the book is only comprised of 338 words (constituting 10 sentences) and a handful of illustrations. To their credit, Jonze and writing partner Dave Eggers (this is the first time Jonze hasn't worked with a screenplay written by Charlie Kaufman) have pulled off an admirable job of transforming the slender source material into something more substantial. Unlike most children's films in this day and age, Where the Wild Things Are is lacking in action, chases and pop culture references - it's instead a plotless, enchanting, bittersweet mood piece, and a loving ode to the inevitable passing of childhood. Added to this, it's an opportunity for parents to enjoy (as opposed to endure) a movie with their kids.

In the story, 9-year-old Max (Records) is facing the end of his childhood innocence, with his older sister more engaged with teenage concerns, his school teacher promising the end of the world, and his mother (Keener) working to make sense of her love life and career. Once this neglect gets too much for Max, a moment of violent rebellion is the consequence, resulting in a shouting match between Max and his mother. Max runs away from home, and enters the world of his mind, where he imagines (or maybe not) a boat trip to a faraway island inhabited by several "Wild Things": Carol (Gandolfini), Judith (O'Hara), Ira (Whitaker), K.W. (Ambrose), Douglas (Cooper) and Alexander (Dano). Max is swiftly appointed king of the land, and joins the monsters as they play and argue. However, the longer Max stays with the Wild Things, the more he comprehends his misbehaviour at home.

The opening segment preceding Max's escape into his imagination establishes Max's personality effectively. This is beneficial, as each of the Wild Things reflect Max's feelings towards those around him, and it's helpful to witness these traits integrated into Max's life before meeting them in the form of these Wild Things. With this symbolism and a rare intelligence in place, the film is truly about Max making several realisations about himself and his relationships with others.

While Where the Wild Things Are contains a number of depressing elements, Jonze's film is not all dread and gloom; it's predominantly a celebration of childhood imagination. However, this does not mean candy-coated wonderment or clichés - rather, the film is about proper, dirty outdoor playing, where forts are built, in-jokes are cracked, you get bruises and scabs, and you're free to run, screech and howl without a care in the world. To be sure, the entire story is spontaneous and hence plot is minimal, yet this is a fantastic representation of what goes on in the mind of an imaginative child. Thus, instead of mechanical and predictable, Where the Wild Things Are is honest, mature and emotionally affecting. The only problem is that, as a consequence of the movie's plotless nature, the proceedings tend to meander at times and there are a few dull moments. The pacing issues eventually recede, though, and the film picks right back up with more wonderment and imagination.

Another asset of Where the Wild Things Are is that all of the monsters feel like actual characters, rather than a collection of walking, talking metaphors. Each has their own personality and arcs, and they all receive their moment to shine. A major contributing factor to this success is the way the monsters were brought to life: a knockout combination of spectacular animatronic suits (courtesy of Jim Henson's Creature Shop) and utterly seamless digital face work. To the credit of the filmmakers, the creature design effortlessly evokes and pays tribute to the illustrations in Sendak's book. There's not a single moment in which the titular Wild Things feel anything other than real and alive. Additionally, the colour palette and lighting was kept appealingly natural, with a great deal of the filming taking place on location (in Victoria, Australia) that contributed to the immaculate atmosphere. Consequently, nothing feels manufactured or as if created within a studio. Meanwhile, Carter Burwell and Karen Orzolek's score is evocative and remarkable, and will burrow into the mind of a viewer.

Playing Max, young actor Max Records is the only cast member who was allotted considerable screen-time. Max, whose only previous film credit is a minor role in The Brothers Bloom, is blessed with an incredibly expressive face that effortlessly conveys an array of emotions and never fails to sell the legitimacy of a scene. His performance is absolutely convincing, and this is a rare quality in a child actor. The vocal casting for the Wild Things is spot-on, with James Gandolfini who's exceptional as Carol, Lauren Ambrose who's a standout as K.W., and all the other cast members hitting their marks with equal assurance. Catherine Keener also appears in the minor role of Max's mother, and she exudes confidence.

Where the Wild Things Are may be perceived as too dark, scary, strange and complex for the little ones, but this assumption is misplaced. However, the film may indeed be too dark, scary, strange and complex for adults. See, while adults will absorb every facet the film imparts, children will not be able to comprehend the underlying themes; in fact, their young minds will likely overlook them. Thus, this is a family film which engages viewers of all ages: children will adore the experience, while pre-teens and young teens will connect with Max, and adults will be able to recognise the allegorical nature of the film and absorb everything on offer. A visually stimulating, emotionally riveting celebration of the spirit of childhood, Spike Jonze's third feature film is mature and resonant; qualities rarely exhibited in a family film. To quote Bob Chipman: "The idea that a children's film like this can even exist in the same world that produces horrors like The Cat in the Hat or The Pacifier is a wonder to behold."

7.8/10

By the time Daylight entered multiplexes in 1996, Sylvester Stallone was a fading star. Following the success of Cliffhanger and Demolition Man in 1993, Sly featured in a string of less-than-stellar movies and his career appeared to be running out of steam. Daylight is one of Stallone's late-'90s attempts to erase his tough guy image, expand his horizons and rekindle the success of his earlier movies. In essence, this Rob Cohen-directed disaster flick is a '90s version of The Poseidon Adventure, whereby a group of people become trapped and are facing death after a catastrophic disaster. Thankfully, Daylight is a top-flight disaster thriller overflowing with nail-biting tension and explosive set-pieces of a high calibre. It's the type of flick which would not have felt out of place if released during the 1970s; an era in which Irwin Allen's name was attached to various iconic disaster pics (such as The Towering Inferno and the aforementioned Poseidon Adventure).

In the film, a bunch of runaway thieves are escaping in a getaway car through a large tunnel and slam into a truck filled with toxic waste, causing an explosion of cataclysmic proportions that seals off both exists of the underwater tunnel between New Jersey and Manhattan. A band of ordinary citizens survive the explosion, and are left to fend off the elements in order to work their way back to the surface. But the situation looks grim, with air running low and water seeping through the crumbling walls. Fortunately for them, Sylvester Stallone is on hand. Sly plays Kit Latura; the former head of New York City's Emergency Medical Service who was forced to resign after being blamed for the accidental deaths of some co-workers (sounds like Cliffhanger, doesn't it?).

From this point forward, Daylight transforms into a string of white-knuckle action scenes and near-escapes as Kit struggles to both save the lives of the survivors and redeem himself for past blunders. This is all orchestrated with great vitality by director Rob Cohen. In undertaking the film, Cohen evidently looked to the disaster pictures of yesteryear to glean inspiration, and the resulting picture is infused with a look and feel of the type of films Irwin Allen was famous for producing. With the presence of physically capable Stallone (who was pushing 50 at the time), Cohen was also allowed the freedom to create a disaster film spotlighting an almost superhuman protagonist. Compared to Earthquake, Airport and other classics from the '70s, Daylight is packed with more action than you'd expect from the genre. A lot of the hallmarks of typical disaster films are backgrounded here; allowing more room to showcase Stallone's ability to react to precarious situations. Fortunately, it all comes together nicely. Adrenaline is always appreciated, though it's not as rewarding as films such as Die Hard and Speed which managed to serve up a supplemental mix of humanity and emotion.

When Daylight went before the cameras, special effects had come a long way since The Poseidon Adventure in 1972, and this is therefore a visually dynamic disaster pic. In terms of pyrotechnics, the film delivers the goods in a satisfying fashion. The centrepiece - the explosion inside the tunnel - is breathtaking; easily rivalling the money shots of other '90s disaster features (Independence Day, Twister, etc). Thanks to Cohen, the movie shifts forwards at a nice pace as well. In fact, at no point does Daylight descend into abject boredom - not even during the character building moments. Problem is, the characters are all caricatures that lack defining personalities. There's also a lack of shocks and surprises on account of the way the characters are treated, because only a few are killed. Consequently, we can guess the characters will survive almost every nail-biting situation they encounter. A bunch of richly-drawn characters and a bit less sentimentality could have benefitted the movie - as it is, it's a fairly routine instance of disaster film junk food.

On the acting front, Sylvester Stallone is surprisingly nuanced. As opposed to an emotionless, gun-toting thug, Daylight provided Sly with the chance to play a flawed hero; conveying the kind of emoting he did in Rocky back in the late '70s (for which he earned an Oscar nomination for Best Actor). Epic one-liners are absent for the most part (with the exception of a rather giggle-worthy final line) and the tough-guy act is generally eschewed. Thankfully, too, he imparts great intensity throughout the film (even if his character's back-story is amazingly clichéd). The rest of the cast, ranging from Amy Brenneman to Viggo Mortensen, are generally decent, though none of them are true standouts; they're disaster movie ciphers, and in this sense the actors carried out their duties commendably.

Daylight is packed with merciless tension and moves at a strong pace, not to mention it contains excellent special effects and a great leading performance from Stallone. It's unfortunate that it faded into obscurity over the years (whereas films like Independence Day are more remembered), because this disaster film deserves far more attention.

7.3/10