Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"You see, most places have mice or mosquitoes. We have...dragons."

With Pixar's unparalleled run of computer-animated critical and commercial hits during the latter half of the 1990s, other studios began scrambling to mimic - or at least get a share of - this success. When Shrek was released in 2001, it appeared that DreamWorks was a strong competitor for Pixar's crown in this realm, but alas, in following years, DreamWorks started being treated like a second-class citizen, and not without reason - while Pixar continued to produce animated movies which transcended the limitations of the form, DreamWorks began churning out a stream of profitable but painfully formulaic and generally lazy animated efforts like Bee Movie, Shark Tale and the Madagascar flicks. But their latest, How to Train Your Dragon, is a dramatic gear shift for the studio. This is the sort of excellent family flick that DreamWorks led us to expect would be the norm when Shrek made its debut. Technically proficient and witty, this is a rip-snorting 3-D action fable which seamlessly blends humour and heart. There are no fart jokes, pop culture references or annoying R&B songs in How to Train Your Dragon, which surely represents an artistic growth for DreamWorks. There's no mistaking this for Up or WALL-E, but it's a good-natured charmer.

Based on the first book in a popular series by Cressida Cowell, How to Train Your Dragon takes place in a fictional medieval-era village. The resident Vikings of this village are in a constant state of battle with the marauding dragons that steal their livestock. Since the entire existence of the Vikings revolves about battling dragons, the biggest, burliest men are the most prized members of the community, which puts the hero of the film - an awkward teen named Hiccup (Baruchel) - in a bit of a bind. He desperately wishes to join the grand ranks of the dragon killers, but he's small, skinny, and blessed with more brains than biceps. Regardless, during a battle he uses an invention of his to take down a Night Fury dragon, but finds himself unable to finish the job. Instead, he becomes secret friends with the dragon, whom he dubs "Toothless". As this friendship blossoms, the observant Hiccup learns that the Vikings have hopelessly misjudged the dragon species.

Written and directed by the duo of Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders (Disney veterans whose prior collaboration was the hand-drawn Lilo & Stitch in 2003, which explains why Toothless looks a lot like Stitch), How to Train Your Dragon skilfully merges the animated medium's propensity for action, sentiment and humour. Thankfully, the humour is deployed with an elegant touch - the writer-directors never allow the story to devolve into a simple-minded parody, while at the same time they recognised the inherent comedy of the predicaments presented in the film.
The core of the picture spotlights the relationship between Toothless and Hiccup, and how they develop a lasting bond which teaches them the value of tolerance and curiosity. This relationship provides the film with its sweetness and heart. By the conclusion of the second act, the movie even treads into E.T. territory. In fact, some have praised this film as being the E.T. of this generation. While How to Train Your Dragon does not deserve such dizzyingly high praise, it's at least easy to understand the comparison.

The message of How to Train Your Dragon is simple: war and violence are usually the result of misunderstandings. Such a message is all-too-appropriate for 2010's world climate. Thankfully, the message is not hammered into the narrative, but instead flows effortlessly out of it. That said, the whole narrative is a familiar one. With Hiccup beginning as an unlikely, hopeless hero with big aspirations, the conclusion of the formulaic "zero to hero" storyline is foregone from the start. The third act story beats in particular are awfully predictable. Additionally, while How to Train Your Dragon is the cleverest and most mature DreamWorks animated movie since Shrek, it still feels like a commercial product created with more concern for the tightest running time possible. As a result, character motivations shift at the convenience of moving the plot forward, and there are contrivances which make the writing seem lazy (Toothless "sensing" that Hiccup is in trouble at one point is a prime offender).

With each passing year, the CGI in animated movies continues to approach photorealism, and the most beneficial step upwards in this respect is the improved ability to animate emotional expression. Due to the technological advances, characters can be more nuanced in expressing love and fear (among other emotions), even if said character is a dragon. How to Train Your Dragon is frankly a phenomenal visual experience, and it's blessed with several crackerjack set-pieces. The opening battle is wonderfully energetic, while the flight sequences are absolutely exhilarating. Meanwhile, the final battle sequence is a knockout - a cinematic tour de force which would be impressive in any movie, live action or animated. Since the movie takes its time to develop the characters, tension is felt whenever they're placed in peril. As a result, the climax can proudly stand alongside any CGI-heavy blockbuster, even Avatar! While discussing the visuals, it'd be best to also mention the 3-D. Unobtrusive 3-D is the most immersive 3-D, and this is the case here. It provides the screen with depth, and heightens the immersive nature of the experience.

The vocal cast features a delightful blend of actors who would probably have been cast in the same roles if this were a live-action feature. Jay Baruchel is always playing a nerd/loser (She's Out of My League, which was released about a week before How to Train Your Dragon, is a good example of this), and he's good at it. Happily, Baruchel's vocal performance as Hiccup is excellent, and he affords the character a charm which makes him easy to like. Alongside Baruchel, Gerard Butler is excellently authoritative as the village chief, while Craig Ferguson is easily likeable as a Viking who's missing a few limbs but none of his pride. The dragon-slayers-in-training are voiced by such actors as America Ferrera, Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Kristen Wiig, some of whom are Judd Apatow regulars. Even T.J. Miller lends his voice to a character, and he co-starred alongside Baruchel in She's Out of My League!

It must be noted that How to Train Your Dragon works on a different level to most other animated movies due to how exhilarating and adventure-filled the entire enterprise is. The movie falls short of achieving trademark Pixar greatness, yet it achieves a sustained note of integrity, charm and exhilaration that's rare in the family film genre. Without the proverbial DreamWorks slapstick (for the most part), the film is a triumph that encourages genuine awe and plenty of smiles while delivering high-flying splendour. Also, it sends a positive message to its target audience about the perils of fear and prejudice, which is more than what can be said for the usual DreamWorks output full of fart jokes and musical numbers. Most importantly, How to Train Your Dragon is one of those family films which adults can enjoy both with and without children.

8.4/10

"I don't get it. Why would she ask me out?"

Let's be honest, how often are standard-order romantic comedies anything but appalling? A useful method for evaluating the effectiveness of rom-coms is to ask yourself a few questions: are the protagonists likeable, does the central coupling share convincing chemistry, are you rooting for the leads to get together, and are there quality laughs to be had? If the answer is "yes" across the board, the flick is a success. But alas, the countless rom-coms flooding the cinematic climate these days are too often unable to fulfil even these basic requirements, which is why She's Out of My League is so refreshing - it's not perfect, but one can answer "yes" to all the aforementioned questions, and it achieves precisely what it set out to do. Sure, this may sound like faint praise, but so few rom-coms are able to accomplish even this moderate level of competency that, believe me, this should be considered an endorsement.

The male lead of She's Out of My League, Kirk (Baruchel), is merely an average, geeky guy who works security at a Pittsburgh airport with his best buddies, Stainer (Miller), Jack (Vogel) and Devon (Torrence). During an average day at work, an attractive woman named Molly (Eve) enters Kirk's life. After encountering her while on duty, Kirk inadvertently charms the gorgeous, successful young event planner, and a follow-up meet when Kirk returns Molly's lost iPhone kicks off an unexpected relationship. Problem is, both Stainer and Molly's best friend (Ritter) dismiss the relationship on account of the math, since Kirk is a "5" on the scale of attractiveness while Molly is a "hard 10".

Unfortunately, the entire narrative for She's Out of My League is generic tripe, and seems manufactured for the sake of the demographic of schlubs who'd love to find themselves in Kirk's tantalising situation. In essence, the plot is merely a flimsy excuse to showcase ill-mannered yet amusing best friends, and opportunities for comedy. Once the script by Sean Anders and John Morris (Sex Drive) establishes the routine journey for Kirk, there aren't a lot of surprises to be had, so the film's success was entirely dependent upon the characters and the laughs. Thankfully, the film is frequently hilarious, the characters are fun to be in the company of, and there's plenty of heart. In fact, once the end credits begin to roll, you could be forgiven for wanting to spend more time with these characters. While the film isn't as funny as it could've been, the best set-pieces are absolutely hysterical and there are enough laugh lines to ensure the film is worth seeing. That said, comedy is pretty subjective, so it's bold to proclaim the quality of humour in a motion picture. Therefore, it's better to simply say that if you enjoyed American Pie or Knocked Up or any other films of that ilk, the humour here should satisfy you.

One thing She's Out of My League pulls off surprisingly well is depicting Kirk and Molly's relationship in a credible, convincing fashion. In the past, romanticised Woody Allen movies have provided the typical wish fulfilment scenario of the loser getting a tremendously gorgeous girl for no apparent reason, but the filmmakers behind She's Out of My League attempt to understand the reasoning. The movie works because Molly - amazingly beautiful as she may be - does not come across as a snobby Megan Fox-style female lead. Instead, she's the type of girl who quietly admires a guy for selflessly chasing down a woman who forgot her jacket. It's easy to see why Molly might become interested in the sweet and funny Kirk, especially after it's revealed that she has been hurt in prior relationships with guys at her hotness level. The film also posits problems that arise between the two (as a result of their disparate self-images) which seem perfectly natural and believable. The only major area where the film fails is in the final act which involves a break-up-to-make-up scenario that kills the pacing and culminates at an airport, for crying out loud. In fairness, though, filmmakers can only fend off formula for so long before the producers begin to notice. It's best to appreciate what this film does right, rather than dwelling on its weaker patches.

Over recent years, Jay Baruchel has been relegated to supporting roles in such movies as Fanboys, Knocked Up and Tropic Thunder. She's Out of My League is an evident attempt to launch Baruchel's career as a leading man. He's typically saddled with the character of a nerd/loser, but he's good at it, and he blossoms in this particular role. The charismatic Baruchel does a fine job of expressing Kirk's twitchy awkwardness, and shares tremendous chemistry with Alice Eve, who is sprightly, attractive, and distinctly not bitchy (a breakthrough for the typical attractive female rom-com lead). These wonderful protagonists are luckily surrounded by an effective supporting cast who provide a number of amusing, scene-stealing diversions. T.J. Miller is the standout as Stainer, while Mike Vogel also provides a few hearty giggles (many may recognise these two from 2007's Cloverfield). Meanwhile, Nate Torrence is frequently hysterical as the token "fat friend". And, unlike the agonisingly unfunny Jonah Hill, Torrence is a fat friend who isn't annoying - he's actually funny. Rounding out the cast is Krysten Ritter as Molly's best friend, and she's perfect in the role.

An easy charmer from the school of Judd Apatow, She's Out of My League is generously funny and sporadically heartfelt. Without reinventing the wheel, it manages to provide amiable entertainment for its 100-minute duration. For sure, the film is not as funny as it had the potential to be, but it works as a breezy, fun, unforced story of two mismatched lovers, and the clichéd narrative is at least enjoyable. In the realm of rom-coms, these are the qualities that count the most, so give this film a shot if you're sick and tired of Hollywood's usual output.

7.3/10

"With no power comes no responsibility..."

Adapted from the comic book of the same name written by Mark Millar, and under the direction of British filmmaker Matthew Vaughn, Kick-Ass quite simply kicks ass. While this particular analogy may seem lazy and obvious, it's appropriate. Relentlessly audacious, hilarious, gloriously violent, gleefully un-PC and electrifyingly entertaining, Kick-Ass is a refreshing, decidedly adult take on the stale comic-book superhero genre that works on practically every level, and is destined for cult classic status. Owing to its modest budget, this is a superhero movie with violence, profanity-laced dialogue and bawdy humour, flying in the face of a genre for which content is normally kept within the boundaries of a commercial-friendly PG-13 rating. In the face of the continually-expanding Marvel and DC cinematic universes, Kick-Ass only grows more relevant with each passing year.

As with most stories of this ilk, the movie concerns an average teenager: Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson). However, Kick-Ass doesn't take place within either the Marvel or the DC comics universe. Instead, it takes place in our universe, where Spider-Man and Batman are seen in comic books and motion pictures, and there are no people with superpowers. Fed up with being bullied at school and mugged on the street, Dave decides to become a real-life superhero, despite possessing no special abilities or strengths. To achieve his goal, Dave buys scuba suit and uses it as the costume for his crime-fighting alter ego, Kick-Ass. Soon, a bystander records Kick-Ass attempting to fight off some thugs and posts the clip on YouTube, which rapidly becomes an internet sensation. His raised profile brings him to the attention of two legitimate crime-fighting heroes: the father-daughter team of Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and Hit Girl (Chloë Grace Moretz), who are currently waging war against crime boss Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong).

On the one hand, Kick-Ass is a satire of superhero movies like Spider-Man and Iron Man, with the filmmakers gleefully taking the piss out of the established clichés of the genre and subverting the traditional story beats with a painful dose of reality. For instance, Dave's hilariously botched first outing as a superhero ends with him in the hospital bleeding and naked, leading to rumours among his classmates that he's gay, which ironically leads to him becoming closer to the girl of his dreams. However, while the film is essentially a comedy, it still works as a straight action-adventure since the bad guys are sinister and the violence is hard-hitting. Kick-Ass benefits from a sublime script penned by Vaughn and frequent collaborator Jane Goldman. The dialogue crackles with intelligence and wit - whenever Dave hangs out with his two best friends, the one-liners come thick and fast. Dave's interactions with Big Daddy and Hit Girl, meanwhile, are hilarious. The first half is admittedly not as well-paced as the rollicking second half, but it plays better with repeat viewings.

Kick-Ass may be Vaughn's third directorial endeavour, but he steers this material like a veteran, handling wild tonal shifts with impressive control and marshalling a string of incredible action set-pieces as if he was the bastard son of John Woo and Tony Scott. The final act certainly stands as the film's most action-heavy portion, and offers a terrific pay-off for audiences waiting to see the heroes be unleashed. The standout is a strobe-light shootout which nails the video-game aesthetic more perfectly than any other movie to date. It's possibly 2010's best action scene, as it's both emotionally powerful and viscerally exciting. In addition, Kick-Ass is aided immensely by the comics-inspired production design and the slick cinematography that suggests a much higher budget. Yet another great aspect of the film is the use of music. It's clear from the brilliant use of music in Vaughn's prior movies that the director knows how to select tracks for his films. He's a very careful filmmaker, as evidenced by the fact that Kick-Ass has four credited composers in addition to featuring a slew of music from other artists. Ennio Morricone's theme from For a Few Dollars More is even given a workout, while the 28 Days Later theme plays during another gooseflesh-inducing action set-piece. Hit Girl also slaughters a bunch of guys to the theme of the Banana Splits, and Kick-Ass massacres goons with gatling guns to the tune of Hallelujah. It's great stuff.

British television actor Aaron Johnson is ideal as Dave Lizewski - he possesses a likeable quality which serves the character well. However it's the young Moretz who steals the show here. Moretz is already an established actress, but this will no doubt serve as her breakout role. Her performance as Hit Girl is absolutely dead-on - she's cute, hilarious, and awesome. Like all the best screen action heroes, she is able to make the act of firing and reloading guns look effortlessly cool and graceful, and in turn the film's climactic shootout is one of the most exciting and exhilarating instances of over-the-top cinematic gunplay since Shoot 'Em Up. The biggest surprise here is Nic Cage, who's a thorough delight. This is Cage's best screen outing for years as the nerdy, obsessive father to Hit Girl, lovingly aping Adam West in a mock-Batman outfit. Christopher Mintz-Plasse also acquits himself well with the role of Chris/Red Mist, demonstrating spot-on comic timing and an amusing deadpan delivery. Another notable performer is Strong, playing his second consecutive bad guy after Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes. As usual, Strong is a solid villain.

Hollywood studios refused to fund Kick-Ass, compelling Vaughn to go outside the system and make the film himself through his production company Marv Films. Fortunately for Vaughn (and us), he had enough wealthy pals on his side (Brad Pitt is credited as a producer) to gain sufficient funding and bring Kick-Ass to cinema screens. With an indie approach, Vaughn had the freedom to craft an irreverent, boldly R-rated comic-book flick not burdened by the requirement to pander to toy manufacturers or fast food chains. A little 11-year-old girl in a superhero costume may seem cute, but a little 11-year-old girl in a superhero costume who brutally kills people and drops c-bombs? Not so much. All too predictably, controversy has been stirred up over the character of Hit Girl, whose violent and profanity-laced antics have interpreted by some as advocating violence to young viewers. This is, of course, utter nonsense. The film carries an R rating in America and a restricted rating in other major countries, why would young tweens be seeing this movie in the first place? Plus, those who loathe the film because of the content with Hit Girl are missing the point completely. Kick-Ass is just a fun, humorous, cartoonish ride not meant to be taken seriously, so stop being so uptight!

These days, comic book adaptations are no longer fun, with The Dark Knight and its imitators favouring a dour, gritty approach. Kick-Ass returns the fun element to the genre, demonstrating that thematic complexity is possible without making the experience a drag. With director Vaughn delivering one rollicking, raucous set-piece after another, Kick-Ass expertly blends side-splitting tongue-in-cheek humour with bone-shattering action, resulting in an endlessly entertaining and breathtaking slice of entertainment. It's to superhero movies what Shaun of the Dead is to zombie movies.

10/10

"You know how it works; record every single thing..."

Almost inarguably, 2007s [Rec] was the most accomplished, downright terrifying horror outing of the noughties; a nerve-shredding, riveting journey into the heart of demonic darkness elevated by convincing performances and top-notch scares. Hollywood even churned out a remake a year later in the form of 2008's Quarantine. Owing to the strong reception of [Rec] and the nature of its climax, a sequel was virtually guaranteed. Problem is, how does one create a quality sequel to the greatest horror film of its decade? [Rec] 2 could have been a fundamental remake of the original film with the same basic scenario transplanted into another location. Instead, writer-directors Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza perceived [Rec] 2 as a chance to significantly expand upon the mythology of their original creation in unique and shocking ways, and allow the narrative to progress ahead to the next logical step. Granted, the film is not as well-paced, effective or terrifying as its predecessor, but it's far better than most Hollywood horror tosh of late.

[Rec] 2 opens during the immediate aftermath of the events of the first movie. A few SWAT team members and a doctor from the Ministry of Health are heading inside the apartment building to investigate what happened within it. And sure enough, the truth behind the infection is soon revealed. The deceptively simple original movie hinted at reasons for the outbreak, but [Rec] 2 expands and elaborates on them. To be sure, the reasons provided aren't going to work for everyone, but in this reviewer's eyes it's an interesting twist on your usual zombie fare. Sure, some will probably yearn for the primal simplicity of the film's predecessor, but this type of sequel is more desirable than a fundamental remake of the first film without anything new (the Final Destination sequels, anyone?).

Similar to its forerunner, the proceedings of [Rec] 2 are captured from the first-person perspective of a man holding a video camera. Much like the plot, the filmmakers decided to add a few new twists to their filming style as well. In particular, the SWAT members are equipped with cameras on the helmets to help document the events inside the building, and the main camera can plug into the perspective of the SWAT members at any given time. With the dark nature of the apartment's interior, events are at times obscured, and this makes for a tense, nail-biting experience. The fact that the attacks take place in small, cramped, dark spaces, and that we're watching from the point of view of the characters, means that a viewer can experience claustrophobia alongside the characters. As this is a "found footage" film, there is no score - sound effects act as a substitute for the music, and thankfully the sound design is top-notch; generating an effective atmosphere. Put simply, the illusion that these events have been captured via a simple home video camera, and that the tapes have not been tampered with, is virtually unbroken. While it can be argued that these achievements are less impressive due to the first [Rec] having pulled them off already, how often is it when the spirit and techniques of an original movie are successfully emulated for the follow-up?

However, the "found footage" gimmick is harmed by an inordinate amount of contrivances. There are no less than two shifts in the main camera, and each is too unbelievably convenient. Especially contrived is the second camera shift - the battery for one camera runs out just as the main characters come into possession of another camera... Another major weakness of [Rec] 2 is that, thanks to the jumps in the main camera, there are no memorable characters, or even a main protagonist to connect or empathise with. Considering that a SWAT team was sent into the building, why couldn't there be one interesting, badass hero to root for? As it is, all the SWAT guys are one-dimensional men of action who shout a lot, shoot things, and macho posture but do little else. I don't even remember their names, and their largely interchangeable nature limits the effectiveness of the terror. If one is unable to connect with people, not a great deal of urgency is felt on their behalf. As it stands, [Rec] 2 is a fun, occasionally thrilling adrenaline rush, but more attention to developing interesting characters could have offered some genuine emotion, and bolstered the quality of the movie. It also goes without saying that the characters do stupid things. The SWAT guys are so hesitant to use their firearms in the direst of situations, for instance.

In spite of the strengths of [Rec] 2 - the uniformly convincing acting, the great prosthetic effects, a number of thrilling moments, and a great expansion on the mythology of the series - it's still disappointing. It never manages to reach the dizzying heights of the original [Rec], and even this sequel's strongest moments are no patch on the first film's greatest moments. It's such a shame the effort just wasn't as solid this time around.

6.2/10

"That's it! Say hello to my little friend!"

Beginning with Spy Kids in 2001, Robert Rodriguez has carved out a profitable second career creating children's movies to complement the bloody, violent, adult-themed action flicks he's notorious for making (Desperado, Sin City, From Dusk Till Dawn, etc). And look, it's perfectly understandable that Rodriguez wishes to give his R-rated instincts a rest on occasion to focus on family entertainment for the sake of his offspring (and perhaps his own inner child). Spy Kids suggested this new direction was a good idea, but then Spy Kids 2 destroyed this potential, Spy Kids 3-D defecated on the corpse, and The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl made life harder to live. 2009's Shorts denotes Rodriguez's latest round of juvenile antics, and it further dents a once-promising filmmaking career. In short (excuse the pun), this is a comedy with no laughs, an action flick that's never exciting, and a digital spectacle with dodgy special effects.

Utilising the same type of structure that served Rodriguez well on Sin City, the narrative of Shorts is told through a number of bite-sized vignettes and concerns a few kids in a small Texan suburb who come into possession of a colourful wish-granting space rock. Like every film of this ilk, the main character - Toby "Toe" Thompson (Bennett) - is a young, dorky nerd. His parents largely ignore him, and practically every soul in town picks on him; from the bullies to the school teachers to his own sister (Dennings). Sound familiar yet? A bitchy little girl in the form of Helvetica Black (Vanier) is also introduced, who picks on the protagonist but who is destined to abandon her bitchy ways by the film's end. Basically, the crux of the story involves those in the neighbourhood attempting to steal the wish-granting space rock to use for their own means. First thing our hero Toby does is wish for friends, and he receives some arse-kicking alien pals. Indeed, Shorts is the kind of candy-coated wish-fulfilment fantasy that every dorky kid wishes could happen to him/her.

Assuming his proverbial stance as an all-in-one filmmaking machine, Rodriguez (the director, writer, cinematographer, editor, scorer, etc) more or less whips up a live-action Saturday morning cartoon with Shorts. The film doesn't even pretend to be a quality family film - it's just a grade-schooler's idea book brought to life to please Rodriguez's children. Due to the jumbled up nature of the narrative structure, it's not long before the storyline may even lose an adult. Maybe it's so simple a four-year-old child could understand it, but, as Groucho would say, "Run out and find me a four year old child. I can't make head nor tail out of it". Did Rodriguez figure that jumbling up the narrative sequence would be funny or unique? Because it isn't - it's just plain annoying. As the short stories progress and the climax draws nearer, it becomes apparent the film is only leading to a rote lesson about family togetherness and the drawbacks of technology.

Disappointingly, the rules of the wishing rock seem half-thought-out and inconsistent - sometimes characters use one wish to retract whatever they've inadvertently unleashed, but at other times they run for their lives while holding the rock! At one point in the climax, a menace is attacking the town. The kids take turns with the wishing rock in order to transform themselves into something to defeat the villain. Why?! The menace was created with one wish, so why not just undo it with another wish? There's no logic to anything that happens. Added to this, the film never provokes any awe, and the premise opens up room for far more imagination than what is delivered here. By the end, when everyone's learned a lesson and the universe has re-righted itself, one will just be wishing for Rodriguez to climb out of the sandbox and get started on those Sin City sequels pronto!

Aimed at youngsters with short attention spans, Shorts constantly barrels ahead, dispersing cringe-worthy moments of "humour" and allowing irritating, camera-mugging actors to take centre stage (Jimmy Bennett in particular is insufferable). Jolie Vanier is the only performer in the movie whose acting is worth a fig. In fact, the talented young Vanier is the only good thing about this movie (it's a shame she wasn't the central character). Look, there's almost no doubt that young kids will be rapt during Shorts, but any parent who's forced into watching the movie with their kid will constantly wish for it to be over. All the best kids' movies are those which can be enjoyed by adults, and alas Shorts offers nothing for adults to latch onto.

1.7/10

"Every second that I'm with you is about restraint... and you're too fragile."

Viewing The Twilight Saga: New Moon is about as fun as listening to an angsty teen drone on about their problems for 130 minutes. Much like angsty teens, New Moon is humourless and dead serious, and there's so much angst piling up throughout the film that one will require a fucking helicopter to stay above it all.

Unfortunately, the Twilight movies - while absolutely awful - constitute the most critic-proof film series of recent years. See, the obsessed fans had already made up their mind about New Moon before a single frame had been lensed. They were going to see it, and they were going to love it (even if there are veritable reports that experiencing it may cause your eyes and ears to bleed). It's faithful to their beloved book (to a fault), filled with teen angst, and it features a lot of boys running around with their shirts off. Problem is, all this fan service comes at the expense of telling a good story that a general audience can enjoy. The non-biased non-fans will be able to see New Moon for what it really is: a cheesy, poorly-focused picture with terrible dialogue and awkward performances. The Twilight fans will overlook the flaws due to the thrill of seeing their favourite characters on screen again, but the world is not entirely comprised of Twilight fans.

A lengthy plot summary would be a waste of time, so here's the briefest version possible: Bella Swan (Stewart) is still inexplicably in love with the 109-year-old vampire Edward Cullen (Pattinson). Following an incident at Bella's private birthday party, the Cullens opt to leave town because Edward believes he's putting Bella in peril. Lost and depressed without her lover, Bella begins engaging in destructive hobbies in the hope that Edward will return and protect her. Eventually, Bella is catapulted into the arms of Jacob Black (Lautner), who is in fact a werewolf. Thus, the Van Helsing love triangle is complete, and Bella's suicide plans don't work out. Damn...

A clan of vampires called the Volturi is eventually introduced, but this entire subplot feels like an afterthought. It's as if the writers realised there was nothing happening, and decided they better throw in something exciting. But alas, it's too little, too late. Plus, the Volturi introduction feels redundant because it was an unnecessarily elaborate way for Edward to commit suicide. To travel to Italy for that purpose is a bit of a reach... Why not anger Jacob and his crowd of werewolves by saying something about their penis size?

It's obvious from the outset that the filmmakers were unwilling to exclude things that would allow for a tighter film in fear of aggravating the Twilight fans who want every moment from the book to be included. No-one involved in producing New Moon was able to recognise that all the best page-to-screen adaptations are those that deviate from the source material in exciting ways. Literature and cinema are two different media forms, and a rote movie adaptation is rarely satisfying to anyone not slavishly devoted to the source material. Thus, the film's straightforward narrative of nothingness plays out over a running time of 130 minutes when there's NO FUCKING REASON for it to run for so goddamn long, apart from fan service. I mean, it's not like the movie is so long because it has to wrap up the whole series - there are two more fucking movies to go!

On top of all this, the material is very cheesy, with utterly appalling dialogue. This could've been more tolerable if only there was a smattering of self-aware humour, but no such miracle exists. New Moon borders dangerously close to self-parody several times, but it would seem the filmmakers were blissfully unaware of the unintentional hilarity. The highlight is a dream sequence of Bella and Edward frolicking in a field. Though this is supposed to be giddy and romantic, it's fucking hilarious.

Several times during the movie, Bella begs Edward to transform her into a vampire. Of course, this whole "becoming a vampire" thing is an in-your-face metaphor for "Bella losing her virginity". While Edward's sister is willing to "do it" for Bella, Bella refuses because she wants Edward to "do it", but Edward keeps abstaining from sucking her blood. If you don't buy the virginity metaphor thing, consider this: Meyer belongs to the religiously conservative Mormon group. The Twilight novels are huge with 14-year-old girls, and the biggest concern for 14-year-old girls is when and with whom they will lose their virginity. Meanwhile, the rest of us know that losing your virginity is one of the most underwhelming five minutes of your life. We're also fully aware that guys as dreamy and cheesy as Edward do not exist. All those hideous, overweight Twilight fans should stop being so fucking optimistic and picky, and take any man they can get!

For New Moon, the producers ousted Twilight director Catherine Hardwicke, and replaced her with Chris Weitz, who was last seen at the helm of stillborn blockbuster The Golden Compass. While Weitz is a lot more competent as an action director, the only watchable set-pieces come far too late into the movie. And this is the problem - even with a decent director at the helm, the Twilight films will always be hampered by Meyer's bullshit prose. There's only so much anyone can do with this tripe. Worse, despite a much larger budget than the original movie, the digital effects are rarely better than passable. In particular, the werewolves look hokey and cartoonish. With such cheap-looking CGI, one has to wonder what the rumoured $90 million was used for (gym memberships for the cast?). Also heartbreaking is the music - the score by Alexandre Desplat is underwhelming, and the pop songs are forgettable. The original film was much more memorable in this department. Oh Jesus Christ, the awfulness of New Moon has caused me to reference Twilight as a positive example?!

Taylor Lautner did a lot of work to buff himself up for the role of Jacob Black, and takes advantage of every possible opportunity to show it...even when it's not even slightly relevant to the story. In fact, Lautner spends three quarters of the film sans shirt as if he's posing for the DVD cover of a gay porno. That said, credit where credit is due, Lautner acquits himself reasonably well with the role, especially in contrast to Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson whose performances lack passion and conviction. The very little amount of chemistry that existed between Stewart and Pattinson in the original movie has evaporated. Here, Stewart connects with Lautner to some extent, but her love scenes with Pattinson are boring and, frankly, creepy. Not to mention, Edward enjoys breaking into Bella's room and rummaging through her personal effects when she's not around. What a dreamboat. When you begin wondering just what Bella sees in Edward, there are huge problems. Additionally, it's a problem that Stewart is more annoying than endearing. Whenever she delivers her lines, she doesn't sound committed - rather, she sounds like she's just trying to regurgitate the corny dialogue without bursting into laughter.

Also featuring in the cast is Dakota Fanning, who accomplishes absolutely nothing as a Volturi enforcer. Why Dakota is even here is the film's biggest mystery. Ashley Greene as Alice Cullen was delightful eye candy in Twilight, but in New Moon her role is relegated to something much smaller, leaving very little in the way of worthwhile eye candy.

And now, it's time to quote one of my favourite online reviewers, Jeremy Jahns: "[New Moon is] porn for women. It absolutely is if you think about it. It's corny, it has laughable dialogue, and for reasons unknown to [men], it unquestionably turns on its target audience. Porn for women." Perhaps if I was a virginal 14-year-old female, I would've liked the series. But...I have a penis. And we males who get forced into watching this tosh will be unable to comprehend the appeal.

1.9/10

"I have watched from the underworld... it is time for the mortals to pay!"

Clash of the Titans is the latest demonstration of Hollywood's erroneous belief that any appalling work of screenwriting can be made palatable if enough money, CGI and British accents are thrown at it. An update of the 1981 cult classic of the same name, the movie is a rowdy heroes & villains video-game-style extravaganza direly lacking in personality and character. On the one hand it's a marvellous visual experience featuring a handful of magnificent widescreen images, but on the other it's shallow, underwhelming, underdone, frustratingly cold at its core, and marred by a grim self-serious tone unsuitable for the material. In other words, there's lots of sound and fury, but it comes at the expense of...well, everything else.

In essence, Clash of the Titans is a re-telling of the legend of Perseus, with Zeus (Neeson) growing irritated that the humans are no longer showing the Gods proper respect. Zeus' brother Hades (Fiennes) wishes for the inhabitants of Argos to pay for their insolence, and offers the mortals a short period of time to sacrifice Princess Andromeda (Davalos). If Andromeda remains alive after 10 days, a colossal beast known as the Kraken will be released from the depths of the sea to destroy the city of Argos. Into this conflict enters Perseus (Worthington), the demigod son of Zeus who only recently learned of his lineage and holds a grudge against Hades for the death of his adopted family. Backed by a squad of Argos soldiers (including Mads Mikkelsen, Nicholas Hoult, and Liam Cunningham) and a cursed priestess (Arterton), Perseus sallies forth to uncover a way to defeat the Kraken.

A lot of fuss has been made as to whether or not this film deserves to be viewed in 3-D. See, Clash of the Titans was originally created in 2-D, but, in the shadow of Avatar and its $2.6 billion box office earning, the studio ordered a hasty 3-D conversion a mere month before the film's release to milk it for as much money as possible (Cash of the Titans, anyone?). For those interested in seeing this movie, see it in 2-D - Clash of the Titans is not worth the extra few bucks. The 3-D effects are bad. For the most part, it's just 2D in different planes, which looks utterly unconvincing and functions as a strong, pertinent argument against this type of "quickie" conversion. If Avatar was one step forward for proving the merit of 3-D movies, Clash of the Titans is a trembling step backwards.

Filmmaking techniques have changed tenfold since 1981. The original Clash of the Titans featured the specialised stop-motion animation of Ray Harryhausen which characterised the picture, but this 2010 remake is a determined blockbuster overloaded with state-of-the-art digital effects and bursting with large-scale action beats. While director Louis Leterrier clung to shameful shaky-cam techniques to "enhance" the battles, the action sequences are at least comprehensible. At the very least, Clash of the Titans is a fun actioner. However, the CGI effects are very in-your-face obvious; a fault only augmented by the terrible 3-D conversion. In particular, the sequence with Medusa looks phoney and cartoonish. Even Pixar has achieved images closer to photorealism. Meanwhile, the PG-13 rating represents another critical problem. From the outset, it was clear the filmmakers were transforming the 1981 cult classic into an epic, stylised 300-style action film resembling a graphic novel. While 300 (an R-rated film) offered reams of violence and gore, Clash of the Titans is far too sanitised to be satisfying. This isn't to say that relentless, R-rated violence automatically makes the movie good... It just makes a movie much more fun, and sometimes that's just enough to warrant a solid recommendation as opposed to a hesitant one.

Had this Clash of the Titans possessed a sense of humour, audiences might've been given their first 3-D camp classic. All the male characters here have skirts, iconic beards, and sometimes dreadlocks. The gods of Olympus glow while standing on glowing spheres speaking in a variety of accents (Hades is English, Zeus is Irish, etc). Add a bunch of giant, mythical beasts to the mix, and this could have - and should have - been a total hoot. But instead, everything is played with a straight face. How boring.

A lack of characters denotes yet another major flaw. Sure, there are plenty of empty ciphers who deliver dialogue, but none of them attain even a semblance of three-dimensionality or deserve to be called characters. Would a protagonist with a personality be too much to ask? Worst of all, a viewer never really cares if Perseus wins, mainly because we sense the script will keep victory on his side anyway, and there's little tension to suggest otherwise. The film pushes to the fore Australian actor Sam Worthington (last seen in last year's Terminator Salvation and Avatar), who looks the part but whose clenched delivery, inconsistent accent and lack of charisma results in a drab hero. While Worthington is indeed a superior action star, he wasn't right for this part. Meanwhile, Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson are terrific in their respective roles, but as for the rest of the actors? Who cares - they barely warrant a mention, let alone screen-time.

Honestly, all of these little problems could be forgiven if only the proceedings were building up to a knock-'em-dead final showdown, but alas the climax is underwhelming. In fact, for an epic movie, Clash of the Titans is desperately underwhelming. The "hero's journey" feels like a quick scuttle from plot point to plot point, and the ending feels rushed - it's as if the budget ran out or the imagination of the screenwriters ran dry.

In spite of its failings (and boy are there many), there's at least a little fun to be had during Clash of the Titans. It certainly knows that it's a big, dumb actioner, and there's an entertainment value that arises from this self-awareness when the action is done right. Problem is, the film too often gets it all wrong, and it's to date the best example of the abominable consequences of misusing the 3-D process.

4.9/10

"I have something I think you'd be interested in..."

Set your mind back to the year 2003 for a moment, when the invasion of Iraq commenced. Highest levels of American government offered assurances the invasion was a necessity in order to remove the clear and present danger presented by Sadaam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (or WMDs, as they're more commonly referred to). In 2010, seven years after the initial invasion, the full truth remains murky, but it's indisputable that there were no WMDs, and the intelligence that implicated their existence was faulty. Whether this intelligence failure was the consequence of lies or deliberately manipulated information has been subject to much speculation, and Paul Greengrass' latest motion picture, Green Zone, revisits the question of why America went to war in the form of a high-energy political action-thriller. In the past, Greengrass has helmed two "issue" movies (Bloody Sunday, United 93) and two popcorn actioners (The Bourne Supremacy, The Bourne Ultimatum), and Green Zone represents a merger of these two styles which reunites the director with Bourne star Matt Damon.

Damon plays U.S. Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, whose job is to track down the WMDs in the newly liberated Iraq. Frustration is setting in, however, because Miller's team are being sent to empty and worthless sites of little worth, and casualties have been absorbed in the process. Bureaucrat Clark Poundstone (Kinnear), who represents the Bush administration in Iraq, asserts that the WMD intelligence is correct, but Miller thinks otherwise. Smelling a rat, he begins asking questions and gradually starts to unravel an elaborate conspiracy involving every layer of government. With help from sympathetic CIA chief Gordon Brown (Gleeson), Miller goes rogue in an attempt to uncover the elusive, uncomfortable truth behind the WMD mystery.

Slowly but surely, director Greengrass amplifies the tension as the tangled web of sinister Pentagon agents, CIA bureaucrats, Iraqi security forces, and Miller himself converge on a shadowy source known only as "Magellan". This is not black-and-white politics; Miller is wading in murky waters during the proceedings, where heroes and villains aren't as easily defined or identified as they once were. Formerly, Miller was a soldier who took orders and carried out the duties assigned to him, but he becomes faced with shifting sands and tough choices. At one stage he asks Gordon "I thought we were all on the same side?" to which Gordon replies with "Don't be naïve". Green Zone is perhaps the most anti-American portrayal of the Iraq War so far.

Although Rajiv Chandrasekaran's novel Imperial Life in the Emerald City is attached to the film, Green Zone is not a straight-up adaptation of it. Greengrass and scenarist Brian Helgeland (Payback, L.A. Confidential) employed background information from the book, but the bones of the plot are almost entirely fictitious. In this way, Helgeland has crafted a fictional story using non-fictional elements, and it manages to interweave fact and fiction into an engaging whole. A key factor in distinguishing Chandrasekaran's novel from Greengrass' film is that the book was unafraid to name names and point fingers, whereas the film opts for fictionalised alter-egos.

Without a doubt, Green Zone is an energetic thriller crafted with impressive zeal by Greengrass. The tension levels start out high, and seldom relent throughout the picture's gripping two-hour running time. Greengrass' career began in journalism, for which he filmed war zones like those within this film, and there's no doubt his signature in-your-face style is a tremendous asset. Barry Ackroyd, who also worked as cinematographer on the Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker, provides the same brand of hand-held immediacy here. The shaky cinematography ratchets up the urgency and amplifies the sense of chaos during the intense action sequences, while John Powell's score further augments the atmosphere and sustains the suspense. Much of the film is about the tense, hair-raising dangers of war, but the climax is a spectacular action set-piece - an exhilarating, thoroughly nail-biting night-time chase through the dark streets of Baghdad. Stuff is blown up and people are shot, and Greengrass places viewers in the thick of it. The photography, which is so often called ugly, is so crucial for instilling a sense of realism, especially the graininess of the visuals. It's possibly to truly feel like you're part of the scene, rather than an innocent bystander tucked safely away in an isolated theatre.

What Green Zone fails to offer, however, is characterisation. Miller is never developed as a flesh-and-blood human - he's instead an underdeveloped protagonist used to progress the plot from point to point. Ditto for the roles allotted to Gleeson and Kinnear - we know what they're up to, but not the why of their actions. The film is merely a slice of life portrayal without flashbacks or deep discussions, but it's not enough. Also, it's undeniable that the narrative of Green Zone is very surface-level, and simplifies the politics of the Iraq War into a very basic narrative structure. Sure, it works, but it could've been superior with more depth.

Anyone who has previously seen a Matt Damon performance should not be surprised at how perfect he is for the role of Roy Miller. Possessing a similar moral fortitude as Jason Bourne (a character no doubt Miller will be compared to) but lacking the physical strength and fighting abilities, the superhero element is removed here, leaving a very human and relatable character. Greg Kinnear and Brendan Gleeson are equally terrific in their respective roles. Khalid Abdalla, who played one of the hijackers in Greengrass' United 93, also features as Miller's reluctant translator who struggles with divided loyalties. One of the most intriguing aspects of Green Zone is that, rather than using extras dressed in battle fatigues, a lot of the men surrounding Damon are apparently soldiers who have spent time fighting in the Iraq War. These men aren't given particularly large roles, but where it counts is in the details - the tactics and movements of the team all feel real.

Every once in a while, a smart, rousing, mature film for adults is released that audiences decide to bypass, and Green Zone is the current example. It's a shame such movies as this aren't well received at the box office, because the cinematic climate would be a better place with more of this kind. On Michael Moore's Twitter, he said of the movie: "I can't believe this film got made. It's been stupidly marketed as action film. It is the most HONEST film about Iraq War made by Hollywood."

7.8/10

"Weakness compels strength, betrayal begets blood."

A stylised, excessively violent slice of martial arts pulp, Ninja Assassin reunites director James McTeigue with producers Joel Silver and Andy & Larry Wachowski for the first time since 2005's V for Vendetta. It nothing else, Ninja Assassin can be commended for staying true to its title. There are ninjas in the movie, and they indeed assassinate people in action set-pieces that highlight director McTeigue's trademark flair for slick, highly choreographed action. If this is all that matters to you, then the film delivers. However, those looking for anything resembling an actual movie - with character arcs, a plot, nuances, etc - will likely be disappointed once the blood begins to dry. Still, when you're dealing with a movie entitled Ninja Assassin, the quality of the ninja-ing rules all.

The protagonist of the story, Raizo (Rain), was raised by a secret underworld of ninjas, and has been trained to become an unflinching killing machine. During the many years of his training, Raizo managed to retain enough humanity to want to rebel against his future as a heartless killer, and eventually turns rogue. He decides to help Interpol researcher Mika (Harris), who is attempting to convince her superior (Miles) that ninja clans still exist and carry out international assassinations for a high price. It's lucky for Mika that Raizo is around, as Mika's investigating has made her a target. What follows is a fairly rudimentary exercise in run-from-the-bad-guys-until-it's-time-to-kill-them action cinema.

First-time screenwriter Matthew Sand and TV veteran J. Michael Straczynski have concocted a narrative for the film that's strangely reminiscent of Batman Begins, with story beats as predictable and generic as Raizo's gradually-revealed motivations for becoming a rogue assassin out for revenge. It's a crying shame the Wachowski Brothers neglected to hire a writer who could have at least developed an interesting story to accompany the mayhem, but what Ninja Assassin offers is a flimsy, thin plot that struggles to hold the movie together in between the action sequences. Unfortunately, whenever the badass action halts, the dialogue is usually howlingly bad and comes off as merely perfunctory. What's more heartbreaking is that glimpses of a much smarter movie are present from time to time, but are ultimately wasted. All the talk of international intrigue suggests a Bourne-style action-thriller which could've resulted in a far more engaging cinematic experience. Instead, we're left with a ninja seeking revenge who's trying to protect an attractive stranger. Alas, this alone is simply not enough.

Decades ago, ninja movies were almost entirely reliant on the physical capabilities of the picture's stars, with a bit of clever editing to enhance these abilities. But in the 21st Century - in the world of post-Matrix digital effects - any actor can be made to look like they can do anything. Thus, as McTeigue pulled off for 2005's V for Vendetta, a combination of traditional fight choreography and CGI is utilised to pull off the action sequences. In fact, a number of the set-pieces within Ninja Assassin feel like video game cut-scenes, and it's surprising that no-one suggested the film be in 3-D. At times, the frantic editing/shaky-cam techniques do become pronounced to the point of distraction, unfortunately, and it's difficult to fully appreciate the graceful athleticism of the choreography. Also, unlike the masterful use of digital effects in V for Vendetta, the violence is occasionally far too cartoonish to be effective. While some of the violence was done practically, most of the maiming is CGI, which allows the filmmakers the freedom to be mega bloody, but it also mars their work because it's less visceral. Thank goodness the action still remains eminently watchable.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ninja Assassin is thoroughly absurd. For instance, heavily armed SWAT teams have no chance against a few well-trained ninjas, yet 800 well-trained ninjas have no chance against Raizo? How come one ninja on his own is unstoppable, but ninjas within an army suddenly lose their invincibility? While killing ninjas as if he's merely swatting flies on a hot day, Raizo is even critically injured every few minutes, but it never seems to bother him. Maybe Raizo is using that miraculous healing power that was demonstrated earlier in the film? If he is, it's poorly delineated. Meanwhile, the acting in the movie is generally subpar. Playing Raizo, Rain acquits himself well in the action sequences, but he's bland, and lacks the requisite charisma to create an indelible screen anti-hero. Ben Miles is the only other cast member worth mentioning. The actor - who earned his stripes featuring in the highly acclaimed British TV series Coupling - submits a perfectly adequate performance.

While V for Vendetta was a wonderfully intelligent, well-performed and provocative action film, James McTeigue focuses squarely on the action in the case of Ninja Assassin. Heck, the film's producers, the Wachowski Brothers, also showed an ability to mix action and intelligence in The Matrix, but intelligence and solid acting are nowhere to be seen in Ninja Assassin. To its credit, this is still a well-paced actioner which delivers if all you want is some kinetically exciting, blood-soaked ninja fighting, but given the talents involved, we have to mourn what the film could've been. In this sense, the film only works in pieces, and five minutes after watching it you'll probably forget you ever saw the flick.

5.9/10

"I knew He'd send you, Gabriel. You were always so eager to please Him."

In supernatural end-of-the-world films, it's typically the Devil who brings about an Armageddon, but in 2010's Legion it's God who chooses to destroy mankind. That's the plot of this apocalyptic thriller, which should've been an irresistibly daft blast of B-Grade fun, but is instead a deadly dull, poorly-paced, uninvolving, pedestrian hodgepodge of familiar genre ideas and downright appalling connect-the-dots screenwriting. Legion also serves as evidence that Dennis Quaid, who is a perfectly decent actor when working with the right material, is truly on a never-ending quest to feature in as many bad movies as possible. Who knew the end of the world could be such a bore...

The premise is simple: God is fed up with "man's bullshit" and triggers a global apocalypse, in which a swarm of warrior angels are sent to Earth to destroy humankind. Michael (Bettany) is a rogue angel who throws off his heavenly shackles to do what he believes is best, and save the life of an unborn infant who is somehow important to the salvation of the human race. The final battle for the survival of humanity involves automatic weapons and takes place at an isolated diner in the Mojave Desert. Of course, why God chose such an ineffective, unusual way to destroy the world is never explained or touched upon (are floods and pestilence not good enough anymore?).

Legion is loaded with familiar scenes and scenarios, including scenes depicting characters falling for obvious traps that lead to their predictable demise. But the storyline itself is also familiar - it's essentially a clueless combination of The Terminator, Assault on Precinct 13, End of Days, and numerous living dead efforts. Unfortunately, Charlie (Palicki) - the character carrying the important infant - is easy to hate throughout the film. She's sweet, but also smokes when pregnant, constantly talks about her desire to give the baby away, and is pretty much useless. If an audience is unable to care about her, how are we supposed to invest in her protection, which is what most of the film focuses on?

The film marks the directorial debut of ILM veteran Scott Stewart, and his inexperience is obvious all the way through the movie. Most disappointing is the climax, which is virtually impossible to decode due to terribly misjudged cinematography and editing. Legion does show promise at certain points during its first half hour, as it showcases a few interesting shots and is imbued with a degree of tension. But this potential is destroyed by the rest of the film, which collapses under the weight of how seriously the subject is taken. The premise is ridiculous and promises a campy, enjoyable time, but the movie never runs carefree and enjoys the premise. As a result, there's precious little angel-on-angel action. Instead, God has chosen to deploy a great deal of slow, shuffling zombie-like creations that make for easy cannon fodder. It also doesn't help that the narrative momentum is frequently undermined by long spells of total inactivity and moments depicting the characters delivering yawn-inducing exposition about their past. Literally everyone stops to make a long, boring speech, each with the same sombre delivery. Perhaps God is fed up with all the moody yammering, and has decided to wipe out mankind for that reason? Without a hint of humour and with very few enjoyable moments, Legion is an utter bore, bluntly performed by a limited cast visibly unable to compute if the material was high camp or Shakespeare.

The main crime perpetuated by Legion is the total lack of brains. The script is a mess of plot holes, illogicalities and inconsistencies. In the very first scene, Michael breaks into an armoury, and, instead of using the front door to walk out, he blows up a wall and draws attention to himself. It's a moment included to amplify the "cool factor", but just comes off as silly. Several questions come to mind during this movie as well. For instance, why can't the creator of the universe strike down Charlie or trigger a miscarriage? Why would God send a bunch of incompetent, possessed humans to kill humankind, rather than a shower of asteroids or a flow of lava? Another thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is the lack of rules when it comes to possession. At the beginning, a police officer is possessed in order for God to converse with Michael. So why doesn't God or one of his minions possess Charlie or any of those in the diner? Why not possess the entire human race and force them all to commit suicide? Did the filmmakers ever stop to think these things through? Eventually, Gabriel is sent in to kill the pregnant woman. But again, Gabriel is as unsuccessful as every other option tried so far, and God still refuses to make a giant boulder appear out of thin air to crush the diner. But here's the most glaring thing: when an angel possesses a human, why do they turn into hellish demon creatures?

While Legion has its moments from time to time, it remains a dopey horror-action mishmash marred by lack of action, an aggressive, intrusive score, mediocre acting, inherent cheesiness, bland characters, long-winded dialogue, misjudged filmmaking, unremarkable CGI and a very confused take on the Almighty. The film never seems to understand its own potential, too - it could have been a fun, action-packed grindhouse-style actioner, but it instead commits the ultimate sin of tedium.

3.8/10