Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"There's the right way to do police work. There's the wrong way to do police work. And then there's the way you two do it."

Cop Out is indie filmmaker Kevin Smith's first attempt at working within Hollywood's big studio system. However, by all accounts, the studio granted Smith the requisite freedom to make Cop Out his way (like an independent film) as if it was all his own creation. Problem is, this movie is not all Smith's own creation - the script was penned by television writers Robb and Mark Cullen before Smith got involved, making Cop Out the first movie Kevin Smith has directed but not written. This results in a bland, mostly disastrous motion picture. Typical airplane food has more flavour.

The movie, which originally bore the far superior working title of A Couple of Dicks, concerns two veteran NYPD officers Jimmy (Willis) and Paul (Morgan), who are unable to make it 20 minutes into the film without getting suspended for a failed drug bust. Of course, this suspension doesn't prevent the duo from continuing their own investigation on their own time. Jimmy and Paul begin attempting to track down a stolen baseball card collectible that will help Jimmy pay for his daughter's wedding. By either coincidence or contrivance (take your pick), this search leads them to a kidnapped Mexican hottie (Reguera) and an on-the-rise drug kingpin (Díaz) who's wanted by the NYPD.

Unlike the central characters of Cop Out, the entire movie is strictly by-the-book. The screenplay contains all the conventions of the well-worn cop action-comedy genre (it wouldn't be a cop action-comedy without: an irate police captain suspending the protagonists, a pair of rival detectives in the squad, and the heroes doing something right by the end of the film to get reinstated), but the writers never bothered to colour outside the lines. Kevin Smith would consider this stuff as paying homage to all the great '80s action-comedies (Beverly Hills Cop and 48 Hrs. being the best examples), but there's more to a homage than using every cliché in the book. A good homage, or an affectionate parody, is a combination of genuine love and respect for the films being referenced, a keen awareness of the genre, and an ability to pull off something fresh. Scream, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz are the best examples of this. While it's clear Smith loves '80s cop films (let's face it, who doesn't?), he failed to do anything innovative with the expression of that love.

The laughs to be experienced in Cop Out are occasional and generally not of the belly variety. The dialogue falls far short of the level of wit we normally expect from a Kevin Smith production, too, because writers Robb and Mark Cullen are simply not as talented as Smith. Sure, there are a few zingers (the Die Hard reference is a laugh-out-loud moment), but not enough. Smith is merely a gun for hire here, and by a studio hiring him as a director but not a writer, they are playing to his weakness. On top of the lukewarm comedy, the action is not especially exciting, and the dramatic elements (Jimmy's relationship with his daughter, Paul's concern about his wife possibly cheating on him) are flat. The big bad guy is more cartoonish than threatening, and the production values are generally substandard. Since this is Smith's first foray into action cinema, one wouldn't expect first-rate shootouts, so it'd be unfair to judge him too harshly in that respect. But letting Smith edit the picture - whether it was a matter of cost control or a creative decision - was a big mistake. The pacing and flow of the picture is appalling.

With only a handful of action sequences throughout the flick's running time, Cop Out was almost entirely reliant on the below par dialogue to see it through, most of which takes place between Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan. Needless to say, it doesn't get the job done. Actually, most of the dialogue is between Morgan and the wall. Willis' talents are shockingly underexploited, which is especially disappointing considering he's Bruce fucking Willis, a.k.a. John McClane! In Cop Out, Willis is a thankless straight man given barely any clever one-liners or moments of comedy. At least there are a few humorous moments when Seann William Scott shows up. It's a shame, then, that Scott is only in the movie for 15 minutes tops. Scott steals every scene he's in, and Cop Out would've been worthwhile if he was a main player.

Admittedly, one has to grant Cop Out this much: it tries. Smith tried to inject some life into the proceedings by hiring an ideal cast, hiring the guy who scored Beverly Hills Cop to crank out a catchy score (one of the best things about the flick), and filming it like it's straight out of the '80s. While Cop Out is entertaining and amusing from time to time, a handful of laughs and a bunch of unspectacular action sequences are simply not enough to justify an entire motion picture. Someone can get free laughs by surfing the web, and can experience awesome action sequences by watching their favourite '80s movies again. To paraphrase another critic, it's easy to recognise why Smith attached himself to Cop Out: he got to work with Bruce Willis, achieve some mainstream recognition, and receive a healthy paycheck. Yet, the final result works out better for Smith than it does for anyone experiencing the fruit of his labours.

4.2/10

"I just want tonight to be different..."

Date Night can best be described as a late descendant of the "one crazy night" sub-genre of movies which became popular back in the '80s. Such titles as Sixteen Candles, After Hours, Adventures in Babysitting and even Die Hard all spring to mind as examples of this sub-genre. There are distant echoes of other flicks within Date Night as well; particularly Hitchcock's various explorations of innocent people who are suddenly embroiled in danger not of their making. It's easy to deduce from this that Date Night is nothing original or ambitious in the script department, and it isn't, but it nevertheless works. It's a tremendously funny film which boasts the comic duo of Steve Carell and Tina Fey, who are as perfect as an on-screen pairing can get. While the mediocre script feels regurgitated by a computer program, the uniformly excellent cast combined with big laughs and winning chemistry make this a perfectly pleasant, often uproarious action-comedy. Even with Shawn Levy at the helm, the movie is a consistent delight.

Carell and Fey star as Phil and Claire Foster; a nice, boring New Jersey couple whose marriage has settled into a monotonous rut of exhaustion and routine, and whose marital intimacy is reduced to the occasional "date nights". Upon hearing news of the impending divorce of a seemingly happy couple the two are acquainted with, Phil and Claire decide to spice up their date night by heading into Manhattan and attempting to get a table at the trendiest of trendy new restaurants without a reservation. After they're denied a table, Phil impulsively claims they are a no-show couple in order to steal a reservation. Unfortunately for the Fosters, this leads to them being mistakenly identified by a pair of gun-toting thugs (Simpson and Common), turning their date night into an action-packed nightmare.

Date Night's central problem is that the filmmakers seemed to have decided that their work was over once the basic premise is established. They should've just been getting started, instead. A more ambitious bunch of filmmakers would've given the premise a few new twists, and spun it off in new and intriguing directions. This creative team, however, eschew these ideas in favour of an easy Level One approach, with clichés, pedestrian plot points, and a conclusion that's obvious from the outset. These are problems that would sink any ordinary movie, but, miraculously, Date Night stays afloat thanks to the cast. Suspension of disbelief is called for at times too (the identity mix-up could quite easily have been rectified), but, as the momentum builds, you'll be having too good a time to care. After all, how can one think ill of a movie with serious belly-laughs and action that at one stage reinvents the car chase?

Despite a myriad of fun action set-pieces and a lot of laughs, Date Night works best during the smaller moments between Carell and Fey. Moments of drama unfold between them from time to time which are played with the right amount of sincerity to maintain realism amidst the increasingly over-the-top proceedings. It's precisely because the Fosters are so mundane and relatable that a viewer will care about them. Naturally, the casting of Carell and Fey was integral to this, and the two are the best screen pair of recent memory. They're both competent at selling a gag or a one-liner, and they both know how to develop and flesh-out their roles as authentic human beings rather than thin caricatures going through the motions.
Filling out the supporting cast is a cornucopia of talented performers. Mark Wahlberg willingly pokes fun at his meatball image by playing a security guy who's perpetually topless, while Mila Kunis and James Franco (in their one-scene cameo) threaten to upstage Carell and Fey as the volatile couple who the Fosters were mistaken for. Jimmi Simpson and rapper-turned-actor Common are also on hand playing the menacing thugs, while seasoned pros William Fichtner and Ray Liotta excel as corrupt overlords.

During and after the end credits, a reel of bloopers and alternate takes of Carell and Fey's ad-libbing is shown. It reinforces the notion that practically all of the funniest moments in the film were likely improvised by the cast, but it also makes us more thankful for the actors that were assembled. Since comedy is subjective, it feels pointless to simply say the film is funny since some may disagree, but it's worth at least giving this film a shot. The only unfortunate thing about the laughs in Date Night is that there are a few comedic possibilities which are never capitalised upon. This extends to hanging threads (the Fosters coming home to the babysitter would've been amusing) and scenes that feel as if a bigger comic punch could've been added (the Fosters escaping the police station).

There's not a great deal else which can be said about Date Night, other than to reiterate that Carell and Fey lend a degree of panache to the unremarkable script, allowing Date Night to be a fun slice of entertainment. When it comes to comedies, a lousy narrative can be excused as long as you can enjoy the ride, and this is the case here. It won't be remembered when the summer movie season commences, or even a few days after seeing it, but if you want 85 minutes of laughs and action, this will provide.

7.2/10

"Whatever happens, we need to hold our line. From here on in, it's do or die."

Back in 1981, Peter Weir's acclaimed motion picture Gallipoli asserted Australia's cultural independence from Britain by portraying Aussie soldiers as heroic, anti-authoritarian and noble. Additionally, the film displayed to the world just how big a part the Aussies played in WWI and how tremendous their sacrifice was, while also damning the way the Australians were commanded by their callous British superiors. 2010's Beneath Hill 60 is another film which espouses these qualities. Screenwriter David Roach and director Jeremy Sims have unearthed a little-known true story from Western Front of the Great War that's packed with important notions of courage, loyalty, camaraderie and sacrifice - and the result is one hell of an experience. Somewhat similar to the Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker in the way it depicts soldiers carrying out their dangerous everyday wartime duties, Beneath Hill 60 is an on-the-battlefield war epic focusing not on soldiers per se but mine engineers - the men who dug tunnels underneath enemy lines, and, in 1916, detonated the biggest load of explosives the world had ever known.

The commander of the Australian Tunnelling Company in World War I was Captain Oliver Woodward, whose diaries formed the basis for the movie's screenplay. Played here by Brendan Cowell (who submitted an equally terrific performance in the 2007 Aussie pic Noise), Woodward is shown in the mud and carnage of the Western Front, nestled in tunnels deep beneath German lines. The labyrinthine tunnel system Woodward and his platoon are defending is densely packed with enough explosives to change the entire course of the Great War.

Flashbacks are interspersed throughout the film's duration, revealing Woodward's blossoming love for the 16-year-old Marjorie (Heathcote) as well as his ultimate decision to go to war. These flashback scenes are beneficial, as they add a welcome dimension to the character. However, with that said, the flashbacks are at times clunky and are ultimately overused. Eventually, they begin to interrupt the pace and intensity of the movie.

Admirably, David Roach's screenplay rarely sacrifices facts for the sake of entertainment, and the filmmakers were able to eschew the temptation to give the individuals of this true story a modern spin with contemporary attitudes. Rather, the facts are retained and the film is imbued with the sensibility of the era; unabashedly embracing the fundamental decency, buoyant camaraderie and dry humour of Australian soldiers. Yet another masterstroke was the decision to depict the German perspective in a way that highlights how much both sides had in common, as opposed to simply depicting the Germans as faceless enemies that need to be killed.

Brendan Cowell's performance as Oliver Woodward is strong and engaging. The actor presents a portrait of Woodward as a man of stoic loyalty and awkward emotion. Not a single moment feels contrived. Credit must also be distributed to the rest of the ensemble cast, all of whom are impeccable. Gyton Grantley has gone from strength to strength since Underbelly, and his performance as Norman Morris is thoroughly convincing. The young Harrison Gilbertson is impressive as Frank Tiffin, as is Steve Le Marquand as the resident hard-nut (some may remember Marquand from another Aussie war film, Kokoda). The camaraderie among the actors is infectious, with the spirit of these Aussie larrikins adding texture to the bloodshed. As a viewer watches them bond, it's possible to feel closer to them. Rounding out the main cast is Bella Heathcote, who's endearing and convincing as Woodward's sweetheart. Be on the lookout for comedian Bob Franklin, too, who briefly shows up.

For a film produced on a reported budget of $6 million, Beneath Hill 60 possesses production qualities of Hollywood films made for 10 times that amount. Sims and his team pulled off a minor miracle in effectively recreating the horrors of the trenches on a muddy patch outside of Townsville. Director Jeremy Sims (Last Train to Freo) has magnificently captured the mud, blood and sweat of trench warfare, in addition to using claustrophobic, low-light cinematography to evoke the essence of a tunnel interior during wartime. Tension and excitement is remarkably created by Sims, too, with loud shell-bursts that rock the theatre's sound system and spray earth and body parts across the screen. Consequently, Beneath Hill 60 is enthralling and heart-stopping, with hardly a dull moment. Those unfamiliar with the details of this particular skirmish are sure to be on the edge of their seats during the tense conflicts. The final touch is the sound mixing, which further amplifies the wartime atmosphere. Meanwhile, Cezary Skubiszewski's score, while moving, has a tendency to be too intrusive, and at times makes the outcome of an event somewhat predictable. Another technical imperfection is the CGI work for the final explosion, which looks a tad cartoonish. These faults are minor compared to the film's myriad strengths, however.

All in all, Beneath Hill 60 is a top-notch war movie which delivers traditional genre elements in effective ways, and delivers them as powerfully as almost any Hollywood epic. In fact, Beneath Hill 60 has a fighting chance of joining the ranks of Gallipoli and Breaker Morant. It's the best Aussie war film of this generation. It may even contribute to future generations' understanding of the Australian experience in the Great War, thanks to the attention to historical accuracy. It may not be as good as Gallipoli or Breaker Morant per se, but it's certainly as effective, and it's a movie all those involved should be proud of.

8.4/10

"You can't handle the tooth! And that's the tooth, the whole tooth and nothing but the tooth! I pledge allegiance to the tooth!"

Remember Judd Apatow's 2009 project, Funny People? While a lousy and flat film, it at one stage cleverly poked fun at actors who have long renounced their dignity for the sake of a paycheck. Tooth Fairy is exactly the type of noxious family entertainment parodied in Apatow's flick. It mixes a few recognisable faces with a nauseating amount of schmaltz, a one-joke premise, and pedestrian filmmaking, resulting in an excruciating flick which is so unbelievably cheesy that one could mistake it for a cheese emporium. Added to this, its target audience appears to be strangely specific - those in the first grade. Second graders are far too old for this tosh, and would easily see through the shitty script. Anyone younger is just too young, as the intricacies of fairy politics would be too complex for their little minds. First graders will enjoy this, however. I just hope they keep it away from the rest of us.

Former WWE Wrestler Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson displayed at least some charisma in his action hero roles in the past, but his decision to pursue family-friendly entertainment has only dented the star's once-promising career. Johnson's character here, Derek Thompson, is a hockey player with a fierce reputation, which has earned him the nickname "Tooth Fairy" due to his ability to smash the holy hell out of anyone on the ice. He's also a loudmouth cynic whose dreams were crushed by injury. One night, Derek explains to his girlfriend's daughter (Whitlock) that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, which absolutely horrifies his girlfriend Carly (Judd). As a consequence, Derek is summoned to the land of fairies for the crime of disbelief, and is forced to serve as an actual tooth fairy for a couple of weeks.

The screenplay (credited to a whopping five writers) peddles the same tiresome themes that all family comedies are concerned about these days, and is structured like every other family flick of the past decade. At first Derek is mean, but he learns lessons, rekindles his passion for life, bonds with his girlfriend's son (who, of course, initially resents Derek), and in the process gets caught up in slapstick shenanigans. Tooth Fairy follows this tedious road map without fail, hitting comedic beats any intelligent person can predict a mile away. As a matter of fact, the film revisits the mythology of the Tooth Fairy in a fashion that mixes Fred Claus, Elf and The Santa Clause, in which a non-believer of a children's fantasy learns that said fantasy is in fact real. He also finds out the fantasy is a funded operation, and lack of believers is threatening the future. Why couldn't the movie have mirrored Bad Santa instead? At least that would've been funny... Imagine Derek walking into a child's room, and telling the kid "Give me your fucking tooth, you little brat. I've had too much to drink and I'm in a bad fucking mood". Hey, that's funnier than anything in the actual movie.

Every single inch of Tooth Fairy is unbelievably formulaic, to the extent that watching it becomes a process of waiting for the obvious set-ups to inevitably play out. For instance, Derek is told he will be handed a Tooth Fairy assignment at any random time, and, to force him to do it, his wings will sprout out and his clothes will be replaced with a fairy outfit. Thus, when Derek is getting intimate with Carly, WA-HEY - Derek is paged and an assignment is handed down, necessitating an awkward escape. During an important hockey match, WA-HEY - Derek has to leave on an assignment, hence another awkward exit. Anyone with half a brain will foresee such things happening. Director Lembeck is a terrible filmmaker, and was unable to imbue neither the fantasy world nor his routine shot construction with any flair or professionalism. Considering the $48 million budget, the ugly-looking film is very disappointing indeed; lacking energy and visual audacity. These things are truly irksome, but not as groan-inducing as the broad humour. Despite the five credited writers, Tooth Fairy hasn't got a single clever comic beat in its body.

Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson visibly struggles to retain his charisma here, resulting in a tragically flat performance. Stephen Merchant (whose work is decent) and the uncredited Billy Crystal are the only good things within Tooth Fairy. Crystal's one-scene cameo as a fairy inventor provides the film's only remotely amusing moments, and merely exists to highlight how fucking awful the rest of the movie is. Rubbing salt in the wound is Julie Andrews who's woeful as the magisterial head of the fairies, and Ashley Judd who's terrible as Derek's confused girlfriend. Johnson and Judd have the coldest and most contrived chemistry of recent memory.

Back in the 1990s, muscular action star Arnold Schwarzenegger put his career in danger by starring in awful family films such as Jingle All the Way. The difference between Arnie and The Rock, however, is that Schwarzenegger earned his family film slot by first starring in a number of awesome action films. Johnson, like Vin Diesel, too quickly ditched the action hero career in favour of kiddie movies before featuring in any awesome action flicks. Forgettable from the very minute it begins, and played without even a hint of such concepts as wit and originality, Tooth Fairy only finds time to feed the public's appetite for watching brawny, self-serious men wearing pink tutus, making animal noises and using shiny objects. This movie is awful...and that's the tooth!

1.8/10

"If I'm gonna be an old dad, you're gonna be Uncle Charlie. We can do this."

A lot has been made regarding family films like Where the Wild Things Are, which are perceived as too mature for little kids. The exact inverse applies to Old Dogs; a film too stupid and infantile for anyone able to speak in full sentences. A strong cast may be attached to the flick, but the script is laboured, stale, obvious and unable to serve the actors. The humour is forced and obvious, while the attempts at dramatic moments are as well-executed as Will Ferrell doing Shakespeare. The side effects of enduring the mawkish melodrama of the film include retching and uncontrollable eyeball-rolling. Imagine a season's worth of plot devices from a generic television sitcom crammed into 85 excruciating minutes served with a side-order of clichés, and you have Old Dogs. Filmed in 2007, it has the feel of a movie that's been reworked and reordered a dozen times until only a pure goof-and-sentiment experience remains...which fails at both goals.

The two titular "old dogs" are lifelong friends and business partners Charlie (Travolta) and Dan (Williams), who are on the verge of closing the deal of their careers with a Japanese firm. Things change for the duo, however, when Dan's old flame Vicki (Preston) resurfaces. Nearly nine years prior, Dan married Vicki on a drunken impulse, and the marriage was annulled the next day. The reason for Vicki showing up all these years later is to reveal that Dan is the father of her twins, and that she's facing a two-week stint in gaol for a political protest. While Vicki is doing time, Dan volunteers to look after the two kids, even though he's incompetent when it comes to handling kids, and he's more concerned with his job. Of course, this just sets up the real crux of the story - the part teaching us that family is everything, not business. Every narrative beat from here on in is so formulaic and by-the-numbers that the screenwriters should be ashamed.

A pall hangs over Old Dogs. It's officially Bernie Mac's final film, and his death resulted in the film's opening being delayed. This film is also the last film John Travolta starred in before his son, Jett, tragically died; further delaying the film's release. As a matter of fact, Jett is the only member of the Travolta clan not to have a role in Old Dogs. John's wife, Kelly Preston, plays Vicki, while their daughter, Ella Bleu, is one of the kids.

For the entire duration of Old Dogs, the objective is merely to put the hapless leads in humiliating situations and beat them senseless with their own cluelessness. This is terrible episodic filmmaking which expires immediately, and it's glumly orchestrated by Becker who is unable to add any sense of personality to the flick. Instead, he leans on colourful cameos (Matt Dillon, Justin Long, Luis Guzman, Amy Sedaris, Dax Shepard and Rita Wilson all appear for no good reason), unfunny pratfalls and obvious jokes. The situations are always awkward and predictable, accentuated with an expected procession of flatulence and urine humour, topped off with some genital trauma and stale jokes which re-emerge far too many times (Dan and Charlie are continuously mistaken as grandparents). A soul is the last thing the film should be concerned about, as unfunny jokes and comedic situations demand top priority.

The convoluted plot set-up is derivative and contrived, the characters are barely tolerable, and the film's main gags (heeeelarious set-pieces involving dying pups, hands getting caught in a car boot, drug trips, Asian stereotyping, homosexual innuendo, and other stuff) are stranded in a PG-rated wasteland in which laughs and good taste are a rarity. As an example of how predictable the set-pieces are: Dan enters a tanning booth, an operational mishap occurs (which cannot be rectified until too late, as Charlie is flirting with the attendant) and Dan ends up browner than an M&M. Funny? No. Predictable? Definitely. Also, when Charlie and Dan discuss their complicated regime of pills and the respective side-effects, one can be sure that within minutes they'll swallow the wrong pills, leading to an assortment of unfunny hijinks. Everyone involved in the film seemed to believe only the broadest, most overt sense of humour will get laughs, and they'll be damned if you want anything else. Strangely, some of these moments were funny in the trailer (at least in this reviewer's humble opinion), but in the personality-less full movie, there's no longer a comedic punch to them.

Chief among the most tragic things about Old Dogs is the way it provokes us to reflect upon how far Robin Williams has fallen. Once one of the funniest actors in Hollywood (who also showed strong dramatic chops, particularly in Good Will Hunting for which he earned an Oscar), Williams has been reduced to overplaying obvious jokes. Both Williams and John Travolta are talented, but here they simply push and pull their performances so hard that they nearly pass out from exhaustion. They leer and grimace on cue, do bad physical comedy at a moment's notice, and burst out into exaggerated laughter when required. They're never given the chance to present Dan and Charlie as anything more than caricatures. It's easy to see why Travolta was attracted to the movie, since the involvement of his wife and daughter allowed him to spend time with the family, but an unreleased home movie would've been a better, cheaper and less harmful alternative.

Although there are a few gags worth a smile or a giggle, Old Dogs, taken as a whole, is a lousy mess of a motion picture. It's unfortunate, too, as there's something more intelligent beneath the surface. The take, however, is the wrong one; one that opts for the easiest way out. Instead of a sweet, affecting comedy about the growing disconnect between parents and their kids, Old Dogs is an exercise in rote life lessons and obvious moral conjecture. It's also pretty drab and boring.

1.7/10

"If you could make God bleed, people will cease to believe in Him. There will be blood in the water, and the sharks will come."

Unquestionably one of the most highly anticipated motion pictures of the year, Iron Man 2 kicks off the 2010 summer season with a bang. With the original film (which kicked off 2008's summer season), director Jon Favreau and a quartet of screenwriters managed to pull together one of the best additions to the tired superhero genre in recent memory. Benefitting from a pungent script and Robert Downey Jr.'s terrific performance, Iron Man left fans wondering how the sequel could match or exceed its predecessor. Happily, Iron Man 2 more or less wins its battle with "sequelitis" to provide a solid, fun follow-up. It lacks both the class and the magic of the original film, and there's a bit too much content crammed into the narrative, but, considering how wildly it could have gone off the rails (consider Batman & Robin...), Iron Man 2 is a highly satisfying, enjoyable blockbuster.

The film kicks off six months after Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) revealed his Iron Man identity to the world. His superhero methods have brought about world peace, but Stark is also paying the piper for his glib declaration, as he's facing pressure to share his revolutionary technology with the military. The government fears that the country's enemies may develop such technology, leaving America unprepared and at risk. Tony confidently dismisses their fears, though; asserting that any such technological advances are at least 20 years away. However, Tony is unaware that a Russian physicist named Ivan Vanko (Rourke) is in the process of successfully engineering his own version of Stark's technology. While Vanko fails to kill Iron Man, he is able to expose weaknesses in the seemingly impenetrable armour. With the government vultures desperate for such technology, the dangerous Russian is provided with an even greater pool of resources. In other story threads, Tony's best friend Jim Rhodes (Cheadle) is torn between his duty as a soldier and his loyalty to Tony, while Stark's shapely new paralegal (Johansson) is causing friction between Tony and his assistant Pepper Potts (Paltrow).

Thankfully, character development remains top-notch in this instalment. Similar to Spider-Man 2, personal conflicts are thrown into the mix and the filmmakers chose to progress the narrative onto the next logical step, rather than just playing it safe and falling back on what worked in the original movie. As you may be able to tell by the lengthy plot summary, there's a whole lot happening in Iron Man 2 - it's overstuffed, and, with a large villain quota, Vanko in particular feels like a wasted opportunity. With that said, it's difficult not to have a sustained fangasm throughout the movie. Several clever references and obvious set-ups for the upcoming The Avengers flick will provoke butterflies in one's belly, while the action sequences will leave movie-goers giddy with delight.

As he pulled off with Iron Man, director Jon Favreau delivers a highly enjoyable ride which looks and sounds absolutely terrific. The blending of digital effects and live action is virtually seamless, and the film's look is very vivid, colourful and stylish. The key problem with Iron Man 2, though, is that the action sequences play second fiddle to the scenes of pure exposition, and, as a result of this, there are a number of poorly-paced dead spots. The film sags during the mid-section, as an inordinate amount of dialogue unfolds to set up the final conflict. While the original movie was a character drama first and an action movie second, Iron Man 2 doesn't sparkle as much in the script department. Sure, the movie is never boring per se, but there are a number of clunky moments, such as a long, arbitrary, awkward and contrived sequence at Tony's birthday party involving a battle between Rhodes and Stark. It's an essential turning point for the characters, but it's hindered by such an inept approach. Credibility is stretched to breaking point too, since Jim Rhodes is able to merely step into an Iron Man-type suit of armour without any knowledge of how to operate it, and manages to use the gadgets flawlessly.

Iron Man 2 manages to excel its predecessor in only one area: the action department. Ivan Vanko's early introductory sequence is an action highlight; flawlessly executed and thoroughly nail-biting. The utterly exhilarating climactic action sequence, meanwhile, improves upon the original film's final showdown in every respect. Favreau has further improved his directorial technique, as the action set-pieces here are of remarkable quality. Favreau's action scenes are of the type one can both follow and appreciate; freed of the desire for frenetic camerawork and rapid cutting. Instead, the screen is filled with the type of stuff one would expect to receive from a summer blockbuster, and it's coherently delivered with impressive visual flair. The digital effects, of course, border on photorealism. As with the first film, the CGI is not overwhelming - rather, the effects merely complement the live-action work in an unobtrusive manner.

Robert Downey Jr. continues to be unstoppably charismatic and likeable as Tony Stark/Iron Man. His hyper-caffeinated dialogue delivery provokes several laughs thanks to a few well-written one-liners, but, unfortunately, there are fewer funny moments this time around. Don Cheadle, who replaced the underwhelming Terrence Howard, emanates charm and is able to bring great intensity to the role of Jim Rhodes, and this casting decision benefits the entire flick. Mickey Rourke is the standout here, however. In his role as Vanko, Rourke exudes malice and espouses a believable accent. He's a top-notch villain for Stark; far surpassing Jeff Bridges' performance in the original movie. Meanwhile, the always-reliable Sam Rockwell is able to provide some much-appreciated levity to key scenes, while also generating a certain intensity at the right times. Even if Rockwell isn't a formidable villain, he brings enough gravitas to the role. Scarlett Johansson has rarely been sexier, and she's particularly good when she unleashes her character's secret identity and kicks some butt. This is one aspect of the movie which leaves you wanting more. Samuel L. Jackson is also on hand as Nick Fury, and does a commendable job, while director Favreau's bit part as "Happy" Hogan (the driver) has been considerably beefed up here.

Despite its shortcomings, and in spite of the filmmakers' inability to recapture the magic of the first instalment, Iron Man 2 is a blast. Jon Favreau is clearly capable at creating fun and entertaining summer movies that don't insult a viewer's intelligence, and the masterfully-realised action sequences here in addition to the compelling villains ensure this sequel is worth seeing. With a third instalment virtually an inevitability (it's guaranteed that the box office numbers will be kind to Iron Man 2) and the Avengers movie just a few years away, it'll be very interesting to see where the franchise will head next. Like the first film, be sure to keep watching until after the credits.

7.5/10

"Iron Man? That's kinda catchy. It's got a nice ring to it."

Superhero movies wildly vary in quality. For every home run that successfully mixes emotional resonance with a thrill-ride payoff (Spider-Man 2 or X-Men), there are morose duds and woeful misfires (Fantastic Four, Elektra, or Hulk). With Jon Favreau's Iron Man, another superhero has been taken from the Marvel Comic stable and CGI'ed into a summer blockbuster. Thankfully, Iron Man can be placed on the short list of superhero movies done right. It's a refreshing blend of witty humour, solid characters, phenomenal special effects and exciting action. It's clear the creative team behind Iron Man actually cared during every step of the production process; working to make a superhero adventure with an eye towards characters and dialogue rather than senseless action. It's not as slapdash as The Incredible Hulk or as pretentious as The Dark Knight. Rather, it's a satisfying crowd-pleaser suited for fans of the source material as well as the uninitiated.

Robert Downey Jr. plays the title role of billionaire Tony Stark, who inherited his father's industry which specialises in producing high-tech weaponry for the United States Army. The story of Stark from the original Marvel comics has been modernised, with the character being placed in the more topical war zone of Afghanistan. During a trip to Afghanistan to demonstrate his latest weapon, Stark is ambushed and captured by a terrorist group who demand for him to build them a missile. Instead of complying with their demands, Stark constructs a deadly suit of armour to escape his captors. However, the traumatic experience in the Middle-East leaves Stark questioning his company's true role in peacekeeping, as he realises how easily his weapons can fall into the wrong hands and be used against the people they was built to protect. Opting to terminate his company's weapons division (enraging the board of directors), Stark concentrates on perfecting the armoured suit design, and this leads to the birth of Iron Man.

Those unfamiliar with the Iron Man comics need not be concerned about being unceremoniously dropped into a flick specifically tailored for the already-established fan-base. The flick has been carefully crafted by an ideal creative team to maximise the appeal and satiate both those steeped in Iron Man lore and those who've never heard of the Mighty Marvel Metal Man. In a way, this is similar to the accomplishments of Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins: the legend is gradually built up while plot and character development is used as the foundation. On the topic of Batman Begins, Iron Man does share similarities to the character of Batman. Both are superheroes without any actual powers - instead, they're well-funded men who rely upon gadgets.

Chief among the strengths of Iron Man is the well-told nature of the narrative, which is Favreau's forte as a mainstream filmmaker. Unlike other blockbuster directors like Michael Bay, Favreau seldom allows his characters and the narrative to get buried in an avalanche of over-the-top digital effects. As with most first instalments of a superhero franchise, the origin tale of Tony Stark/Iron Man had to be covered, and this production does a terrific job of it - more than an hour of the runtime is spent jumping back and forth through time to establish who Tony Stark is. Stark's crisis of conscience is also explored, and the developments in this area feel organic as opposed to contrived. Once Stark dons his armour and heads into action, a viewer will care about the man locked in combat, and this is a great asset in generating that hard-to-nail asset: tension. Many blockbuster movie-goers may find all the exposition and character development boring, yet this reviewer found it absorbing and fascinating - even more so than the action itself. Yes, Iron Man does have its share of amazing action, but these set-pieces are secondary to the drama. The only genuine setback of the narrative structure is its adherence to the "origin tale" formula - it feels like Spider-Man or Batman Begins with changed locations, different characters and a different mythology. For such a solid movie, it's never able to reinvent the origin tale format.

Considering Iron Man's origins as a big-budget summer spectacle, it should come as no surprise to learn that the film also benefits from magnificent digital effects. CGI is most effective when it's utilised by a filmmaker to enhance the plot without overwhelming the frame or drawing attention to the effects, and this is the case here. The digital wizards were visibly in synch with director Favreau, as they never attempted to show off or upstage the actors. Added to this, Matthew Libatique's cinematography is of a high standard. Rather than frenetic camerawork, Libatique and Favreau ensure total coherency of each action sequence (another area where Michael Bay should take notes). Meanwhile, fans of the comics should adore the design of Iron Man's suit - it's an insanely-detailed work of special effects mastery to be admired. With all these positives in mind, it's a shame that Iron Man is bogged down by a few faults. As the home stretch is nearing, the movie shifts gears and becomes a more conventional action movie; leaning on clichés and rote lines such as "But you'll die!" and "He's gone insane". This leads to the climactic showdown, which, while impressive, doesn't provoke the "I can't wait to see how they'll top that" feeling of other superhero movies. Thankfully, the film concludes on a high note.

Casting decisions make or break a superhero movie. While Christopher Reeve was an ideal Superman, Ben Affleck was a woeful Daredevil. Thankfully, Iron Man gets off on the right foot in this department because Robert Downey Jr. is Tony Stark. Downey's portrayal of the man in the metal suit is the backbone of the film - he provides a welcome amount of wit and charm not unlike his excellent work in the overlooked Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (which may be that film earned Downey the Iron Man gig). And the top-notch comedy isn't restricted to Downey's hilarious quips - Favreau has also included moments of clever slapstick humour which would make Charlie Chaplin proud.
The supporting cast is a mixed bag. Jeff Bridges exudes menace in his terrific performance as Stark's business partner and eventual nemesis, but Terrence Howard is tremendously underwhelming as Jim Rhodes. He's not in the least bit memorable and he's terribly wooden. Happily, for the sequel, Howard was replaced by Don Cheadle. Rounding out the cast is Gwyneth Paltrow, who's sweet and intelligent as Pepper Pots, but sorely lacks intensity.

In the end, Iron Man succeeds so well not because of the storyline (which is a standard-issue origin plot) but due to the way in which the storyline is presented by Jon Favreau and his team. The screenplay manages to develop characters effectively while at the same time tapping into one's inner child during the usually remarkable action sequences. Iron Man is, quite simply, a film done by a talented team who respect the source material. Be sure to keep watching until the end of the credits.

8.2/10

"This is a missing person's case. What the hell you think you're gonna find down there?"

Others may disagree, but this reviewer found 2005's The Descent to be utterly superb; masterfully made, intensely scary, claustrophobic, and affecting. Of course, in Hollywood it's popular practise to produce sequels to acclaimed films, and thus the inevitable The Descent: Part 2 has arrived four years after its predecessor scared the living daylights out of movie-goers. For lack of better word, The Descent: Part 2 is a sequel in the truest sense: it's more Americanised, less subtle, and much gorier. Instead of concentrating on characters and atmosphere, the makers of this follow-up have simply resorted to cranking up the gore and foregrounding the cave-dwelling crawlers. In fact, a sequel's existence is illogical since, in the original UK ending of the first film, there were no survivors. The American version of The Descent, though, was re-edited to facilitate a different conclusion, and the sequel follows on from this ending.

As The Descent: Part 2 commences, Sarah (Macdonald) is found bruised and bloodied after her terrifying ordeal but, conveniently, is now an amnesiac with no memory of the tragic caving trip. While searching for the rest of the girls in the area from which Sarah emerged, a tracker dog leads investigators to an abandoned mining church, which conveniently has an old yet still functioning elevator shaft leading down into the abyss. The local sheriff (O'Herlihy) insists on bringing Sarah down into the cave system to uncover the truth of what happened to the women. Of course, the logic of dragging Sarah along is ridiculous, and this the first of many things which are difficult to swallow in the film. It's not long before boulders come crashing down, the proverbial blind carnivores swarm in, the team are hunted and they eventually deduce that keeping quiet is their only true survival tool.

I'll start with the positives of The Descent: Part 2. For a moderately low-budgeted horror movie, it looks good, with convincing set design and handsome cinematography. Director John Harris (whose usual day job is as editor extraordinaire) acquitted himself competently with the set-pieces, and injected enough energy into the fights to suggest he deserves the chance to direct more movies. There are moments of real tension, too, which is almost unheard of in a horror sequel. 85% of the time, the scares are obvious (some are lazily recycled from the original film), but there are a few jump moments which work.

Moving onto the bad... Unfortunately, the writer-director of The Descent, Neil Marshall, did not to sign up for the same duties on this sequel, and his replacements aren't nearly as skilled. The Descent: Part 2 is infused with a basic plot which feels directly lifted from 1986's Aliens, with Sarah being unwillingly taken back to face a nightmarish foe by people who believe they know better. Additionally, similar to Aliens, new things are revealed about how the crawlers live, and a bigger version of a crawler appears towards the end. Unfortunately, whereas Aliens was an exceptional film which surpassed its predecessor, The Descent: Part 2 lacks gravitas and skill. The script is generally lazy, with a predictable sacrifice, a preposterous character return, and even a cheesy, melodramatic death scene. Meanwhile, the gun-toting sheriff is a colossal asshole who exists to drive the story forward with his spectacular stupidity. The performances are generally strong, but the dialogue is guaranteed to provoke unintentional laughter. When the sheriff asks what the creatures are, he gets the reply "Death." Appalling...

With the film jumping into the action as quickly as possible, character development is sacrificed. Let's not forget the original film made the audience wait a full hour before the crawlers began their predatory assault. Sure, it would be ill-advised to replicate the structure of the original film, but a lot more could've taken place before the characters ventured into the cave system. Without character development, this new group of individuals are nothing but generic, expendable crawler-fodder. A shame, since the previous film was so effective due to the spark between the main characters. One could feel their friendship and collective terror, making their deaths both tragic and terrifying. It's hard to feel anything for the characters in The Descent: Part 2, and, while the kills are technically proficient, there's no depth or emotion to them. Chances are you won't care about anyone, except for Sarah based on her appearance in the first film. Playing Sarah, Shauna Macdonald has no room to breathe (excuse the pun), and is given no chance to show the incredible range she demonstrated in the original movie.

Essentially, The Descent: Part 2 is an unneeded epilogue to the first film. One may even consider it a feature-length deleted scene. It's a major step down from its predecessor in almost every area, from the amount of effective scares to such things as dialogue and characters. Additionally, the twist ending of the movie is absolutely atrocious. It's a pointless, dumb, tacked-on conclusion which adds nothing but a frustrated groan and the opportunity for another sequel. In fact, it loses half a point for the ending alone.
After pointing out the myriad faults with this film, it would almost seem there's nothing to love about it. Truth is, it's serviceable enough as an action sequel, but it just eschews the strengths of the original in favour of gore and action. The Descent: Part 2 is an unnecessary follow-up, but at least it's a watchable one. If you're not prepared to accept that it simply isn't in the same league as its predecessor, then you should skip it. If you just want to see the crawlers doing some mangling, however, you'll find something to like here.

5.1/10

"Hey, there's something down here..."

British writer-director Neil Marshall made a splash in 2002 with the cult favourite Dog Soldiers. With his follow-up feature, The Descent, Marshall has raised his game several notches and proved he is among the best horror filmmakers in the business. Benefitting from truly remarkable cinematography, several iconic images, and a level of believability that rarely ebbs, The Descent is a creepy, white-knuckle horror offering in which even the cheap "boo!" moments are so expertly executed that they cause a jolt. Paying homage to an array of horror favourites, from Deliverance and Carrie to The Shining and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Marshall has arguably delivered the scariest genre flick since the '80s. For horror fans, this is a movie you cannot afford to miss.

The premise of The Descent is straightforward enough: one year after losing both her husband and daughter in an unfortunate car accident, the emotionally traumatised Sarah (Macdonald) joins a group of her closest girlfriends on a recreational cave trekking expedition. Alas, their adventure quickly transforms into a nightmare when a cave-in cuts them off from the only known exit. Making matters worse, it turns out that the group's de facto leader, Juno (Mendoza), has intentionally led the girls into an unmapped cave system. This turns out to be the least of their worries, however. They soon realise they are not alone, and there's a reason why the cave system has remained unmapped - it's home to a species of creature perfectly adapted for hunting in the dark. And what they hunt is other humans...

Seasoned horror fans should easily recognise the old dark house motif of The Descent, since the majority of the proceedings take place in a labyrinthine set of pitch black caves. Tension is effectively amplified in these low visibility areas, both before and after the creatures make their first appearance. Rest assured that from the moment of the group's first run-in with the crawlers, the thrills never let up as The Descent descends into a gripping bloodbath. For best effect, Marshall opted to utilise make-up and actors rather than CGI to bring the nasties to life, and their predatory assault on the women is the kind of stuff that horror is all about. Also, during this section, paranoia between the main characters is augmented as the film explores the absence of loyalty as well as the theme of mental instability. Crackerjack suspense sequences stem from this, along with an element that's more laudable than effective horror pandemonium: genuine unpredictability.

For a genre flick, one of the most impressive aspects of The Descent is the restraint and patience exhibited by writer-director Marshall as the story is set up. Sure, some stomach-churning gore is thrown in before the opening credits are over, yet this violence functions as a warning to viewers: don't get too comfortable. While the centrepiece of The Descent is the struggle between the creatures and the girls, the blind carnivores don't begin attacking until about an hour of the running time has elapsed. However, this isn't to say that a viewer is required to endure an hour of boredom before the carnage kicks in - during the lead-up, Marshall develops six strong, albeit not terribly deep female characters in interesting, well-written ways. Once they venture underground, Marshall keeps the suspense high with cave-ins and bone-crunching falls. Add to this a claustrophobic atmosphere, and the audience is on the edge of their seat by the time the creatures make their terrifying first appearance. Also, by the time the six women are being hunted, we've gotten to know them and we care about them. Once they begin falling victim to the crawlers, none of them go down easily. Nobody acts out of character, and there are no eye-rolling moments of ill-advised actions. It helps that all the actors are sincere and committed in their respective roles.

Since Neil Marshall had a relatively low budget to work with, the writer-director was forced to make the most of what he had, and he's especially efficient once the characters have descended into the incessant darkness of the caves and he can shroud the frame in blackness. These techniques heighten the tension as there's a lot of real estate for the creatures to inhabit. Even more effective are the different sources of illumination inside the caves: red flares, a video camera on night vision, glow-sticks, and torches. In the caves, these are the only sources of illumination, hence shots are imbued with a great deal of darkness. Meanwhile, the intensely claustrophobic cinematography generates an aura of suffocating tightness which places viewers right between the rocks, allowing one to viscerally feel Sarah's shortness of breath and terror as if it was one's own. Anyone with claustrophobia issues will chew their fingernails to the bone as they watch the women navigate their way through the impossibly snug cave passages; plunging further and further into pitch blackness. It truly feels as if you're inside a real cave, not a set in a studio. On top of this is David Julyan's exceptional, memorable score, which brilliantly alternates between tense and affecting.

What makes The Descent such a memorable horror film is a terrific attention to the components of fear and a focus on character as opposed to cheap scares. It's not perfect, of course (a subplot about Sarah's husband having an affair with Juno mars the pacing at times, and there are a few dumb clichés which should've been excised), but it's cut above Hollywood's usual genre output. Of course, gore-hounds won't be disappointed with the film, since it's filled with blood and viscera, but the name of Marshall's game is keeping the audience on the edge of their seats rather than grossing people out, and he achieves this end superbly. It's refreshing to know there are still filmmakers who remember that all the best horror movies are supposed to be thrilling and unsettling, rather than gory for the sake of gore.

8.6/10

"That's the funny thing about fate... if you don't follow, it will drag you where it wants to go."

Icarus is the sixth motion picture that action star Dolph Lundgren has directed since his departure from theatrical Hollywood productions in favour of direct-to-DVD features (although it's officially his fifth, as he wasn't credited for his directorial efforts on Diamond Dogs). Unlike other formerly distinguished action stars (like Steven Seagal), Lundgren's recent direct-to-DVD action movies are generally good; fun, '80s-style shoot-'em-ups full of action and violence (Command Performance and The Mechanik being the best examples). 2010's Icarus represents a rather different type of flick for Lundgren. While it's indeed a tight, fast-paced, gripping movie that delivers a great deal of nourishing action, it's more of a thriller (like a Jason Bourne movie) than an all-out, balls-to-the-wall actioner. Those who enjoy watching the Dolphster kicking some butt will probably enjoy the film the most, but those with a taste for thrillers should also find Icarus to be a satisfying ride and a worthy attempt by all involved.

The proverbial Dolph Lundgren protagonist in Icarus is a brooding hitman named Edward Genn. He lives a double life - he's a hired killer for the Russian mob who carries the codename of Icarus, but to his loved ones he's a divorced father working for an investment company. When a sudden mishap in Hong Kong blows Eddie's identity, he wishes to quit the life of a hitman, but soon realises he has become a target.

Excessively violent shootouts, a few explosions, and an impressive body count are the order of the day in Icarus. With more command over his movies, though, Lundgren had the freedom to inject some semblances of substance into the characters. Believe it or not, Eddie is not a one-dimensional killing machine - he has personality and motivations, and feels like an actual human. This instantly sets Lundgren's movie apart from the works of Steven Seagal, whose DTD flicks are lifeless products which are carelessly manufactured to fund Seagal's (over)eating habits. Granted, the characters certainly aren't as well-drawn as they could've been, and the action appears to be first priority, but Dolph's original cut of Icarus was apparently different to the released version. Reportedly, Dolph's version focused more on character development and atmosphere, whereas the studio's recut version allowed for shorter pauses between the action sequences. As it is, Icarus is effective, but it feels underdone. A director's cut would certainly be welcome.

With Lundgren's original vision sacrificed for the sake of a tighter film for easier consumption, Icarus arrives loaded with B-action movie goodness and assuredly delivers in the action department. The Dolphster's character cuts quite a swathe through the underworld, and the movie features a terrific half-hour stretch of nothing but straight action as Eddie finds himself set up and scrambles to save his family, all the while being pursued by a never-ending supply of armed goons. Put simply, the action is badass and pulse-pounding. Dolph once again proves himself to be a capable director, as he pulls off his most polished and stylised work to date, which is aided by James Jandrisch's atmospheric score. The choice of a heavy-metal rock song for the opening credits is questionable, but the stylised comic bookish title sequence it accompanies is very cool indeed. The most surprising thing about Icarus is how amazingly self-assured it looks. The budget was low, principal photography was apparently limited to about three weeks (due to filming being postponed and a delivery date having being locked in), and there was a short post-production window for Dolph to edit the film. He had to deal with the overbearing producers, too, who recut his work in the end. Yet, it possesses no earmarks of these problems.

The performances are fairly good across the board, most notably Dolph Lundgren who is in his 50s but is still in phenomenal physical shape. As a matter of fact, Dolph was capable of pulling off a lot of his own stunts, unlike Steven Seagal whose excessive weight necessitates body doubles for all of his fight scenes. While Lundgren's acting skills have never been remarkable, the star is able to sell his character very well, and at no point is his acting bad to the point of distraction (which is more than what can be said for a lot of this generation's action heroes). Dolph's performance in Icarus is among his most nuanced work to date.

Okay, so the big question looms: how can Icarus be considered a decent movie when it's heavily clichéd, predictable, and lacking from a screenplay and character perspective? The answer: because it's a gripping, stylish, badass action-thriller that's more self-assured and enjoyable than a lot of other films of this ilk. Of course, others are welcome to disagree, but, in this reviewer's humble opinion, Icarus is a worthy attempt by Lundgren at something new and it's easy to respect the route the actor-director elected. It's also a terrific ride. Hopefully, after displaying a great deal of proficiency in the direct-to-DVD realm, Lundgren will make a return to theatrical Hollywood moviemaking. Perhaps Sylvester Stallone's The Expendables will provide the necessary platform for the star to expand onto a bigger canvas. If he can pull off a movie like Icarus on a respectable budget in a short period of time, it'd be great to see what he could pull off with more resources and time at his disposal.

7.2/10