Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"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

"It's been 84 years, and I can still smell the fresh paint. The china had never been used. The sheets had never been slept in. Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was."

With its budget said to have exceeded a whopping $200 million, James Cameron's Titanic was the most expensive motion picture in history upon its 1997 release. During production, the cards were heavily stacked against the movie; it starred commercially unproven actors, the story was derided as a Romeo and Juliet rip-off, and the film ran over budget. Yet, nothing but phenomenal success welcomed Titanic - it eclipsed expectations, dominated the Academy Awards, and earned over $1.8 billion at the worldwide box office, making it the highest-grossing film in history at the time. (The record was only beaten by Cameron's follow-up project, 2009's Avatar.) Grand in scope and emotion, Titanic proves that epic sagas in the tradition of Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur are not a thing of the past, and can still be successful and profitable in a modern age.

In April 1912, the "unsinkable" R.M.S. Titanic struck an iceberg and sank in the Atlantic Ocean during its maiden voyage, claiming the lives of 1,500 people. Titanic does not open in 1912, however - it begins in the late 1990s, when a salvage expedition is underway to recover a priceless diamond thought to have gone down with the famous ship. When the team recovers a drawing from the wreck of a young woman wearing the diamond, the discovery catches the eye of 100-year-old Rose Calvert (Gloria Stuart), who claims to be the female subject of the artwork. On a visit to the research ship over the wreck, Rose is drawn into telling her personal account of Titanic's ill-fated maiden voyage. Engaged to wealthy millionaire Caledon Hockley (Billy Zane), the youthful Rose DeWitt Bukater (now played by Kate Winslet) boarded the Titanic utterly bored with the life she was forced into. While contemplating suicide in a moment of desperation, Rose meets third-class passenger Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) who compels her to reconsider. In the following days, a romance begins to form between them, but it is placed in jeopardy due to the class separation. Not to mention, further peril emerges when the Titanic strikes an iceberg on that fateful night.

Short of discovering time travel, James Cameron's Titanic is the closest that any film-goer will get to exploring Titanic's decks. In each of his prior motion pictures, Cameron - who is a very hands-on filmmaker - has continued to push the special effects envelope in groundbreaking and inspiring ways. Clearly, each film for Cameron is not just another day at the office but another revolutionary breakthrough for cinema, and Titanic continues this tradition. From bow to stern, the unsinkable Titanic truly comes alive in breathtaking and awe-inspiring ways, blurring the line between what's real and what's digital through a seamless combination of enormous sets, model work, and borderline flawless computer-generated imagery. Aside from a few dated digital people during certain shots, seldom will viewers be consciously aware that digital effects are on the screen, which is a tremendous feat for a late-'90s production. It's impossible to overstate how flawless the recreation of the ship truly is, and the illusion is never broken - we always feel as if we're aboard the real Titanic. At certain times, Cameron even uses genuine footage of the Titanic wreck lying on the bottom of the North Atlantic Ocean, contributing to the sense of verisimilitude surrounding the production.

Many people understandably chortled at the prospect of a $200 million feature film with a foregone ending. However, while other cinematic retellings of the sinking of the Titanic were admittedly somewhat marred by a predictable narrative trajectory, Cameron's movie is about far more than an ocean liner sinking in the Atlantic Ocean. While some of the focus is on the disaster, Titanic is primarily a love story. Most blockbuster directors like Michael Bay prefer to use a thin story as an excuse for mindless special effects self-indulgence, but James Cameron uses special effects to serve his storytelling. Cameron is also a director able to generate emotional power amidst the spectacle, and Titanic reinforces this. It's challenging to not be genuinely invested in Jack and Rose's relationship by the time the iceberg enters the equation. Given that 2,200 souls were on-board the Titanic as she sank, it would have been easy to cram the film with lots of characters within lots of stories. However, the story of Jack and Rose is kept at the fore from beginning to end, and the camera only occasionally leaves their side for scenes of historical clarification.

As the grand ship sinks into the ocean, Cameron crafts some of the most powerful and emotionally devastating images of his career. Despite the rising water levels, Titanic's band continues to play on her decks, and the band's final tune - Nearer, My God, to Thee - gives way to a heart-wrenching montage. Also heartbreaking are the images of this absolutely beautiful ship being obliterated by the harsh ocean, such as the flooding of the Grand Staircase (and, for that matter, the breaking of the luxurious dome) and the ship's splitting. Most affecting of all, though, are the shots of hundreds upon hundreds of people thrashing about in the freezing sea, giving way to a field of floating, frozen corpses. Perhaps the most definitive touch is supplied by James Horner: the score. This epic tale required an epic score, and Horner was up to the task, providing an immaculate brew of intimate music for the quieter scenes, grandiose music to suit the sweeping imagery, pulse-pounding music to amplify the intensity of the sinking, and emotionally affecting music to underscore the tragedy of the fateful night. Anyone who watches this movie without getting a tear in their eye is a stronger man than this reviewer...

To commemorate the Titanic disaster's centenary, the film was given a 3D makeover. Cameron (ever the perfectionist) and his crew reportedly spent 60 weeks painstakingly converting the picture to 3D frame-by-frame, and the results breath amazing new life into this 15-year-old film. This is the greatest 3D conversion seen to date; the film genuinely looks as if it was shot natively in 3D. Furthermore, the third dimension is not just a gimmick since it actually enhances the film. The decks and hallways of the ship look longer and vaster (it's terrifying to watch Rose frantically navigating the labyrinthine hallways below deck as the ship sinks), and it seems like the ship is right there in front of us through a window. The 3D encourages you to absorb the countless layers of visual information as well, allowing you to detect intricate details you've probably never noticed before. Indeed, the Titanic comes alive like never before, and the scenes of its demise are even more breathtaking than they were 15 years ago. You cannot afford to miss the 3D experience.

Titanic is often criticised for not focusing enough on historical detail. Admittedly, there are a few inaccuracies (the collapsible boats were inaccurately constructed here, for instance), while the stories of both the Californian (a ship in eyesight of the Titanic as she sank) and the Carpathia (a ship which answered the Titanic's distress call but did not arrive in time) were omitted. And this is fine - the aim of Cameron's movie was not to provide the definitive retelling of the disaster, but to tell an account of the Titanic's sinking from a certain vantage point. The camera never leaves the decks of the doomed ocean liner as she sinks, which is beneficial for both the pacing and the building of intoxicating tension.

In the lead roles, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are both utterly flawless. As Jack Dawson, DiCaprio is likable, energetic and passionate, all of which were vital characteristics for bringing the part to life. Meanwhile, Winslet (who espouses a believable American accent) is stunning as Rose - the actress always appears completely focused and committed to the material. Alongside this pair is Billy Zane, who's a convincing villain; snobby, arrogant and dislikeable. He was joined by the equally commendable David Warner (who was in the TV mini-series S.O.S. Titanic in the '70s) as his no-nonsense manservant. The supporting cast, most of whom star as characters from history, is excellent from top to bottom, including Bernard Hill as Captain E.J. Smith and Walter Garber who makes for a convincing, likable Thomas Andrews. Also worth mentioning is Kathy Bates whose performance as "The Unsinkable Molly Brown" never strikes a false cord, and Jonathan Hyde who paints a wonderfully conceited portrait of Bruce Ismay.

It's unfortunate that Titanic gets a lot of hate, and is frequently belittled as a lousy, cheesy chick flick. The criticisms are completely unfounded and unfair, as this is a wonderful motion picture that deserves its success and acclaim. However, in spite of its strengths, Titanic is not perfect. There are illogicalities (Rose knows of Sigmund Freud's work, yet it was not translated into English until a number of years after the disaster), some blatant technical faults (apparently this is the most goof-ridden film of all time) and a smattering of cheesy melodrama. More information about the science behind the sinking would have been valuable as well. Although it is possible to overlook these faults while experiencing this glorious motion picture, I cannot brand Titanic with a 5-star rating and call it perfect. I may love the movie, but I am a realist.

A dud ending could have destroyed Titanic, and the odds were against Cameron in this respect. After all, how could he possibly give satisfying closure to the story of a tragic disaster wrapped around such an affecting romance fable? Fortunately, the proceedings close with a beautiful, emotionally resonant scene that does the film justice and reverberates across the happenings of the past three hours. All things considered, James Cameron's Titanic is a dazzling work of cinematic art, and a remarkable mixture of style and substance. It runs for a daunting three hours, yet the time flies by with immaculate brevity. Most may not regard this as the best telling of the story of the Titanic disaster to date, but it's inarguably the most memorable and spectacular. After watching Titanic, you'll be in awe of the visual experience and teary-eyed because of the enormous emotive power as large as the ship itself.

9.0/10

"This motherfucker hates Americans so much, even though we saved his country's ass in not only one world war but two, he still won't let me through with my cans!"

While the title of From Paris with Love may imply that it's a romantic comedy featuring the Eiffel Tower, the title is in fact a James Bond homage, and the production is a hardcore, no-holds-barred action flick which arrives courtesy of Luc Besson's production factory. For those unaware, Besson is the French filmmaker who produces American action films with far more verve than American filmmakers themselves. Not long ago, Besson and director Pierre Morel teamed up for the surprise hit Taken, and From Paris with Love marks another Besson/Morel collaboration. But while Taken was a gritty, hard-hitting actioner, From Paris with Love is a straight-up cartoon; an exaggerated cocktail of two-dimensional villainy, verbal bluster, mayhem, John Woo-esque action set-pieces and an over-the-top John Travolta as a cocky government operative tracking down an array of terrorists in the heart of France. Intellectually, the movie is flat as a pancake, but on a visceral level it's extremely involving. The film knows precisely what it is, and does a damn good job of being it.

The story is at once incomprehensible and expendable, but it's sufficient to drive the characters from Point A to Point B, which is all that matters in an action flick. In the film, Travolta's character of Charlie Wax is a profane American killing machine who's paired up with James Reece (Myers); a mild-mannered aid to the U.S. Ambassador in Paris with large aspirations. By the time Wax and Reece have known each other for a mere hour, the body count has already started to mount considerably. At first, Wax claims he's taking down a bunch of drug dealers responsible for the death of the Secretary of Defence's daughter, but his real mission is soon revealed: to eliminate a terrorist cell before the members launch an attack.

After 2004's District B13 and the recent Taken, director Pierre Morel has positioned himself as a superior action director. He has a masterful touch when it comes to pace, and From Paris with Love benefits greatly from such exhilarating acceleration. After a slow opening, the film takes off like a champion racehorse once Wax enters the film, as the screenplay by Adi Hasak (Shadow Conspiracy) lines up a series of unsavoury characters - all of whom are one-dimensional stereotypes, of course - for Wax and Reese to ice during their fast-paced trip around the city. However, the problem is that it takes a little too long for the film to hits its stride. The first 20 minutes are genuinely lousy, even by the admittedly low standards to which the movie was aspiring. In action flicks, the segues bridging the action tend to suck, and From Paris with Love is no exception. As the film establishes James Reece, it's frankly boring, and the tone is out-of-place when compared to the light-hearted action which pervades the film's final hour.

Thankfully, after the 20-minute point, the movement of Morel's direction is enthralling; leaping from location to location, staging shootouts and action set-pieces with a cartoonish quality to match Travolta's performance. Even if Morel appears to be on autopilot, he nonetheless delivers in each and every set-piece, sending bullets flying all over the place like it's nobody's business. As a matter of fact, the action evokes the spirit of John Woo movies. It's such a relief to watch a modern action flick containing action that has been edited to ensure an audience knows what's going on at any given time, as opposed to set-pieces that have been cut to incomprehensible ribbons. More pertinently, it's fantastic to see a contemporary actioner in which bad guys get popped in violent, bloody ways, without the cleanliness of the Hollywood-favourite PG-13 rating. As the action intensifies and the explosions keep getting bigger, one gets the feeling that it's building to a big climax. However, From Paris with Love fails in its finale - cheesy character interaction and impassioned speeches have no place in such a film as this.

Luc Besson's films usually feature recognisable Hollywood names, and the A-lister of From Paris with Love is John Travolta who absolutely steals the motherfucking show. Dispersing first-rate one-liners, shooting the hell out of the bad guys and beating the snot out of anyone who challenges him, Travolta truly chews up the scenery with the gusto of a hungry dog attacking a meal. Travolta simply owns the role. He was born to play this role. He's the hook - without him, the movie would be ordinary, but with him, there's always something to enjoy during the film's slowest moments. As legendary YouTube reviewer Jeremy Jahns said, if Jack Bauer (from 24) and Samuel L. Jackson had a child, it would be Travolta's character here. Meanwhile, Jonathan Rhys Meyers was given the unenviable task of playing the straight man to Travolta. Anyone could play this role, and Meyers never stands out as anything but interchangeable. Still, he's watchable at least.

From Paris with Love is one of those movies that consists almost entirely of over-the-top action sequences tenuously linked together by a painfully formulaic, by-the-numbers plotline and two-dimensional characters. From this description, it may sound like a brain-dead blockbuster that doesn't care about how lazy or graceless it is as long as there's sound and fury to temporarily distract the audience. But what prevents From Paris with Love from hopelessly falling into this trap is a great deal of style, energy and personality. It's an enjoyable, lively old-school bullet ballet that's low on CGI, and this separates it from the abominable films of such directors as Michael Bay and McG. It's nonsensical cinematic junk food at its core, but, like the best junk food, it goes down so well and tastes so good that those with a taste for such things should find it absolutely irresistible.

7.1/10

"Living in a world where vampires are the dominant species is about as safe as bare backing a 5 dollar whore."

Daybreakers argues that there may still be new terrain to be strip-mined in recently over-exploited vampire genre. As far removed from the Twilight saga as can be imagined, Daybreakers features vampires closer to the classic breed...you know, actual Max Schreck, Christopher Lee, Bela Lugosi type vampires! They're fierce and hungry, have red eyes & fangs, do not cast reflections, can be killed by a stake through the heart, and burst into flames in the sun (no sparkling at all). Smartly constructed and enjoyably energetic, Daybreakers is an immensely inventive vampire fare containing a surplus of interesting ideas concerning vampire mythology, vampire physiology and the sociological implications of a vampire world. It's also a total blast from beginning to end.

The story takes place in the year 2019, when a viral outbreak has transformed most of the planet's population into vampires. Humans have become an endangered species, and are hunted as a food source. Unfortunately, the human blood supply is running low, and a major blood bank is hastily seeking an emergency blood substitute. Morally conflicted vampire Edward Dalton (Hawke) is charged with developing this blood substitute, but is soon compelled to join forces with a group of renegade humans - led by a woman named Audrey (Karvan) and a man who calls himself Elvis (Dafoe) - who are working on a cure for vampirism. Elvis is an ex-vampire who inadvertently found a cure but has no idea about the specifics or how to scientifically replicate it. This task falls to Edward, who in turn becomes the largest threat to vampire dominance.

And yes, before you feel clever for pointing it out, the lead vampire character of Daybreakers is named Edward. But this Edward does not sparkle and mope. Instead, he doubts and smokes.

For Daybreakers, the Australian filmmaking duo of Michael and Peter Spierig grasped vampires and have made them feel real. The best parts of this film relate to exploring the society that may emerge in the scenario of vampires dominating the planet, including the potential economic, political, technological and military implications. An enthralling world has been constructed here that's loaded with brilliantly nuanced touches. Consider, for instance, the fact that coffee establishments substitute blood for cream, or the technological advancements that protect vampires from the sun (cars are outfitted with camera navigation and retractable sun shields for daytime driving, and soldiers are equipped with metal outfits so they can walk around outside during daylight). As it turns out, vampirism is big business, and the businessmen are less than pleased by the notion of a cure. Daybreakers is primarily an action-thriller, and the Spierig Brothers have filled the movie with traditional elements, but more thought and attention went into mapping out the scenario than one usually uncovers in this type of flick.

Thankfully, the Spierig Brothers are not only talented writers but talented directors as well. When the politics and allegories take a nap, Daybreakers is an effective, atmospheric, entertaining genre romp with top-drawer suspense and gallons of blood. For its shockingly modest budget, this is a sleek and attractive motion picture that captures the noir spirit exceptionally well. Granted, the filmmakers end up leaning heavily on rote clichés for the film's closing third, but at least the writer-directors provide a satisfying offering of tension and twists during this period, and - above all - it's extraordinarily well executed. In essence, everything Daybreakers had to do right is done right, though there are some occasionally distracting visual effects which look tragically cartoonish. There are occasional lags in the pace too, yet it's easy to overlook the draggy moments because of the solidity of the rest of the movie.

(Look! Hawke is dressed like Han Solo!)

Since Daybreakers is a 90-minute package, the characters are cardboard cut-outs. However, they adhere to enjoyable archetypes, and this prevents them from feeling as flat as they may otherwise appear. Unfortunately, Ethan Hawke is rather lacklustre as Edward Dalton, and never truly feels like he's genuinely committed to the material. (Oh, and as YouTube reviewer Jeremy Jahns noted, about two thirds into the movie, Hawke is dressed like Han Solo. It's pretty cool.) Willem Dafoe's performance, however, is an absolute delight; conveying tremendous energy and charm for his borderline over-the-top interpretation of vampire hunter Elvis. Another impressive addition to the acting roster is Australian actress Claudia Karvan, who has appeared in films since childhood but who's a relative unknown outside of her native country. Rounding out the cast is Sam Neill, who's terrific in his role as a corporate scumbag who's paranoid about the financial drawbacks of a cure for vampirism.

Like RoboCop and the recent District 9, Daybreakers is a sharp social satire dressed up as a badass genre flick. It will satisfy the thinkers of the audiences as well as those seeking entertainment, as it has both style and smarts. In short, it's extremely satisfying.

7.7/10