Reviews by PvtCaboose91

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

In the tradition of films like Peter Weir's Gallipoli, 2010's Beneath Hill 60 is an Australian war movie that portrays Australian soldiers' heroism and nobility, illustrating their crucial role and tremendous sacrifice during World War I under the command of callous British officers. With a screenplay by David Roach, Beneath Hill 60 immortalises a little-known true story from the Western Front about Australia's involvement in the Great War that emphasises courage, loyalty, camaraderie, and sacrifice while depicting the ingenuity of Australian wartime engineers. Instead of an action-packed war picture, director Jeremy Sims (Last Train to Freo) mounts a compelling, claustrophobic experience that primarily takes place in unstable tunnels and muddy trenches, with battlefield carnage occasionally breaking up the tense interactions and tunnel construction. Additionally, instead of another war movie about infantry soldiers, Beneath Hill 60 focuses on the 1st Australian Tunnelling Company - a unit of skilled engineers who dug deep tunnels underneath enemy lines and, in 1916, set off one of the largest explosions in history, a blast killing thousands of German soldiers that was audible in other countries.

An Australian miner, Oliver Woodward (Brendan Cowell) helps the war effort at home by supplying copper, and he falls in love with teenager Marjorie Waddell (Bella Heathcote), a girl who is ten years his junior. With the Great War raging on overseas, Woodward receives constant pressure to enlist and serve his country, and an ideal opportunity presents itself with the formation of the 1st Australian Tunnelling Company. With the Australian Army trusting Woodward to lead the unit, he leaves for the Western Front as a commissioned officer. After Woodward successfully leads a mission to destroy a fortified German position using powerful explosives, his superiors promote him to captain and send him to the trenches at Hill 60 in Belgium. Inspecting the lines upon his arrival, Woodward learns that Canadian and British engineers have been tunnelling and planting thousands of kilograms of ammonium nitrate explosives below the Messines Ridge. Woodward takes over the operation, overseeing the construction of a massive shaft to keep water away from the explosives while also digging diversion tunnels to confuse the German soldiers and keep their operation a secret.

Roach conducted extensive research during the screenwriting process, consulting Woodward's war diaries and sourcing material from Canberra's Australian War Memorial Archives to facilitate a high level of authenticity. Consequently, Beneath Hill 60 rarely sacrifices facts for entertainment, and the film ably captures the attitudes and sensibilities of the era instead of giving the story a contemporary spin. The dialogue carries an engaging lyricism that effortlessly evokes the 1910s, and the script embraces the Australian soldiers' buoyant camaraderie and dry humour. Admirably, the movie does not depict the German soldiers as faceless monsters; instead, Sims portrays their perspective in an unbiased light and highlights how much both sides have in common. However, the film's structure is slightly flawed, as Sims frequently cuts back to scenes of Woodward in Australia before his enlistment to explore his relationship with Marjorie. Although the flashbacks add dimension to Woodward and make it easier to care about him, the scenes are overused and sometimes clunky. Eventually, the flashbacks interrupt the movie's pace and intensity; they feel like homework while we wait for the film to return to the battlefield.

Despite a reported production budget of $6 million, Beneath Hill 60 impresses with its slick and authentic look, boasting the production values of Hollywood films with significantly higher budgets. Everything from the sets to the period-specific props and costumes generates a seamless illusion, and the layered, meticulous sound design further makes us believe we are in the trenches alongside these soldiers during WWI. Sims and the crew pulled off a minor miracle in effectively recreating the trench-laden battlefields of WWI outside of Townsville in Queensland, and the picture's scale never feels compromised by the meagre budget. Hugh Jackman even assisted the production by allowing the team to shoot on a WWI set from 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Sims marvellously captures the mud, blood, and sweat of trench warfare, while cinematographer Toby Oliver uses claustrophobic, low-light photography to emphasise the feeling of being inside a cramped tunnel.

Additionally, Sims stages several exciting and tense set pieces, particularly when the Australian soldiers cross into No Man's Land at the mercy of enemy machine guns. Beneath Hill 60 is also successful during more light-hearted scenes, such as the Australian soldiers playing a friendly game of rugby against the British in the muddy terrain, and an amusing scene of the soldiers singing after the game concludes. Townsville's Brothers Rugby Union even supplied players to participate in the scene. Meanwhile, the original score by composer Cezary Skubiszewski (Two Hands) is poignant and moving, adding another dimension to the first-rate sound design. However, when the music swells and becomes more emotional, it implies something tragic is about to occur, which renders several moments fairly predictable. (The death of Billy Bacon, played by Mark Coles Smith, is a key example.) Another slight imperfection is the digital effects for the final explosion, which look a tad cartoonish. However, these faults are minor compared to the film's myriad strengths.

Brendan Cowell (2007's Noise) delivers a strong and engaging performance as Captain Oliver Woodward, portraying the soldier as a man of stoic loyalty and awkward emotion. Cowell confidently handles the tricky material, ensuring every line and action is wholly believable. Fortunately, Sims surrounds Cowell with a capable supporting cast of recognisable actors and unknowns. Gyton Grantley, who rose to prominence in TV's Underbelly, is thoroughly convincing as Norman Morris, a sapper under Woodward's command. Newcomer Harrison Gilbertson is also impressive in the role of the young, shellshocked Frank Tiffin, while Steve Le Marquand (2006's Kokoda) makes a terrific impression as Corporal Bill Fraser, the battalion's resident hard-nut. Also joining the cast is Australian comedian Bob Franklin, who shows up in a minor role as an Aussie soldier. The camaraderie among the actors is infectious, with the spirit of these Aussie larrikins adding texture to the senseless death and bloodshed. Rounding out the main cast is Bella Heathcote, who would later become a recognisable international star with several prominent film and television credits. Beneath Hill 60 was Heathcote's second film role, and she's endearing and credible as young Marjorie.

Beneath Hill 60 is a top-notch Australian war picture that effectively delivers traditional genre elements as powerfully as a Hollywood offering. With its strong writing and impressive production values, Beneath Hill 60 has a fighting chance of joining the ranks of Gallipoli and Breaker Morant. It is arguably the best Aussie war film of this generation, and it may contribute to future generations' understanding of the Australian experience in the Great War thanks to the striking attention to historical accuracy.

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

An adaptation of Walter Lord's acclaimed, exhaustively researched novel of the same name, 1958's A Night to Remember is, to date, the most focused and accurate cinematic portrayal of the sinking of the RMS Titanic. The film opens with the May 1911 launch of the "unsinkable" ocean liner, an event that occurred less than a year before she embarked on her maiden voyage across the Atlantic Ocean from Southhampton, England, to New York City in April 1912. Unfortunately, on the night of April 14th, 1912, the grand ocean liner struck an iceberg and began to flood uncontrollably. Despite the advanced technological engineering of the period, the ship's state-of-the-art watertight compartment system could not withstand the extensive damage or halt the flooding, resulting in the ship's sinking less than three hours after the collision. The ship's owners, the White Star Line, did not equip the Titanic with sufficient lifeboats to accommodate the 2,200 souls aboard the vessel, and the sinking claimed the lives of over 1,500 people who perished in the freezing waters of the North Atlantic.

A Night to Remember predominantly follows Second Officer Charles Lightoller (Kenneth More), the most senior officer who survived the sinking and one of the key officers responsible for coordinating the evacuation. Lightoller joined the famed new liner for her maiden voyage, serving under Captain Edward Smith (Laurence Naismith) and First Officer William Murdoch (Richard Leech). Other key figures aboard the Titanic include her designer, Thomas Andrews (Michael Goodliffe), and the White Star Line's chairman and managing director, J. Bruce Ismay (Frank Lawton). After the luxurious vessel foundered, Lightoller took command of an overturned collapsible lifeboat in the water, keeping the boat buoyed through appropriate weight distribution as he and several men stood on the bottom of the craft until their rescue.

Although the screenplay by novelist and screenwriter Eric Ambler predominantly sticks to the facts of the disaster, and the film plays out like a docudrama, A Night to Remember was unmistakably designed as a starring vehicle for Kenneth More, painting Lightoller as an out-and-out hero. Consequently, the film creates the false impression that Lightoller launched most of the lifeboats, and the movie portrays Lightoller performing various actions that other officers carried out. One example is Lightoller discharging his revolver to maintain order on the boat deck - in reality, Fifth Officer Harold Lowe fired several warning shots from the lifeboat under his command in response to steerage passengers preparing to leap in from the promenade deck. Perhaps more pertinently, A Night to Remember avoids touching upon the complex conundrum of Lightoller interpreting the captain's order of "women and children first" as "women and children only," leading him to launch his lifeboats at less than half their capacity because he refused entry to all men on the boat deck. The only man Lightoller allowed to enter a lifeboat was a yachtsman named Arthur Peuchen (Robert Ayres), who offered assistance amid a shortage of qualified sailors to man the boats. Conversely, Murdoch allowed men to fill the boats when no further women were present, and as a result, two-thirds of the survivors owe their lives to Murdoch.

Lord's 1955 novel remains noteworthy because the author conducted extensive research to compile a compelling account of the Titanic's sinking. Lord spent years tracking down Titanic survivors, ultimately interviewing 63 individuals and using their testimonials to supplement his research materials from existing books, newspaper articles, and memoirs. Both the novel and the film eschew contentious topics about the sinking, most notably the ship splitting in half during the final plunge, an event that dozens of survivors reported but important witnesses like Lightoller contested. The split was not confirmed until the wreck's discovery in 1985. Similarly, some survivors reported witnessing an officer shoot two passengers before turning the pistol on himself, but this occurrence does not appear in the book or movie, as A Night to Remember only recounts facts that were definitively confirmed at the time. Titanic's fourth officer, Joseph Boxhall, even served as the film's technical advisor while other survivors also visited the set. Famously, Titanic survivor Lawrence Beesley gatecrashed the set and attempted to appear in the background as the ship was going down, but director Roy Ward Baker prevented this due to strict actor's union rules.

A Night to Remember accurately and compellingly portrays the behaviour of those onboard during the Titanic's sinking. In the early stages of the sinking, the film depicts the casualness and flippancy of many passengers, who preferred to stay on the warm ship instead of entering the lifeboats in the middle of the night. Additionally, the movie portrays the slow accumulation of panic as the reality of the sinking sets in, leading to noble deeds (men convincing their loved ones to enter the boats while knowing they will never see them again) and acts of desperation (passengers pushing and shoving to enter the lifeboats). Much of what occurs during the sinking is based on eyewitness accounts and true stories, from Macy's co-owners Ida and Isidor Straus refusing to be separated (and Isidor refusing the notion of receiving preferential treatment) to Thomas Andrews standing in the first-class smoking room before the final plunge, and Lightoller reluctantly allowing a 13-year-old boy to enter a lifeboat after mistakenly believing him to be an adult man. The film also depicts other, less glamorous acts, such as a crewman trying to steal a life jacket from the Marconi operators before the final plunge, who swiftly responded by knocking him unconscious. One of the most harrowing images is that of a gentle elderly man cradling a crying young boy as the ship begins its final plunge, with the man trying to assure the boy that everything will be alright, but both of them will soon perish in the freezing water.

Unlike some other cinematic depictions of the disaster, A Night to Remember balances the many stories of the Titanic's sinking with the drama of the two other ships in the North Atlantic that became intertwined with the disaster. The first ship, the RMS Carpathia, received Titanic's distress calls, and the captain, Arthur Rostron (Anthony Bushell), immediately ordered his crew to steam at full speed to the site of the sinking, but arrived too late and could only save the survivors. Meanwhile, the SS Californian had stopped its engines for the night and was in the eyesight of the Titanic as she sank. The Californian's officers saw the Titanic's distress rockets and noticed her listing as she slowly disappeared into the water, yet the crew misinterpreted these events and did not wake their wireless operator to find out what was happening. The Titanic's crew desperately tried to get the Californian's attention but to no avail. The presence of these subplots deepens the sense of desperation and makes the retelling feel more complete.

There were cinematic retellings of the Titanic disaster before 1958 (including a 1943 Nazi propaganda film and 1953's Titanic), but A Night to Remember was the first Titanic film to feature accurate recreations of key parts of the ocean liner. The production crew consulted photographs and original designs to faithfully recreate spaces like the bridge, the forward Grand Staircase, the first-class smoking room, the dining areas, and more. The crew also constructed large portions of the Titanic's exterior areas, including parts of the boat deck and the stern, while the iceberg design closely resembles a famous photograph of an iceberg that many assume was responsible for sinking the ship. The special effects are mostly impressive for the era and the budget, with convincing compositing to place the actors in front of the model ship, but the overall illusion is imperfect. Compared to the sheer grandeur of James Cameron's 1997 blockbuster Titanic, the model shots are obvious, especially since no moving people are visible on the decks. (The film even reuses a few model shots from the 1943 German picture.) The special effects also look less impressive than 1953's Titanic, though that production had more generous Hollywood backing.

A Night to Remember does not depict the flooding or destruction of luxurious internal spaces like the forward Grand Staircase or the first-class areas, but the sets did tilt, and the movie retains the eerie creaking sounds recorded on-set during production. Since no footage exists of Titanic's 1911 launch, the film uses archival material from the 1938 launch of the Cunard Liner Queen Elizabeth to show the Titanic entering the water for the first time in Belfast. Unfortunately, it is evident that the ship during this sequence is not the Titanic, and the ship's christening with a champagne bottle never occurred. However, the footage effectively conveys the atmosphere and grandeur of such a launch from the period.

Selecting actors to fill the vast ensemble cast posed a unique challenge. After all, the performers needed to demonstrate the ability to play their chosen roles convincingly while bearing at least a passable resemblance to the true-life historical figures. The most notable performer in the cast is the engaging Kenneth More, who receives the most screen time as Second Officer Lightoller. Also of note is Michael Goodliffe, who portrays Thomas Andrews as bright and gentle-natured, though the actor espouses a British accent when the real-life Andrews was Irish. Meanwhile, Laurence Naismith is a believable and commanding Captain Smith. Smith's daughter was even emotionally overcome when she met the performer due to his startling resemblance to her father. The affable David McCallum is another standout as assistant wireless operator Harold Bride, and Tucker McGuire gives spunk and personality to well-known Titanic survivor Margaret "Molly" Brown. Many other actors make a positive impression (even if the acting is slightly stodgy, which is standard for the period), but with over 200 speaking roles, it would be tricky to list them all.

It is tempting to compare A Night to Remember to James Cameron's Titanic, but this is not an apt comparison. Titanic is a grand melodrama depicting two fictional characters in a Romeo & Juliet-style romance set against the backdrop of one of the worst maritime disasters in peacetime history. A Night to Remember, on the other hand, uses historical characters to tell an accurate story, relying on eyewitness accounts and testimonials from Titanic survivors to create almost every sequence and line of dialogue. The two pictures are superb companion pieces that, when put together, represent the best cinematic dramatisation of the disaster to date. Of course, A Night to Remember is excellent enough to stand on its own, and many will argue it is superior to Cameron's epic, but it works on a different level than its big-budgeted cousin, offering docudrama-esque factual detail instead of spectacle. The story of the Titanic and her sinking is big enough to be covered from multiple vantage points, and Titanic and A Night to Remember offer the two most compelling perspectives.

9.1/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.4/10