Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"I saw your face. It was the face of a depraved, murderous beast. Only two things ever meant anything to you: power and cruelty. You can't feel pity. You can't even feel guilt. You knew they were innocent, but you were crazy to see them hanged. And to make me watch it. I could've stopped you with a gun, just as any other animal can be stopped. But I couldn't do it because I'm a coward. Aren't you glad you made me go? Weren't you proud of me? How does it feel to have begot a weakling, Major? Does it make you afraid there may be some weakness in you, too? That other men might discover and whisper about?"

Director William A. Wellman's The Ox-Bow Incident, adapted from the novel by Walter Van Tilburg Clark, was so far ahead of its time that audiences were turned off upon its theatrical release. However critics of all stripes were smitten, and over the decades the film's reputation steadily grew. The film preceded the Gary Cooper/Grace Kelly Western classic High Noon by almost a decade. This aforementioned Gary Cooper Western is typically considered the benchmark of its genre; the first of a new brand of Westerns that was lean, incisive, and unflinching in its representation of the uglier facets of humanity. High Noon was also responsible for numerous John Wayne escapades, the Sergio Leone spaghetti Westerns, etc.

But The Ox-Bow Incident came first, and it shares the same psychological density and raw simplicity, not to mention a similarly concise running time as the later film. The Ox-Bow Incident was, in many ways, High Noon before the world was ready for High Noon. It's an astonishing tale delivering an uncompromising message about mob mentality. This is no mere museum piece or ancient artefact solely for cinema enthusiasts...it's a remarkably poignant, powerful and entertaining picture that more than holds its own all these decades later. This sombre, somewhat simplistically liberal Western is also one of the first films to condemn frontier machismo. This taut little film eschews Hollywood sensationalism to centre on America's violent core, which is still relevant even today.

As the movie opens, two itinerant ranch hands named Gil Carver (Fonda) and Art Croft (Morgan) ride into a small town in 1800s Nevada. Stopping off at the local saloon for a drink, the two are soon informed that the local ranchers have been plagued by cattle rustlers. A young cowboy soon enters the picture, spreading news that a popular rancher has been brutally gunned down and cattle stolen. The enraged townspeople, joined by a few drifters (including the reluctant Gil and Art), immediately congregate to form a posse to catch the perpetrators. The posse is nothing more than a lawless lynching mob, led by a surly deputy who abuses his power in the sheriff's absence. In the dead of night the mob stumble upon three men (Andrews, Quinn and Ford) embarking on a cattle drive. On the basis of flimsy, circumstantial evidence the mob assumes these three are their prey. A majority of the mob appear determined to see that justice is done on the spot, whereas only a few wish to see the case taken to court before any hangings occur. As it becomes apparent that blood-lust may win out over rationality, the tension mounts in this uncompromising study of mob violence.

The weight of having to make a life-and-death decision weighs on the soul of each man in the posse, and we're therefore compelled to share their burden. The Ox-Bow Incident builds to a shattering and admirably unconventional conclusion. This conclusion is unrelenting in its determination to be both realistic and faithful to the book. It postulates that each man should stand up, stand apart and be counted as a man of individual opinion, even if it means not following the will of the majority. The movie becomes a treatise on the dynamics of mob rule and vengeance for the sake of vengeance. For the film's final half it's utterly gripping and transfixing.

William A. Wellman directed the picture with stark realism that is as sharp as a knife from a script by Lamar Trotti which is beautifully brief with situations and words. Wellman blesses the film with tersely economic pacing and a tense atmosphere. At a brief 75 minutes, the film is brisk in delivering its message with only minor digressions into cheese territory, such as Carver's ex-girlfriend briefly entering the picture. This aforesaid sub-plot is planted but not adequately nurtured. It's slightly detrimental to the otherwise brisk pacing, unfortunately, and it's the most unnecessary scene in the film. Aside from that slight plot deviation, it remains quite on track. Taking its cue from its title, the film is succinct and brief, primarily concerning the one "incident" without wasting energy on superfluous characterisations or extraneous action. It's all for the best, and is all the more effective for it.

To cut costs (the film was made in the grim early days of WWII, thus budgets needed to be as small as possible) the movie was shot on sets. For the most part this technique works extraordinarily well, increasing the tone of claustrophobia. At other times, such as the aftermath of the incident, it feels a tad artificial and phoney.

The Ox-Bow Incident bears an unmistakable affinity to film noir, not only due to the moody shadowy photography as there's also a gallery of grotesques that inhabit this decidedly uncelebratory depiction of the frontier spirit. After a gloomy climax that refuses to let anyone off the hook, The Ox-Bow Incident concludes in a very non-Hollywood fashion. Gil and the wounded Art limp out of town, passing the same draggy dog that was visible when they initially rode in. William A. Wellman also adds a masterly wrinkle to the sentimental scene of Fonda reading a letter by obscuring Fonda's eyes with a hat brim. The director did this habitually when he wanted an audience to concentrate on a message as opposed to a personality. Wellman's direction also circumvents the typical Western clichés. He keeps the action enclosed in a small setting where most directors would broaden the horizons in favour of scope and scale. A subtle yet effective melancholy tune accompanies the visuals.

Leading the cast is recognised actor Henry Fonda who turns in a superlative performance. His lackadaisical persona melds interestingly with his character's ornery temperament to generate a moral ambiguity. This ambiguity clouds his character's allegiances in the "vengeance vs. justice" debate in mystery until the moment when he's strained to overtly choose sides. Fonda's Gil Carver is no solid, gallant, upright citizen. He's an errant cuss who gets himself entangled in a bar fight moments after arrival at the small town. Yet he's one of the few characters in the story who has a conscience and uses it. In a way, this is a peculiar foreboding of his role in the 1957 film 12 Angry Men.

Lamar Trotti's screenplay torments us with hints of mystery about the three men who stand accused; it is only through the heart-wringing performance of Dana Andrews, who admirably outshines his co-stars, that there's a definite sense of the trio's innocence. Andrews as the bewildered and helpless leader of the doomed trio exudes character and integrity, and does much to make the film an overpoweringly distressing tragedy. It's impossible not to feel for Andrews' character: heartbroken over the probability of his wife and young children being left to fend for themselves in a rough frontier if he is hanged.

An excellent complementary performance by Anthony Quinn as one of the suspected murderers is another highlight. Quinn's brash confidence and fearlessness as a Mexican outlaw (operating under an alias) undermines any faith we have in the trio's innocence. Francis Ford (who got his son John into the industry) is amazing as a disorientated old man unable to comprehend what's actually happening. Frank Conroy's performance of the demagogue (donning a Confederate officer's uniform) is authoritative and utterly stunning. Harry Davenport and Leigh Whipper are more emotionally affecting as champions of the right. Mary Beth Hughes was pulled in for one brief, ironic scene with Fonda which gives a justification for his mood. The rest of the cast can take bows for their small but impressive roles. All these actors have their moments to shine towards the climax when something tragic is revealed. There are emotive expressions of guilt in each man, effectively conveying the lightning bolt they've all be hit with. These precise performances, coupled with a brilliant, tightly-written script, keep our hearts and minds at constant war with one another.

There's something extraordinary about the way in which The Ox-Bow Incident places joint emphasis on its characters and storytelling, as opposed to the simple genre norms John Wayne films adhere to. This is an ugly study in mob violence, unrelieved by any human clemency save the vain reproach of a small minority and mild post-lynching remorse. In 75 minutes, the film exhibits most of the baser inadequacies of men - cruelty, blood-lust, ruffianism, pusillanimity and sordid conceit. It offers a catastrophic infringement of justice with little repercussion to sweeten the bitter draught. The Ox-Bow Incident is a top-tier Western as powerful, unsentimental and thought-provoking as it was decades ago. The film won't brighten your day...but for sheer stark realism it's hard to beat. The film is a quietly compelling argument against the human tendency towards irrational behaviour. This is a true landmark movie, one that delivers a worthwhile message: betray your conscience and it will haunt you forever.

"My dear Wife, Mr. Davies will tell you what's happening here tonight. He's a good man and has done everything he can for me. I suppose there are some other good men here, too, only they don't seem to realize what they're doing. They're the ones I feel sorry for. 'Cause it'll be over for me in a little while, but they'll have to go on remembering for the rest of their lives. A man just naturally can't take the law into his own hands and hang people without hurtin' everybody in the world, 'cause then he's just not breaking one law but all laws. Law is a lot more than words you put in a book, or judges or lawyers or sheriffs you hire to carry it out. It's everything people ever have found out about justice and what's right and wrong. It's the very conscience of humanity. There can't be any such thing as civilization unless people have a conscience, because if people touch God anywhere, where is it except through their conscience? And what is anybody's conscience except a little piece of the conscience of all men that ever lived? I guess that's all I've got to say except kiss the babies for me and God bless you. Your husband, Donald."

9.1/10

General Broulard: "Colonel Dax, you're a disappointment to me. You've spoiled the keenness of your mind by wallowing in sentimentality. You really did want to save those men, and you were not angling for Mireau's command. You are an idealist - and I pity you as I would the village idiot. We're fighting a war, Dax, a war that we've got to win. Those men didn't fight, so they were shot. You bring charges against General Mireau, so I insist that he answer them. Wherein have I done wrong?"
Colonel Dax: "Because you don't know the answer to that question, I pity you."

The bitter, numbing inanity of war and the exploitation of military ranks is made brazenly obvious in Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory. Vehemently an anti-war feature, this compelling masterpiece is a piercing attack on the military hierarchy, and a film that proved so controversial it was banned in France until 1975 and unreleased in Spain under Franco's rule.

This was Kubrick's fourth feature film (previously he'd directed 1953's Fear and Desire, 1955's Killer Kiss, and 1956's The Killing), but this blistering indictment of military politics made a name for the young director. What's so startling - and impressive - about Kubrick's storytelling in Paths of Glory is the cold, matter-of-fact manner in which the film unfolds. As the anti-war statement develops, all rage and dismay becomes targeted at war itself instead of individuals. The product is an unforgettable, enthralling landmark war movie; a significant lesson in humanity and social incompetence. Decades later the power and intensity of the film still resonates.

Paths of Glory explores the whole spectrum of misguided personalities at times of war. The setting is 1916, during the latter period of World War II. The French and German armies are dug into trenches in a hopeless stalemate. The impatient French General Staff pass an order to take a strategic German hill known as the "Anthill". This would be an obvious suicidal charge, yet the Generals are all-too-willing to risk the lives of their soldiers. A reluctant Colonel Dax (Douglas) is handed the assignment. Despite the knowledge that possibly 60% of his soldiers will die, he has little choice. As Dax leads his men, the chaos and mayhem results in the soldiers becoming pinned down in dangerous territory. The mission is an utter failure. The furious generals are embarrassed about the defeat, and cover up their abject blunder by selecting scapegoats: three soldiers from Dax's regiment who'll be court marshalled for cowardice under fire and made an example of.

Inspired by Humphrey Cobb's book as well as a string of real newspaper articles, Stanley Kubrick's 87-minute Paths of Glory briskly moves from a misconceived attack to the courtroom trial following it. The powerful Generals depicted in the film are merely corrupt, self-centred marionettes strung up to participate in a game of profligacy and opportunism at the most inappropriate of times. In the somewhat short but gripping attack sequence, Kubrick manages to portray the carnage and the horrors of war in a succession of remarkable images that set the stage for the events to follow. The film views war in terms of power. Those higher up in the ranks have the power to simply court marshal any random soldier. How can any man who isn't standing side-by-side with these men at the front lines possess the arrogance to accuse them of cowardice? As the story unfolds, this question is literally screaming at the viewer. The truth of the matter is on the screen for all to see, yet the Generals play the ignorance card. All we can hope is that sanity will somehow prevail. The underlying subtext concerns the abuse of power and the consequences of not standing against it.

Paths of Glory is astonishingly photographed. The captivating black and white imagery makes this one of the most memorable and authentic-looking anti-war films in the history of cinema. Even during the early days of his career, Stanley Kubrick's camera movements are graceful and masterful. The courtroom scene is particularly stunning and admirably unconventional. Whenever we expect Kirk Douglas to deliver an amazing, long, inspirational speech, the Generals counter these possibilities. At 87 minutes, the film is extremely concise and to the point. By circumventing the clichés and challenging an audience's expectation of a happy ending, the film is all the more devastating and compelling.

There's an assortment of top-notch performances from head to toe. Kirk Douglas is brilliant as Colonel Dax. He's the only high-ranking character in the film with a hint of veracity. As the Generals defy respect for human life with their orders, Dax stands up to them. Even when offered a promotion he bluntly refuses in a series of insults. Douglas is energetic and charismatic. It is his wisdom, sincerity and determination that make the intolerable injustice we witness so despicable. In Douglas' Dax we see all the qualities of a true hero without glorifying the character in any way.
George Macready is outstanding as the pompous, twisted, fictional French commander General Paul Mireau who possesses not an ounce of sympathy for his embattled troops. In the face of a shell-shocked soldier he offers nothing but blunt insults and orders to have the man removed from the regiment. His character also wilfully orders a suicide mission, and then in embarrassment he perversely finds a scapegoat to use in order to direct the blame away from him. Macready is authoritative and, frankly, quite terrifying.
There is only one single flaw in the film which unfortunately reverberates to other areas: lack of French accents. Soldiers are of different accents, such as American. It destroys one aspect of the film's authenticity. The fact that the soldiers are supposedly French is therefore only evident in the dialogue mentioning it.

Overall, Paths of Glory is a timeless and compelling masterpiece, and certainly one of Stanley Kubrick's best movies. Anti-war films of this calibre are few and far between in this current age of cinema. Unfortunately, this is a film seen by relatively few. It even missed out on a spot on the AFI Top 100! Classics are far too unfairly overlooked in this day and age. With a brilliant ensemble cast, enthralling cinematography and an effective script, Paths of Glory is an outstanding essay on the madness of conflict, both in war and in politics. The terse and remorseless final flourish is one of the most emotionally devastating endings in Kubrick's career. You won't soon forget it.

"I apologize... for not being entirely honest with you. I apologize for not revealing my true feelings. I apologize, sir, for not telling you sooner that you're a degenerate, sadistic old man. And you can go to hell before I apologize to you now or ever again!"

8.9/10

"Make no mistake, it's not revenge he's after. It's a reckonin'."

Tombstone is an invigorating, riveting, action-packed big-budget Hollywood Western focusing on the legendary gunfight at the O.K. Corral. Over the decades, numerous films have been produced about this aforementioned gunfight, such as My Darling Clementine, Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, and even 1994's Wyatt Earp with Kevin Costner and Dennis Quaid in the lead roles.

Tombstone is certainly the most violent and exciting retelling of the event. The script mixes moments of historical accuracy with some mythology, as well as a dash of fiction for good measure. Where other films on the subject matter limit their focus, Kevin Jarre's screenplay for Tombstone investigates the lead-up to the notorious gunfight in addition to the aftermath. There's greater depth and historical detail to the characters. As a matter of fact, the O.K. Corral shootout in this movie was filmed exactly as the court transcripts indicated. Jarre's script also contains unforgettable dialogue. On top of this, there isn't a single fault in the entire cast. Look at the actors we've been offered: Kurt Russell, Val Kilmer, Sam Elliott, Bill Paxton, Michael Biehn, Charlton Heston, Billy Bob Thornton, Thomas Haden Church, Frank Stallone and even narration by Robert Mitchum! (Mitchum starred in the Howard Hawks Western El Dorado, thus is no stranger to the genre) Granted, it's problematic keeping tabs on the characters and for the most part it's brazen overkill, yet there's a sufficient amount of star-power to keep you mesmerised for the film's full two-hour duration.

"Look at all the stars. You look up and you think, "God made all this and He remembered to make a little speck like me." It's kind of flattering, really."

Wyatt Earp (Russell) is a stalwart and brave lawman located in Dodge City, Kansas. Beside Wyatt are a trio of loyal men: best friend Doc Holliday (Kilmer), as well as Wyatt's brothers Virgil (Elliot) and Morgan (Paxton). The story commences around 1880: Wyatt and his Immortals (and their respective women) retire as lawmen and relocate to Tombstone, Arizona to live a "normal" life. They wish for peace and quiet...perhaps eventually run a saloon together and spend their twilight years as wealthy men. However, their plans are disrupted by the ubiquitous presence of a vicious gang known as the Cowboys. According to the narrator, the Cowboys are the earliest example of organised crime in America. How evil, I hear you ask? These boys gun down an entire wedding party in cold blood before helping themselves to all the food. The Cowboys gang pose a threat to the way of life in Tombstone as people are becoming increasingly afraid to leave their homes. It isn't long before Wyatt Earp and his loyal companions are back in the marshalling business.

Early into the production of Tombstone, the original director (Kevin Jarre, who also wrote the script) was fired from the project. While searching for a replacement, Kurt Russell stepped in and acted as an unofficial director to keep the cameras rolling. It has been reported that when George P. Cosmatos was hired as the new director, he simply kept everything together while Russell directed a majority of the picture.

If you're seeking a predominantly action-oriented Western, you cannot do better than Tombstone. The action sequences are flawlessly orchestrated and unreservedly enthralling. In the 50s and 60s, John Wayne and Gary Cooper Westerns were all the rage. These films were more dialogue than action. And when shootouts did erupt, people simply fell down in a cloud of smoke without sporting a wound (for the most part...there were a few exceptions). Enter Sergio Leone who created the Spaghetti Western genre. Again, more dialogue and adventure than action. It wasn't until Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch that Westerns suddenly became more violent and action-packed. Tombstone disregards the complex narrative and frequent red herrings that so plagued and marred Westerns in past decades. The plot complexities are replaced with action, action and more action. There is a lot of dialogue and the characterisations are satisfying deep, but there's still room for lots of exhilarating action. At two hours the moderately thin story does seem a tad stretched out, in the end becoming nothing more than shootouts followed by more shootouts. I'm not complaining at all, but this fact makes the film slightly inferior to all the greatest cinematic Westerns that offer meatier stories.

"You die first, get it? Your friends might get me in a rush, but not before I make your head into a canoe, you understand me?"

Kurt Russell turns in an electric performance as the infamous Wyatt Earp. Debate has been sparked regarding the definitive cinematic embodiment of the lawman, so I'll allow you to draw your own conclusions. Russell delivers his outstanding dialogue with admirable conviction.
Val Kilmer is the undeniable star of the show. He's an absolute hoot as the lurid, foppish tuberculosis-ridden Doc Holliday. Kilmer is truly a scene stealer. He presents a sincerely sensitive portrait of a man with nothing to lose, whose last stake in life is preserving the dignity of his friendship with Wyatt. It's a flamboyant yet poignant performance, and it transforms an ostensible action film into a story of stirring comradeship as well. This could be Kilmer's finest moment on film. Why he never won any awards for this performance is simply beyond me.
Sam Elliott and Bill Paxton are credible and engaging as Wyatt's brothers. Both look the part with their genuine moustaches and commanding screen presence.
There are simply too many members of the supporting cast to mention. Suffice to say, this is how you're supposed to cast a movie! If Tombstone doesn't have the greatest cast of all time, it's certainly close to obtaining that honour.

In tradition with Hollywood Westerns, the period depiction in Tombstone is gorgeous. The town is fittingly atmospheric, with a number of utterly stunning vistas on display in the background. It's a beautifully photographed movie from top to bottom. This is an all-embracing staple in the Western genre. Director Cosmatos apparently claimed all the lightning in the film is real (the actual bolts, that is).
Costumes and props light up the frame to great effect. The guns and high-fitted holsters are also very accurate. The sound mix is another compelling aspect begging to be mentioned. The sound effects are definitely suitable. The music adds yet another indelible layer to the excellent film. It's almost criminal that this film never received an ounce of recognition from the Oscar committee.

How can I not recommend Tombstone? It's a great ride and there's a lot of fun to be had by all. It exhibits a rough-and-tumble vigour that's hard for a die-hard Western fan to resist. It's an excellent way to spend a few hours. Certainly, this is a beer-and-pizza event that makes effortless viewing on a boring afternoon. Witty dialogue, lots of shooting, lots of blood, lots of horse-riding...what's not to like? If you're looking for more bang for your buck, rent Tombstone. If you're looking for a film slightly deeper and more drama-oriented, rent 3:10 to Yuma or The Proposition or any John Wayne Western. The choice is yours.

Wyatt Earp's fifth cousin (the aptly named Wyatt Earp) makes an appearance as Billy Claiborne.

"I spent my whole life not knowing what I want out of it, just chasing my tail. Now for the first time I know exactly what I want and who... that's the damnable misery of it.

8.3/10

"You should have let 'em kill me, 'cause I'm gonna kill you. I'll catch up with ya. I don't know when, but I'll catch up. Every time you turn around, expect to see me, 'cause one time you'll turn around and I'll be there. I'm gonna kill ya, Matt."

Howard Hawks' Red River is fundamentally a Western appropriation of Mutiny on the Bounty. This superlative 1948 Western united director Hawks and star John Wayne for the first time (in the ensuing decades they collaborated on such films as Rio Bravo, El Dorado and Rio Lobo), and it's extensively considered the finest product of the Hawks/Wayne partnership.

Red River is a monumental, sweeping, and powerful masterpiece infused with top-notch performances, stunning cinematography and adventure on a grand scale. John "The Duke" Wayne turns in one of the greatest performances of his entire career. For a majority of his acting career, The Duke generally appeared on autopilot (he did star in over 100 Westerns). Red River is a rare exception...John Wayne is passionate and convincing, with an authoritative screen persona that's difficult to overlook. Director John Ford (who directed The Duke for numerous Westerns like Stagecoach, The Searchers and Rio Grande) reportedly saw Red River and said "I didn't know the big lug could act". This is a truly stand-out addition to the Western genre: it's a majestic, exquisite adventure that captures the grandeur, splendour and danger of the wild American West. It's a grand epic about earning respect, loyalty, love and money.

Similar to most cinematic Westerns, the plot is deceptively simple. Tom Dunson (Wayne) has turned the barren Texas land across the Red River into thriving cattle territory. The story begins years earlier as Tom acquires this land...shooting a few rivals in the process. Tom also meets a young teenage orphan named Matthew who was the only survivor of a wagon train massacre. Fast forward fourteen years, and Matthew (Clift, in his film debut) is returning from his military duties. Due to economic changes brought about by the Civil War, the bottom falls out of beef market in the Southern States. Unfortunately, this renders Tom's cattle quite worthless. But the self-made cattle baron owns about 9,000 cows and is utterly poor. With little option, he decides to organise a cattle drive to Missouri. This will be a long, dangerous trek. As Tom drives his herd and employees through the treacherous Chisholm Trail, he proves that he'll risk anything to reach his destination...even his own sanity. As the days pass by, Tom turns into more of a tyrant and the men begin to turn against him.

Red River is a glorious, leisurely-paced adaptation of the story The Chisholm Trail. Director Howard Hawks should be familiar to anyone who loves classic movies. He's a man capable of staging slick action and interesting dialogue. Hawks infuses this film with striking, expressive, exciting sequences of stampeding, rough weather, general cowboy-ing and Indian skirmishes. Red River is a Western of epic proportions. Thousands of cows and hundreds of horses were used for the film's production. The river crossing is particularly breathtaking. Horses, wagons, cowboys and cattle cross rushing waters in real time from every angle, conveying the danger of such a feat and therefore the valour of the American cowboy. The film even emulates the custom of employing title cards to distinguish the various chapters of the tale.

The splendid locations are marvellously photographed by Russell Harlan. There are rugged landscapes clouded by diminutive dust bowls kicked up by the cattle. There's also a 360° panorama comprised of three individual shots, and an atmospheric sequence illuminated by a swinging lantern. Red River depicts American West ideals - self-interest, eccentricity and capitalism - in action. Earning and spending money is virtually celebrated, from an Indian seeking maximum value to a stuttering young cowboy who aims to buy a gift for his wife.

Bordon Chase (author of the original story) and Charles Schnee's script (the uncredited Howard Hawks also made contributions) contains intriguing characters and underlying messages, moving at a careful pace as the story steadily unfolds. The script is hampered by a few problems, however. For a start the Indians are once again shown as people who endlessly slaughter for the sake of killing. The screenwriters also have a tendency to write speeches where conversations or physical behaviour would be more appropriate. Being a 40s movie, there's a desperate attempt to evade prostitution references when the men encounter a wagon of women who are obviously prostitutes. It derails the drama of the first scene shared by Montgomery Clift and Joanna Dru. There are occasional lapses into self-conscious artiness throughout the film as well. In addition to this, the drama builds to an atrocious ending that belies the emotion of the rest of the picture. The climax seems overly rushed and too "feel good". It also weakens the characters. On the plus side, production values are a wonder to behold. There are authentic costumes and props to replicate the period. Traditional wagons and horses are utilised as well. Then there's Dmitri Tiomkin's stirring score, adding another layer of pure heroism to the portrayal of the American cowboy.

A sterling John Wayne is at a high standard in this picture. As quoted before, The Duke's frequent collaborator John Ford has been quoted as saying he never knew the guy could act. This is definitely one of Wayne's absolute best performances. His fits the character of Dunson like a pair of gloves. Seeing John Wayne put in such a performance as a tortured man with two sides to him is mesmerising. His character also functions as a hero and a villain.
Montgomery Clift makes his stunning feature film debut in this film. Even with a screen legend beside him, Clift more than holds his own; tempering Wayne's swagger with a quieter nature of confidence and allegiance. He acts as a counterbalance to the screen presence of Wayne.
Walter Brennan offers one of his greatest screen performances to date.
John Ireland is the cocky, overeager young gunslinger who accompanies the crew for their cattle drive. The remaining supporting cast carry out their duties admirably.

Red River abides by the quintessential Western conventions: lots of cows, a bit of shooting, murderous Indians, extensive landscapes, big heroic men, lots of yahooing and little women. It's ultimately a tad clichéd, but as an early Western it was made when the clichés were still being established. Red River is reportedly an accurate portrayal about the life of a cattle herder during the post-Civil War days.

This film is a sheer delight that succeeds on multiple levels. Firstly: it's an examination of John Wayne's heroic likeness, here shown as unnecessarily authoritarian and stubborn as he comes into conflict with his more liberal surrogate son. Wayne's Tom Dunson progressively receives further criticism from the garrulous Groot (Brennan) for his habitual execution of deserters. Secondly: this performs as an additional variation on director Hawks' perennial trepidation with the theme of self-respect and professionalism. And finally, Red River is an intimate epic commemorating the passion of the institution of civilisation in the rough American West, with Matthew's common refusal to resort to the gun that is viewed as essential by the trigger-happy Wayne. If you're looking for an orientation into the John Wayne craze, this is a recommended title to do so (also recommended is the later Hawks/Wayne collaboration Rio Bravo).

"We brought nothing into this world and it's certain we can carry nothing out."

8.0/10

"You caused me a lot of embarrassment! You're the only man I shot, that I didn't kill."

John Wayne (commonly referred to more affectionately as The Duke) developed into a much-loved American icon during his sprawling career that spanned over multiple decades. The War Wagon is one of those forgotten gems. It wasn't as critically acclaimed as The Searchers or Rio Bravo, thus to some it's "just another John Wayne movie". Be that as it may, this is an extraordinarily fun and engaging little flick. The War Wagon performed as a Western precursor to the buddy action movies of the 80s and 90s, offering an adequate quantity of exciting action and amusing comic relief. This is an enjoyable revenge Western, featuring clichéd cowboys and standard gunslingers of all stripes playing out in an intriguing premise. Screenwriter Clair Huffaker also wrote the novel on which the film is based. Clair has a decidedly keen understanding on the expectancies of a John Wayne Western, as he once reportedly said: "John Wayne plays the strong, silent man, with a certain sense of humour and an inner feeling of justice."

The straightforward story is one that's been exploited in various other genres. A man is wrongfully accused, and this man seeks revenge on the wrongdoers. In this case, the protagonist is Taw Jackson (Wayne). Years ago Jackson was framed and sent to prison. After being released on parole, he returns to his old stomping ground to find his estate in possession of the man who framed him: powerful mine owner Frank Pierce (Cabot). You see, Pierce realised there was gold on Jackson's land and wanted to get his greedy hands on it. Due to Pierce's connections and power, he could successfully have Taw Jackson framed and Jackson could do nothing to prove his innocence. In order for Jackson to settle the score with Pierce, he becomes dead-set on capturing an iron-clad stagecoach transporting half a million dollars worth of gold (mined from his land, that is). He enlists the help of an old enemy of his known as Lomax (Douglas).

An extremely similar story was utilised for the 1969 heist film The Italian Job, be it purposeful or otherwise. The War Wagon is the Western version of the story, whereas The Italian Job is a modern appropriation. This is a testament to the clever little plot assembled for the film.

Despite never being widely acclaimed, The War Wagon holds its own all these years later. It's a good fun old-fashioned action/adventure ride created for providing Saturday afternoon entertainment at the movies. The cinematography looks utterly beautiful. In tradition with all the greatest American Westerns of the 50s and 60s, there are wonderful locations that have been captured suitably. It has been perceived that the message of this Western is to nourish the ideology of vigilante committees aiming to safeguard their rights and possessions. Clair Huffaker's screenplay is fairly adequate. As a straightforward, enjoyable romp it succeeds but by no means does it break new ground. The heroes are clichéd: depicted as being infinitely smarter than their opponents, and are capable of many amazing feats. Meanwhile the villains can't shoot straight and aren't smart enough to rival the heroes. There are also no surprises at all along the way. It plays out exactly how we expect it to. The conclusion is fairly predictable. Still, it's a thoroughly fun ride to take. It isn't the greatest Western of all time, nor is it one of John Wayne's best, but you could do a whole lot worse. In fact, modern Hollywood blockbuster fluff is inferior to this kind of exciting John Wayne material.

The interplay between John Wayne and Kirk Douglas is sardonic and sharp. It's the chemistry between these two leads that places this above the commonplace standard. Rumour has it that The Duke grew annoyed with Douglas during the production, and this would explain why there were no other features starring the two legends. That's a pity, because on-screen the two stars appear to work well together, providing a solid backbone for the rest of the characters to work off. There are several wonderful moments to be witnessed featuring Douglas and Wayne bouncing off each other. After they simultaneously out-draw two opponents, Douglas remarks "Mine hit the ground first". "Mine was taller" Wayne replies laconically.
John Wayne is at his usual standard here. Not his best performance to date, though. Same can be said for Kirk Douglas. He's appealing enough, but far from Oscar-worthy. Also in the cast are such names as Bruce Cabot, Keenan Wynn, Howard Keel, Robert Walker, Valora Nolan, and there's a brief appearance of Bruce Dern. A few years later Bruce Dern would feature in a John Wayne film entitled The Cowboys. Dern became one of the only actors in history to shoot a John Wayne character dead. Interestingly, Wayne kills Dern's character in The War Wagon.

If you're on the lookout for an enjoyable old-fashioned Western, this is the one for you. In tradition with censorship of the time, villains are dispatched without any blood. Plenty of blokes are gunned down alright, yet none sports an injury. Whilst being a fairly typical John Wayne vehicle, The War Wagon is loads of fun with Wayne and Douglas sharing a terrific on-screen camaraderie. There's plenty of horse-riding, lots of guns, a few girls, a dash of romance, and a lot of excitement. What's not to like? By no means is this the greatest Western of its decade, but it's engaging enough to hold your interest for 100 minutes.

6.9/10

"Watch yourself, sister! Everything in these woods'll either bite ya, stab ya or stick ya!"

John "The Duke" Wayne earned his first (and only) Oscar in 1970 for his performance as Rooster Cogburn in 1969's True Grit. Rooster Cogburn denotes the continuing adventures of the US Marshall whose name was used for the film's title. Although a sequel, Rooster Cogburn is almost entirely not connected to its predecessor. The only connection can be found in the few returning characters, namely the title character from which the title is derived from. Whilst True Grit was arguably John Wayne's finest performance committed to celluloid, it was the character he created that was the icon. It was therefore logical to bring Rooster Cogburn back to run riot in the Indian Territories once again, this time paired with the always delightful Katharine Hepburn. Rooster Cogburn may seem like little more than a mere star vehicle and an excuse to get the two acting legends together on screen, but the result is actually a moderately enjoyable Western romp. It's virtually a carbon copy of The African Queen with inarguable similarities, and the script is rather on the banal side...but it's at least entertaining.

In this sequel to True Grit, US Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Wayne) is up to his usual tricks: he's a hard drinker, a guiltless killer, and he still resides in the backroom of a shop with a Chinaman and a tabby cat known as General Sterling Price. Following his latest assignment during which he gunned down four men, he returns to Ford Smith and faces the wrath of Judge Parker (McIntire). The judge has had enough of Rooster's complete disregard for the law. Thus, Rooster is stripped of his status as a Marshall and is forced into retirement. Meanwhile in the Indian Territories, a band of outlaws ambush an army column and hijack a wagon of nitro-glycerine. It's theorised that this nitro could be employed to execute a gold robbery. When news of this reaches Ford Smith, Judge Parker naturally runs to Rooster Cogburn to beg for his services. If Cogburn completes the assignment he'll be reinstated as a Federal Marshall. The money becomes too much temptation for Rooster to handle, so he agrees. During his travels he meets Miss Eula Goodnight (Hepburn) who wants revenge for the death of her father. Also joining the team is an Indian boy named Wolf (Romancito).

Just about everything in Rooster Cogburn is superfluous to the interplay of the lead actors. The combination of Katharine Hepburn and John Wayne can only be described as irresistible. Aside from the actors, as well as a good smattering of action and wonderful visuals, not much more can be said in the film's favour. At times the dialogue is cheesy, the romantic angle of the story is excruciating (not to mention predictable) and the plot is a dud. The bad guys are just soccer players struggling for possession of the ball. With the main characters gaining control of the main plot device early into the game, there's a distinct lack of momentum.

Everything is blatantly clichéd: enemies can't shoot straight while the heroes (two old-timers and a young, inexperienced lad) outfight and outwit the hapless outlaws at every turn. There's never a sense that the good guys will lose. On the eve of battle (no matter how unprepared the heroes are) we know the outlaws will lose. No surprises, no subversiveness...it's formulaic and safe the whole way through.

Rooster Cogburn bares countless similarities to The African Queen. Structure and characters are glaringly similar, for instance. This is just The African Queen transplanted into a Western world dominated by rocks, rivers, guns and beautiful open vistas. On that note, a deficiency of originality is detrimental. If you've seen The African Queen (like I have) you'll suffer constant bouts of déjà vu. Even with such powerful stars and exciting action sequences, it isn't good enough.

John Wayne earned an Academy Award for his performance as Rooster Cogburn in True Grit. He immersed himself into the role despite a body ravaged by cancer and numerous health problems. His commitment to acting is inspirational and amazing. Six years on, and he's still doing what he does best. However Wayne's performance seems more laid-back and less rugged. Perhaps his health conditions were the cause of this. Whatever the case, I was underwhelmed...especially since he was reprising the role that marked his finest moments on film. He might've just been too old to carry a movie. During one particular scene while he's loading a raft, The Duke is unmistakably gasping for air. He's still interesting and still looks good in action, but he was passed his prime at this point.
It's priceless watching The Duke's interaction with Katharine Hepburn (who also starred in The African Queen, which is further evidence that the filmmakers wanted to replicate its success) as the two share looks and banter. There's easy charm and chemistry between the leads. The rest of the cast are outshined by the two authoritative stars that light up the frame. Thoroughly ridiculous, though, is the notion of 69-year-old Jon Lormer as 68-year-old Katharine Hepburn's father.

Overall, Rooster Cogburn is a fun and reasonably entertaining Western and one of the final films in the John Wayne canon. It's a moderately disappointing film with such a banal script lacking in originality, but there's enough action and priceless star moments to keep anyone entertained. There are a few witty lines and amusing moments; however they're in disappointingly short supply. As a sequel to True Grit to continue the adventures of Rooster Cogburn, the film could've done with a script rewrite. It isn't a particularly great Western, but in the end it doesn't matter. This is a star vehicle in every sense of the word. The script doesn't do the leads any favours, but Wayne and Hepburn make the most of their scenes. The plot and script are straightforward and nothing groundbreaking, yet there's a good dosage of action and a fairly satisfying offering of beautiful scenery.

5.8/10

"As far as I'm concerned, that man's whole body is property of the U.S. army."

The second of two Marvel projects to be released in 2008, The Incredible Hulk is a huge step down in quality after the superlative Iron Man. Initially designed as a sequel to Ang Lee's much-maligned 2003 film Hulk, the project eventually materialised into a reboot, aiming to address the extensive criticisms levelled against its predecessor. Thus, while Lee aimed to mount a patient art-house film with blockbuster elements, The Incredible Hulk is pure junk food cinema, a commercial action picture that's anything but incredible. Directed by Louis Leterrier (The Transporter) and written by Zak Penn (as well as an uncredited Edward Norton), it's a completely sub-standard production, leaving us still starving for a truly iconic and memorable solo film for Marvel's big green guy.

During a laboratory accident, scientist Bruce Banner (Norton) was poisoned with gamma radiation which damaged his cells. As a result, whenever Banner is angry, he transforms into a huge green rage beast known as the Hulk. In an attempt to control the mutation, Banner heads to South America to hide out, hoping to escape the hands of General Ross (William Hurt) who wants to use Banner to create an army of super-soldiers. Compelled to head back to America, Banner is reunited with long-time lover Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), who wants to help cure the genetic mutation. Hot on their tail, though, is ruthless British military specialist Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), who yearns to harness Banner's power.

Instead of extensively exploring the Hulk's origins once again, The Incredible Hulk recaps Banner's backstory during the opening credits. It's a wonderfully brisk montage which effectively conveys the story so far, instilling a sense of promise that the film is never able to capitalise upon. While the first half an hour or so does a great job of setting up the narrative, especially with fitting character introductions and a "less is more" approach towards Banner's alter ego, everything goes downhill afterwards, abandoning all sense of psychological depth and subtextual heft in favour of straight-ahead narrative velocity. The Incredible Hulk is better-paced than Lee's overstuffed film, but anything that isn't purely surface is discarded here. The structure is incoherent and jumpy as well, while the dialogue is conventionally corny action movie speak. Apparently the film was originally a lot longer, with Norton lobbying for more characterisation and dialogue. But the studio intervened, apparently trimming as much as seventy minutes. As a result, the structure is puzzling. Consider, for instance, that Banner travels from Guatemala to California despite having no money or official documents, and despite having his face plastered on every government watch-list. Characters disappear as well, including Betty's boyfriend who seems to be simply tossed aside upon Bruce's return. Some of the scene transitions are so choppy that it feels like the studio haphazardly took out random reels without smoothing out the rough edges.

The Incredible Hulk eventually transforms into a string of action and devastation, undermined by dreadfully phony CGI and underwhelming action set-pieces. Leterrier's visual style is very run-of-the-mill, lacking the timing and polish which made Iron Man such a summer delight. This film was produced five years after Lee's Hulk, and Leterrier was working with a massive budget, but the digital effects nevertheless look pathetically unfinished. Everything from the helicopters to the environments look absurdly unconvincing. Although the sweeping Hulk movement is accounted for, clarity is lacking and the beast lacks vital crispness. The climax literally looks like something from a sub-par video game cut-scene. Whenever the CGI Hulk appears, it feels like someone is tapping you on the shoulder to whisper "Hey, you're just watching a movie." In other words, the concept of total immersion is ruined, and it's hard to get involved in the movie in any capacity. I'd give up all the thunderous explosions that litter the picture for a single scene of genuine awe. For a film titled "Incredible," the digital Hulk is anything but. Iron Man was actually produced for a smaller sum, and its effects bordered close to photorealism. What the hell happened here?

Furthermore, the film lacks vital brains. The climactic battle in particular is a total mess. Several minutes into the smash-down, civilians still appear to be running away from the action. And some of those civilians are shown to be tossed around in the mayhem. Surely several innocents are killed, yet there's never an ounce of sentimentality displayed towards them. Plus, millions of dollars worth of damage is perpetrated without any real consequences. It may seem odd to complain about such things in an action film, but it doesn't even properly deliver as entertainment due to its horrendous special effects and skewiff direction. Added to all of this malarkey, there's a particularly terrible scene involving the Hulk and Betty sitting outside a cave at night in the rain. It feels shamelessly copied from King Kong, and it lacks the tender touch of a skilled filmmaker to give the scene any substantial impact. Consequently, it comes off as trite, ineffective and cheesy. To be honest, the best moment in the film is the post-credits scene, featuring Robert Downey Jr. who cameos as Tony Stark.

For those desiring tonnes of action involving the Hulk, quality be damned, The Incredible Hulk is a film for you, as there's enough pandemonium to keep you happy. And by all means, it does deliver in the entertainment department at times. But where Ang Lee's film succeeded (i.e. actual depth and thoughtful dialogue), this film fails. Meanwhile, this Hulk adventure contains plenty of action and momentum, which was lacking in Lee's effort. If only a blend of these two extremes was achieved, we'd have the definitive Hulk adventure. Interestingly, for a constituent of Marvel's big universe-building project, The Incredible Hulk severely underperformed at the box office, unable to so much as double its budget worldwide.

4.2/10

"I just want to make people silky-smooth!"

Adam Sandler's excruciating, lethargic comedy routine stopped being funny around the beginning of his career. With You Don't Mess with the Zohan, Sandler and his usual partners in crime against cinema have actually managed to make a film more agonisingly unfunny than their appalling 2007 film I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry. Adding further insult to injury, the beloved super-producer Judd Apatow (he must have aggressive insomnia at the rate he produces movie) has defiled his (predominantly impressive) CV with this ghastly Adam Sandler vehicle. 2008 is the year for movies that are DOA. Mike Myers ruined his career with The Love Guru, Brendan Fraser embarrassed himself with The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, Will Smith relegated his career to cheap blockbusters with Hancock, and even the much-anticipated The Lost Boys sequel was doomed before its release. During the 110-minute running time of You Don't Mess with the Zohan there's plenty of time for you to focus your anger on everyone involved with the film as you won't be doing any laughing.

Zohan (Sandler) is an Israeli counterterrorist who excels at his profession. The film is marred lethally by the capabilities of Zohan: he's like Superman and is able to do all sorts of ludicrous things, from catching a bullet to swimming like a dolphin. He's the Chuck Norris jokes brought to life...yielding depressingly unfunny, lifeless results.
Anyway, the film mixes comedy with a global political issue; in this case the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Zohan is stuck in the middle of all this fighting and is the finest counterterrorist the Israelis have to offer. But he grows tired of this senseless conflict, and fakes his death in order to escape to America to achieve his dream...he wants to be a hairdresser. His initial dream of working for Paul Mitchell doesn't materialise, thus he settles for working at a small-time beauty salon threatened by a Trump-like real estate developer. Before you know it, Zohan increases the popularity of the beauty salon. He cuts hair sensually - ejaculating shampoo and acting sexually - before sexing old birds in the back room.

As with 2007's I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry, Sandler attempts to explore a serious political issue. In the case of You Don't Mess with the Zohan (as I said before) it's the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Why explore a sensitive issue in a light-weight, fluffy mainstream comedy? What does Sandler hope to achieve? The script plays it safe, ultimately exploiting this issue for a string of low-brow gags. Nothing subversive is present in the script, and it simply offers nothing more than a simplistic "can't we all get along?" message. There's also the matter of the obnoxious product placement. Whenever Zohan expresses his obsession with hummus the label is always conveniently facing the camera.

Offensive low-brow gags pervade the film. Like when Zohan and two mates play hackeysack with a live, screaming cat! Adam Sandler is too self-indulgent. He seems to be having an absolute ball, but we're certainly not having a good time. If we were examining a simple Sandler vehicle like Happy Gilmore, he does a few funny things but the film lasts about 90 minutes. In this case, the film runs about 110 minutes and it's devoid of anything genuinely funny. I chuckled, but what's missing are the meaty laugh-out-loud moments. The script frequently resorts to cultural stereotypes and ethnic humour for laughs. None of this even works! It's misfired gags united with offensive misfired gags and boring moments. At times the film even seems like a drama. This is undermined, however, by Zohan's complete inability to offend anyone no matter what he says to them. Sandler's Zohan is a garishly sketched melange of Ali G and Borat, however (despite a screenplay co-written by Sandler and Judd Apatow) he's such a jarringly two-dimensional creation. Sandler's accent is even more offensive. That he has to become a foreigner for laughs is a reflection on how desperate this talentless "comedian" has become. He tries to be of the standard of Borat, but he doesn't have the talent as a writer or as an actor to pull it off adequately. And then there's Sandler regular Rob Schneider as a Palestinian cab driver. Seriously, it's awful stuff!

You Don't Mess with the Zohan appears to lag too much as well. There's a dreadful, contrived romantic sub-plot tossed in for the sake of some romance. It's barely developed and too sudden; hence we seldom care about it. Zohan has been screwing woman ages 60 and above throughout the whole film, yet cringe-worthy true love intervenes. The sign of this "true love" warrants more groaning: Zohan can't get an erection unless he's talking to this girl. The film plays out like an action flick and as a comedy. But Zohan is too unrealistic and overplayed for this to be a serious action film. And there most certainly aren't adequate gags for this to be considered a comedy. It's in the line in between...and this is certainly not a favourable line to be sitting on. The film cooks up is 80s-ish action, trite blather and ceaseless scenes of Sandler making sexy with grannies in the salon run by Palestinian bombshell Dalia (Chriqui). That she lets him continually run amok before eventually falling in love with him is about as insolent as the jaw-droppingly excruciating attempts at comedy, such as dudes discussing which First Lady they'd tap or a montage mirroring Rocky during which cracked eggs reveal developed young chickens and a live cow hanging upside down is used as a punching bag.

If only the Zohan hadn't messed with us! I never thought it'd be possible, but Adam Sandler has made a movie more painful than I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry and has further demonstrated his ability to reinvent the term "unfunny comedy". One golden star for a few chuckles...and I have no idea why in hell I'm being that nice!

1.5/10

FILM: 7.9/10
My review [Link removed - login to see]

VIDEO & AUDIO: 9/10
The video is presented in a 1.78:1 aspect ratio, and is 16x9 enhanced.
There are three audio tracks present for the film: English Dolby Digital 5.1 (448 Kbps), English Dolby Digital 2.0 (224 Kbps) and English descriptive audio Dolby Digital 2.0 (224 Kbps)
The video looks extremely good. The image is sharp, there's excellent shadow detail, very fine contrast in the many dark scenes of the film, and the colours look beautiful. Due to the film's origins (low-budget Aussie feature) there is some mild grain which could probably be rectified if it's transferred to HD on a Blu-Ray release.
No problems with the sound (except it's a tad underwhelming in a surround sound system). Sound effects are booming and the exotic score (by Francois Tetaz) sounds extraordinary.

EXTRAS: 8/10
Considering the origins of the film, the disc very kindly offers a number of worthwhile features.
The disc opens to an anti-piracy commercial which cannot be skipped. Suitably, this anti-piracy commercial makes use of the poster for Wolf Creek.
The disc menu is well-themed, with accompanying music from the film to add further atmosphere.

The Making of Rogue Documentary (46:08)
This is an excellent and comprehensive documentary, covering everything from pre-production to post-production. There is lots of behind-the-scenes footage that offers insight into the film's production. Cast & crew interviews punctuate the behind-the-scenes footage. They offer anecdotes about filming. This is a worthwhile addition!

The Making of Rogue mini documentaries
These are merely extensions of the main Making Of documentary.
The Music (14:40 - this focuses on the intriguing techniques employed in composing the score. This is interesting stuff.
The Northern Territory (14:46) - this merely offers information regarding the location shooting for the film. Mildly interesting stuff.
Effects (6:43) - this all-too-brief featurette examines the creation of the rubber crocs, and the utilisation of CGI technology for other sections of the movie.
The Real Rogue (2:30) - this runs far too short to be of any real interest. Basically it examines the real crocs used as a model for the big croc in the film.

Theatrical Trailer (2:02
Don't think this needs an explanation. This is a fairly conventional trailer included for posterity purposes.

OVERALL: 8/10
Rogue is an above-average creature feature. In an age dominated by shitty direct-to-DVD croc and shark films, this is the antidote we need. If more of this standard were reeled out, there could be a future for croc films.
The video & audio are above average. Only improvements could be made if a Blu-Ray release was around the corner.
The extras are in short supply, but are of a uniformly high standard.

The Region 1 release also includes an audio commentary by director Greg McLean. It's a shame Region 4 misses out.

"People should love you. They really should, okay? And I want to deliver that for you. It's the least that I can do. You're a superhero. Kids should be running up to you, asking for your autograph, people should be cheering you on the streets..."

Stale. Vapid. Hollow. Offensive. Inconsistent. Illogical. Lame. Fluffy. These are the words that popped into my head while watching Hancock; a nonsense hodgepodge of intriguing ideas attempting to offer a unique twist on the conventional superhero movie.

2008 appears to be the ideal year for disappointing superhero movies to crawl out and subsequently die. This film was released in the shadow of Doug Liman's second-rate Jumper. Both lethally suffer from awful screenplays and a contemptible, self-indulgent, selfish hero. Hancock works from a banal and standard script, seemingly borrowing various facets from other superheroes. There's a shoestring plot on which to hang the action sequences and the (failed) humour. Hancock is also excruciating, dull, unimaginative and unengaging. Forget about this being as emotionally gripping as The Pursuit of Happyness, as delightfully entertaining as Bad Boys, or as funny and appealing as Men in Black - this is pure preposterous tosh!

John Hancock (Smith) is a bitter, disillusioned superhero. He can fly, he's impervious to any sort of damage, he has super strength...well, I'm sure you get the idea. Hancock has one major problem: his public image. Every time he saves someone's life or catches a criminal he inadvertently causes a great deal of damage to the city of Los Angeles. When Hancock isn't angering the general public, he's a drunken bum. Enter public relations professional Ray Embrey (Bateman) who, after being saved by Hancock, takes it upon himself to reinvent and improve Hancock's public image in order to make him more of a crowd pleaser. A warrant is issued for the arrest of Hancock (as his latest stunt caused $9 million of damage), and Ray persuades the superhero to turn himself in willingly. This begins Hancock's inner journey from public nuisance to public idol.

Hancock is an abundantly flawed superhero escapade. I honesty have no idea where I should begin...
For starters, Hancock isn't a sufficiently developed character nor is he anyone we wish to root for. His origin story isn't told until the second half. His back-story comes far too late to make a difference to the character (who's established as selfish and contemptible). Ideally, the film should allow its audience to understand Hancock's motivations, as well as the reasons for his bad attitude and callousness from the very first frame. When is the origin story introduced in Superman: The Movie or Tim Burton's original Batman? It's the first thing we need to see in order to flesh out a character and provide detail into this character's life. Flashback, montage...the script needs to allow us to identify with him before he opens his mouth.
In I Am Legend, we empathise with Will Smith's character from the very beginning because we're given a reason to care about him. In The Pursuit of Happyness he played a poor man trying to raise his son. We pity him and want to see him succeed. In Hancock he calls bystanders pricks, drinks himself to oblivion, doesn't care about anyone but himself, and his social skills are putrid. The heroics he occasionally displays just aren't good enough.

The dialogue is also quite offensive. In the opening sequence he rips the roof off a getaway vehicle, revealing three men. Hancock proceeds to joke about the lack of girls in the car. The insinuation is that they are gay (even when most criminals we see arrested on TV are men anyway!). This further manifests itself later on in the film. Ray holds up a series of comic books, all featuring white men in standard superhero outfits. First words that escape Hancock's mouth? "Homo. Homo in red. Norwegian homo". The gay community would probably have something to say about this... I wonder what Hancock would've said if he was shown comic books featuring African American superheros. Would he call them niggers? I'd guess not, as this would alienate Smith's race. "Homo" is the only slur said by Hancock throughout the entire film. When he's approached by African Americans, he doesn't use a slur at all. He doesn't even use a slur when he fights Latinos at the beginning. To the writers it's a crime to use a slur for African Americans or Latinos, yet it's perfectly acceptable to do so for gays. How insensitive!

This point brings us onto the rest of the script issues... The film's structure is unbelievably weak. It's as if the screenwriters had brainstormed ideas for the major plot points but could only come up with pulp to connect them. These plot points are just mashed together, creating an extraordinarily messy final product. The screenwriters seemingly expect us to fill in the blanks.
Even though this is a summer blockbuster, Hancock offers barely any action. Okay, so they wanted this to be more of a drama. But why did they market this as an action film? Why did they release it during the summer season when action films are all the rage? The script also never manages to offer a clear-cut villain until the dreadful final third. This villain is weak and his entrance is far too late.

Logic appears to be an enemy of the screenplay as well. At one stage Hancock tosses a child up into the air. On the child's way back down to the ground he's caught by Hancock. This should have caused incredible internal damage, yet the kid is just fine. Another illogical instance: Hancock flies out of prison temporarily. The alarm is immediately raised. Seriously, bullets bounce off this guy. Why in hell would the police even bother wasting manpower and bullets trying to recapture him? An alarm would do absolutely no good. During the film's climax Hancock is hurt pretty badly after being shot and stabbed. He falls out of a high window (third or fourth storey) onto the roof of a bus and he's just fine? There's also another character with powers identical to Hancock's, and they don't want their powers revealed (they even threaten Hancock with penalty of death if he spills the beans). Yet this character engages Hancock in combat in broad daylight with hundreds of witnesses. In addition to logic frequently being defied, inconsistencies are abundant. The entire story about the other character with Hancock's powers is muddled up! I'd be wasting time (and spoiling things) by going any further.

Then there's the matter of product placement...oh how Hancock appears to adore product placement! There are Ray Ban sunglasses (mentioned by name!), a store with all product labels facing the camera (with close-ups of the products), an ad for the Showtime series Dexter, gratuitous YouTube plugs, and there are even FedEx boxes being displayed!

For a modern movie, the special effects are somewhat dull as well. Peter Berg directed 2007's The Kingdom...and again brings his trademark shaky camera technique to the table. He attempts to give the CGI sequences a grittier, more realistic edge. This fails in the first scene - an inebriated Hancock flying towards a highway police pursuit exhibits embarrassing phoniness. However, the only thing I can say in the film's favour is in regards to its entertainment value. There are sporadic instances of good action scenes and funny moments. But these all happen within the first 30 minutes. Beyond that, everyone is on autopilot. The enjoyably frenetic opening sequence is of the standard we expected to pervade the rest of the film. Sadly, it's a one-off instance. A character also watches a few clips of Hancock's most infamous misdemeanours on YouTube. A few amusing clips are played and Will Smith's reactions are priceless.
On the whole, though, the performances are uniformly mediocre. Smith doesn't bring an ounce of emotion to the table and Charlize Theron is wooden. Bateman is at least watchable. He disperses a few amusing lines of dialogue. The rest of the cast aren't even worth mentioning.

Hancock is a massive disappointment no matter where you turn. It seems like the film is actually two films rolled into one. The first is the tale of the anti-hero learning to be a defender of truth, justice, and the American Way. It's the more interesting of the two. The second piece is muddled and disjointed as the screenplay provides revelations about Hancock's origin. This aspect has the scope of a Shakespearean tragedy and cannot effectively be addressed in the 45 minutes allotted to it. Both halves had potential, and should have been properly expanded into separate movies. By compressing them into a single unit, the story suffers as a whole. Hancock is stupid and hollow, yet it does at least offer a moderately entertaining experience.

" I gotta wonder what a kind of a bastard I must have been, that nobody was there to claim me. I mean, I am not the most charming guy in the world, so I've been told, but...nobody?"

3.6/10