Reviews by PvtCaboose91

The Rocky series may have ultimately degenerated into a flashy, soulless boxing franchise, but this first instalment is unlike the majority of its follow-ups - it is a remarkable, heartfelt, inspirational sports drama and a poignant character study concerning the determination of one man. It's easy to dismiss Rocky as just a motion picture about boxing, yet it works on several levels - the film is an inspiring fable of the underdog, a warm love story, and a dramatic tale of unrealised dreams all wrapped into one. While a low-budget picture without major backing, Rocky was a hit; earning a mint at the box office, transforming Sylvester Stallone into a star, and collecting three Academy Awards (Best Director, Best Editing, and Best Picture). The weight of multiple sequels and several imitators may have tarnished Rocky, but the movie nonetheless stands as a true highlight of classic American filmmaking, and one of the greatest movies of all time.

Rocky is the story of the Philadelphia inhabitant Rocky Balboa (Stallone), who earns a living by partaking in small-time boxing matches and working as an enforcer for a local loan shark. Whenever Rocky is not in the ring or twisting the arms of indebt Philadelphia residents, he socialises with the shy, reserved Adrian (Shire) and her brother Paulie (Young). By all accounts, Rocky's life is unremarkable, but he is soon given the chance of a lifetime. Heavyweight boxing champion Apollo Creed (Weathers) is seeking an opponent for his next fight, and decides that giving a low-ranked boxer a shot at the title would be a terrific publicity stunt. Apollo chooses Rocky on account of his moniker “The Italian Stallion”, and believes the fight will be a walk in the park. Rocky, on the other hand, perceives the fight as an opportunity to go the distance with the champ and gain some respect.

Sylvester Stallone's inspiration for Rocky was derived from the boxing bout between Muhammad Ali and Chuck Wepner. In the 1970s, Wepner was a low-ranked boxer who surprised everybody (and probably bankrupted a few bookies, too) when he almost lasted 15 rounds in the ring with Ali while the champion was still wearing his belt. Impressed by Wepner's determination, Stallone (with a measly $106 in his bank account) worked in his kitchen to pen the screenplay for Rocky in 86 hours. He soon began shopping around the script, and insisted that he be the one to star as Rocky instead of a big-name actor. Producers Irwin Winkler and Robert Chartoff ultimately agreed, and the movie was filmed in 28 days on a diminutive $1 million budget. The rest, as they say, is history. While Stallone faced ridicule in subsequent years for ham-fisted acting within brain-dead action films, it cannot be denied that he created a magnetic character in Rocky Balboa; a figure whom many perceived as an inspiration to overcome the ostensibly impossible in their own lives. Rocky may adhere to clichés, but Stallone managed to effectively apply them in a way that captivated viewers and did not seem over-the-top.

The brilliance of Rocky is that it's primarily a drama concentrating on characters rather than sports. It would be erroneous to state that the climactic boxing match is unimportant (it is the centrepiece), but the production is not just about the action. In the lead-up to Rocky's match with Apollo, time is spent developing Rocky as a person. He is not traditional hero material - he's boorish, somewhat dumb, and has limited aspirations. Yet, there's something inherently endearing about Rocky, mainly due to the gentle, caring way he treats his new girlfriend Adrian. The relationship between Rocky and Adrian affords the film its emotional core, and it's key to making the ending so triumphant. Plus, it is a joy watching Rocky progress through the proceedings with confidence in himself while at the same time realising his limitations. Several dramatic moments within Rocky have been mocked over the years in parodies and knock-offs, yet it's still easy to let yourself be absorbed by this masterful film.

Rocky is widely considered to be Sylvester Stallone's movie since he wrote the screenplay, played the protagonist, and choreographed the boxing sequences. However, he did not direct the movie - John G. Avildsen was at the helm. Avildsen was a director of no particular distinction in 1976, yet the success of Rocky propelled him to a moderately rewarding career. And Avildsen's efforts should not be underestimated - while Stallone deserves some credit for generating the film's heart, Avildsen's directorial work was equally beneficial. Most impressive is the climactic fight, which in the hands of Avildsen feels like a real boxing match. There's a great deal of tension, too - you do not know who will emerge victorious. The definitive touch was Bill Conti's music. With an exceptional main theme, an equally exceptional title song (the Oscar-nominated Gonna Fly Now), and an all-round engaging score, Conti's contributions topped off the movie immaculately.

Prior to his performance in Rocky, Sylvester Stallone was virtually an unknown. Yet, this movie launched Stallone's acting career that catapulted him to the highest orbit of action stars where he ranked among the highest paid actors in Hollywood. In Rocky, Stallone displayed legitimate acting talent, and even acquired an Oscar nomination. He truly brought the titular role to life in endearing ways. We love Rocky not just because he's an underdog but because he's honest, caring, generous, humble and disciplined. It's nothing short of amazing that Stallone created a schmalzy character and a maudlin story, yet made the elements feel completely believable rather than sugar-coated. The supporting cast, meanwhile, is comprised of a number of low-profile actors. Burgess Meredith is a standout as Mickey; the old timer who trains Rocky. A colourful and tough performance, Meredith pulled off the role with commendable passion and conviction. Also in the cast is Talia Shire, who was known at the time for her role in the Godfather movies. Shire's performance as Adrian is tender and endearing - it's easy to understand Rocky's love for her. And as Apollo Creed, Carl Weathers is terrific, while Burt Young is excellent as Paulie.

Decades on, a lot of cynical movie-goers and critics still proclaim that Rocky did not deserve Best Picture at the 1977 Academy Awards over two of its competitors, Taxi Driver and Network. Nonetheless, this reviewer whole-heartedly believes that Rocky deserved Best Picture. Not only was it arguably better than its competitors, but the movie, like its protagonist, was the underdog - this low-budget film grabbing the Best Picture Oscar was as unlikely as Rocky going the distance with Apollo Creed. Added to this, the film was an allegory for Stallone's life in the mid-'70s. Prior to '76, Stallone was a low-ranked actor, but Rocky gave him the opportunity to become a big star. Much like what happened to Rocky Balboa, the gamble paid off. The film's success even spawned five sequels, beginning with Rocky II in 1979.

10/10

Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes production company have so far produced remakes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Amityville Horror, The Hitcher and Friday the 13th, so it was only a matter of time before they tackled A Nightmare on Elm Street. However, what should have been the best remake of the bunch (considering the legacy, characters, themes and ideas of the series) is instead a motion picture with no purpose, rhythm or heart. Music video director Samuel Bayer and the duo of screenwriters simply recreated a few famous scenes from the original Nightmare on Elm Street and positioned them in the midst of a barely-cohesive narrative surrounded by subpar acting, dull characters, uneven pacing, generic atmosphere, and a Freddy Krueger who looks more like a deformed space alien. Wes Craven's original film was a chilling, creative horror flick concerned with female empowerment, but this remake/reimagining is a standard slasher picture with tragically watered-down character nuance.

In the film, teenager Dean (Lutz) begins complaining of visions of a badly burned figure stalking him in his dreams, but his claims are dismissed as side effects of his medication. However, when he appears to kill himself at a roadside diner, Dean's friends begin to suspect that he may not have been so crazy after all. Soon, a bunch of local teens find that they, too, are all being hunted by a horribly burned, disfigured slasher named Freddy Krueger (Haley) who's armed with razor-sharp blades lining his right-hand glove. If Freddy kills you in your sleep, you die for real. With the neighbourhood parents seemingly withholding information regarding Freddy's true identity, Nancy (Mara) and her friend Quentin (Gallner) set out on their own; desperate to stay awake while hunting for the reason as to why Freddy is pursuing them.

Despite what you may believe, Wes Craven's original A Nightmare on Elm Street was more about Nancy than Freddy. Nancy was the central focus, while Krueger was the demon in the background that motivated events without being at their centre. Unfortunately, because Krueger developed into such a recognisable figure across the '80s and '90s, he was allotted a more prominent role in this new version. Alas, greater exposure diminishes Freddy's impact. It's also worth noting that A Nightmare on Elm Street is not a franchise that will take to a reboot easily. Much of the appeal of the original film was rooted in its '80s, identity, from the virginal valour of the protagonists to the safety and protection of the suburban setting which Freddy penetrated with joy. This is 2010, and things have changed. To be fair to the film, though, it's not explicitly a remake of the 1984 picture - the thrust of the story in this version veers away from the original, and it openly questions Freddy's guilt while portraying the adult characters as possibly villainous rather than manically overprotective.

Director Samuel Bayer has an impressive résumé of music videos, and was personally recruited by Michael Bay for the project. Unfortunately, Bayer was considerably more concerned with refining the visuals of the film than adequately developing the characters or helping the actors bring them to life in a convincing fashion. A Nightmare on Elm Street hastily sprints into conflict without developing the community of characters or even offering so much as a hello. In particular, Nancy gets the shaft in terms of characterisation. While this new Nightmare on Elm Street is visually appealing and thus fairly enjoyable from start to finish, the film is unable to sustain momentum or create enough genuine tension. There's no reason to care about the one-dimensional caricatures which are passed off as the heroes, and consequently there's no emotional kick or any nail-biting Freddy attack scenes.

For a reimagining, 2010's A Nightmare on Elm Street is disastrously low on creativity, too. Most detrimental is the lack of genuinely memorable kills and gore in general - the kills are all workmanlike and unremarkable. This is especially unforgivable considering that even the weakest Nightmare sequels boasted a few creative scenarios. Additionally, several iconic images and moments from the 1984 film were recreated here, but these only serve to provide the movie with a frequent "been there, done that" feel. They also seem cold and routine, and, while slick in appearance, they are less impressive than the practical effects used in Craven's original. In the original, the image of Freddy appearing out of the wall above Nancy's bed was achieved practically. In this 2010 version, the image was achieved with obvious-looking digital effects, and it weakens the impact. The filmmakers behind A Nightmare on Elm Street clearly banked on making money by capitalising on the name and general appearance of Craven's film, but neglected to replicate the underlying spirit that made the original picture such a genre classic.

In terms of acting, the standout is Jackie Earle Haley who delivered a suitably intense performance as Freddy. Fortunately, it does not feel like a simple retread of Robert Englund's work in the role - it's a laudable interpretation, and his voice is menacing. However, the make-up is unimpressive - Haley looks vaguely reptilian, like an old man with a bad skin condition. Apparently the aim was to make Freddy resemble a real burn victim, but why is "reality" important in a movie which deals so forcefully in dreams?
As for Rooney Mara as Nancy, the actress is awful; mumbling her lines and transforming the role into a mopey wuss. Mara conjures up no sense of personality or bafflement - she simply stares at her equally monotonous co-stars. Kyle Gallner is tolerable as the potential love interest for Mara's Nancy, but both Kellan Lutz and Katie Cassidy are dreadful in addition to looking far too old to be playing teenagers. Perhaps there's another Johnny Depp to be found in this cast (Depp was, after all, unimpressive in Craven's original), but that's unlikely.

The magic of the original 1984 film was Freddy's monster status and the way that this hysteria generated a neighbourhood mood of confusion and bewilderment. Bayer's 2010 reimagining is only interested in the gore shots that Freddy brings, rather than the curse of Freddy. This leads to the ultimate point about the film: it's watchable, but disposable, unnecessary and unremarkable, and it pales in comparison to the cherished original.

4.1/10

Knight and Day was blessed with all of the constituents to make a successful summer blockbuster, with big action scenes, a plot encouraging global warfare, and two popular, attractive stars with an assured click of chemistry. It's certainly difficult to argue with the package. And for a while, the film capitalises on its potential, but it soon deteriorates into a forgetful, laboured motion picture which is clearly unsure of what it aspires to be. Knight and Day fails to snowball into a rollicking good time; instead, it only adrenalises in small doses, and is ultimately unable to build momentum or take advantage of everything it has to offer.

The story begins at the airport, with June Havens (Diaz) and Roy Miller (Cruise) literally bumping into one another on a couple of occasions. Eventually, they find themselves conversing on the same flight that's bound for Boston. On the plane, Roy reveals himself to be a particularly skilled secret agent accused of going rogue. Reluctantly, Roy takes June with him as he sets out to both defend himself and protect an energy-sustaining battery created by a teenaged genius (Dano). From there, the film hops, skips and bounces all over the world as Roy evades various American agents and an army of assassins led by a European arms dealer (Mollà) who are out to get him.

For roughly its first 45 minutes, Knight and Day lives up to and surpasses expectations. A slick action-comedy-romance hybrid, it's possible to be intrigued and delighted by the snappy dialogue, James Mangold's smooth direction, and the palpable chemistry between Cruise and Diaz. The tone is right, the action is excellent, the pace is brisk, and it's engaging when we do not know where the film is headed. However, after this period, the film falls apart; degenerating into a laboured, tedious hodgepodge of ludicrous ideas, extraneous globetrotting and sloppy storytelling. The screenwriting is unbelievably lazy - on several occasions, Roy and June are in the midst of an action scene before June is drugged or knocked out, and the film cuts to a new location without letting us see how the conflict ends. Action scenes and connective tissue are missing. Furthermore, there are dead spots and the film outstays its welcome - it feels as if the material is being stretched out too much. Eventually the film ends with a whimper, with an underwhelming action sequence followed by a conclusion that's so sugar-coated it could rot your teeth. Watching Knight and Day is the equivalent of devouring a delicious bowl of chocolate ice cream before eating a plain rice-cake.

The films helmed by director James Mangold - Walk the Line, 3:10 to Yuma, Girl, Interrupted, and Kate & Leopold - display an inclination towards stories about characters in intense relationships or situations. Knight and Day continues this tradition, though in a far less serious manner than Mangold's prior features. To the credit of Mangold, the action was excellently shot and edited. There's no lazy shaky-cam or rapid-fire editing - instead, there are just coherent action set-pieces you can see and be involved in. Also, the film works with crackerjack glee at times; never taking itself too seriously during the cartoonishly over-the-top action sequences, and letting viewers in on the joke. With that said, the digital effects are atrocious - it's as though the effects artists were actively trying to get people to stop watching the movie. For a big-budgeted blockbuster, this is especially disappointing. Additionally, for an action-comedy, Knight and Day does not offer nearly enough comedy. The best lines were all in the trailer.

Tom Cruise is easily film's biggest asset. For the first time in years, Cruise has regained the form that allowed him to become one of the biggest stars of the '80s and '90s. While watching Cruise slip effortlessly into this role and willingly lampoon his Mission: Impossible character, it's easy to forget the actor's irrational off-screen behaviour and ludicrous tabloid-fodder personal life. Knight and Day is vintage Cruise in the best sense of the word, with the smile and a devilish twinkle in his eye that recalls the early days of his career. Between this and 2008's Tropic Thunder, Cruise has wisely utilised humour as a way to ingratiate himself back into people's good graces after his couch-hopping incident. At the other end of the spectrum, however, Cameron Diaz is not so impressive. June mostly stands aside and squeals, though Diaz made the most of what the role is. Meanwhile, supporting players such as Peter Sarsgaard, Viola Davis, Paul Dano and Maggie Grace are unfortunately wasted in thankless, underdeveloped roles.

Knight and Day is a motion picture of two parts. The first is a superb, jokey action-comedy which will run your hopes high about what's to come. However, what comes next is a real downer; a rote, half-hearted, familiar-feeling escapade with narrative imbalance and middling energy levels. The action becomes perfunctory, while the romance is sidelined until the end. A superior film is lurking on the fringes of the final product, and it's too bad that there are only a few glimpses of the magic that could have been. Oh, and please note that the title makes no sense. The "Knight" sort of comes into play, but there's no reason for the "Day" attachment. As a whole, the title of Knight and Day is meaningless. Nine writers (eight uncredited) worked on the script, yet they could not paste together something decent or even slap it with a worthwhile title. What a mess.

5.1/10

After rendering audiences momentarily brain-dead and polluting multiplexes back in 2008 with the positively apocalyptic one-two punch of Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie, I honestly thought and hoped those movies would be the end of the writer-director duo of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Unfortunately, Hollywood is always on the hunt for a fast buck, and thus the go-to spoof movie hacks have made their return with the unreasonably woeful Vampires Suck. This time, the sights were set on the easiest target imaginable: the Twilight saga. The material here is played far more broadly than in the actual Twilight films, but is somehow even worse than the Stephenie Meyer adaptations - and even less funny. Once again, Friedberg and Seltzer relied on jokes which relate to people getting kicked, punched, smacked in the face and beaten up, and such "humour" is unable to compete with the painfully sincere cornball dialogue found in the real Twilight flicks.

After her mother abandons her to pursue Tiger Woods, Becca (Proske) moves to the small town of Sporks to live with her estranged sheriff father (Bader). In Sporks, the vampire population is rampant. At her new high school, Becca is inexplicably drawn to the brooding, pale-faced vampire Edward Sullen (Lanter). (Get it? Sullen? It rhymes with Cullen, and describes the faggot vampire in a truthful manner.) Soon, for no good reason, Edward falls for Becca, but leaves town when he gets frightened about what might happen if they get too close. Hoping to divert Becca's gaze is the burgeoning werewolf Jacob (Riggi) who's madly in love with Becca for no good reason other than because the plot demands it. With prom right around the corner, the twisted love triangle is destined to come to a head.

To begrudgingly offer a glimmer of positivity, Vampires Suck is the best film that Friedberg and Seltzer have unleashed upon movie-goers. For starters, the production values are slightly improved and borderline impressive. Secondly, there's something resembling a narrative here as opposed to an incoherent succession of barely-connected sketches. On that note, the film manages to highlight the long-winded nature of Twilight - the first two films are condensed into 80 minutes here, and nothing important feels excluded. Also, with a few exceptions, Vampires Suck is primarily a spoof of the Twilight movies, as opposed to previous spoof flicks which were grab-bags of anything that had been culturally significant within the past year. However, this is all faint praise, as Friedberg and Seltzer's concept of what constitutes a parody movie remains unchanged. For Vampires Suck, the duo did what they always do: they crammed in as much product placement as possible, included a barrage of uncreative gags, and smashed the ensemble in the face. The makers clearly adore body trauma, as it constitutes 70% of the humour. It's not remotely amusing, but Friedberg and Seltzer firmly believe that brutality equals laughter, and nothing can persuade the morons otherwise.

Making fun of Twilight is the equivalent of fishing with dynamite, but Friedberg and Seltzer were unable to conceive of any humour that's worth a damn. Their idea of comedy is to replicate key scenes from the Twilight movies and conclude said scenes with something colossally unfunny such as a crude sex joke or someone getting smacked in the head. Whenever Friedberg and Seltzer grew tired of this approach, they reverted back to groan-worthy piss-takes against Indians or Canadians, or tabloid mainstays like Lindsay Lohan and Chris Brown. There are even references to unrelated items such as Dear John, Alice in Wonderland, Gossip Girl and even Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the Buffy lookalike is so woeful that the joke had to be blatantly spelt out). Even with all of this filler, the film barely makes it to feature-length status. There's a lot of painfully unfunny and depressingly pedestrian stuff, too. For instance, Jacob's werewolf clan are a pack of dancing homosexuals, and Becca's dad has a relationship with a blow-up sex doll. Worse, the humour is never so stupid it's funny, but so stupid that it's just very, very stupid.

Furthermore, some jokes don't even make sense. For instance, one of the Sullens goes crazy when Becca gets a paper cut and starts bleeding. The gag is that he's so hungry that he envisions Becca's head as a Big Mac. This is illogical, though, as vampires do not like or eat Big Macs. It's like Elmer Fudd envisioning Daffy Duck as a bag of blood rather than a roast duck. Even worse is the fact that Vampires Suck is unable to truly mock the "acting" work of the Twilight heartthrobs (Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner and Robert Pattinson). Anyone familiar with any of the Twilight movies will recognise the blatant flaws in all of their performances which are perfect for ridicule. Instead, Friedberg and Seltzer aimed low...and still missed. Why skilled performers such as Ken Jeong and Diedrich Bader are here is anybody's guess. It's uncomfortable witnessing these talented stars floundering on camera looking distinctly embarrassed. Added to this, all of the actors appear to be in on the joke, which makes it far less funny. They appear to be broadly mugging for laughs, and that's exactly why they aren't funny.

Running at about 80 minutes, Vampires Suck is so empty-headed and lacking in everything that it fast becomes an interminable endurance test. To quote YouTube reviewer Jeremy Jahns, the film "has the comedic appeal of an Al Qaeda hostage video". Oddly enough, 2010 denotes the 30th anniversary of the best spoof movie in history: Airplane!, which was masterminded by the ZAZ trio (David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker). Three decades on, and the art-form has disintegrated into this numb-skulled nonsense. How bad is Vampires Suck? It's worse than all of the Twilight movies so far, that's for sure. It's also so bad that those who passionately hate Twilight will come away thinking that the saga deserves a better spoof than this.

0.8/10

It must not have been difficult to obtain the green light for 2010's Red. All the correct elements for a lively, successful action-comedy were in place - it's based on a graphic novel, and the cast is comprised of a number of excellent actors who are now in their autumnal years. The cast is by far the biggest selling point of the enterprise, but this half-hearted action-comedy merely proves that even Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren, John Malkovich, Brian Cox, Karl Urban, Ernest Borgnine and Richard Dreyfuss cannot enliven an incredibly substandard screenplay and a boring storyline. Despite the cast, director Robert Schwentke (Flightplan) infused Red with an appalling sense of kinetic movement - the film alternates between stale, static dialogue scenes and hyper-stylised action set-pieces. With boredom perpetually setting in between the sprays of bullets, the film is forgettable and underwhelming.

Retired black-ops CIA agent Frank Moses (Willis) is having trouble adapting to his new mundane lifestyle in the suburbs of Cleveland. The best thing in his life is a phone relationship with Sarah (Parker), a daydreaming government employee. When a hit squad attacks Frank's home and attempts to assassinate him, he realises that something is afoot, and slips back into action in order to investigate. After picking up Sarah to protect her, Frank's investigation leads to him discovering that there's a special list targeting him for assassination. For assistance in cracking the mystery, Frank recruits his old pals Joe (Freeman), Victoria (Mirren), and Marvin (Malkovich). Assigned to hunt Frank down is CIA agent William Cooper (Urban), who soon learns of Frank's RED status, or "Retired, Extremely Dangerous". Eventually the convoluted plot ends up involving the United States Vice President (McMahon) and a rich industrialist (Dreyfuss).

Based on Warren Ellis' comic book series, Red is hindered by an unnecessarily convoluted plotline filled with betrayals, conspiracies and assassinations. Evidently this confused director Schwentke, who was visibly keen to liven things up during the action scenes but was unaware of how to handle the clunky story which he had to tend to before the serious bloodshed could commence. Unfortunately, the screenplay is not as limber or lively as Schwentke would like, and the result is a motion picture that succeeds in the surface details but is a ponderous bore in terms of suspense and intrigue. Red simply limps along, with Schwentke unable to grapple with the tonal shifts or inject requisite energy into the dialogue scenes. Humour beats are generally held too long and feel out-of-place, while actors such as Dreyfuss and Malkovich appear to be given free reign to mug as much as they like. When it wants to be, Red is fun enough, and it certainly has its moment from time to time. It's therefore unfortunate that there's far too much narrative flab and not nearly enough action, wit or energy.

To the credit of the makers behind Red, the film begins with promise. It opens with an interesting examination of Frank's struggle to settle down into a suburban lifestyle after years of dedicating himself to his profession. Screenwriters Joe and Erich Hoeber afforded a welcome sense of humour to these early scenes, and the phone flirtations between Frank and Sarah are pleasant enough. Had the script continued to concentrate on Frank and Sarah's relationship once their lives come under fire, Red might have proved to be something special. Instead, the interplay fades into the background as the humdrum story takes centre stage and the supporting characters are introduced. And the larger the story gets, the further it drifts from the good stuff. It's hardly surprising that the script is so anaemic, flat and disjointed, as Joe and Erich Hoeber were also responsible for the woefully inert 2009 actioner Whiteout.

Bruce Willis was clearly on autopilot in the lead role of Frank Moses. Willis adopted his typical screen persona, but his work is distinctly dry - he seems uninterested, and there are not nearly enough one-liners for Willis to disperse. In fact, the star's cameo appearance in The Expendables, which amounted to five minutes, had more worthwhile humour. Also in the film for the pay-cheques are Morgan Freeman and Helen Mirren, whose roles are strictly one-dimensional. John Malkovich appears to be playing an extension of his role from Burn After Reading, but he was tragically restricted by the PG-13 rating which forbade extensive profanity. Mary-Louise Parker, meanwhile, is amiable enough. However, the less said about the remainder of the cast, the better - even Richard Dreyfuss and Brian Cox are boring. Urban is compelling enough, but he does not truly own the role - he's very interchangeable.

Red is long-winded, predictable, conventional and monotonous. It's also irretrievably neutered due to the PG-13 rating - it constantly feels as if the film is pulling punches, with awkward cutaways to avoid capturing bloodshed, and people just dropping to the ground without any discernible bullet-wounds. With the freedom of an R-rating (the picture was produced for a mere $50 million, after all), Red could have been superior - if ever so slightly. But this is half the problem. The other half is the lack of sparkling wit in the screenplay. With all intrigue having faded by the third act, the film becomes a sluggish chore which takes too long to reach its climax. The action beats are at times enjoyable, but there are too many potholes in the pace to justify seeing the film in its entirety.

3.8/10

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut is precisely as advertised. Playing out with a length that's equal to three episodes of the popular television show, this feature-length expansion allows the proverbial South Park characters the latitude to let their mouths run rampant without profanities being censored. See, unlike other cartoon shows such as the Rugrats which were adapted for full-length features, South Park legitimately needed a big-screen treatment free of the restraints of television. Fortunately, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut manages to retain the charm of the show. The animation style is identical, the characters retain their normal cadence, and the story is appropriately goofy, vulgar and lacking in both class and tact - all traits which made the show such a hit. Sure, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut cannot be given a high star rating due to any kind of artistic merit, but films this non-stop hilarious and witty are few and far between.

In the sleepy town of South Park, the new Terrance & Phillip movie has premiered in theatres. When the typical protagonists of the series - Stan (Parker), Eric (also Parker), Kyle (Stone) and Kenny (Stone again) - watch the R-rated motion picture, they learn every unspeakable word in the English language. Afterwards, they predictably repeat all of these words at school ad nauseum. Infuriated by the influence that Terrance & Phillip - two Canadian actors - have had on their children, the concerned local parents form a group called Mothers Against Canada (M.A.C.) which leads to an all-out war between America and Canada. Eventually this culminates in nothing less than an Armageddon, with Satan and Saddam Hussein (don't ask) perceiving the impending execution of Terrance & Phillip as the final sign of the apocalypse.

Surprisingly, there's a subtext behind the narrative: the boys are on the side of freedom of speech, while the parents are not against solving problems with violence. Jesus, South Park has something substantial to say?! Who would've thought? What's also surprising is the cohesiveness of the plot. Episodes of the television show have less than 25 minutes to resolve a plotline, thus this feature-length expansion could deal with a plotline that's far more epic in scope because there was a lot more time to sort it out. It should come as no surprise to learn that South Park co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone were at the reigns here - Parker directed while the pair shared the screenwriting, production and voice credits. Their trademark attacks on popular culture are very much in evidence throughout the film. Additionally, the duo managed to get a number of recognisable stars for voice cameos, including Eric Idle, Brett Spiner, Minnie Driver and George Clooney.

A hybrid movie if there ever was one, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut essentially marries animation with adventure and musical elements. Surprisingly, the movie is first and foremost a musical, albeit a demented Disney-style musical. After all, the whole point of using the animation format is to parody the Disney approach, and the crew did a highly effective job here. Written by Parker and Hollywood composer Marc Shaiman, the song lyrics are blisteringly funny due to their pervasive wit and obvious disdain for the concept of political correctness. There are over half a dozen musical numbers throughout the film's 80-minute duration, and Disney can only wish that their songs were as insanely catchy as this. The only drawback with South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut is that it runs a tad too long, and it does lose momentum from time to time during the lead-up to the climax.

While the South Park television show pushed the boundaries of how much bad taste can be portrayed on television, Parker and Stone dispensed with the niceties for this feature and went for the jugular. Parker and Stone are equal opportunity offenders - they skewer everyone and everything, and are never subtle about it. From religion to sexual preference to race, nothing is safe from these guys. There are a lot of satirical thrusts struck against a diverse array of victims, including (but not limited to) small town American, the MPAA and its rating system, middle class family values, Canada, the Baldwin Brothers and Bill Clinton. Heck, even Bill Gates is shot in the head at one stage. Loaded with a non-stop barrage of obscenities and profanities, including almost 150 uses of the f-word alone, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut is so much the opposite of "cute n' cuddly" animated films that it's impossible not to laugh with an equal measure of shock and glee at both the craziness and brazenness of the whole enterprise.

Obscene, offensive, and absolutely gut-bustingly hilarious, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut will not appeal to every taste. Sensitive viewers are advised to stay clear of the film, while those unfamiliar with South Park should approach with caution. Those who adore the television show, however, are destined to be enthralled and delighted by this feature.

8.7/10

Hollywood, it would seem, has a penchant for delivering horror movies about a haunting that will not go away until the protagonist/s are able to get to the bottom of the ghost's pained existence in the real world. As long as there is some intriguing supernatural mystery within these shockers, they can be moderately effective and at times scary. But, unfortunately, the reasons behind the supernatural ruckus are normally either too downright laughable or preposterous. After such movies as The Ring and What Lies Beneath demonstrated this formula, 2003's Gothika arrived to continue the trend - and it is not exempt from the common flaws. An admittedly slick, competently-produced horror flick, Gothika begins with tremendous potential but gradually descends from effective A-grade psychological shocker to ineffective Z-grade formula fluff. It's a silly B-movie that was brought to life with A-grade filmmaking.

An expert psychiatrist working in a hospital for the mentally disturbed, Miranda Grey (Berry) is having trouble getting through to her latest patient (Cruz) who claims she's being raped by the devil. On her way home from work during a (clichéd) heavy rainstorm, Miranda loses control of her car while attempting to avoid hitting a bloodied young girl standing in the middle of the road. While trying to help the girl, Miranda blacks out. The next thing Miranda knows, she is a patient of her own place of employment. She has been accused with the brutal murder of her husband (Dutton), but has absolutely no recollections of carrying out the deed. Soon, she becomes plagued with supernatural visitations that gradually escalate in both frequency and intensity.

Gothika appears to be a feature about common sense and awareness, yet screenwriter Sebastian Gutierrez and director Mathieu Kassovitz drop several gargantuan logic-bending bombs during the film. One of the biggest whoppers is the fact that Miranda is meant to be a brilliant psychiatrist, but it takes an inordinately long time for her to figure out what's happening to her. How could she have been in tune with the emotions of her patients when she cannot figure out her own situation? The most unforgivable hole is the simple fact that, after allegedly committing a murder, Miranda is admitted into the mental hospital that she works at and placed among the patients she has been treating. Furthermore, Miranda's close friend and colleague (Downey Jr.) is assigned to her case because silly movie logic dictates it. There's lots of contrived character behaviour, too, such as a security guard who agrees to help Miranda during one of her escape attempts. Meanwhile, the ghost that's haunting Miranda seems to implement very harsh methods to get a simple message across. Said ghost only uses two words to try to tell Miranda something - why doesn't it use a wider vocabulary? At one stage in the movie, Miranda says "Logic is overrated". You know what? The joke is way too easy...

Kassovitz made an international splash with the French films La haine (Hate) and Amelie. For Gothika, Kassovitz has further demonstrated that he's a master of style and atmosphere. However, the film also brings to light that his masterful filmmaking can be let down by an inferior script. After a promising first half, the film deteriorates into a silly murder mystery, complete with some cheesy special effects and a killer who has no problem revealing everything to the protagonist. Pacing is an issue from time to time as well, and this is due to the fact that there are simply not enough interesting ideas. There are twists that may surprise some viewers, but most of the twists are predictable and carelessly telegraphed. To make matters worse, the climax is a functionally retarded cop-out which was designed solely to provide a happy ending. Reason goes by the wayside for the ending, along with a general understanding of the filmmaking process. There's nothing worse than watching a promising motion picture as it collapses before your eyes.

Halle Berry is the film's biggest "name" actor, and spends most of the movie acting overwrought. It's an effective performance considering the below-par material, but it's not remarkable. While Berry carried out what was required of her, there are dozens of other actresses who could have done an equally good job. Also, Charles S. Dutton is woefully miscast as Miranda's husband. C'mon, Dutton and Berry as husband and wife? Frankly, Halle Berry is way to hot for him. In the supporting cast, Penélope Cruz pulled off an effective, unglamorous performance as one of Miranda's patients, and Robert Downey Jr. is tragically underused as Miranda's friend Pete. Downey, who went on to become an A-list star with Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes, is a versatile actor, but was not given a great deal to chew on.

Ghost stories are notoriously difficult to get right. More often than not, supernatural horror movies are cheesy and utterly moronic. For the first half of Gothika, it would appear that the makers have overcome that critical problem. Yet, the film gradually deteriorates until it is no longer scary or atmospheric, but just plain ridiculous. No amount of stylish filmmaking could compensate for the bad screenplay. Gothika can best be described as one of those movies that may hold your interest if you're bored stiff and channel surfing in the early hours of the morning - it's worth watching if you have nothing better to do, but your mind will likely wander throughout. It's the equivalent of reading a book while your brain becomes preoccupied with something else and your mind enters a sort of limbo. Thus, in final analysis, Gothika is just okay - it's hardly terrible since it has its moments (and the first half is brilliant), but it won't keep a viewer on the edge of their seat.

5.8/10

Suffice it to say, expectations play a sizeable role in any viewer's enjoyment of a film. In the case of 2009's Ninja, it would be impossible to watch the flick with high expectations - the cover of the DVD/Blu-ray is admittedly nifty enough to gain some attention, but it is nonetheless a low-budget direct-to-DVD ninja actioner flaunting a white actor as its primary acting talent. Yet, much to the surprise of this reviewer, Ninja is far more than a hack-job production with a wooden action superstar. A tight, furiously-paced actioner, Ninja is blessed with impressive fight choreography, unexpectedly decent production values, a slick look, and a general "cool factor" that most Hollywood action films are unable to achieve. Give me Ninja over Transformers or G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra or countless other terrible blockbusters that Hollywood has produced recently.

Set in contemporary Japan, the film introduces a young Caucasian named Casey (Adkins) who was orphaned at a young age and accepted into a Japanese dojo by the current Sensei. Being the only white guy at the school, in addition to being the teacher's pet and the object of affection for cute female ninja Namiko (Hijii), Casey's rival Masazuka (Ihara) becomes filled with jealousy and rage. Unable to handle Casey's presence, Masazuka violently lashes out at Casey during training and is banished from the dojo as a consequence. Following this, Masazuka swears revenge and declares his intention to obtain the Yoroi Bitsu; a wooden box containing the weapons of a legendary ninja warrior. In order to protect it, the box is shipped to a college professor in New York, with Casey and Namiko also being sent along in case Masazuka comes knocking.

Ninja is hindered by all of the usual direct-to-DVD trappings. The acting is exceedingly wooden, the sets occasionally look cheap, the special effects are at times embarrassing, and the enterprise is cheesy as hell (the less said about the aftermath of the final battle, the better). But where the film fails as an artistic achievement, it succeeds mightily as a piece of entertainment. Ninja is an almost-perfect update of the Golan-Globus ninja flicks of yesteryear, with a simplistic narrative and a focus on action. The film is simply packed with awesome, violent fights - roughly 70% of the film is pure ninja action. At the centre of the action is British martial artist Scott Adkins (The Bourne Ultimatum, X-Men Origins: Wolverine), who was not given much of a character to work with or dialogue to deliver. But that's fine, because Adkins is a wooden actor who looks like a strange cross between Eli Roth and Ben Stiller. Thankfully, however, he is an accomplished physical star capable of very impressive martial arts moves. In fact, he has all the qualities that are required of an action star - he's good-looking, muscular, athletic, and is a man of few words.

Fortunately, Ninja boasts some of the best swordplay that has been preserved on the medium of cinema for years. Fumio Demura, the film's martial arts consultant, did a magnificent job of choreographing the fight sequences - they are, for lack of better word, incredible. Director Isaac Florentine's handling of the material is also impressive. While slow motion techniques can be irritating, the bursts of slo-mo during the action set-pieces are highly effective here. Additionally, recent action movies have been plagued by nauseating quick cuts to hide poor choreography. For Ninja, no such flaws exist - Florentine was so comfortable with the physical skills of his stuntmen that every nuance was captured in glorious detail. The filmmaking is astonishingly competent and professional-looking for a picture of low-budget origins. The fights are old-school, too, with real stunts and hard-hitting martial arts. Unfortunately, some CGI was employed for certain instances of blood and gore, and it looks distractingly phoney from time to time. Still, it's easy to overlook the poor CGI - Ninja is assured, well-paced and satisfying. Certainly, it's head over heels better than 2009's Ninja Assassin.

As stated previously, Ninja is woeful from both a plot and an acting standpoint. It also shamelessly borrows elements from several other action pictures, ranging from TMNT to Highlander to Batman Begins, but this hardly matters because the action is frequent and spectacular. While action films with boring characters are normally awful, Ninja scratches a passing grade due to one thing: absolutely no pretensions. Character-building takes all of 20 minutes at most, and thus the pacing never lulls and a viewer is not given much of a chance to ponder the plot too much. Besides, Adkins is an amiable enough presence, and the screenplay is surprisingly serviceable. Ninja is not destined to be a classic, but it is one genuinely entertaining and satisfying B-movie.

7.2/10

Due to the blatant inconsistency of the quality of his motion pictures, director Joel Schumacher has an undoubtedly interesting résumé. For every Tigerland, there's a Batman & Robin or a Number 23. When Schumacher is working with a solid screenplay, he can weave an engaging tale, guide actors to brilliance, and challenge audiences with complicated themes and multifaceted narratives. 1993's Falling Down is an effective demonstration of these skills. A nuanced masterwork, Falling Down is bursting with relevant questions, in addition to offering an intriguing exploration of the human condition and a look at the decay of modern society. The film is so provocative, in fact, that the script was rejected by countless studios before Michael Douglas gave it his seal of approval and began to get involved.

Falling Down is the tragic tale of William "D-Fens" Foster (Douglas) who becomes fed up with what society is force-feeding him, and simply snaps. The ultra-patriotic man is recently divorced, out of work, and stuck living with his mother whom he resents. Added to this, his former wife has taken a restraining order against him. Stuck in a traffic jam on his daughter's birthday with flies buzzing around him, Foster decides to abandon his car and go see his daughter...and woe unto anyone who gets in his way. Following a few violent encounters, he begins to wander around the city with a bad attitude, a bag full of guns, and a desire to put society to the test. Meanwhile, a soon-to-be-retired detective named Martin Prendergast (Duvall) instigates an investigation into the ostensibly random swath of devastation left in Foster's wake. Hoping to stop the maniac before anyone gets seriously hurt, Prendergast and his partner work to identify Foster's destination and troubled past.

To the untrained eye, Falling Down appears to be just another escapist vigilante affair. Yet, while there are a number of memorable action-oriented confrontations, the primary focus of the movie is examining the dying soul of William Foster. The character represents a manifestation of our own daily frustrations at life, but is also a potent reminder as to why we should learn to deal with these stresses without losing our sanity. After all, who has not dreamed of mass destruction while stuck in a traffic jam? Who has not been frustrated by road works when nothing is truly wrong with the road? Who has not been bothered by high prices at a local store? Who has not wondered why fast food never looks as appealing on the tray as it does in advertisements? If we lost control during any of these scenarios, would we really exhibit unwavering moral fortitude? Screenwriter Ebbe Roe Smith suggests that the answer is no - most of us would resort to aggression, assault or violence to apply our own brand of justice to a given situation. Thus, Falling Down is far more challenging and thoughtful than most other vigilante pictures.

As previously discussed, Joel Schumacher's filmography is very mixed. While watching Falling Down, it's difficult to believe that this is the work of the same man whose name is attached to the worst Batman film in history. Falling Down is definitely Schumacher's most intellectually advanced feature, and there's fine craftsmanship to exhibit from start to finish. For instance, the beginning sequence is a clear tribute to Fellini, with Foster's pain and frustration being conveyed through images instead of mere words. We can feel the heat, the tension, and the building rage. When Foster gets out of his car, it's a relief for both the audience and the character. There's only one big flaw with Falling Down: the depiction of the police. The captain is stupid, a lot of the cops are dumb and egocentric, and Duvall's character adheres to the "final day before retirement" cliché. There are other clichés, such as Foster and his ex-wife being on bad terms, but, fortunately, the narrative clicks wonderfully for the most part.

Playing the unstable William Foster, an electrifying Michael Douglas injects a startling intensity into every line, expression and command. This is also a change of scenery for the star - Foster is an unremarkable, plain-looking man that is the opposite of Gordon Gekko or any other character that Douglas has portrayed before. He is the type of bloke you would expect to find in any office building, and this is what makes the film so chilling. Meanwhile, Robert Duvall's masterfully understated performance should not be overlooked. Duvall truly inhabited the role, and serves as a welcome counterbalance for every mad move that Foster makes. He also contrasts Foster in every way: he moves slowly and deliberately, his words meander out of his unclenched mouth, and his demeanour is unflinchingly calm. In the film's supporting cast, Barbara Hershey is excellent as Foster's former wife, while Rachel Ticotin (Total Recall) is solid as Duvall's partner, and Frederic Forrest (Apocalypse Now) is terrifying as the homophobic neo-Nazi shop owner whom Foster has a run-in with.

More than a depiction of rage, helplessness and mental instability, Falling Down is a mesmerising reminder of the fragility of the human mind as well as an engrossing dissection of tolerance, empowerment and inadequacy. Indeed, the issues confronted by this extremely underrated movie confidently elevate it above the run-of-the-mill action film. While a viewer wanting gun-play will probably not walk away disappointed, there is more on offer here than pure escapism.

8.5/10

Up until its release, there had never been - and, since its release, there never has been - a film quite like The Rocky Horror Picture Show. In terms of the mixture of horror, camp, rock n' roll, sci-fi and sexual transgression, as well as the cheesy B-movie dialogue and the behaviour it continues to inspire during midnight theatre screenings, this classic film is absolutely unique in the annals of cinema. Added to this, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is the ultimate cult movie and the queen of all midnight flicks. It was a box office bomb when first released back in 1975, but the film soon attracted a large number of devoted fans and gradually developed into a bona fide cult phenomenon. In short, The Rocky Horror Picture Show provides the right combination of corny fright-flick parody, comedy, outrageous vulgarity and musical numbers to entertain any viewer with an open mind.

The protagonists of the story are Brad Majors (Bostwick) and Janet Weiss (Sarandon); a virginal, recently-engaged couple whose car breaks down on an isolated road late at night during a thunderstorm (is that not always the case in horror movies?). Seeking a phone, Brad and Janet venture up to a mysterious castle which, as it turns out, belongs to a transvestite scientist named Dr. Frank-N-Furter (Curry). Unbeknownst to the couple, Frank-N-Furter is holding the annual convention of visitors from the planet Transsexual (in the universe Transylvania), and he is about to bring to life his first creation: the blonde, muscular Rocky Horror (Hinwood). The night that ensues can only be described as weird in ways that must be seen to be believed. A barely coherent plot eventually begins to emerge concerning Rocky escaping and a UFO scientist showing up to investigate the Transylvanians, but it barely matters. All of the narrative threads merely serve to string together the unstoppably infectious songs.

Really, the plot is just incidental to the movie's outrageous tone. At its heart, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a '50s rock musical that's been pumped up with a camp sensibility and a delicious sense of humour. Admittedly, there are little technical glitches here and there, but rarely has there been a more creatively shot and edited motion picture than this. Practically every single angle, cut, zoom and optical transition was employed to effectively maximise each respective scene. The musical numbers are solid evidence of this - in particular, The Time Warp and Sweet Transvestite are models of brilliant filmmaking which capture the rhythm of both the tunes and the characters. The songs themselves, too, add to the pervasive sense of fun. The majority of the songs will likely remain in your head for days after watching the film (The Time Warp is going through this reviewer's head right now). The sign of a good musical is how memorable the songs are, so it's fortunate that the songs are so good here. They are the major driving force behind the flick, after all, as the plot is a decidedly secondary concern to the musical set-pieces.

Originally written as a stage music by Richard O'Brien - who stars here as the hunchbacked, Igor-esque butler Riff Raff - The Rocky Horror Picture Show is essentially a send-up of B-grade sci-fi and horror clichés as well as a satire of mainstream America's reaction to the depravities of the sexual revolution. In addition, there was one factor which allowed The Rocky Horror Picture Show to emerge as something more than just another quirky film: audience participation. In fact, the film brought a new meaning to the term "audience participation" - devoted fans put on their own shows during screenings that are as entertaining as the film itself. Fans typically don transvestite costumes, sing along, dance in the theatre aisles, add their own "calling back lines" (to respond to lines of dialogue or take the plot in a new direction), and bring props to use at certain moments. No film before or since has managed to engage audiences to this extent. If there's a fault with The Rocky Horror Picture Show, it's that, with the film charging forward from set-piece to set-piece at a furious pace, things get a tad tiresome towards the end.

Constantly driving the film forward are a number of extremely enjoyable performances. The film's androgynous powerhouse front-man is Tim Curry as Frank-N-Furter; essentially the Willy Wonka of this pleasure factory. On screen, the star struts and purrs like the most self-confident burlesque queen in history. In both the musical numbers and scenes of pure dialogue, Curry's performance is delightfully dynamic and makes the film even more enjoyable. Outside of Curry, the film also features great performances by Barry Bostwick as Brad Majors, and a very youthful Susan Sarandon as Janet Weiss. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a constantly exhilarating experience, and the level of fun will undoubtedly be elevated if you see it in a cinema full of people who know all the song lyrics and dance moves.

An interesting story exists regarding this movie's elevation to cult phenomenon. After initially flopping at the box office, it was quickly pulled from general release. Once it left theatres, a curious turn of events took place in New York City. Groups of devoted fans started demanding repeat showings of the movie, and a theatre agreed to screen it at midnight once regular showings for the day had ceased. This trend eventually caught on, and fans began attending regular midnight showings. The rest is history. As of its 35th anniversary (2010), The Rocky Horror Picture Show is still playing certain in cinemas across the globe; a mind-boggling fact considering that modern big-budget movies remain in cinemas for a couple of months at most. The uniqueness of The Rocky Horror Picture Show is essentially lightning in a bottle, which is emphasised by the fact that the same creative team were unable to replicate the film's success with the follow-up feature; 1981's Shock Treatment.

Essentially, The Rocky Horror Picture Show has ceased being just a movie - it has instead become the centre of a ritualistic celebration of popular culture in all of its twisted forms. To be complete, The Rocky Horror Picture Show requires a two-way exchange between the movie and its audience, making it an engaging communal experience. It should be noted, however, that the film is not necessarily for everyone - the reckless abandon with which the characters "give themselves over to absolute pleasure" and "swim the warm waters of sins of the flesh" may turn off those with somewhat puritanical viewers. Those capable of adapting to the film's anything-goes attitude, though, should enjoy themselves. But one thing is inarguable: love it or hate it, this is a hard film to forget.

8.8/10