What’s it about?
A couple of Californian drug dealers and their shared girlfriend face a hostile takeover of their Laguna Beach drug business by a brutal Mexican cartel.

What did we think?
Lisa says: With an interesting-in-theory plotline and strong performances from supporting players, Savages could have been much better.
Instead, the film suffered from shallow performances from the three leads, an over-reliance on cringe-worthy narration, and a serious lack of decisive direction to the point where two alternate endings were included (and neither of them was much good).

Only bother if you’re in the mood to watch pretty people doing violent things.

What’s it about?
It has been five years since the disappearance of Katie and Hunter, and a suburban family witness strange events in their neighborhood when a woman and a mysterious child move in.

What did we think?
Having played every one of their suspense tricks in the first three instalments, the Paranormal Activity franchise takes a different tack in the fourth by turning it into a game. With viewers now expecting subtle movement in the peripheries, the makers taunt us with long shots to get the audience guessing what (if anything) will happen. Surprisingly it works well especially with a few added laughs.

Nowhere near as scary as any of the first three, it’s an okay addition but doesn’t auger well for a fifth.

Continue Reading

What’s it about?
A professional enforcer reacts to a heist that went down during a mob-protected poker game.

What did Anthony think?
An anti-American film masquerading as pseudo-intellectual bullsh**. Painfully slow and mostly pointless, this arthouse-wannabe all seems to be one drawn-out set-up for the last few lines of the movie. Five-star cast, one-star movie.

What’s it about?
Based on the true story of three “indestructible” brothers beating the depression by brewing the best moonshine in Virginia … and waging a war with a hypocritical corrupt cop.

What did we think?
Stephen says: There’s a lot to like about Lawless. But there’d be a lot more to like with some better editing in the first half – it drags like a tarred and feathered redneck being pulled behind a pick-up truck. Once it picks up, you’re in for an engaging tale of a boy becoming a man in a brutal world.

Shia LaBeouf and Guy Pearce must have wet their pants when they read Nick Cave’s script – their roles are actors’ dreams come true.  There’s cussin’ and graphic violence and smokin’ and gun-totin’ gangsters and graphic violence and creepy corrupt cops and friendships broken and love found and graphic violence and graphic violence. Exactly what you want from underdog heroes battling the seedy underbelly of corruption.

What’s it about?
In a future where time travel has been invented, mob bosses send their enemies back to the past to be killed by “loopers”. Joe lives the high life eliminating whomever the mob bosses send back, no questions asked. Which works fine, until they send future-Joe back to be disposed of… and he escapes.

What did we think?
Elizabeth says: A taut, well-paced thrill ride, this feels like one of the freshest takes on the whole time travel schtick in a long time. The script sets up the sci-fi premise of the tale, before cleverly a shifting the focus onto the characters, giving Looper an emotional weight I wasn’t expecting.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a great young Bruce Willis, and Bruce Willis plays a great old Bruce Willis. And who doesn’t love Bruce Willis? Serious acting props also have to go to the creepy kid (Pierce Gagnon).

It doesn’t pay to look too closely at the logic behind this flick; there are holes in the time travel theory and thinking about them may make your brain explode. But really, when a movie is this entertaining, who gives a damn about logic?

What’s it about?
A Yorkshire hill farmer “does the Christian thing” and takes in a homeless boy. The boy falls in love with the daughter and becomes obsessed with her.

What Angela Bowen thought:
This adaptation of Wuthering Heights is dark and disturbing. There are moments that are beautiful, ominous and some that are just weird and uncomfortable. I’d pop a few no-doz before this one and prepare to feel depressed for exactly 129 minutes.

The scenery shots are so plentiful it starts to feel like David Attenborough should be commentating but the real problem is that the relationship between Cathy and Heathcliff misses the mark. Stitched together by a lot of flashbacks that aren’t particularly moving to start with, the film features limited dialogue and is certainly not for animal lovers.

The redeeming feature is Solomon Glave’s performance of a young Heathcliff. His violent and animalistic up-bringing is heart- wrenching and you just want to reach out and give him a big hug. This movie is one that can be appreciated after it’s over. If you stay awake.