Sausage Party – No one should enjoy this film (and yet I did)

There are some films which should probably come in blank DVD boxes.  That way, when they’re mixed in with your collection and you have friends or family round, they will never know that you really enjoyed watching an animated sausage discover the meaning of life in a supermarket by indulging in everything from murder to... I’ll stop there when it comes to details (that’s for the film’s final act only).

Yes, seriously, ‘Sausage Party’ is basically the polar opposite to all those delightful Disney/Pixar movies we’ve been taking our kids to over the years.  Pixar films are delightful fun for all the family.  Sausage Party is something you want to keep your kids away from for as long as possible.  As I mentioned in the opening, a hotdog learns the (awful) truth about his existence.  This particular hotdog is one of many different food types, all living in a supermarket (where else?!).  Every morning all the foods for sale cross their fingers (yes, most at least have arms and hands, if not legs, too) and hope upon hope that a friendly human will ‘choose’ them for a better life in the great beyond (basically through the supermarket’s sliding entrance/exit doors).  Naturally, our hotdog (voiced perfectly by Seth Rogan) soon realises that his ‘perfect life’ will ultimately involve being roasted alive before being ground up in a human’s mouth and then pushed out through the afore-mentioned human’s rear.  Hardly an attractive ambition for a sausage in love.

Therefore, he – and his various buddies – set on a plan to escape this.  At first it’s a little hard to work out where this film will go.  It’s almost entirely set inside the supermarket and you may well wonder if this setting gives the film enough scope to really go anywhere.  I’m pleased to say that that’s an incorrect assumption.  It never really lets up for a moment.  The (very adult) humour comes thick and fast and, if you’ve seen any other recent Seth Rogan movie, you’ll know to expect much profanity, sexual references and the – seemingly obligatory – getting high scene.

You may not be able to tell some of the actors who have leant their vocal talents to this film by their performances, but Edward Norton and Salma Hayek are both newcomers, along with Seth Rogan’s usual bunch of suspects such as James Franco and Jonah Hill.  If you’re into their collaborations then you should enjoy this.  It’s hard to imagine it will ever be that successful as the concept is just too ‘niche’ to ever get a mainstream following.  It’s definitely not one to watch with your grandmother, but it is extremely gross and adult fun if you’re in the mood for that sort of entertainment.
Oh, and as a Meat Loaf fan, I loved the ‘Bat out of Hell’ sequences, but that’s probably just me.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Independence Day: Resurgence – Suspend disbelief... and enjoy (most of it)

I remember watching the original ‘Independence Day’ back in 1996.  I had never looked forward to a film so much since ‘Return of the Jedi.’ It was the mid-nineties, ‘The X-Files’ was at its peak and everyone was asking the question: What if aliens really DID exist?  The trailers looked so cool – no one had ever seen such amazing special effects and the clips of fighter jets involved in dogfights against UFOs ignited the fanboy in all of us.  I left the cinema VERY let-down.
The dogfights were minimal, the story was overly-cheesy, there were major/ridiculous plotholes (remember the Apple computer taking down an alien ship?) and the whole thing just seemed like one big disappointment.  And yet it was one of the most successful movies ever made (Box Office figures, anyway), yet no sequel ever came.  Now, twenty years later, we have another story in the franchise.  And, if you’ve been keeping your eye on sequels which come a long time after the original, you’ll know how they normally turn out.

I’d read a lot of reviews before I saw the film and expected the worst.  However, about an hour in and I was wondering where all the hatred came from.  Don’t get me wrong, ID4 (2) is no classic, but it never seemed quite as bad as some people made out.  I’d go as far as to say that the first half of the film is actually pretty tense as the build up to the new alien attack cranks up the tension.  It did descend a little once they arrived and the lasers started firing as you kind of know who’s never going to get killed and who’s just there to be offed at the earliest opportunity.

Although, what I found its biggest let-down to be is its humour.  Things roll along quite nicely until something that’s supposed to be funny crops up and just brings the serious tone down.  Okay, some humour in a serious film is nice if done well, but it felt like every action scene had to have a ‘one-liner’ tacked on to the end.  Plus some sub plots concerning secondary characters could probably be removed completely to make the film a little shorter (Jeff Goldblum’s dad for a start – quite unnecessary).

The set pieces are pretty good with plenty of new destruction and we do get to see jets using alien technology fight the alien aggressors.  Naturally, our plucky survivors need to come up with something a little better than just repeatedly shooting the new spaceships and – this time – it doesn’t involve Apple (thank goodness!).  However, if the aliens really wanted to take over the Earth then they don’t need to repeatedly destroy our major cities killing most of our population.  They only really need to kill about seven pertinent humans who all just so happen to be in the right place at the right time with the right skill-sets to just so happen to foil these intergalactic nasties’ plans.  In other words – coincidence seems to play a big part in the humans’ plans.

You probably already know by now that Will Smith chose not to return.  Whether you feel that him choosing ‘Suicide Squad’ over this was a better choice is up to you.  Personally, I thought the film would have benefited from his inclusion over some of the lesser characters we ended up with.

So, overall, I enjoyed a lot of what was on offer here.  It’s big dumb fun and there is enjoyment here if you’re willing to suspend your disbelief long enough.  It’s a pity that the humour and annoyingly included secondary characters kept spoiling the mood.  Plus do the special effects look so bad during the last five minutes during the scenes in the desert – seriously, it’s obvious the actors are just up against a blue screen.  The rest of the film was all right (FX-wise)!

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Wild at Heart - You have to be in the mood

I guess there’s probably three types of people when it comes to David Lynch films (1) People who love his work and find it unique, deep and a refreshing change from the Hollywood norm (2) People who find it a pretentious mess, lacking in any real story (3) People who say, “Who’s David Lynch?” If you fall into the third category then I guess that jumping into his 1990 film ‘Wild at Heart’ is as good as any place to start your journey into his twisted mind.  For ‘Wild at Heart’ is quite a ‘typical’ David Lynch film, in that it’s narrative deliberately strays away from being particularly ‘linear’ and – in many cases – is open to interpretation as to what is actually going on in the story.  Much of what you get from a David Lynch film is based on how it makes you feel, rather than the story it tells.

The film stars Nicholas Cage, who plays a young man with a – you guessed it – wild streak.  He falls in love with a young – and kind of equally wild – seventeen year old (Lynch’s favourite leading lady, Laura Dern) and the two of them embark on a road trip across the wastelands of America – much to the disgust of Dern’s onscreen mother!  In fact, rather than just posting a snotty comment on her Facebook status, she goes and hires some weird hitmen to ‘take care of the situation’ (if you know what I mean?).  Thus the film takes on a more murderous tone.

So, they travel across America meeting one weird person after the next, participating in weird dialogue and perforated by weird s*xual exploits (all of this totally normal for a David Lynch film!).  Now, when I talk about Lynch’s trademark ‘weirdness’ I normally refer to not just the dialogue that’s spoken, but the WAY it’s said.  Pauses are drawn out longer than is normal, making conversation deliberately uncomfortable.  Then you have the – seemingly random – bursts of dramatic music overlaid across simple actions like a car pulling slowly into a parking space.  And that’s just the tip of the ‘weirdness iceberg’ – everything is pretty ‘textbook Lynch’ and to add an extra bizarre feel to the proceedings, it’s loosely based on ‘The Wizard of Oz!’ (you’ll soon pick up the not so subtle symbolism!).

Nicholas Cage is allowed to almost run free, which does play well into his ‘wild’ nature.  Dern too goes a little mad sometimes, however I did find her a little annoying from time to time due to her constant screaming that would make ‘Willie’ from ‘Temple of Doom’ proud!  The rest of the cast pop up here and there, act weird and then go away again – this really is Cage’s baby.  However, just because we never see Lynch onscreen (you’ll have to watch ‘Twin Peaks’ for that – and it’s worth it) you can see his fingerprints all over it.  His use of fire is nearly as prominent as in ‘Twin Peaks.’ I guess this is used to denote danger.  That’s a fairly obvious one, but there are those elements of the film that even a die-hard Lynch fan doesn’t understand!

So, where do I come down on the three types of people I spoke about in my opening paragraph?   Well, as I said, I’m a die-hard fan.  I do watch all his stuff and enjoy (most of) it.  I like the mood and feel he creates, even if the story does get more than a little confusing.  His work is a refreshing change from the ‘classic Hollywood narrative’ that we’re so used to.  But, don’t get me wrong – his films are hard work!  I don’t always get what he’s trying to say.  In ‘Wild at Heart’ there is at least a main story running through it.  This is more than can be said for one of his later films, ‘Inland Empire.’ That, despite a few moments of ‘Lynchian gold’ was almost unwatchable when it came to its ‘story!’  So, if you’re a fan of David Lynch’s (filmic) work then you should know what you’re in for.  If you’ve never seen one of his films before, have a long, hard think about what you’ve read here before you invest your time into it.  And, if you simply hate his work, I doubt there’s much here to win you round.

Oh, and maybe I should have added a ‘fourth’ category when it comes to people and their relationship to Lynch’s work – (4) People who have seen his cult TV show ‘Twin Peaks’ and are therefore intrigued as to how his work translates to the big screen.  I’ll tell you now that ‘Wild at Heart’ bears little resemblance to the show (besides a fair few of its actors making cameos), so if you’re looking for some ‘Damn fine cherry pie,’ then you won’t find it here.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

The Gingerdead Man - I was hoping for so much more

Now, there’s a school of thought which I call the ‘Snakes-on-a-Plane’ viewpoint – it’s where a film’s title tells you everything you need to know about the story and therefore, if you can’t work out whether you like it or not from that, you don’t really deserve to complain if the movie turns out to be not for you.  So, armed with my love of cheesy and ‘so-bad-they’re-good’ films, mixed with my enjoyment of the horror genre stories and appreciation for Gary Busey, I figured that the low budget ‘Gingerdead Man’ would be right up my street.

I think it’s fair to say that I’m not ‘spoiling’ the film by letting on that Gary Busey plays (mainly be voicing) a killer who’s murdered, but whose soul is sent to that of a gingerbread man (think ‘Child’s Play’ but with pastry instead of a ‘Good Guy’ doll).  Then he returns to reek revenge on those who, er, turned him into something from a baker’s window display.  I expected daft.  I expected ludicrous.  I expected low budget.  I expected a ridiculously over-the-top performance from Busey.  However, I only really got the low budget part. 

Yes, the film’s premise is as daft as it sounds and the budget is so small that the film stock used actually looks worse than you could probably recreate on your iphone.  In fact, the budget appears so small that there’s only really one location used for the whole film – a pretty bland factory.  Not only is the scenery nothing to write home about, but there are only really three cast members.  Now, the problem with this in a ‘slasher’ film is that it doesn’t really give the deranged killer many options with who to kill.  In ‘Scream’ the film would be over in about a quarter of an hour with that few ‘expendable’ characters!  Of course the lack of people to murder also equates into a lack of gore and/or creative kills, so don’t do expecting too much of the ‘red stuff’ here.

Yes, Busey does do his best with the script and adds an air of sheer manic madness to the proceedings, but I just felt that his best wasn’t enough to justify it.  Or, rather an idea this whacky could have been so much better with a bigger setting, cast and (gore) effects.  I could forgive the awful model of the Gingerdead man himself as that seemed to add to the overall silliness.  So, I think I can safety say that I wasn’t as much of a fan of the franchise as I thought I’d be.  Yes – franchise.  Just because I didn’t like it doesn’t mean that other people agree with me.  It seems to have developed enough of a cult following to warrant a fair few sequels, so what do I know?  I just won’t watch them.  I’ll stick to viewing Gary Busey on the UK’s ‘Celebrity Big Brother’ to get a true dose of his madness!

2/10 Scuzzier than the leftover goo from a Queen alien's egg sack

Kong: Skull Island - My latest guilty pleasure film

Okay, so I’ll start by saying that ‘Kong: Skull Island’ is hardly high-brow entertainment.  It’s mass marketed nonsense aimed at the lowest comment denominator.  I guess I would have to include myself in that bracket, because I thoroughly enjoyed it!  We’ll ignore Peter Jackson’s recently take on the ‘King Kong’ story, as it bears no relevance here.  Instead, back in 1973 the U.S. government discover an island that’s remained hidden throughout the years and decide to send in a team to investigate.  We’re treated to a brief introduction to all the major players and a quick briefing on board the battleship which reminded me of something out of ‘Aliens.’ And, while we’re on the subject of ‘Aliens’ Ripley would be most proud about the way the military starts dropping bombs all over the island (with a view to ‘study’ it – no, seriously).  So, while helicopters do their best to ‘nuke the site from orbit’ one of the island’s indigenous occupants – an oversize monkey – doesn’t take kindly to this course of action and takes down every last one of them, leaving those few survivors not blown up in the massacre to do their best to make their way across the island to the pick-up point before something even worse happens to them.

Now, it’s not just enraged monkeys who they have to worry about.  They have natives, giant spiders and horrible lizard-things who live underground to contend with.  And they soon realise that Kong is the least of their problems!  I’m lead to believe that this will be the first in a line of these movies, some even crossing Kong over with other existing franchises (‘Godzilla’ anyone?) so naturally Kong is – justifiably – the star.  However, this does mean that some of the humans are kind of left in the background a bit.  It does try to handle quite a large cast and not all of them get the screen time they deserve.

Arguably the film’s (human) star is Tom Hiddleston.  He’s basically everything you’d expect a fantasy/action film’s leading man to look like.  And, as anyone who’s seen him in action as Loki in any of the Marvel films, you’ll know he’s got the screen presence to pull off the leading man role.  And, I’m sure he can.  He just never really gets the chance here.  It just feels like he never gets a true chance to shine as there are so many other people to also feature that he’s only there to look manly and give us a possible hint at a romance with the obligatory female co-star.  Of course when you also have Samuel L Jackson among the cast, you really need to give him something to do as you don’t want to run the risk of wasting acting talent like his.  And, to be fair, he does his best with all the screen time he’s afforded and the ‘stare-down’ between him and Kong is truly chilling.  John C Reilly is also worthy of a mention, simply because he balances some much-needed humour with a role that allows him to be more than just the standard ‘comic relief.’

Now, with any film where there’s a strong element of danger in it, you expect there to be a bunch of cast members who are there only to make up the numbers and will be routinely killed off at various points in the film. ‘Kong: Skull Island’ certainly has plenty of these and – yes – most end up in the belly of a giant arachnid or something.  However – without wishing to spoil anything – a few of them make it further into the film than you’d imagine.  They’re given next to no screen time, yet they last longer than characters you’ve grown closer to.  Of course all human stars play second fiddle to the ‘real’ star of the show – the titular character ‘Kong’ himself, who is looking pretty good for his age!  In other words the computer effects used to bring him to life are realistic enough to give him more than just your standard CGI monster.  And, isn’t he the real reason we’re going to watch this film?

If there is a down-point it’s that it’s a little long and some scenes seem a bit drawn out.  Plus, when Kong smacks down on other CGI creatures, the effects do blur together a bit into one fast-moving mess (but at least it’s still not as bad as any of the Transformers movies!).  However, if you’re expecting a popcorn flick which, despite hardly re-inventing the wheel as far as plot and character development go, you should get some enjoyment in seeing Kong battle it out against all manner of human and monster foe.  It’s not meant to be a great work of art, so please forgive it its failing and enjoy it for what it is.  Let’s just hope that whatever sequels and crossovers its success spawns don’t dip in quality too much (Transformers, I’m thinking of you again!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Ant-Man - Iron Man is an awesome film

No, you read the title correctly – this isn’t a review of Robert Downey Jr’s first outing as the man IN steel.  This is a review of Paul Rudd’s turn as the titular ‘Ant-Man’ – yet another entry in the – seemingly – never ending ‘Marvel Cinematic Universe.’ Basically, Marvel has a formula where you have (a) (conflicted) hero (b) incident giving him superpowers (c) nemesis who happens to be the sort of bad version of himself.  Now, before any Marvel fans jump down my throat and point out that NUMEROUS superheroes follow this template – I know this.  DC and various independent efforts have all done this, right back from their comic origins.  However, no other franchise is this prominent and turns out one film so quickly after the next, making it hard to forget what’s come only just a year or so before.

‘Ant-Man’ follows Paul Rudd’s character who’s a down on his luck ex thief, freshly-released from prison, who gets more than he bargained for when he steals a top secret suit which allows him to shrink down to the size of an ant, along with all the benefits of super speed and strength which goes with it.  Now, first of all many people wondered whether Rudd would pull this off.  Typically, he’s been known for his romantic comedies, rather than his action films (let alone leading man status).  I’m pleased to say he did well.  He brings  a lot of humour to the role without making it an outright comedy, often poking fun at the genre, not to mention the general ludicrousness of being known as ‘Ant-Man.’

Besides, the typically forgettable villain that Marvel films seem to be known for (whenever Loki’s not trying to take over the universe) we have Michael Douglas as the Obi-wan/mentor role to Rudd’s fledgling superhero.  I was delighted to see him back on the screen again as it seems like a long time since he’s been at the forefront of the industry and he brings the charm he used to exhibit back in the nineties to the proceedings.  Yes, there’s a love interest in there, too and some ‘comic relief’ characters who you won’t be able to remember their names once the credits have rolled. 

Then, once the cast is assembled, they proceed to go on what is effectively Marvel’s take on a ‘heist movie,’ i.e. think ‘Ocean’s Eleven’ but with more insects.  Did I mention Ant-Man can also control ants?  Well, he can.  This leads to – in my opinion – is one of the film’s only real let-downs – the special effects.  Now, for ninety per cent of the film the effects are up there with what you’d come to expect from a big budget film. It’s just sometimes the insects do look a little ‘drawn on’ after the footage has been filmed.  I guess I should just forgive this on account of how unfeasible it would be to train an army of bugs to put in a convincing performance (although, saying that – didn’t Disney do that in ‘A Bug’s Life?).

So, ‘Ant-Man’ hardly reinvents the wheel in terms of cinema or its genre. However, its biggest flaw is also its strongpoint.  It goes with the ‘winning formula.’ It certainly feels like a modern Marvel movie and, when you hold it up closely to others like ‘Iron Man’ and ‘The Hulk,’ you’ll see that it copies them practically beat for beat.  Normally, this would feel like a let-down, but when it copies something so good and just so happens to be such great fun in the process, I really can’t bring myself to hate this film as much as I might have wanted to.  Ant-Man will never be as big as Iron Man or Captain America, but this film’s existence (and success!) proves that there is scope for the lesser-known heroes to also shine.  Don’t think too hard about this film, just break out the popcorn and enjoy.  Oh, and apparently Ant-Man WILL return!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Piranha - I liked it (from what I recall!)

It’s been a week since I watched the 1978 horror film ‘Piranha’ and, as I sit down to type, I’m struggling to remember what it was about.  Yes, there are killer fish.  And they ate people – that much I’m sure.  However, besides those two most basic of plot points, I can’t seem to think of much else. 
But I did like it – while I watched it anyway.  In fact, I think it was the second time I’ve seen it, but then it might have got a bit blurred with the more recent remake.  Anyway, from the little that is still with me…

A swarm of – slightly mutated – killer piranhas gets accidentally released from a Government testing lab and go on the rampage down a stream (luckily they’re limited to inflicting carnage on people who have strayed into the water – if you’re interested, the sequel takes care of the question, ‘What if piranhas WEREN’T limited to JUST the water!).  And, what follows pretty much checks off every horror cliché in existence.

Character have sex... and then die – check.  Evil military – check.  Dastardly British villain – check.  Beautiful heroine who never succumbs to nudity – check.  Official who won’t believe what’s really happening and puts money before public safety – check.  And so on.
Then there’s the gore.  You may be expecting a film about swarms of killer fish to be loaded with the red stuff.  Well, it is.  The water turns red on many an occasion.  However, that doesn’t really mean you see anything.  Maybe due to budget limitations, ‘red water’ serves as a way of showing hideous death without ever really showing much of what’s really happening.

So, all in all, ‘Piranha’ is pretty underwhelming.  And yet I felt quite satisfied while watching it.  If you’re looking for a cheap ‘Jaws’ knock-off and don’t mind seventies low-budget horror which is there simply to fill an hour and a half in your life, well, here it is.  Enjoy.  And then forget.  In fact, I think I’ve now completely forgotten which movie I was talking about to begin with!  At least the fish don’t have wings... you’ll have to check out the sequel for that little nugget of gold.

6/10 Should probably keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Martyrs - Most disgusting film ever (and I still watch it)

I like to think I’ve pretty much seen most types of horror film throughout the course of my life, so I’ll never forget the first time I sat down to watch French horror film ‘Martyrs’ for the first time.  It starts with a young girl escaping a horrific ordeal at the hands of some unseen captors, before she’s placed in care of the state.  There, she befriends another girl and the two become close.  However, if the first girl’s torture wasn’t bad enough, she’s haunted by some sort of supernatural presence equally hell-bent on harming her.

So, that’s how it begins and my initial reaction was, ‘Oh, sort of like The Grudge.’ The being tormenting the girl kind of looks like every creepy dishevelled little long-haired kid from most recent Japanese horror films (think The Grudge, The Ring or Dark Water) so I was pretty underwhelmed when it came to originality.  How wrong I was.

I feel that I should now state as to how and why I was proved so wrong with my early expectations, however, that would pretty much take us into ‘spoiler territory.’ All I can really say is that all is not what it seems.  This film has many moments where you think you know where it’s going, only to have everything you thought you knew pulled away from you and replaced with something even more horrific.  The two main girls both give excellent performances, but the character that steals the show comes into the story a little later.  I won’t go into too much detail about her, but she’s known as only the ‘Mademoiselle’ and she isn’t easily forgotten.

I suppose if you had to label this film within the horror genre, you could loosely call it ‘torture p*rn.’ However, that’s probably over-simplifying it a bit as that kind of branding conjures up images of the ‘Hostel’ franchise. ‘Martyrs’ is a lot worse than that simply because the whole premise is slowly revealed over the course of the film.  Although, due to its graphic content, a strong stomach is advised to possess before you contemplate sitting through this, plus – as you’ve probably guessed – it is pretty dark, but not just dark – bleak is the word I’d use, so don’t expect anything even vaguely uplifting here.  I guess the target audience are people who can stomach a film like this.  I suppose I must be one of them as this is the third time I’ve sat through this.  I just find it difficult to believe that after nearly four decades of watching horror films there’s still one that really does disturb me.  Obviously you’ll have to put up with French subtitles all the way through, but, if you do and you have a really strong stomach for nastiness, then this film really will leave a lasting impression on you.  It still gives me goose-bumps just thinking about it!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Orgazmo - Definitely NOT part of the ‘Marvel Cinematic Universe’

‘South Park.’ What more needs to be said?  If you aren’t aware of the animated cartoon aimed at adults then you really should check it out.  And, if you do (and you like it of course!), then you should then definitely check out ‘Orgazmo.’ It’s written and starring South Park’s two creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone and the film could almost be described as a ‘live action version of the cartoon.’ Basically, it’s the same mixture of irreverent humour mixed with slapstick, f*rt jokes and a healthy dose of satire mixed with just enough heart to elevate it over your average ‘gross out’ comedy flick.

So, just like South Park, the film opens mixing two of their favourite topics: adult circumstances and Mormons.  We meet ‘Joe’ – just your average Mormon (played by Trey Parker) who’s going from door to door in Los Angeles trying to spread the ‘good word.’ Now, he’s well used to getting one door slammed in his face after the next.  This is all just part of the life of a Mormon and he takes it with good grace, already affirming him as a decent – if only slightly annoying – character.  However, he gets more than he bargains for when he knocks on the door of a house where an *ahem* ‘adult’ movie is being filmed inside.  And, through a complete coincidence, they’re on the lookout for ‘new talent.’ What follows is basically the story of a devote Mormon masquerading as a p*rn star.  Now, that may be crazy enough, only they go one step further and transfer him into a crime fighting superhero who wields a ray-gun which, if hit by its beam, makes you… er… well, the clue is in the film’s title.

Now, ‘Orgazmo’ may not be the funniest film and it may not be the most well-written.  However, what it lacks when the jokes and/or plot fall a little flat is heart.  You just can’t help but love the characters themselves.  The good is truly good and the bad guys are just crying out to be thwarted.  You will need to be quite broad-minded when it comes to what sort of humour you find funny.  I’ve already mentioned the word ‘adult’ when talking about this film – and for good reason.  Basically, if you’re a fan of South Park then you should love this film as much as I do.  It’ll never rise to the heights as it’s animated cousin, but it’s definitely a cult classic that deserves an hour and a half of your time.

The only drawback for me is that it’s all Trey Parker and not enough of his co-creator Matt Stone.  Stone is in it, but not enough for my liking (but what he does when he’s there is typically awesome – and did I mention ‘adult’ in nature?).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Nova Seed - What did I just watch?

‘Nova Seed.’ Er, where do I begin?  It’s a film?  Or is it?  Perhaps it’s more like an ‘experience.’ Who would like it?  Who knows?  I’m not even sure if I did!  The closest I can liken it to is either an experimental music video from the seventies, the cult BBC adult cartoon ‘Monkey Dust,’ or a bad acid trip.  I’ve watched a few David Lynch films in my time and people often say that his work is 80% feeling and 20% story.  I think that’s a fair statement for ‘Nova Seed,’ too.

It’s a cartoon set in a weird, slightly futuristic version of Earth and the plot revolves – loosely – around a giant lion-man who’s our only hope against an insane super-villain known only as ‘Mind Skull.’ I guess that’s all I can really say as the story sort of bounces from one action-packed animated scene after the next.  There’s very little dialogue apart from various reporters and newscasters doing their best to inform you a little more about what’s happening.  However, a lot of what you see is kind of up to you to interpret.

So there’s not really that much story to speak of.  Does that make it bad?  No.  Although I may not watch it again for quite some time I’m glad I invested an hour of my time into it (yes, it’s slightly shorter than your average film).  Simply put, it has one hell of an interesting look and feel.  And that’s pretty much its major selling point.

It’s one of those films where, if that’s enough for you then you’ll love it.  It’s hard to say what sort of audience it’s trying to reach.  It’s part sci-fi, part animation, part music video, little story.  I suppose if you’re a certain age from a certain generation where there was no such thing as computer animation and everything was hand-drawn (which I am!) then you’ll always have a nostalgic appreciation from cartoons which took their animators hours to slave over (as opposed to create in a Pixar studio!). 

It’s not the greatest film ever made, but that’s simply because it’s not really a film as you’d imagine.  It doesn’t conform to the ‘classic Hollywood narrative’ model that we’re so used to.  It’s just great to watch as it’s colourful and very different (unless of course you’ve seen that episode of ‘South Park’ where they hallucinate a weird, cartoon sci-fi world – then you’ve seen something similar!).

6/10 Should probably keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Society - There’s a pretty entertaining film in there somewhere

I missed ‘Society’ when it was released in the eighties.  Apparently, it’s quite a cult classic (which is strange as I’m well up on my cult horror classics!) and, from watching it now, I can see why.  However, I’m guessing I’ll never fully appreciate it due to the fact that I’m watching it in 2017 through adult eyes who’s become a bit jaded and cynical towards cinema in general.  I can imagine it caused quite a stir on its release due to its weird subject matter and cliché-breaking narrative.

We meet our hero Billy who’s a young up and coming high school student.  He’s certainly not a nerd, as he’s played by future ‘Baywatch’ star Billy Warlock and is well-liked, plays college football and has a popular and attractive girlfriend.  However, despite seeming to have everything going for him, he starts to feel that the world is a slightly more scary place than he imagined when weird things start to happen.  And, when I say ‘weird’ I kind of mean bizarre happenings concerning those closest to him.  They start behaving oddly, sometimes violently and even appear to him in different forms.  However, naturally, whenever he tries to prove any of this to anyone – seemingly – neutral, there’s no proof to offer.

In my opinion, the film has one major plus side and one major downside.  I’ll start with the negative and that’s that the film is a little ‘uneven.’ Sometimes it seems to labour plot points that we actually ‘get’ quite quickly and it seems to repeat them over and over again to the point that we’re really kind of bored and waiting for the story to progress.  There’s clearly something dark and intriguing happening and there’s enough story here to make us want to know more.  It just drags it out too much and we start to just want to fast forward to something new and more pertinent to the plot.

But, on to the good… I’ve already mentioned that the film is interesting and you probably will want to know what’s really going on.  And, I have to say that the ‘pay-off’ is well worth the wait.  Or rather it is if you have a strong stomach.  The last act is certainly memorable and will stay with you for a long time to come.  It’s pretty intense and – hopefully this isn’t a spoiler – the special effects really are special and it’s great to see ‘practical’ effects being equally good as today’s computer generated effects.  Unfortunately though, the film’s cursed uneven-pacing shows up again and even slows down what its arguably the best part of the film.  Another plus point is that it really does subvert a few traditional traits of the genre.  I won’t go into which as a few things that happened really did surprise me when it came to characters and their overall role in the film.

So, having finally watched this film, overall I’m glad I did.  Yes, I’d probably enjoy it a little more if I’d already seen it back in the eighties and it ticked that nostalgia box with me, but I think the final act really does justify a watch for all horror fans.  It has all the element of a ‘Naked Lunch-style’ David Cronenberg film that us cult-horror fans can’t seem to get enough of.  Just don’t eat anything before you get to the last twenty minutes.  Seriously, it’s pretty intense!

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Gods of Egypt - Well, I gave it a go

Once upon a time there was a director called Alex Proyas who made excellent films which really stuck with me and shaped my youth (think ‘The Crow’ and ‘Dark City’).  Even his later, and slightly less well-received, films like ‘Knowing’ and ‘I Robot’ were pretty damn good and are often re-watched in my DVD collection.  Therefore, when I saw his name attached to ‘Gods of Egypt’ I naturally knew I’d be watching it.  However, I didn’t see it immediately and therefore became aware of the general consensus surrounding its appeal.  In a nut-shell – everyone hated it!  Could this really be true?

In short.  Yes. 

I’ll tell you now… this review is basically just going to be a list of things I hated in the film.  Much of the critics’ scorn came due to the alleged ‘whitewashing’ of roles which should really have gone to actors from/or around Egypt.  Instead, we were treated to your pretty run-of-the-mill white actors playing characters who hailed from that area of the world.  Whether that bugs you or not, it turned out to be the least of the film’s sins!  Right from the off we meet a good king.  We know he’s a GOOD king because he’s clearly nice and his adoring crowd are all cheering from him.  He also has a nice son.  We know he’s a NICE son because the crowd seem to love him, too.  Oh, and he can change into a huge winged beast if he gets angry, but the general populous don’t seem to hold that against him.  However, mid ceremony, they get attacked by a baddie.  We know he’s a BADDIE because he’s bad and starts killing people before demanding the nation bows down to worship him.  Now, I know I’m using some pretty simplistic language, but that’s just how the film is – simple.  These characters are possibly the most clichéd, wafer-thin, cardboard cut-outs ever to grace modern cinema.  The dialogue could be written by a child and it’s practically laughable at how basic everything is for such a big budget production.  And it doesn’t end there.  We later meet a young, idealistic hero.  Then his love interest.  Another baddie or so and yadder, yadder, yadder.

And that’s just the characters.  Once our perfectly-formed hero sets off on his quest to get his girl and kill the bad guy he embarks on a journey that looks like it was created on a Playstation 2.  Yes, I know you’d have to use a certain amount of computer-generated effects when dealing with mythical beasts whacking each other on the steps of the pyramids, but this really looks low-budget.
Basically, Alex Proyas’ directing skills don’t go anywhere near to saving this disaster of a film.  Okay, I may be being too harsh.  I am a fully-grown adult who has been watching films for many years and has pretty much seen it all.  Gods of Egypt may have its place for young boys under ten who haven’t seen a mythical action film before.  Yes, it would probably appeal to them – until they see Indiana Jones or something like that.  For everyone else -  avoid.

2/10 Scuzzier than the leftover goo from a Queen alien's egg sack

Silent Trigger - It’s like Die Hard (if Die Hard was really bad!)

Okay, where do I begin… I have been known to enjoy a good ‘so-bad-it’s-good’ movie from time to time and I am a fan of the ‘classic’ action movies of the eighties (and therefore all those muscle-bound hunks who starred in them).  Therefore, based on my nostalgia for Dolph Lundgren’s stints in such ‘classics’ (well, I thought so!) in ‘He-Man, Dark Angel and Universal Soldier,’ I thought I’d give ‘Silent Trigger’ a go.

Now, normally this is the time I say something like ‘You should know what you’re getting with a film called ‘Silent Trigger.’ I know it’s a B-movie.  I know it’s ‘straight to DVD.’ I know there’s no real (current!) stars in it.  I’m just expecting a bit of mindless action and vague entertainment for an hour and a half.  I guess I got the latter.

‘Silent Trigger’ was certainly ‘entertaining,’ but possibly in the wrong kind of way.  Whether it was due to the blatantly computer-generated attempts at major action set pieces, or just the ludicrousness of the script – it did hold my attention, sadly just to see how bad it gets.  The plot (and I use that term loosely) begins with Dolph Lundgren failing to assassinate his target (did I mention he was an assassin?  Well, he is) due to the inexperience of his partner, played by Gina Bellman and her forever-changing accent.  The ‘agency’ (they don’t really mention which) that they work for aren’t happy and… and already it gets confusing.  Skip forward a few years and the pair are reunited to carry out one more job from a vantage point that looks like the Nakatomi Plaza from ‘Die Hard,’ only not quite finished yet.  However, it’s not as straight forward as it sounds (and killing should be reasonably straight forward for a pair of professional assassins as it’s kind of in their job description) as they come to blows with pair of security guards tasked with… er… defending (?) the under construction building.

And that’s sort of it really.  It’s two professional assassins versus two professional night security men.  You may think that’s a pretty one-sided battle, but you’d be wrong.  I’m not sure whether the security staff are really good, or if the assassins are just bad.  Either way there’s a lot of ‘cat and mouse’ which takes place, leaving me a little unsure as who I’m supposed to be rooting for – the killers, or the nut jobs guarding the place.

So, there’s basically only four people in the cast and therefore what little action there is is sparse and hardly high-octane.  So, in order to pad out the film’s runtime there’s more flashbacks which don’t really make an awful lot of sense and all could have been left out of the story if truth be told.

I like a good B-movie.  Sadly, this just isn’t really one of them.  There’s not really enough here to warrant recommending it.  Yes, if you’re a REAL die-hard fan of Dolph himself I guess you’ll like it more than normal, but even he can do better (I take it you’ve seen the Expendables?).  Just leave this one in the bargain basement of DVDs at your local petrol station where it belongs.  Sorry, Dolph!

3/10 Jabba the Hutt wipes himself down with this film

My Name is Bruce - Hail to the chin, baby!

‘My Name is Bruce’ is one of those films that was definitely made for a niche audience – namely fans of Bruce Campbell.  Now, if your reaction to that statement is ‘Who?’ then you’re probably not going to get that much out of this film.  Unless you really love horror/slasher films, then there’s probably just about enough here to keep you entertained.  But then, if you’re really that much of a fan of the genre, you should definitely be aware of Bruce Campbell by now!  But, for those of you who don’t know, Bruce ‘the chin’ Campbell is primarily-known for his B-movie films and the ‘Evil Dead’ franchise in particular.  He normally plays a cocky, slightly  stupid hero who triumphs partly by luck and audience-love, rather than skill or virtue.  In short, he’s a bit of a clutz.

However, as the title suggests, his name – also – in the film, is ‘Bruce.’ And that’s because he’s effectively playing himself.  Or at least the version of himself that has become his trademark over the years – namely the annoying, smart-a*se we see on screen.  He’s an alcoholic, womanising, foul-mouthed idiot (who just so happens to be a B-movie star).  However, despite his on screen persona, he has built up a loyal following of fans – all of which he treats like absolute dirt (I’m pleased to say that in real life Bruce is a great bloke and loves his fans!).  So, when a town comes under attack from a particularly angry Chinese demonic bean god (yes, seriously) then one starry-eyed young lad who’s seen all Bruce’s films decides that his idol is the only person who can save the locals.  How wrong he is.

What you have is a pretty normal horror film – a largely cheap-looking monster runs amok in a small American town, slashing up anyone who isn’t really a main character.  You’ve seen it all before and you’ve even seen Bruce Campbell in these types of films.  However, what sets this one apart is Bruce himself.  Naturally, whether the film succeeds or fails rests on his shoulders (or chin!) and, I’m pleased to say it does.  The jokes are based around on the clichés you’d expect from not only the horror genre, but the types of films he’s starred in.  He seems well up for running himself down and playing a particularly unlikeable version of himself in order to get the laughs.  And fair play to him.  He shows us what most celebrities are probably like in real life.

The special effects aren’t that special.  There’s not that much gore.  And the sets look like… well, sets (but that’s probably to highlight just how much of a cheap B-movie you’re watching – or at least that’s what I tell myself).  So, overall, you have a pretty average horror movie.  Therefore, you’re only going to truly enjoy it if you’re a fan of Bruce himself.  I’ve only just got round to reviewing this and I haven’t seen it for a few years.  Since I last watched it I’ve also invested my time into Bruce’s current project – the TV series ‘Ash vs The Evil Dead.’ I can’t help but notice how some of the early episodes actually recycle a few jokes and situations, but that’s really for a review of the TV series (which I also recommend you watch if you like your horror gory and cheeky!).

So, as I first said, what you have here is a film with a real niche audience.  It’s not horrific or original enough to be remembered due to the content of its genre alone, only for Bruce Campbell’s input.  Without him it would be nothing.  However, luckily it does have him, so it’s awesome (like most things he’s in).  Enjoy a nicely self-knowing so-bad-it’s-good little horror flick (and then watch Ash vs The Evil Dead!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one