13 Hours – yup, that’s about right

Sometimes a film’s title really does tip you off as to what it’s going to be about. ‘Snakes on a Plane’ is one such example.  What you see is what you get. ’13 Hours’ is another.  Having watched it, I can definitely confirm that it felt like I had wasted 13 hours of my life watching this.  And that’s a shame.  Despite Michael Bay’s notorious reputation since his stint at the helm of the infamous ‘Transformers’ franchise, I still think he’s a reasonably good director (I am just about the only person alive who enjoyed his ‘Pain and Gain’ film!) so, when I heard he was directing a film about hired security officers in the Middle East, I thought it would be worth a watch.

Now, you can probably tell I wasn’t impressed and I feel I should probably start listing the various reasons as to why I felt this way.  However, I can sum it up in one word: boring.  And I could probably leave the review there.  I didn’t think it was terrible, just boring. ‘The Office’s’ John Krasinski plays the lead security officer and, if you’ve seen him taking fire from Michael Scott, then you’ll probably know that he can hold his own in dangerous situations.  He’s – as predicted – a likeable character who you always feel like you could probably share a beer with.  But the film was still boring.  Yes, it does show us westerners a window into what life must be like in Middle Eastern countries and what Westerners have to go through when living/working there.  The scenery is certainly nice and interesting to look at – certainly a change from watching films set in New York or other recognisable locations.  And there is definitely a gritty undertone to the whole story.  You can feel the dirt and danger these people have to go through on a daily basis.  But I was still bored.  Yup, there are some – sort of – car chases and gunfights.  These are naturally well executed (in true Michael Bay style), but I’ve seen all these before and, yes, I was bored.

Overall, ’13 Hours’ is a nice (and dare I say ‘accurate?’) portrayal of what life must be like in that unstable region of the world, but, ultimately, despite its good points, it just didn’t grab me.  I was bored (although I’m guessing that this was still better than ‘Transformers 5: The Last Knight!’).

4/10 You can watch this film while you're doing the ironing (you'll still get the general gist of it)

Cabin Fever (2016) – Just… why?

‘Cabin Fever’ was released back in 2002.  And again in 2016.  However, about the only thing about the 2016 version is that it forces us to ask that most existential question: how can something be exactly the same yet completely different?  The 2002 film has gone down as a cult classic.  And for good reason – it’s awesome!  Okay, if you’re into cheesy horror films with teens dying in various gruesome ways then it’s awesome.  It takes the – oh so familiar – premise of a group of annoyingly beautiful teenagers going on vacation to a remote cabin in the woods and then meeting a sticky end.  Nothing new there, but it’s just the way it’s done.  It knows it’s not original and often plays on the clichés you’d normally find with the genre, plus it throws in some truly random and surreal moments just to keep the audience on their toes.

And not they’ve gone and remade it.  And a remake it literally is.  They’ve used the same script as the original, sticking to the same running order of scenes and same dialogue (or at least 90% of each).  Therefore, it just feels weird watching a film you know really well, only with new actors speaking all the lines.  Just pick your favourite film then imagine watching it with new actors reading the same words just slightly differently.  It would probably be a bit disorientating and off-putting and you’d probably just end up thinking, why am I watching this?  Well, that’s how this remake comes across.

It’s not even like the actors are that good.  They all look as uncomfortable as we – the audience – probably feel watching them.  They have no chemistry and come across like they’re all starring in a different film to each other.  Plus the gore looks cheaper than the original – seriously, there’s an animal in the opening scene that looks like a blood-soaked children’s puppet you’d see on kids’ TV.  I loved the original and regularly watch it.  This version brings nothing new to the genre.  If you’re a horror film, just watch the original.  This one is possibly the most pointless remake ever (with the possible exception of that ‘Psycho’ remake in the late nineties).

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

Krampus – National Lampoon’s (horrific!) Christmas Vacation

Sometimes you know you’re going to enjoy a film from the moment it starts.  The opening to the horror film ‘Krampus’ is a montage of Christmas shoppers, all fighting and – practically – rioting as they try to snap up the best bargains for themselves.  It was within these early minutes that the film made it clear that it didn’t take itself seriously and didn’t expect me to do either.  In short: it was a tongue-in-cheek little number and wanted the world to know it.

We meet our ‘typical’ family who are getting together for the holidays.  And, I say ‘typical’ because, instead of all getting along perfectly, they (like us?) are basically just pretending to for the duration.  However, the pretence finally snaps when the young boy has an outburst and storming off to his room.  Rather than the only effects of this meaning he gets an hour less Xbox time, he inadvertently summons up an evil ‘anti-Santa’ demon known as ‘Krampus,’ who descends upon the family to drag them off to the underworld one by one.  So, the family must fight for their survival (while also doing their best not to fight each other – at least some of the time!).

As you can probably tell, I enjoyed the movie.  It’s not trying to be anything amazing, other than a darkly comic little caper with shades of horror and a dash of social commentary.  And, despite it’s ‘PG13’ rating robbing it of its gore, it is pretty dark.  The monster itself is well done (looks like practical effects to me rather than CGI – always a bonus) and his minions amusing while being horrific at the same time (although I think the psychotic gingerbread men were CGI!).  If you’re into this sort of thing then you should be entertained for the duration.  There are a few minuses – the little boy is a bit annoying, but luckily the adults (especially David Koechner!) make up for the child’s inexperience.  Plus the German grandma was put in there purely for purposes of explaining Krampus to the family (and us, the audience).  Then there’s a nice little mini animation in the middle of the film that sort of goes some way to explaining Krampus’ origins.  It’s well done, but does seem a little out of place amidst the rest of the carnage.

But those are only minor gripes.  For some reason I found myself watching ‘Krampus’ on a boiling evening in mid June.  I think it’s better watched at Christmas.  I think after a few long weeks of listening to Christmas songs and having to make sure everyone has enough presents to keep them from hating me for another year, I’ll definitely watch this film again (and do my best not to wish Krampus on my extended family!).

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

Zoolander 2 – I must have watched a different film

I remember the first time I watched the original ‘Zoolander.’ It was on opening night and the cinema was only about a quarter full.  I found the film hilarious and laughed so much that people started staring at me.  It was about then that I became aware that I was the ONLY person laughing at all.  Now, in filmic hindsight it appears that most people did actually like the first film (obviously just not the people who happened to watch it with me).  However, just like the first one has finally been appreciated, it’s the general consensus that the – belated – sequel (imaginatively titled ‘Zoolander 2’) is one of the worst films ever and therefore justifiably bombed at the Box Office.  I didn’t get round to watching it in the cinema and, because of the overwhelmingly negative reviews, waited a couple of years until I accidentally found it on a streaming service that I paid for monthly.  And, now I’ve seen it, I’m actually glad I did.

It continues the exploits of male fashion model Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller) and what happened since the last time he saved the world.  Basically, the evil fashion mastermind he thwarted last time (think old school Bond villain, but with crazier hair – Will Ferrell) is back to destroy the foundation of society once more.  Yes, it’s one of the most stupid films ever made.  Just like the first one.  Yes, it satirises the fashion industry.  Just like the first one did.  And, yes, there are a few jokes that maybe aren’t quite as funny as they were supposed to be.  Just like the first one.  In short, it’s more of the same and I can’t really see where all the hate has gone.  Yes, belated sequels don’t normally do well (think ‘Dumb and Dumber’ and ‘Basic Instinct’), so maybe that has something to do with it.  And I guess Ben Stiller’s star has faded a little since his late nineties/early 2000s heyday.  However, I just simply can’t understand the – mass – hate.

If you prefer following a hero with an IQ in double digits then I can see how Derek Zoolander may be perceived as annoying, yet he’s no worse than in the first outing.  Plus this time they make more of his friends and family.  And there’s a load of new celebrity cameos related to pop culture and the fashion world – again, like the first one.

Basically, I can see people not liking ‘Zoolander 2,’ but only if this kind of ‘dumb’ humour isn’t your thing.  However, seeing as the first was – apparently – successful and (to me, anyway) this seems like a perfect follow on, I can’t see what there is to complain about if you enjoyed the original.  Perhaps I like it more because of the way I watched it, i.e. not paying full price for a cinema ticket and having my expectations suitably lowered by the many negative reviews?  I would say that it’ll never be as original as the original (but then how many sequels are?!), but if you enjoyed the first then, as long as you’re not expecting some sort of major game-changing piece that reinvents cinema all together, then it’s definitely worth an hour and a half of your time if you enjoyed the first and can see it using an already paid-for package.

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

The Martian – Matt on Mars

Okay, I’ll admit it – I’m not a huge Matt Damon fan.  I can’t get that impression of him from ‘Team America: World Police’ out of my head (if you’ve seen the film you’ll know the one I mean!).  Therefore, when I heard that ‘The Martian’ was about him being an astronaut stranded on Mars, my initial reaction was… oh, well, never mind.  However, after watching the film, I’m still no real convert for Matt himself, but I can say that the film is actually pretty good.

It’s been getting quite a lot of praise heaped upon it and, although I did enjoy it, I’d hardly liken it to the classic that some people are hailing it as.  As I’ve said, Matt Damon is part of the first manned mission to Mars and, when a freak sandstorm hits, his crew are forced to perform an emergency evacuation, stranding him there in the process.  I knew that going into the film and actually expected it to be only about Matt Damon, hardly ever featuring anyone else.  I was pleased to say that the scenes on the red planet are constantly interspersed with those back on Earth as the rest of the world (well, Nasa mainly) is tasked with the solution to finding him a way back home.  But, ultimately, it’s Matt’s show and it’s mainly about him.  And, I’m pleased to say he comes across as a likeable guy to be stuck on – technically – an alien planet with (at least from an audience’s perspective anyway!).

So, he goes about his business doing his best to survive with the limited resources he has to hand.  It’s nice to see a film where it’s actually quite dramatic without the need for all those other – apparent – nasties that Mars has spawned.  Matt Damon’s life is difficult enough staying warm, without worrying about green bug-headed aliens in flying saucers, ghosts who possess your body and force you to self-mutilate, or borderline fascist corporate men in suits who want to keep the air for themselves in order to stay in power.

I should probably mention that it’s directed by Ridley Scott who, when he’s not doing weird things to the ‘Alien’ franchise, still has it when it comes to directing epic landscapes and beautiful scenery.  Also, it’s originally based on a book of the same name; I haven’t read that (I barely have time to watch a two hours film, let alone read words!) so I can’t really comment on how faithful this adaptation really is.

It’s hard to say too much more about this film.  It’s a nicely-simply affair and the threat comes from the harsh environment Matt Damon is stranded in, rather than the afore-mentioned other filmic nasties from Mars.  Okay, so there’s a little conflict with the other characters back on Earth with how they deal with the ‘political’ fallout that stems from effectively blasting off from orbit and not bothering to check whether one of your people was still planting potatoes!  Plus, when I saw the run-time was over two hours I did wonder whether it would hold my attention and I’m pleased to say that it did.  I’d definitely watch this again, maybe not soon, but it’s worth a second watch at some point.

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

10 Cloverfield Lane – I’m now a ‘Cloverfield Convert!’

A few years ago, ‘Cloverfield’ was released.  If you missed it, it was one of those ‘found footage’ films where everything is shot by the point of view of one really annoying character who won’t put the camera down no matter how much danger comes their way.  Sorry, I digress.  I really don’t like the ‘found footage’ genre.  I find it cheap, annoying and just downright implausible.  It was because of this that – despite ‘Cloverfield’ being a massive hit, I hated it.  A giant Godzilla-like alien monster started rampaging through a major U.S. city and the story was about a small band of survivors fleeing the area.  One of them had to film the hold experience because… I don’t know.  I just remember getting really frustrated with the film because he wouldn’t stop filming even when his leg was being eaten by little monsters.  Anyway, it was because of that which meant I wasn’t that bothered about seeing this sequel.  Only it’s not a sequel.  Or is it?

For a start it’s not ‘found footage’ any more (hooray!) and we meet a girl who gets into a bad car accident on the way home.  She’s dragged from the wreckage by good ol’ John Goodman who takes her home and they live happily ever after.  Only joking.  He’s actually a paranoid nut-job who built a ‘perfect’ survival bunker just in case the world should happen to end and he wanted to go on living.  So, our heroine wakes up there, injured and a little frightened.  Especially as Mr Goodman won’t let her leave.  The closest she gets is the reinforced steel door where she can look out over the stricken world.  Only it’s not that stricken.  It looks quite normal, but Goodman swears that there’s enough fallout out there to nuke a cockroach from the inside out.  So, she’s trapped, with no idea what’s happened.  Can she get out?  Should she, even if she could?

Anyway, because most people have either seen, or are aware of, the first movie with the giant monster etc, we assume something bad has indeed happened to the rest of the world.  Only this film doesn’t really follow on from the original ‘Cloverfield.’ So, the longer it goes on, you wonder whether you’re actually watching a sequel at all, or another film that has sort of piggybacked off its name/fame and has created something different all together. ‘Cloverfield’ was a big budget monster/horror movie whereas ’10 Cloverfield Lane’ is small, low budget and confined to the bunker for the whole time.

And, in my opinion, it’s the superior movie by far.  John Goodman is excellent as the paranoid nutter who is probably the last person you want to be stuck on Earth with and you’re rooting for our heroine to escape (assuming there’s a world left to escape to!).  It’s more psychological horror than giant-monsters-crushing-New-York-horror and it’s all the better for it.  I hear that some people weren’t too keen on the ending, but, even if you hate it, you should hopefully enjoy the preceding 90% enough to just ignore the very last few scenes.  I wouldn’t watch Cloverfield again, but I’d definitely watch this in a few years time.

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

Chastity Bites – probably should have been better than it is

Even since the original ‘Scream’ film back in 1997, it’s been popular for horror films to kind of parody themselves and point out their own clichés while satirising the genre.  Sometimes it works well, as in ‘Cabin in the Woods’ while other times it kind of falls a bit flat.  Here, in ‘Chastity Bites,’ it sadly falls into the latter.  We open in a high school where a clique of (stereotypical, if you’ve seen any teen movie ever – horror, or otherwise) ‘popular’ girls rules the class with their status and, of course, shallowness.  The two – equally clichéd – unpopular girls (who dress conservatively and don’t want to jump into bed with the first high school jock who takes off his football helmet) walk around discussing poetry, philosophy and generally do their best to show us – the audience – how downtrodden and relatable they are.  Then a – clichéd British – villain comes along in the form of a woman who teaches the virtues of chastity to the young, who wants spokespeople to promote her cause.  Naturally, the vacuous ‘popular’ bimbos all sign up (despite their blatant lack of respect for the rules).  However, we quickly discover that this woman has a darker motive and wants to suck the souls of the young (or something).  She’s a baddie – that’s all you need to know and it’s up to the unpopular duo to ‘out’ her terrible scheme.

So, it’s a kind of ‘teenagers versus evil’ kind of affair and, like I say, it kind of knows it’s a bit dumb and does its best to play up to that fact so that it never takes itself too seriously.  It does this by attempting to satirise today’s obsession with beauty and social standing among teens (and in some cases adults!).  This could work, but sadly it’s just not ‘fresh’ enough to really say anything new or in a different way than we’ve already seen before (and better).  Allison Scagliotti (most famous for her awesomely cool performance as ‘Claudia’ in ‘Warehouse 13’) is the lead and she does her best to use her natural quirky charm to good effect.  However, the script just isn’t up to her talent and the jokes start to fall flat while the whole thing descends into predictability.

It may be a young adult horror/comedy, but it’s not really funny enough to be a straight out comedy and there isn’t enough gore to really make it that bloodthirsty.  They even try to throw in one of the most forced love interest sub-plots ever seen in cinema.  The male love interest only occupies a few scenes of screen time and could have been done away with all together and you’d never notice.

You know a film is getting desperate when you see all the visual promotional advertising surrounding the film depicts shots of girls in short ‘fantasy’ schoolgirl costumes.  I can promise you nothing like this ever appears in the film itself!  All together it’s just a missed opportunity to say something worthwhile about a facet of popular culture than needs a bit of mainstream debunking.  Avoid.  You won’t miss much.  Sorry Allison – you were brilliant in ‘Warehouse 13.’

4/10 You can watch this film while you're doing the ironing (you'll still get the general gist of it)

Why him? – Just…. Why?

Okay, I’ll start by saying that – thanks to ‘Breaking Bad’ – I’m a huge fan of Bryan Cranston.  I reckon that I’m going to watch whatever I see he’s starring in forever, based on his ‘Walter White’ performance.  I never knew much about him before he put on that famous hat, but since then, I’ve heard he had achieved reasonable fame via playing someone’s Dad in some pretty successful comedy show (yes, I’ve researched this review thoroughly!).  Therefore, when I saw that he was going to be in a comedy along with James Franco, I certainly thought it would at least be entertaining.  I was wrong.  I hope Bryan Cranston got paid well for this, because he sure as hell deserves it. 

It’s about a young college girl who invites her parents (her father being Cranston) across country to spend the holiday period with her new boyfriend (Franco).  Yes, it sounds like a reasonably premise for a comedy (if you ignore the slight similarities to the ‘Meet the Parents’ franchise), but it just doesn’t work – and for one simple reason – James Franco’s character.  Don’t get me wrong… I think James Franco is a very talented actor and have enjoyed his performance on many an occasion.  However, here, he’s just too unbelievable.  I don’t think it’s too much of a spoiler to say that the parents don’t approve of their daughter’s new partner.  Okay, so he’s a millionaire (that’s not the issue), it’s just that he constantly swears in front of them, makes various s3xually inappropriate comments all the time and does unbelievably over the top gestures that are supposed to endear himself to his potential inlaws (and us the audience).

I know this film would be pretty boring if the family came round, they all got along perfectly and just lived happily ever after.  I understand there has to be some degree of conflict to move the plot along.  However, it’s just not realistic.  No one would act like James Franco’s character and it’s simply not believable.  Bryan Cranston does his best, but is effectively relegated to the ‘butt’ of Franco’s various antics and is only there to look disapproving and long suffering.

There’s not much else to say.  This one element totally overshadowed everything else for me and I just couldn’t get past it.  I can’t remember James Franco’s character’s actual name, but I swear I found him as annoying as Jar Jar Binks, Adam Sadler in ‘Jack and Jill’ and that DJ bloke from ‘The Fifth Element.’ Okay, so he might not be quite that bad, but he’s pretty bad – enough for me never to want to watch this film again.  This is just about as far away from ‘Breaking Bad’ as it’s possible to get.  Bryan Cranston, you’re worth so much more.

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

Alien: Covenant - Frankenstein’s monster of an ‘Alien’ film

I’m guessing that most people who sit down to watch ‘Alien: Covenant’ will have some idea about what they’re in for, but, in case you need the most meagre of plot synopsises, it’s basically a monster hunting humans in space (or, if you believe the original pitch for the first ‘Alien’ movie back in 1979 it could – also – be described as ‘Jaws in space’).  So, if you’re a casual fan of the franchise then you’ll probably get what you want out of this.  There are monsters.  The monsters kill humans.  End of.  However, I (like so many) are anything but ‘casual’ fans of the franchise!

The reason ‘Alien: Covenant’ is such a big deal stems back to 1986 (or some may say 1979), due to the phenomenal success of ‘Aliens.’ Now, don’t get me wrong, the original ‘Alien’ in 1979 was awesome – so awesome in fact that it was in doubt whether it could ever be bettered.  And, some still say that it can’t.  It’s sequel (1986’s imaginatively-titled ‘Aliens’) gave us the same and more.  Apart from ‘Terminator/Terminator 2,’ people claim ‘Alien/Aliens’ to be one of few examples of where a sequel surpasses the original.  Therefore, there were high hopes for the third instalment, 1992’s ‘Alien 3.’ And that’s where things started to go wrong.  I was an absolute disaster with fans all over the world wondering how a good sequel couldn’t somehow be made of the first two films’ backs.  And, that’s the question we’ve been asking ever since.  We’ve had all sorts of ‘Alien’ movies since – mainly spin-offs and crossovers – and none have really come close to attaining the high praise of the first two.

So, now we come to ‘Alien: Covenant.’ It’s clear that the film-makers know that the ‘Alien franchise’ is still hot property, has armies of loyal fans out there and it far from unprofitable.  I can almost see them all sitting round in meeting rooms trying to work out why every alien-related film post ‘Aliens’ has failed so dramatically and therefore what they need to do to make a worthy successor.  I’m just guessing, but it seems they sat through the first two movies taking carful note of what fans liked and they splicing it together to form a script for ‘Alien: Covenant.’

It’s like they said – audiences like the ‘one alien’ suspense – so we’ll put that in.  But, at the same time, people liked marines fighting aliens with big guns.  That goes in, too.  People loved Sigourney Weaver’s original heroine Ripley – so we need a tough female lead with short hair.  Everyone loved it when Ripley got in a giant robot suit and kicked the alien out of a spaceship – let’s throw that in there as well.  But ‘Covenant’ also has to be a sequel to a prequel (‘Prometheus’) – what did people like about that?  Not much really.  However, Michael Fassbender was highly-praised for his creepy android portrayal of David.  So let’s bring him back for a prominent role.  And so on.

Sadly, there's just nothing that memorable about this film.  I reckon you'll be hard put to it to remember any character (possibly besides David) once the credits have rolled.  They're just all bland with no real personality.  Even the 'star' (who I can't remember either the actress' nor the character's name) who is this film's 'Ripley' (right down to the tank-top she wears, the haircut and the way she holds the gun in the final act) is totally forgettable.

If you take ‘Alien, Aliens’ and add a dash of ‘Prometheus’ then you end up with ‘Alien: Covenant.’ A spaceship full of colonists traces a signal to a new planet and lands, only to get picked off by the xenomorph and its friends.  It’s not a bad film, but, once again, it doesn’t do the first two films justice.  Because it seems to try and throw in so much into one film – it tries to be ‘Alien, Aliens,’ a sequel to ‘Prometheus,’ a bridge back to ‘Alien’ and something that will hopefully reinvigorate the franchise, it does come across as a bit of a mess.  Yeah, there are good bits here and there – director Ridley Scott again proves that he hasn’t lost his flair when it comes to visual storytelling, but my personal favourite was – like ‘Prometheus’ – the android David again.  However, it’s still just another ‘monster movie’ as opposed to what could have been an amazing sequel to ‘Aliens.’ It’s okay, but it’s ultimately going to be forgotten for what it contains and probably remembered more for being the film that stood between Neil Blomkamp making his (much touted on the internet) version of a remake of ‘Alien 3’ (although I think he called it ‘Alien 5’) which would have been a direct sequel to ‘Aliens’ and bring back fan-favourite characters Ripley, Hicks, Newt and Bishop.

Everyone was delighted when Ridley Scott got his hands back on the 'Alien' franchise.  Now, after two attempts, I think it's time to take it back and put the old guy out to pasture.  Sorry.

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

Don’t Breathe – Don’t bother

Sometimes a films sounds better on paper than it does when it’s actually in front of you.  I’d vaguely heard of the film ‘Don’t Breathe.’ I knew it was a horror film and found out enough about the plot to interest me.  It’s about a trio of youths who like to spend their days burgling houses.  Yes, a real group of protagonists you can identify with and root for – NOT!  Okay, so the female of the three is okay-ish.  We get enough backstory regarding her wanting to help out her family and take them away to a better future, but you can’t really get around the fact that they steal things for a living.

Therefore, one day they think they’re in for a ’free lunch’ when they decide to break into a house that stands all on its own with the promise of great rewards to come.  However, things don’t go entirely to plan when it turns out that the old man who lives there is not someone you want to mess with (or even know!).  Imagine breaking into Jason Voorhees’ sitting room and you’re sort of in the right area.  Basically, what starts out as a routine cash grab turns into the three being stalked mercilessly for their lives.

So, it kind of sounds interesting, i.e. turning the initial bad guys into the unwitting victims.  Sadly, it just didn’t work out for me.  As you’ve probably guessed, I didn’t care much for the three kids and felt that the way we were supposed to care for the girl felt forced just so we feel something for her eventual plight.  Plus there was the fact that I never really bought into the fact that they were unable to escape from a house.  This isn’t some giant country mansion with sprawling corridors and secret passageways.  It’s not far off your average detached house you’d see on most streets (I had the same complaint for the horror film ‘The Collector!’).  Then there was the way it was generally shot – it was too damn dark!  I know that darkness goes hand in hand with horror movies and that it’s a film-maker’s tool to add atmosphere to the generally grim feel, but I just found I couldn’t make out what was going on!

All in all, if you don’t watch an awful lot of horror films and just feel like something that’s a little dark with a few jump scares and token blood and gore, then this will probably foot the bill.  However, if – like me – you’ve seen every kind of maniac wear every kind of hockey mask despatching every type of teenage in every style of gruesome fashion, then this really doesn’t offer enough that’s new to really leave an impact.  Yup, pretty much already forgotten most of it.

5/10 a hard trek, a bit like unicycling to Mordor and back

The Green Inferno - Cannibal Holocaust – the remake

Two questions: have you seen ‘Cannibal Holocaust?’ and ‘Have you heard of Eli Roth?’ Well, ‘Cannibal Holocaust’ is a disturbingly realistic film which many people forget almost single-handedly started the ‘found footage’ genre and Eli Roth is a modern horror writer/director.  Put the two together and you get one hell of a grim bloodbath!

So, as with ‘Cannibal Holocaust’ a group of youngsters end up deep within one of those jungles as yet unexplored by our iphone-wielding generation.  In ‘Cannibal Holocaust’ they were making a documentary (hence the ‘found footage’ aspect), whereas here they’re protesting for some socially just cause and end up crashing their plane.  Once in this uncharted wilderness they encounter a bunch of locals who take quite a shine to them, i.e. they think these youngsters would look great with some fava beans and a nice chianti.  Therefore, our hapless heroes quickly find themselves at the wrong end of a knife and fork and have to figure out a way of escaping before they’re served up for brunch.

Now, Eli Roth has had a bit of a ‘spotted’ career when it comes to his films.  And, when I say ‘spotted’ I basically mean he made one awesome movie which everyone loved (‘Cabin Fever’) and since then almost every one of his films has been met with a certain level of distain.  As a bit of a horror buff, I do tend to watch every movie which has his name on, as I’m certain that one day he’ll recapture his former mojo and prove he wasn’t just a one-hit wonder. 

It’s hardly an inspiring plot, but then if you’re reading this far then you’re not probably not really into deep and meaningful character development or high-concept plot arcs.  You want to know about the blood and guts.  Trust me – you shouldn’t be disappointed there.  It’s fair to say that it’s not that much of a spoiler to say that not all the characters live long and happy lives after leaving the jungle and, when they go, they go in style (and by ‘style’ I mean in the most unspeakably gruesome way possible).  You have the good characters, the bad characters and the scared characters, but – ultimately – all the characters share one trait – you probably won’t really remember any of their names.  If you’ve seen more than a couple of horror movies then you’ll have a pretty good idea which ones are going to live the longest.  Most are just here to end up on the wrong end of a fork!

So, is ‘The Green Inferno’ the film that does this?  No, not really. ‘Cabin Fever’ was witty, different and – of course – bloodthirsty.  It’s a horror classic that still stands up to this day. ‘The Green Inferno’ is simple, nicely disgusting, but nothing that hasn’t really been done before.  I actually kind of enjoyed it (what does that say about me?!) as it’s one of those films where if you’re into the subject material then it’s going to entertain you for an hour and a half.  It’s hardly going to be remembered in the future (like ‘Cannibal Holocaust’) or set any new records for gore, but it’s horror –plain and simple – and if you’re as sick of the found footage genre, or those Japanese ghost-type films which seem to be infesting the genre these days, it makes a pleasant (if bloodthirsty) change from what else is out there.  Maybe Roth was justa one-hit wonder, but he can still entertain a bit as well.

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

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the movie) - The prequel…. Basically

Ah, ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ – the seminal TV show of the nineties which launched Kirsty Swanson as a household name.  Well, maybe in a parallel universe.  Before Sarah Michelle Gellar started saving the world (a lot) and falling in love with almost every good-looking undead stud in Sunnydale, they actually tried the format on the big screen.  This version never really took off and has kind of been lost among the annals of cinematic history, only being revived as a strange beast of interest that (TV) Buffy fans like to watch, simply in order to compare this weird ‘alternate take’ on their icons to what the ‘real’ thing turned out like.  And I have to confess that that’s why I watched it.  I was never a mega-fan of the nineties TV series, but I’ve grown to watch it through my daughter and was kind of curious what the filmic incarnation of Buffy was like.  If it was up to my daughter she’d probably end the review here as she could barely sit through the whole film!  However, I thought it was an interesting little ‘compendium piece’ if nothing else.

Yes, it doesn’t have quite such a memorable cast list as the TV show and the dialogue isn’t half as snappy (and the vamps don’t ‘dust’ when killed, probably due to budget reasons!), yet it still maintains a strange sort of charm.  Whereas in the TV show it is definitely Sarah Michelle Geller’s show, here it’s the older, more established actors who are a more memorable, for our non-Geller Buffy mast face off against B-movie veteran of the eighties Rutger Hauer, while being taught her slaying skills by ‘watcher’ Donald Sutherland.

I guess the filmic incarnation of Buffy is even harder to ‘sell’ now in retrospect than it was at the time.  When it first came out it didn’t have huge names, big effects or anyone that would draw in the masses.  And, let’s face it… the title of ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ does sound a little cheesy.  I know the film (and TV show) doesn’t always take itself too seriously and a healthy dose of cheese is required during watching at all times.  I just could imagine the audience’s reaction to seeing a film entitled this.  It seems to be too old for youngsters and yet to ‘teen-ish’ for adults, therefore didn’t really draw in a wide and varied audience.

As with the TV show, we meet our titular ‘slayer’ Buffy, who’s a teenager who just so happens to be this generation’s ‘chosen one,’ tasked with wiping vampires out from the face of the Earth (or rather just her hometown to start with!).  Once you’ve invested your time in the TV show, it’s hard to watch the film without trying to relate it back to the ongoing series.  I see this as a kind of ‘prequel’ as it deals with Buffy learning of her heritage and being taught the ways of the Force (or slaying vamps – whatever).  And, for that, it does almost work when looked at in conjunction with the TV show.  Yes, there are always going to be some continuity errors that don’t really match up, but, seeing as the two mediums don’t occupy the same ‘shared universe,’ this can only be expected.

It’s hard to recommend the film really, as fans of the genre will undoubtedly be so into the TV show that they refuse to except this as part of the lore.  However, if you’re someone who can appreciate the ‘evolution’ of the character and wants to take a sneak peek into an alternate universe where Sarah Michelle Gellar doesn’t reign supreme, give this one a go.  Yes, it’s daft and yes, it’s cheesy, but wasn’t the TV show all that, too?  This isn’t a film for everyone, but it is one that does still have an audience out there, even if it’s getting smaller by the day as more and more people only ever remember the TV show as the ‘real’ Buffy.  But this one could be a lot worse (especially seeing as we’ve never got a new series from Joss Whedon!).

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

The Visit – Visitation rights revoked

 

I’ll pretty much watch any old horror film.  It’s a definite fault in mine.  So I sat down to watch ‘The Visit’ based on the fact that it was new and looked a bit spooky, judging by the front cover (yes, I do know the old saying about never judging a book by its cover, but I still do!).  Now, apart from knowing that it was a horror movie, I learned two other majorly important facts in the opening couple of scenes.  The first of which that it was partly made by M Night Shyamalan and, if you don’t know, made those classic films ‘The Sixth Sense’ and ‘Unbreakable’ around the year 2000.  And, since then, his film-making record has been a little patchy (to put it politely!).  Secondly, this is a ‘found footage’ film.  And, if you don’t know what that is then you obviously don’t watch enough modern horror.

 

‘The Visit’ is about a couple of kids who go to meet their grandparents for the first time (you’ll soon find out why they’ve only just discovered their relatives during their early teenage years, but, ultimately, exposition doesn’t matter much).  And this is where the ‘found footage’ element comes in, for the teenage girl feels the need to document the whole experience on her camera, hence the following ninety minutes are relayed entirely through the – shaky – camerawork of a teenage girl.  Again, there’s a minimal explanation as to why she should feel the need to do this, but, rest assured, as annoying as this would be in real life, no one in the film seems bothered about being filmed a hundred per cent of the time.  So, they meet their grandparents… and strange things start to happen.

 

Sadly, strange (or rather/interesting/horrific) things don’t happen quick enough.  If ever a film seemed to drag out its first half then it was here.  Yes, I know that it’s a little cheap to jump right into a massive bloodbath in the opening scene and a slow burner like this is supposed to build tension and get to know the characters.  Yet, the two kids are just not that interesting and you can see the ‘threat’ coming a mile off.  By the time anything remotely interesting happens the film is practically over and you’ve been checking out Facebook on your smartphone a dozen times while this film has been slowly cranking itself up.

 

Ultimately, it’s just yet another run-of-the-mill horror films which clutter up the pool of a thousand other recent found footage films out there.  Once again, M. Night Shyamalan does nothing to recapture his former greatness and, although I believe he still has another decent movie or two in him somewhere, this goes no way to prove that.  Avoid.  You’ll have seen better and, if you haven’t – again – you obviously don’t watch enough horror.

4/10 You can watch this film while you're doing the ironing (you'll still get the general gist of it)

The Forest – Modern horror 101

I can tell you now… this is going to be a short review.  If you’ve watched a horror movie made after ‘The Ring’ (US remake, this is) then you’ve pretty much seen ‘The Forest.’ It seems that even though ‘The Ring’ didn’t invent this type of film, it did make it popular enough to totally create the formula for a thousand similar films to come.  The protagonist (normally a woman – in this case ‘Game of Thrones’ Natalie Dormer) comes across a spooky occurrence and sets out to investigate… slowly.

Natalie Dormer plays Sara, a twin whose sister goes missing in a forest in Japan.  Therefore Sara has to travel half way round the world to investigate.  Of course when she arrives she soon finds that local folklore states that the forest is well and truly haunted, due to the fact that many people seem to go there to die.  So she investigates and – guess what – finds that it is definitely haunted.  But I’m getting a little ahead of myself.  She doesn’t go in alone.  In order to create a little (obligatory?) s3xual tension, the night before she goes hiking into the depths of the forest, she meets a man in a bar who seems interested enough in her story to help her out.  He makes it clear that he’s a journalist and, along with helping her, wants to record her story for a future article.  Actually, in a story that’s pretty run-of-the-mill, he’s one high point.  You may expect him to be the ‘gallant hero’ type, however, he’s actually a bit of a div – makes a nice change!

Anyway, his failings in the role of ‘leading/supporting’ man can’t really save the film.  Like I say, if you know your modern horror (2000s+ give or take) you’ll know how it goes – a slow build up on the tension then a load of shaky camera work and some jump scares, plus vaguely unsettling ghostly images to prove the film had a bit of a budget spent on make-up.  By the time you get near the end of the film you can sort of guess the ending, i.e. everyone lives happily ever after, everyone dies horribly, or there’s some sort of twist where it turns out that this was all some sort of virtual reality simulator created by vampires from the future.  Either way, you won’t really care.  By this time you’ll have been checking your Instagram account on your smartphone and have forgotten you were even watching this film.

The actors were good enough.  They did their best with what was provided.  There just wasn’t enough original material here to offer any seasoned horror buff anything new.  If you’ve never seen a horror film before you’ll probably adore ‘The Forest.’ Personally, being someone who has a DVD collection with 90% of titles ending ‘…of the Living Dead,’ I’ve been here and moved on.  Still, Natalie Dormer was good in Game of Thrones.

5/10 a hard trek, a bit like unicycling to Mordor and back