Donkey Punch - You learn something new every day

You grow up and you think you know it all.  Then you watch a film and realise that you never knew what the phrase 'Donkey Punch' was all about.  To be fair I could have probably gone the rest of my life not knowing, but never mind.  It's actually a pretty unnatural s3xual act that I'm guessing most of us have never tried (and never want to either!).  Anyway, apparently to a group of over-s3xed British holiday-makers on a boat in the Spanish waters, it sounds like a good laugh and one copulating couple decide to try it.  And one dies.

So they call the police, explain it was all a tragic accident and head home a little older and wiser than when they set out.  Sadly that doesn't happen.  Instead, faced with blind panic and fuelled by excessive alcohol and drug-usage, they decide on a course of action which ultimately leads to yet more carnage.  I guess you'd call 'Donkey Punch' a 'horror' film, but then maybe more mixed with the 'thriller' genre.  Obviously, there aren't any monsters running around slicing up our young cast (they do that to each other quite capably without the need for vampire/werewolves etc!) and no one wears a mask, so it never really feels like a 'slasher' film where you're supposed to guess who's wielding the machete.

The cast are all pretty forgettable (in fact two of the boys looked almost indistinguishable to me, as did two of the girls!).  They're all just there to either kill or be killed, so don't expect much in the way of deep character development.  Jaime Winstone is about the biggest name on the cast list (and that's largely only due to her famous father!).  None of them are given much in the way of script to work with, but then if you like the sound of my brief synopsis you don't watch this sort of film for that sort of thing.

The kills aren't that inventive (although there is a nice use of a motor boat's propeller!) so don't expect much in the way of gore.  It's a cheap, adult film with plenty of s3x, violence and drug usage.  Yes, they're all pretty high most of the time which doesn't really endear many of them to the general public.  You probably won't care when that many of them meet their grisly ends, but, like I say, isn't that the case with most similar films?

If you're a fan of horror/thriller films and like a bit of carnage to have on in the background then this one is easy on the brain.  I've seen in a couple of times so it fits the bill if you're in the mood.  Plus it's now often found on various streaming services, so if it's included in your subscription then go for it.  Just don't try this at home, kids!  Oh… and don't get this confused with 'Sucker Punch' they're two very different films!

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

King of Comedy - Way ahead of its time

After Robert DeNiro had teamed up with Martin Scorsese on films like 'Mean Streets' and 'Taxi Driver' it was hard to see anything the pair of them worked on failing.  Then came 'King of Comedy.' I think that it's unfair to call it a 'fail,' but it certainly didn't set the Box Office alight in the same way their previous collaborations did.  At least it has slowly picked up more of a cult audience over the years, but, perhaps most pertinently, it seems more 'of its time' today than in the early eighties when it was actually released. 

This time round DeNiro plays Rupert Pupkin - the deliberately oddly-named man who lives (basically) in his mother's basement, where he rehearses for the day he becomes a rich and famous stand-up comedian.  So sure that he'll make it big time that he constantly stalks a genuine celebrity, Jerry Langford (played effortlessly by Jerry Lewis who basically plays himself throughout), acting like the two of them are old friends.  Along the way Pupkin is 'aided' by another of Jerry's stalkers, this time a woman (played by Sandra Bernhard).  The two of them, despite not getting on as they're both competing for a place in Jerry's life, team up in order to both get what they want out of their 'friend/lover.'

Perhaps one reason it didn't resonate with audiences at the time was that, for a film with the word 'comedy' in the title, it's not - technically - that funny.  It's not supposed to be a laugh-a-minute chuckle-fest.  If it is any sort of comedy then it's definitely 'black comedy.' You'll feel a sense of sadness for our 'hero' as he's more pathetic than heroic.  He can't see what we - the audience - can.  Today we live in a world where you can become 'famous' from the comforts of your own home (or mother's basement in Pupkin's case) simply by becoming a 'Youtube star.' Back in the early eighties I'm guessing that not everyone wanted to be famous.  Okay, so most people have the odd daydream about being a film star/rock star/astronaut/whatever, but it didn't seem to be until the millennium (perhaps when reality TV took off in a big way?) when everyone decided that fame was within their grasp (and without much talent or effort needed to achieve it!).

'King of Comedy' shows how just because you WANT to become famous and think that it's your 'right' because of your 'talent,' you actually need a little more than sheet desire and self-belief.  Yes, luck will always play a part in anyone's rise to the top, but what we have here is more of a sad tale of a man who's dream outweighs his talent.  If you know what you're getting then you'll definitely find an excellent little piece that is more relevant  today than it ever was.  Robert DeNiro is still regarded as one of the greatest actors of our generation and it's films like this that will always play a big part in his rich history - even if they weren't quite appreciated at the time.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Death Race – It has death.  And racing.

Do you like fast cars and action?  Then you should like this.  But wait... it’s a remake, therefore it must be dreadful, right?  Actually, in this case, I don’t know.  I’ve never watched the original, but I understand it – like so many remakes – has its army of online defenders saying how this incarnation of the film doesn’t compare to its source material.  However, I like action.  I like Jason Statham and, if I’m in the mood for some loud, dumb fun then I will certainly let this entertain me for an hour and a half.

Jason Statham plays... oh what the hell, he basically plays that same tough guy he’s played in every other recent action fight-fest.  Anyway, take one dystopian future where prisons are funded by showing their inmates race to the death around tracks on pay-per-view, add a conspiracy to get ‘The Stath’ unfairly convicted and sent there in order to race... and you have the recipe for plenty of high-octane driving stunts, fist-fights among the inmates and the Stath snarling at anyone who gets in his way.

Now, if you’re into your films, you may vaguely be aware of its direction, Paul W S Anderson, and the various film franchises he presides over, mainly ‘Resident Evil,’ but he got his hands on ‘Aliens vs Predator,’ too.  A lot of people say he can’t write a good film.  Actually, I may agree on that one, but I’ve always thought he was certainly a talented director who could handle decent action scenes.  And, in a film about racing with machine guns, you’re going to want the action to be good.  And it is.

There are a few other cast members the Stath interacts with.  Most of them you won’t remember, but Ian McShane does his best with what he’s give to provide that ‘Morgan Freeman-like’ mentor figure to our bald, grumpy hero.  Plus you have ‘Generic Love Interest #657 and Jason Clarke (pre John Connor) as ‘Evil Prison Guard #831’ and, of course, the warden.  Here, the warden is a woman... or simply ‘Generic Evil Corporate B*tch #738?  The supporting cast are all pretty much by the numbers and you won’t remember their performances, let along their on-screen names.

This is a Stath movie.  If you like him, or action (specially racing), plus you’ve binge-watched the entire ‘Fast and the Furious’ franchise, then you should enjoy this.  Put your brain on hold and just have fun.
8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Copycat – Dated now, but cutting edge at the time

Seeing as ‘Aliens’ is my favourite film of all time, I watch pretty much anything with Sigourney Weaver in.  However, out of all the ‘post 1986’ films she’s appeared in, only this one really made me feel like I was watching Ripley (only doing a different job to ‘nuking the site from orbit’).

The most famous xenomorph hunter in the galaxy has hung up her Pulse rifle and flame thrower in favour of a (safer?!) career psychoanalysing serial killers and publicising her books on the topics with a series of college lectures across America.  Unfortunately, her subject matter attracts worse things than a hall full of ghoulish, hormone-filled teenagers – she ends up nearly being killed by a serial killer.  By luck, she survives (and this isn’t spoilers as it all happens within the first quarter of an hour of the film), but finds it impossible to leave her flat for fear of the outside.  There, she utilises (what now looks like a prehistoric) internet connection to converse with the outside world until a new serial killer starts copying all the ‘classics’ i.e. Bundy, Manson etc and the police need her expertise to bring him to justice.

The lead officer is played by Holly Hunter, who does the whole ‘no-nonsense’ cop routine down to a tee.  She’s good and you certainly won’t hate her performance, but her character is a bit more of a ‘one-note’ trick and, despite having – literally – more freedom than Weaver to move around the film’s world, doesn’t really have any scope to develop.  However, the two of them play off each other well and, although this certainly isn’t something as cheesy as a ‘good-cop/bad-cop’ movie, the two have plenty of good interchanges.

I remember watching this back in the nineties when the internet was in its infancy and cutting and pasting pictures out on computers, then sending them via email was actually a pretty ‘sci-fi’ concept (well, almost) and ‘Copycat’ did well to utilise this ‘new’ technology and bring out the dark side of how the internet could be misused.

If you’re into your serial killer type movies then you should definitely enjoy this.  It may not be remembered quite so fondly as ‘Silence of the Lambs,’ but I do think it has enough originality and star-power to be up there with the best of nineties thrillers.  Plus, if you’re a fan of ‘Aliens’ like me then just try and listen to (almost!) every Sigourney Weaver line and see if you can hear how it’s come straight from ‘Aliens’ itself (not to mention even the soundtrack and musical stings sound like James Horner’s 1986 work!).
8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Cargo - it's got zombies… I think

I really wanted to enjoy 'Cargo.' I'm a big fan of zombie films. I've been a big fan of Martin Freeman ever since his days working at 'Wernham Hogg.' And I have a Netflix account, allowing me to watch it as all part of my subscription. I didn't expect some sort of 'Resident Evil' action-fest, more something along the lines of (a deliberately lower-budget) '28 Days Later.' And, I guess I got that.

Whatever zombie apocalypse has already taken place. I think this is worth mentioning, as it rules out any large action scenes showing the fall of society. It's basically all set in a post apocalyptic Australian Outback. However, at the best of times the Outback can be pretty bleak, so apologies if I'm sounding flippant, but the setting makes it hard to tell if an apocalypse has taken place or not!

Martin Freeman and his on-screen wife play a middle class couple with two young children who are doing their best to survive among the desert. I say 'desert' over 'zombies' because the humans' main concern is food rather than BEING food. You really don't see an awful lot of the infected/undead. And, when you do, it's fleeting at best. The couple have reasonable chemistry and the cracks sometimes show in their relationship due to the terrible stress caused by the situation and the worry about their children. You will care about their plight as they're parents, but, for people that have seemingly got through the worse of the outbreak, the characters fall into that horror cliched trap of making dumb decisions and therefore the audience loses sympathy with them.

Having watched the film I'd simply describe it as 'okay.' There are so many zombie films and TV shows that fair play to the film-makers for trying something else, but this doesn't have action, there's not that much gore, barely any zombies, there aren't that many characters for you to relate to and you can kind of see what's coming a mile off.  As with many similar movies (ever since 'Night of the Living Dead') it shoves the message that 'humans are more dangerous than zombies' and are the 'real' enemy, even in a situation like this.  I didn't regret watching it, but, as a die-hard zombie fan, there are so many other similar movies that were released decades ago and yet still stand the tests of time.  This one is purely 'filler' for Netflix's content catalogue.  It's not bad, but not special enough to really remember.

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

From Paris With Love – Travolta Shoots Paris

After my second viewing of ‘From Paris With Love,’ part of me thinks that I must have been in a lot more of a ‘forgiving’ mood the first time I watched it (hence the desire to sit through it again).  Okay, it’s not a bad-bad film, but part of me is left wondering what I saw in it the first time round.

Jonathan Rhys Meyers plays a young US diplomat in Paris who is tasked with ‘babysitting’ US enforcer/hardman (and borderline Government psycho/assassin) John Travolta.  In the course of their day of investigating a terrorist threat they wind up executing pretty much the entire population of Paris (or at least its criminal element).  And, er, that’s about it.  They go a restaurant, kill everybody and move on to an apartment block… where they kill everybody and move on.  Rinse and repeat.

And, if you like either or both John Travolta and action movies then you’ll at least get what you paid for here.  However, don’t expect much in the way of ‘deep and meaningful.’ Rhys Meyers is effectively the ‘conservative-straight-man’ agent in comparison to Travolta’s completely wild nut-job, therefore it’s a lot more fun watching Travolta go crazy than Ryhs Meyers trying to add something in the way of ‘heart’ to the story.

I notice from the marketing that it was directed by the man that did ‘Taken.’ It’s not as good as ‘Taken,’ but it is a functional little action movie that will fill a hole in your schedule if that’s all you’re looking for.  The action is reasonable enough, but nothing that you haven’t seen before, i.e. shoot-outs, punching and the obligatory car chase (followed by a one-liner from Travolta).  It was okay, but I doubt I’ll give it a third watch.

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

Bad Neighbours - Not bad (but not as good as the first)

Admittedly, I only watched the first 'Bad Neighbours' movie the once (and it was a while ago), but I definitely remember enjoying it as some harmless, adult comedy-entertainment.  I wasn't expecting anything too original in the sequel, just more of the same.  I guess I got more of the same - it certainly felt like a movie in the franchise, only without as many laughs.

It's a shame, because everything else was there.  All three of the major stars return for the sequel (Seth Rogen again married to Rose Byrne and Zac Efron floating living nearby).  And, if this wasn't enough, the ever-popular Chloe Grace Moretz is the new addition when she moves in opposite Seth and Rose, just as they're trying to sell their house, and sets up her own loud-party-loving sorority house opposite.

Yes, the story is effectively a retread of the first one, only replacing Zac Efron's 'annoying neighbour' with Chloe Grace Mortz), but I was prepared for that - like I say, I wasn't expecting anything too original - just funnier!  Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate it - some of the jokes landed and I did chuckle here and there.  I just didn't enjoy it as much as the first.

Maybe because I'm an 'oldie' these days, I found myself rooting entirely for the adults and therefore despising all the 'kids' (and their motivations!).  Perhaps if I was still into getting drunk and partying every night I would have been on Chloe Grace Mortz's side and found the adults super-annoying and overly-oppressive.  However, my party years have long gone and I can only now sympathise with the plight of someone trying to sell their house and how difficult it is at the best of times without having a house full of obnoxious teens opposite.

Like I say, I didn't hate it or feel that it was a waste of my time.  I just won't be watching the sequel again, whereas I can probably see myself putting on the original at some point in the future when I need a relaxing little adult comedy to rest my brain to.  I get the impression it wasn't just me who found this sequel inferior.  I can't see there being a 'Bad Neighbours 3!'

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

The Island - Better than you've heard

Back when 'The Island' was released in 2005 I'd never really heard of its director Michael Bay.  It was before he - dare I say it - 'ruined' the 'Transformers' and 'Turtles' franchises, so I went to see this expecting a decent sci-fi movie with a couple of actors (Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson) who I enjoyed watching on screen.  And, I got just that (apart from a lot more action than I'd bargained for!).

It was only after the film was released did I start hearing words like 'flop' and 'bomb' to describe it.  And, I was pretty shocked.  I couldn't see much wrong with it - if you're in the mood for something big and loud.  I won't go into too much detail about the plot, but it's set in the near future where the population lives in a colony that's been sealed off from the rest of the world due to 'contamination.' The only thing these survivors look forward to is the possibility they will win a random lottery and be sent to 'the island' to live the rest of their lives in luxury.  Now, if that sounds a little strange, it is.  Naturally there's more going on than meets the eye and I'm sure that Sean bean has a hand in it.

Although it was kind of billed as a 'sci-fi' movie (looking like a modern day version of 'Logan's Run') it actually turned out to be more of an action-chase movie with just a hint of sci-fi.  Our two young heroes find themselves pursued relentlessly through... well, you'll have to watch it to find out.  And, for an action film, it does actually ask a few deeper questions about morality and the nature of humanity than most 'shooty-shooty' type films.  Don't worry, it doesn't get too preachy.  Yes, the typical Michael Bay explosions are in there (watch out for fireworks going off among the carnage every time anything blows up!) and there's more helicopters than you've ever seen in your life.

I'm not saying that it's an epic masterpiece, but it has a great cast (did I mention that Steve Buscemi is also in there?), but it's got a budget and looks visually stunning, plus it's exciting.  If you're into action movies then you should definitely watch this one.  It's big, explosive popcorn fun (and it doesn't mess up any childhood memories).  If you've noticed Michael Bay's name attached to this, don't automatically hate it. 'The Island' feels more at home with his earlier films - do you remember those?  People actually liked them!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Jeepers Creepers 3 - Should have stopped at 2

I have mixed feelings towards the 'Jeepers Creepers' franchise.  I didn't actually enjoy the first outing, finding it all a little frustrating that the heroes never really did enough to escape their monstrous, winged tormentor.The second one was more fun (if a little 'all over the place') and I remember the film-makers stating at the time, that the reason the 'Creeper' only attacked every 25 years was to prevent sequels from being made.  Apparently, we're now '25 years later' since part 2.

Yes, the big ugly bat-man, monster-thing is back after another 25 years and looking to kill and generally murder his way through anyone the plot dictates.  And, this time he has a whole new load of powers.  In fact, if he can kill you with his spear and various weapons, he will.  If the way he kills you defies all known physics, it just happens that way.  I guess the writers figured that because it's a 'straight-to-DVD' horror, no one would really care.  I certainly didn't care... about the whole film.

Like I said, I liked the second instalment even though it had multiple stories and themes which didn't always blend as well as they could.  However, Part II is a work of story-telling genius when compared to what follows.  You have characters - you won't remember any of their names, so I won't bother to try and list them.  Each is either hunting the monster or destined to be a victim of it.  The characters aren't given any real traits more than the one-dimensional types they start the first scene you'll meet them in.

So, the characters you won't care about.  The deaths are vaguly gory, if that's what you're looking for, but the Creeper himself just seems so overpowered that you know there's nothing anyone can do about him (until the end where the human-cattle at least have a shot at stopping him).  Plus you see the monster from the beginning.  I know that - by any third instalment - the audience is probably well aware of what the creature looks like.  It's just that at least NOT showing him all the time gives him an air of mystery.  Now he's just another man in a rubber suit.

As you can guess, I really didn't care for this one and struggled to get through it.  I know that the first one was popular so, even if I didn't 'get' it, there must be plenty of horror-buffs who did.  From what I understand people - like me - did like the second part, so my advice would be to forget this one completely and stick to one or both of those two.

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

Aftermath - Short and sweet (well… sort of)

Anyone who's familiar with Schwarzenegger's career over the years will be well accustomed to him losing one family member to some big bad guy with an indeterminate accent and therefore Arnie having to go on a rampage of revenge, involving many machine guns and flexing of biceps.  Here, the big man loses his family to a plane crash and… doesn't pick up so much a handgun and shoot the airline's smarmy lawyer in the head during a victim-compensation office meeting.  Yes, it's fair to say that Arnie is showing off his (seldom-used) 'sensitive side.'

The film is actually the tale of two people: Arnie's character, Roman, and the man in charge of the flight control during the fatal plane crash, Jacob.  Now, no disrespect to the actor playing Jacob, but I'd never heard of him, meaning - for me - it seemed like they'd cast a nobody next to one of the most highly-recognisable actors of the modern age for 50% of the movie.  However, that's not really a gripe, more a comment.  Scoot McNairy plays the part well of the 'everyman' who's life changes one fateful day.

We see how the event effects the two central characters and I have to talk about Schwarzenegger more because this film is all about him moving out of his 'comfort zone,' rather than Scoot.  Does he pull it off?  Surprisingly, yes.  Maybe it's because he's older now and less imposing, but his large frame, shuffling around with his head stooped does give us the impression of a man crushed by tragic events.

Apparently this film is based on true events.  I never knew that going into the movie so I can't say how accurately it portrays whatever event it was based on.  However, it does show both sides of how one event can effect different people.

It's hard to recommend 'Aftermath' to anyone who isn't massive fan of Schwarzenegger and who wants to see him in a radically-different role.  It's certainly not a 'feel-good film' and you need to know that (a) you're not going to get your typical Schwarzenegger action movie and (b) it's pretty grim subject matter.  However, it is short and perhaps one of the most shocking moments (for me!) was when/how it ended.  It just seemed to come out of nowhere.  Still... I think it's a good additional to Arnie's C.V. (like he needs one!).

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

Commando - So simple.  So perfect.

The word 'perfect' may be an odd one to describe an eighties action film where one man effectively takes on an entire army while making wry puns and flexing his biceps.  No, I'm not saying that 'Commando' is a perfect film when compared to true cinematic greats, such as the ones we all know and respect like 'Citizen Kane, The Godfather and Empire Strikes Back.'

No, I'm saying that 'Commando' is 'perfect' in a different way.  As I've already mentioned, it was made in the eighties.  And you have to appreciate that, back then, it was a different time period.  Women were not always portrayed as strong, independent and many of them needed rescuing from evil bad-guys with odd Anglo-Aussie accents.  It is a 'perfect' action film and shouldn't be judged against clearly more 'high-brow' movies.

Great films make you think and make you enjoy the character arcs and journeys.  Then again, as with 'Commando,' it can also be said that 'great' films can also be sheer entertainment where you can escape 'real life' and simply enjoy the over-the-topness of the action. 'Commando' is definitely 'great' in this category.

It could also be classed as Arnold Schwarzenegger's 'first' film.  Previously he didn't say too much as the iconic 'Terminator' and the 'Conan' film, he wasn't the wise-cracking action hunk he was destined to become.  There is very little back-story to this film.  It's about an ex-army soldier (Arnie) who, despite retiring, has his daughter kidnapped by baddies who want him to assassinate a politician.  Naturally, he decides on a different method of handling the situation.  He wipes out pretty much everyone he comes across with a hail-storm of bullets and bazookas.  The film rests firmly on Arnie's broad shoulders and he carries it perfectly.  You probably won't remember too many of the supporting cast, apart from the primary antagonist 'Bennett' who I can never work out whether he's trying to be British or Australian and who is as over-the-top as this film would make you expect.

Therefore, expect shoot-outs (obviously), car chases, punch-ups and plenty of action.  This is an 'action film' through and through.  And, like I've said, it's a perfect example of a simple action epic.  If you're a Schwarzenegger fan then you probably already own this, but if you like your action films a little over-the-top and a lot tongue-in-cheek, then you should definitely check this one out.  It's the ultimate daft popcorn flick totally designed to entertain.  Watch it before they remake it.

10/10 The Monty Python Knights of Camelot are currently looking for this 

Jumper - C'mon… it's not THAT bad

Since the 'Star Wars' prequels, it's seemingly been officially acceptable to 'bash' Hayden Christensen.  Okay, so maybe he's never destined to be an A-list star who will be remembered forever, but it's not like he's so awful that everything he's in should be tainted by the general feeling of disappointment that came with those first (infamous) three films.

'Jumper' is Haydensen's first (and ONLY to my knowledge!) attempt at shouldering a film himself.  And it bombed.  I'm guessing it was probably supposed to start a franchise, but that will never happen.  However, despite how it was received, I think I've watched it about three times over the years and enjoyed it every time.

Apparently, a 'jumper' is basically someone with the power to teleport.  Christiensen is one such individual.  However, just because he can pop in and out of bank's vaults with impunity, doesn't mean his life is going to be one long party - that's where Samuel L Jackson comes in.  These 'Paladins' have dedicated their lives to tracking down these 'freaks of nature' and generally stabbing them to death.

What you have is a - sort of - chase movie where Samuel L Jackson generally hunts down Hayden Christensen, intertwined with some genuinely cool action set-pieces involving fighting while teleporting and utilising all the perks that come with this power.  Yes, there's the obligatory 'love interest' thrown in there (possibly trying to capture a little of that 'teen magic' the 'Twilight' franchise capitalised on), but that's secondary.  The fun is the action - and Jamie Bell, who also pops up (and, in my opinion, steals every scene!).

I'm not saying that 'Jumper' is the greatest film ever.  But I think it deserves just a little more love than it got on its release.  It's got sci-fi, action and, of course, effectively an evil version of Samuel L Jackson's 'Nick Fury' character (and with blond hair for some reason!).  You won't need to use many brain cells to understand the plot, but it's reasonably harmless fun.  And, with so many films trying for that 'Twilight' teens-meet-supernatural vibe, this is actually one of the better ones.

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

Carry On Follow That Camel - Not what I remembered

Despite growing up slightly after the 'Carry On' films heyday, I watched many of them on TV when I was a child and 'Follow That Camel' always stuck in my mind as my favourite of them all.  Therefore, when I rewatched it, I was certainly expecting a lot more laughs than I got.  I don't want to harp on about how 'times have changed,' but even I cringed sometimes at some of the 'jokes' which, nowadays, could be borderline criminal offenses.  However, I could probably just chalk these up to a 'sign of the times' and ignore them if the rest of the film could hold up.  And it didn't.

The film charts the loose story of a disgraced Englishman who joins the French foreign legion to escape his social embaressement.  The film is therefore set in a desert (or rather a part of southern England where the film-makers have put sand on the set!) and there are plenty of colourful characters, just not many gags that still land today.

Yes, many of the 'usual suspects' from 'Carry On' films are there - Kenneth Williams for example, hams it up and is still entertaining to watch.  But the rest of them just seem to be retreading the same old ground.  I guess the franchise was getting a little tired by this point and generally running out of steam.  I wanted to love it like I used to.  Maybe it's more suited to a child's humour?  Maybe times have changed so much that this sort of humour will never be able to be appreciated?  Or maybe I'm just losing my sense of humour as I'm getting older.  Either way, I was disappointed.  There are plenty of other 'Carry On' films I used to watch (and love!) back in the day.  Now I'm scared to watch them again in case I they don't live up to what I remember!

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

Bulletproof Monk - So dumb.  So fun.

There's absolutely nothing special about the (not so subtly-titled) 'Bulletproof Monk.' In fact, the title should tell you everything you need to know about the film.  However, just because it's nothing out of the ordinary, doesn't make it a bad film.  In fact... it's rather good fun (if you're not expecting too much).

Sean William Scott - better known as 'Who?' unless you're watching an 'American Pie' movie, where he is - of course - 'Stiffler.' He is playing, er, 'Stiffler' basically, only he's really good at martial arts and pickpocketing people.  He ends up getting caught up in a plot by Nazis seeking immortality and has to help the titular 'Bulletproof Monk' (Chow Yun Fat) save the world from these out of time creeps.

This film was made back in 2003 and I'd love to say that, because of the time it was made, there was less CGI and more 'practical' effects.  Yes, there are some practical effects (or should I say well-choreographed fight scenes), however a lot of the more 'fantastical' martial arts moves are all - very blatantly - filmed up against a blue screen.  You may just have to forgive them for that.

So, you have plucky, wise-cracking hero, wise mentor, evil baddies and obligatory love interest (Jamie King).  So, like I say, nothing you haven't seen a hundred times before.  It's so run-of-the-mill that there's not an awful lot else I can say about it.  However, just because it doesn't set the film-world alight in terms of originality, doesn't mean that it isn't enormous fun.  But, if you like your modern martial arts films, or just need a relaxing little action flick to rest your brain to after a hard day's work, then this should fit the bill.

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

Avengers: Infinity War - What we've all been waiting for

I can't help but think of 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' after watching 'Avengers: Infinity War.' The two of them may have been made by Disney, but they are worlds apart when it comes to giving the fans what they were after.  The latest 'Star Wars' may have been okay, but it was generally disregarded by many die-hards.  However, despite the Avengers - technically - pumping out more films in its franchise and therefore potentially suffering from fatigue regarding its premise, it's been hailed as a classic - and for good reason.  It shows that, despite having numerous previous (and dare I say similar?) outings, a sequel doesn't have to be stale.

I suppose there must be some people out there who have never seen an 'Avengers' movie before (or even one from the Marvel Cinematic Universe), so, for the two of you, this is the third outing where Earth's mightiest superheroes are forced to come together to defend the planet from an alien, hell-bent on wiping out 50% of the universe.

You may be thinking that this is just another modern action film, filled with computer-generated special effects and scripted one-liners.  And you'd be right.  However, I always find that computer-generated battles are only bad if the effects are bad and they drag on and scripted one-liners only don't work if they're forced and there's no chemistry between the actors.  I'm pleased to say that, although 'Avengers: Infinity War' has both, they only add to the proceedings.

With a cast as big as is needed to bring characters from every Marvel movie together, there's always going to be a couple who don't get quite as much screen time as some of us would like.  However, you should really expect that and realise it was going to be difficult for the writers to please everyone.  Personally, I've always been a fan of Robert Downey Jr's portrayal of 'Iron Man' (I don't think I'm alone on that one), so I was happy to see that he was - possibly - given the most screen time out of anyone.

However, no matter how good the goodies are, they need a good bad-guy to fight.  The Marvel movies have often been criticised for a lack of real threatening baddies (Loki excluded), so we finally get to see he who has been in the background for so long, Thanos.  And he's worth the wait.  He's a bad guy we can not only love to hate, but also - in a strange way - see that he has a point, or at least a point of view from his own perspective.  Josh Brolin portrays him brilliantly and you'll forget that most of him is computer-generated after a while.

Yes, 'Infinity War' is part of the overall franchise, but you don't really have to have seen every previous movie to 'get' everything that's happening here (obviously, the more Marvel movies you've seen the more you'll get out of this one, but it's not essential).  I suppose if there is one complaint of mine it's that I know which characters are truly in danger here, due to the actors' contracts either due to expire, or only just being picked up.  Either way, it's a definite improvement on the previous 'Avengers' movie, as the 'Age of Ultron' felt strangely 'meh' for one that should have been so much more.

If you like the MCU, you'll like this.  If you like action film, you'll also love it.  It's - sort of - a family movie in that a lot of families will go to see it, but, either way, it's so epic in scale that most should appreciate it for the sheer spectacle it is.  Poor Justice League - it never really stood a chance.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather