Child’s Play 2 - Satisfactory sequel

If you never saw the first `Child's Play' film... it's about a serial killer whose soul gets trapped inside a children's doll and then goes on to persecute the poor little boy (Andy Barclay) who buys him.  Now, after sending the offending dolly back to hell, he's back again (you don't need to know how - basically the same way Freddy, Jason or Michael Myers always comes back - yet - again).  And, guess what, Andy Barclay is top of his `hit list.'

It’s nice to see the little boy who plays Andy come back and, in terms of child actors, he’s actually quite good (still!).  Even though much of his screen-time is trying to convince adults that his doll is possessed and trying to kill him.

Brad Dourif returns to voice the killer doll, Chucky, and he gets it right on the mark again.  However, the story does get a little bit repetitive after a while.  It focuses around no one believing Andy that his doll is alive (and evil), only to find they're proved wrong when the doll kills them in a grisly manner (rinse and repeat).  Plus you can tell who's going to die a mile off - all the adults are pretty horrible and you won't really shed a tear when any of them get gutted.  Some of the more amusing (yet still horrible) adult characters are in it only at the beginning – it might have been better to save them (and their various demises) until later on in the film.  Then there are the lapses in physics, i.e. when a plastic doll can regularly overpower fully-grown adults.

However, despite all its flaws, ‘Child's Play 2’ just about does the job.  If you liked the first one, this one does its best to keep the franchise going along the same lines.  However, if you're new to the films, I'd start off with the first one (it's easily the best and scariest) before seeing if you want to watch this one, too.

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

Child's Play - Classic horror

Child's Play' is a great little horror film from the eighties, that - I'm guessing - even took the film-makers by surprise in its popularity.  I would imagine they never realised it was the beginning of a major franchise that's still going strong thirty years later (reboot and TV series apparently on its way?).  As with many horror films, the sequels slowly take a dip in quality with each instalment, or even if you don't agree with that, the 'Child's Play' franchise weaves in and out of various genres, going from 'horror' to 'horror-comedy.' However, what the original does best is stick to its horror roots (although you may smile here and there!).

The film kicks off as a police officer chases down and shoots dead a wanted man who's taken refuge in a toy shop.  However, this is no ordinary criminal, but Charles 'Chucky' Lee Ray (Brad Dourif), a killer who knows a thing or two about voodoo practices.  And he transfers his soul into a nearby 'Good Guy' (how ironic, eh?) doll.  And this doll ends up in possession of a young boy called Andy who, along with his mother, are the first to discover the toy's true - murderous - identity.

Naturally, this start going downhill pretty fast as the doll decides to take lethal revenge on anyone he feels did him wrong while he was human and quickly turns on his new 'owners.' A few things elevate this from the bucket-loads of similar movies.  It was certainly original for its time and, although hardly stylishly directed, is competent enough to create a realistic atmosphere.  The characters are all likable enough and never stray (too much) into horror clichés where they do idiotic things in the face of danger.

Andy and his mother are clearly the (main) stars, but the cops provide actually quite decent supporting characters - naturally they don't believe that a killer doll is stalking the family and provide some believable disbelief here and there (along with the odd comic moment).  However, no matter how good any of the humans are, it's the doll 'Chucky' who steals every scene.  For a start it's worth noting that he was created before CGI and is therefore either a puppet, or a dwarf in a suit filmed from clever angles.  And, the only thing better than the doll itself, is the voice of Brad Dourif who flits from evil to darkly entertaining in the blink of an eye - and has naturally been kept on as the continued voice of Chucky throughout every genre change, reboot and sequel.

I know that no eighties B-movie horror film can ever truly be a classic in terms of film-making.  If you really want to you can pick apart many things wrong with it.  However, if you're looking for a horror film that is creepier than most, more original than most, more entertaining than most and has Brad Dourif on top form, then you should definitely check this one out.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Blow – Dark biopic

Believe it or not, there was a time when Johnny Depp could do no wrong. ‘Blow’ was an example of one of the many – possibly only average – films which his presence and screen-charisma elevated to more than just a run-of-the-mill biopic of a drug dealer.  Depp plays ‘George Jung’ – possibly the most notorious American-born drug dealer of the seventies and eighties and ‘Blow’ charts the man’s rise to power and subsequent fall, leaving off where he (literally) is today (or at least where he was in 2001 when this film was released).

Besides Depp, there aren’t that many famous faces on show here.  Penelope Cruz seems to relish taking a break from playing ‘nice girls’ back then in favour of being Depp’s crazy, coke-fuelled on-screen wife and Ray Liotta pops up as Depp’s long-suffering father (with occasional dubious make-up to show how he’s aged throughout the story).  Besides them, it’s a Johnny Depp film all the way.  I do wonder whether, if it was released today, it would have been half as popular, as Depp’s last few big screen ventures have brought nothing but scorn from critics at the Box Office.  However, here he shines.  Yes, he is certainly a rogue – someone only interested in the ‘good life,’ but despite being a criminal, he’s never a violent one (of course some may argue that spreading addictive and deadly drugs to the masses constitutes ‘harming’ people!).

Being a ‘real life’ tale (or, as Hollywood tends to do, takes aspects of the real events and forms a more compelling narrative around them) Depp provides a lot of voiceover which does tend to ‘tell’ the story, as opposed to ‘showing’ what transpires.  Plus this turns into a convenient tool with which to fill in blanks when the film moves from time period to time period (I think – technically – it starts in the fifties and ends up in the nineties, so many time-jumps are required).  And, if a voiceover isn’t there, sometimes you get a montage to quickly get the audience to the next major point in Jung’s life.  These can come across as a bit jarring and make the film (which most likely could have been a whole TV series about this man’s life!) feel a little rushed in places.

If you’re into crime films (based on real life events, or otherwise) you should enjoy this.  It’s definitely very watchable and, from what I’ve seen online, presents a reasonable attempt at portraying the facts surrounding Jung’s life.  Plus, if you’re into Depp in his heyday, then you’ll get your money’s worth here.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Curse of Chucky - Sadly very disappointing

I was really looking forward to this.  The first few films of the series (back when it was known as `Child's Play' were pretty damn creepy, whereas the new two (`Seed' and `Bride' of Chucky) took a more lighter note, but still had their merits in the `horror comedy' sub-genre.

Here, in `The Curse of Chucky' it tries to go back to its roots by being creepy.  It doesn't work.  Chucky (who - let's face it - is why we watch these films) is barely in it until the forty-five minute mark.  Previously, all we're treated to is a `slasher' type film, i.e. where stupid people wander round a large, allegedly-spooky house, being picked off one by one.  While, at the same time, a young girl gets to know Chucky... only to discover the `real' him.

Unfortunately, it's just dull.  The `slasher' element is redundant as we know it's Chucky doing the killing.  The characters are either bland or completely unlikeable, so we don't care whether they're chopped to pieces or not.  And the whole girl-getting-to-know-Chucky sub-plot is just the same as the first film, only with a young girl instead of a boy.

There are some nice references to the original Child's Play movie and we get to find out a little more about the man who possessed the doll, i.e. serial killer Charles Lee Ray, but it's too little too late.  I think the film-makers were trying to do `scary,' to move the franchise back towards `horror' over comedy.  Sadly, after watching it, I'd rather they'd played it for laughs once again.
The second half kind of picks up a bit, so it's not all bad.  And I enjoyed the ending (about the last 15 minutes) and make sure you watch AFTER the credits as there's an important scene you may miss that kind of changes things.

`Curse of Chucky' was the first of the franchise which was not released in the cinemas, only making a `straight to DVD' release.  There's a reason for that.

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

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again - More torturous than the entire 'Hostel' franchise

I don't know why I watched this film.  Actually, I do.  I was forced to (or rather 'emotionally blackmailed').  I hate musicals - every last one of them.  However, I was told that  this one was 'really good' and I have to confess to having occasionally grooved along to Abba's 'Dancing Queen' at the odd seventies night throughout the years.  How bad can it be?  I thought.  It's bad.  Very bad.

Unsurprisingly, I didn't watch the first film, so who's who kind of eluded me and why someone would have 'three dads' had to be explained to me.  The characters were just awful - pretentious and 'forced lovability' does not make someone endearing.  They were just all too perfect and (allegedly) quirky.  All the way through I thought I was watching some sort of Richard ('Four Weddings, Notting Hill, Bridget Jones' and that other film too terrible to mention ending 'Actually') Curtis spin-off film.  Of course my fears were proved true during the end credits when I found his name attached to it.

I have nothing against the actors.  I own many movies containing every last one of them.  This was purely a way to take a good actor and make them into a non-CGI version of Jar-Jar Binks.  A character walks on screen.  They open their mouth.  I want to bludgeon them to death with a copy of Abba's Greatest Hits.  It really is quite a feat to make every single character that annoyingly-perfect.

Then there's the story (or should I say 'story').  There isn't really one.  Some blubbering young woman wants to rebuild a shack in Greece and turn it into a hotel because her (now deceased hippy) mother fell in love there with three different men there.  Therefore we're treated to cut scenes showing her building it, then it getting wrecked by a storm that happened to come, then rebuilt etc.  Then no one's going to come to the VIP opening.  Then they are.  Things just happen.  Deal with it.  However, this is actually just a sub-plot.  The 'meat' the experience is one long string of flashbacks showing her mother being unable to decide which guy she likes best about thirty years ago.  This all means every scene is an excuse to loosely link in to an Abba song which they sing, dance and, er, sing a bit more.

Then there's the humour.  Yes, this has 'humour' in it.  Only the 'jokes' are literally the worst you've ever seen.  Listening to the complete works of Christmas Cracker jokes would be more entertaining than the forced (and soooo predictable) humour that was displayed here (and weirdly what the cinema audience around me was actually laughing to!).

It's a musical.  Yes, you know that and so did I.  So I can't complain too much.  I should have known how this genre affects me.  It's so treacle-sweet most of my teeth rotted away.  Everyone has to be happy and every loose end has to be tied so neatly, no matter how this course of action forces the script to crowbar in yet another unbelievable plot device.

I hate all musicals.  I swear I will never watch another (excluding successful blackmail attempts by close family members).  However, I have to point out that I am clearly the minority.  Everyone in the cinema loved it (as did the person who dragged me to watch it - it was her THIRD viewing of this abomination).  There is clearly a market for this sort of film. I am clearly not it.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to watch hordes of flesh-eating corpses get decapitated while Iron Man thwarts an alien invasion in New York.

Oh, but I did chuckle a few times during the 'cake-gag' run midway through the film.

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

The Host - The running fish

Monster movies come and go and, these days, they're all pretty much the same.  The question is, 'Can a film repackage the same old story enough to make it an enjoyable experience?' I'm glad to say that, with the Korean film, 'The Host,' the answer is a firm YES.

The story itself is as old as it comes - big monster/scared humans.  However, this film is just too much dumb fun to be forgotten.  99% of it is subtitled (a couple of English speaking actors pop up here and there, so you'll have to be used to reading to enjoy it) and I guess it's hard for me to concentrate on actors' performances, but I think the central family who gets caught up in an attempt at fleeing/hunting one hell of a weird fish-monster-thing are believable as a family unit.

For a horror film there's not that much gore (and when I say 'gore' I mean the 'red stuff'), the 'horror' comes from watching some really helpless civilians fall foul to the beastie.  The special effects are just about passible.  Sometimes you look at the monster and can see that it's not really there, other times it really does interact well with the environment.

What really elevates 'The Host' over so many similar films are the little touches.  There seem to be plenty of 'random' moments in the story which aren't really connected to the central plot.  It maybe a throw-away line from a random extra who only appears in the film to say these few words.  Or it may be the added character traits and backstory which have been put in to actually flesh out the characters, rather than just making them pure 'monster-fodder.' It's pretty 'self-knowing' though never really comes across as a comedy/horror, despite the antics making me smile on more than one occasion.  The family's interactions which each other are just quite fun to watch as they bicker like the best of us between them.

Perhaps the film isn't quite so 'random' as I thought it was.  The Korean culture appears to be different enough to our Western ways of doing things to mean that occasionally I wondered whether people would really act the way the characters did, only to conclude that the reason they were behaving that way was because they simply do things differently in certain situations.  Either way, the film was enormous fun and, if you're into your monster movies then it's definitely worth adding to your collection (and it is nearly two hours long, so prepare for a monster-marathon watch!). 

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Super Troopers - Strangely watchable

Super Troopers' is - almost literally - a 'car crash.' It's a comedy about four (or was it five?) state troopers who spend their days generally winding up motorists (and occasionally catching criminals).  However, their days appear to be numbered when local government threatens to shut down their unit in favour of another 'better' department.

I say 'four or five' troopers because I couldn't really tell them apart.  One was black.  One was stupid (or even more stupid than the others - if you can believe that!), but the other lot were pretty interchangeable (maybe it was the abundance of moustaches?).  Basically, the film has no recognisable stars (unless you count Brian Cox and Linda 'pre Gal Gadot Wonder Woman' Carter's minor roles.

The comedy throughout is definitely of an 'adult' nature, so expect daftness and bawdy male humour.  I don't know whether it was just me, but I didn't laugh that much during its run-time and you may be forgiven for thinking that I didn't enjoy it.  Despite its lack of stars, maturity and (obvious?) jokes, it was strangely entertaining.

I think you have to be in the mood for something like this and know what you're getting.  If you're looking for something even slightly intellectual then steer well clear.  There's no brainpower required to watch this, only an appreciation of severely low-brown humour.  And, I obviously was in the right mood when I watched it, as I'm actually quite looking forward to the (belated?) sequel which I can only hope entertains as much as this one does.

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

The Prestige - Abracadabra!

The Prestige' tells the tale of two rival magicians at the turn of last century who constantly try to outdo each other at every turn.  The premise may sound a little so-so, but, trust me, the finished product is anything but.  It's magic.  First of all it's a Christopher Nolan film - a writer/director who is one of the most respected and profitable working today.  But, no matter how well he does in the director's chair, it's the cast who make it what it is.

I know that the term 'assemble cast' is normally associated with films like 'The Avengers' where every major character is a star in their own right, but 'The Prestige' isn't far off attaining this label.  The two magicians in question are played by Christian 'Batman' Bale and Hugh 'Wolverine' Jackman and, obviously, the film focuses in on them.  However, there's plenty of extra acting talent supporting their personal grievances with each other, namely Michael Caine, David Bowie, Scarlett Johansson and Rebecca Hall - all of which play their parts to perfection no matter how much screen time they're given.

It's really a story about obsession - how two men start off as friends, but, through a string of unfortunate events (and the desire never to share a stage and be 'the best' in their own rights!) they dedicate their lives to outdo each other, no matter how much it costs them.  There's a fair amount of tragedy to the tale as both men suffer blows to their personal life in pursuit of their quests for revenge (and to introduce the perfect magic trick to their audiences) and you can't help but feel for them on more than one occasion.

I really would recommend 'The Prestige' to anyone wanting to watch a truly great modern classic.  However, if I was to try and find a few flaws in it, I'd probably warn people that it's hardly fast-paced and quite long compared to the average ninety minute runtime.  Plus the story does bounce around in time, meaning you'll see the end first and find yourself having the middle narrated by one character, before popping back to the beginning and finding a different member of the cast telling you what's happening.  It does work, but it will force you to concentrate on what time period you're watching (check your phone at your peril and you may run the risk of becoming totally confused!).

However, perhaps my personal only gripe with the film was that all the way through I thought it was based in reality.  The magicians are just that - tricksters like any other stage show act you'd see today.  However, without straying into 'spoiler territory' I have to warn you that this film's genre ends up being 'science fiction.' But, if you know what you're watching you should really get quite a lot out of this film on many levels.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Scanners - An excellent film (for its time)

I've watched 'Scanners' a few times now and it's definitely a classic.  However, it's also one of those films that I reckon even die-hard fans may find it hard to watch that often.  I find myself sitting down to it every five or so years, each time realising that I've managed to forget most of the entire story and then having to see it all over again, so to speak.

I guess that, back in 1981, 'telepaths' were a suitably original subject for a movie.  A 'scanner' is basically that - someone who can scan others' minds (and, of course, occasionally plant the odd suggestion).  The government doesn't entirely trust them and likes to keep them locked up in secure facilities where they can - hopefully - be weaponised.  With all the superheroes flying around the big screen today, these scanners' powers seem quite underwhelming.   So, staying with the whole 'Scanners vs Avengers' type theme, don't expect there to be much of a budget for this film.  I think it's fair to say that every penny of its budget went on a particularly gruesome scene which has become famous in terms of just what can be achieved via practical effects.  Don't expect and armies of scanners facing off in a battle for New York!

The film's stand-out actor is Michael Ironside, who actually plays the antagonist.  The film's heroes don't really seem to leave much of a memorable impression on anyone (which goes to show why they never went on to star in much else afterwards).  However, one of the film's main strengths is its director - David Cronenberg.  His creepy style or dark story-telling is probably the main thing that elevates 'Scanners' out of being a forgettable B-movie and gives it its deserved 'cult status.'

Plus 'Scanners' other strength is due to when it was released.  Compared to today's offerings it gives you little that you (now) haven't seen a hundred times before.  There is a plot point which comes late in the final act and I always remember kind of guessing what that was, but the ending is certainly different enough to be memorable.  But that doesn't mean it's not worth a watch.  Don't expect fast-paced action, or even special effects (bar that one scene!).  But if you're in the mood for possibly the best ever film about the dangers of telepathy/telekinesis then you really have to watch this one - it should be on every horror buff's watchlist. 

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

How to Get Ahead in Advertising - Very loud

As I write this review the keyboard I type on doesn't appear to be making any sounds.  That's possibly because I can no longer hear the tapping noise my fingers should be making - and this is largely down to becoming deaf after watching Richard E Grant's performance in 'How to Get Ahead in Advertising.'

I'm well aware that it's a cult favourite and don't want to rubbish it too much.  I did enjoy the premise, (some) make-up effects and overall message.  I just found the central character too annoying (did I mention how loud he was?) to really enjoy the whole film completely.

Grant plays an advertising executive who - admittedly - isn't the nicest person in the world (who in advertising is?!).  However, while trying to come up with new content for a particular brand of pimple cream, develops a pimple of his own.  Nothing too strange there, until the pimple on his neck starts talking.  And growing.  And developing eyes, as if trying to become the (titular) 'head' in the title.

Yeah, it's all pretty weird and you have to just go with that side of things.  It's the message that's really important, i.e. the rather unsubtle jibes at the advertising industry in general.  Naturally, Grant doesn't enjoy having a boil talking to him and slowly becomes more and more insane (and louder - did I mention that?).

Overall, despite Grant chewing up every piece of scenery on set, I didn't regret watching the film.  It's certainly different and probably a must if you like the more quirky types of films that are shown in film studies classes.  Just don't forget the ear plugs.  And it had Richard 'Victor Meldrew' in it if you're a fan of 'One Foot in the Grave.'

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

The Dead Zone - I must have watched a different film

Christopher Walken - check.  Stephen King - check.  Spooky/creepy horror films - check.  These are all pretty much lynchpins of my film collection, so you'd probably think that Stephen King's 'The Dead Zone' would fit in there perfectly.  I wish it did.  Before writing this review I took the time to read (the numerous!) five star reviews, all proclaiming it as a supernatural story that's up there with 'The Shining' and 'Salam's Lot.' Again, I enjoyed both of those, but I can't in all honesty recommend 'The Dead Zone' alongside those.

Christopher Walken plays a school teacher who gets into a car accident, leaving in a coma for five years.  However, when he wakes up, once he's got over the fact that his girlfriend has left him, he finds he's blessed with the ability to see people's futures just by touching them.  Maybe it's because we're so used to seeing those with 'mutant' abilities jumping into a spandex costume and flying round New York fighting aliens that 'The Dead Zone' feels so muted.  Yes, I know it's not meant to be an all out action epic and Walken's portrayal of a man coming to terms with the role he's been forced to take on post-coma is deliberately understated.

It's not the plot or the lack of budget that didn't appeal to me.  I think the main thing was the dialogue.  Considering it was adapted from a Stephen King story and then - presumably - rewritten by one Hollywood screenwriter or another, you'd think it would have a better script.  However, even with an actor as talented as Walken in the lead, the dialogue seems basic, clunky and very badly-written.

Again, I don't know if it's just me, but if the film has a real 'low point,' it's Walken's on-screen love/former love-interest (Brooke Adams) who seems to never be able to make up her mind as to whether she should be with him (despite now being married and with child), or stick with her current relationship.  These emotions seem to bounce back and forth from scene to scene and she comes across as one hell of a flake-ish character.  Tom Skerritt is also on the bill, but I found him a bit underused, whereas the film’s primary villain (Martin Sheen) gets more screen time, only to use it as a typically clichéd villainous and corrupt senator.

I didn't hate-hate 'The Dead Zone' - it was okay enough.  I just certainly don't see what so many have obviously seen in it.  I found it slowly-paced, clunky-scripted and not worthy of the talent involved.  However, I will agree with what many people have said about it - that it's a 'tragic tale.' It's not exactly a 'feel-good' movie and if you're looking for something to cheer you up, you certainly won't find it here!  Maybe I should have been in a more cheerful mood before I sat down to watch it?  Still, the ending was pretty good/different though.

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

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows - I should have hated this film more

I was the original eighties kid who grew up on the Teenage Mutant Ninja (or 'Hero' as it was here in the UK) Turtles cartoon.  Then the inevitable live action film was released in 1990 and, despite how bad it really was, I loved it.  I stress again - I was a kid. 'Out of the Shadows' is the second instalment of the modern generation of Turtles films and I remember the outcry from us fanboys when the first one was released.  Okay, so we had a point about the possibility of the turtles being evolved from aliens, but, overall, it was just how it wasn't representative of what we remembered.  And we collectively hated it.

Yeah, it was no masterpiece and there were definitely things in it I'd like to have seen, but didn't.  But it wasn't terrible.  And, bearing that in mind, I decided to watch its follow-up.  And, unbelievably, I'm actually quite glad I did.  No, I didn't love it - it wasn't really the Turtles that I remembered from my childhood, but suddenly I could see kids today absolutely loving it.  In twenty or thirty years’ time I can see them arguing with their own children about how whatever new 'update' to the franchise doesn't compare to Megan Fox's portrayal of April O'Neil.  And they'll be right.  And so will their kids.

I could bang on about how there was too much CGI, or that the Turtles themselves looked hideous and scary compared to their loveable cartoon incarnations.  Plus the film felt like just another addition to Michael Bay's ever-growing list of blockbusters with more explosions than narrative structure.  Then there were the complete gaps in logic where you have to suspend your disbelief in order to get past the fact that, in this post 9/11 world, it's quite feasible to break into a New York police station as long as you have a baseball cap and a toolbox (and I guess looking like Megan Fox helps).  Yes, it's fair to say that 'Out of the Shadows' is ripe for ripping apart.  And yet it was actually still quite fun.

I do hate the overuse of computer effects, but, if you're making a live action story about six foot turtles interacting with humans, what else are you supposed to do?  Maybe it was because the cartoon was just so, er, cartoonish, that I enjoyed seeing a mutant pig and rhino - almost literally - butting heads with our pizza-loving heroes, plus there was Krang.  And, if you don't know he's a kind of pink living brain who lives in the stomach of a robot in another dimension.  He was a true joy to watch.  My major criticism of him was that he wasn't in it for long enough and had to share stage with (the more obvious baddie) Shredder, who - again - had very little time to develop his character and only popped up here and there to look moody and evil.

After watching the first (recent - 2014) incarnation of the turtles, I can only really remember an end battle on a rooftop.  Whereas with 'Out of the Shadows' I can actually recall quite a lot of detail regarding the plot.  Okay, so there wasn't much of a plot.  Maybe I should state that I can remember quite a lot about the action sequences and pretty visuals, plus the banter between the four turtles was amusing enough to keep me entertained.  And this is pure entertainment.  Don't expect anything else.  Just appreciate that boys today will probably love this film in the same way we loved the cartoon back in the late eighties (and we didn't even have Megan Fox at the helm!).  I may even watch this one again one day.  And it’s definitely better than any of the recent Michael Bay ‘Transformers’ movies!

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

Brain Dead - Wannabe 'Lynchian'

Nearly thirty years after its release, I've only just come across 'Brain Dead' (no, not the early Peter Jackson movie) - a film starring two of my favourite Bills (Pullman and Paxton).  Despite them possibly being the ONLY Bills I know in the acting industry, I was surprised that I'd never heard of this film before.  However, now I've watched it, I can see why it's been forgotten.  I really wanted to like it, but I just couldn't really get behind it fully.

I checked out some of the other reviews online and it gets a hell of a lot of 1 star ratings and people use phrases like 'You have to be brain dead to like Brain Dead.' I don't agree that it's quite that bad, but it's probably not worth the watch.  It's about here in a review that I try and do a brief plot synopsis, however I'm not entirely sure what the film was about even after watching it.  I figured that Bill Pullman played a scientist who experiments on people's brains after they've been removed from someone's body after their death.  However, there are also times when he experiments on people's brains while they're still in people's heads!  Paxton, on the other hand, plays a (delightfully!) slimy corporate executive.

I think it's fair to say that there are definite elements of the 'horror' genre in here, however I've seen it listed as 'science fiction' in some places, too.  Despite its minimal budget (it really is no blockbuster!) there are actually a couple of rather disgusting scenes involving probes entering a sort of sensitive organ (clue as to which on in the film's title!).  Although, rather than being an outright horror movie, it leans more towards what I always consider to be 'Lynchian' horror (i.e. a David 'Twin Peaks/Mullholland Drive/Lost Highway' Lynch film or TV show).  Weird things start happening and the lines between what's real and what's imaginary become blurred.

Lynch does this really well and, even if you don't understand what he's getting at, you can enjoy one hell of a stylish experience.  However, 'Brain Dead' is not directed by David Lynch.  Therefore, what you're left with is a bit of a messy tale that whats to be really deep and thought-provoking and just ends up being... well, a mess.  It's not helped that, even though it was released in 1990, it feels like they used the cheapest video camera ever to shoot it on.  The film itself just looks incredibly cheap and the most of the soundtrack and incidental music feels like elevator music and probably public domain to begin with.

The actors do their best with what they're given and, if you really enjoy total mind-bending tales where you don't know what's real or imaginary, you could get something out of this.  However, if you do like those sorts of films, then you've definitely seen better (probably from David Lynch, but also Cronenberg has done similar mainstream/cult offerings), so I'd probably stick to those.  Ironically, only seven years later Bill Pullman went on to star in Lynch's 'Lost Highway.' Although that divided audiences and was also hard to follow, it was a visual joy to watch and the sheer brilliance of direction gave it that creepy, menacing vibe which 'Brain Dead' tries for, but fails.  It's not a one star movie, but it's probably best to gloss over in the scale of things.

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

Little Evil - A cheeky little twist on a tired tale

I actually heard about this film due to a Youtube video mentioning the 'Top Ten Most Undiscovered films on Netflix' and, I think it's fair to say that 'Little Evil' earns its spot on that list.  The story about parents finding out some sort of child in their charge turns out to be possessed/spawn of evil/whatever and then has to struggle with the emotional conflicts this brings up.  And, 'Little Evil' conforms to every single beat of this horror sub-genre.  And yet it's actually a lot better than most similar films that have come before it.

A man marries a woman who has a son he hasn't really had the chance to get to know (okay, I had a bit of a problem with this, but, seeing as the film is so enjoyable, I'll let that one slide).  Of course, when he does get to become the boy's stepfather, he certainly gets more than he bargained for in terms of fatal supernatural events happening all around his new family.  So far - nothing new.  I guess the big difference is that 'Little Evil' is not just a horror (in fact, there's not an awful lot of gore/scares to be found here), it's definitely a horror-comedy.

Basically, 'Little Evil' is a shining example of how it doesn't matter if the story itself is as old and unoriginal as time and yet, if the script is well-written, it will succeed.  The characters are so good and play off each other so well that any tired genre tropes or plot-holes are barely worth talking about.  The humour just works.  There's few major mega laugh-out-loud moments, but you will find yourself smiling all the way through.  I guess it's worth mentioning about the 'message' this film offers - namely about the importance of family, or rather the importance of whatever family you choose for yourself.  It acknowledges the role that a stepparent chooses to take and points out some of the pitfalls that come with the role.

There isn't that much else to say about 'Little Evil.' It's simple.  It's nothing new (if you've seen any 'Omen-type' horror film).  It's not that scary or gory, but it is damn good fun and a worthwhile addition to your Netflix 'watchlist.'

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

11:14 – Well worth a (proper) watch

'11:14' is one of those films that is destined to have a 'cult following.' Although, to date, I have yet to find any evidence of it achieving this honour.  I loved it right from the word go and frequently try and recommend it to many a friend, only for them to look at me blankly as if I'm speaking a foreign language.  I suppose I can see why... it's certainly not your average Hollywood film and it's a little hard to describe.

I'll try and 'sell' it in as few words as possible: It's a film containing around four (seemingly unrelated) stories all set in the same time one night, all of which begin approximately 15-20 minutes before 11:14pm .  What we see is the built-up of events in each tale, all of which come together at the titular time.  Yes, I know - that synopsis hardly blows your mind.  But, please, bear with me...

It's really good!  Or rather it's really good if you like stories like that.  If you're looking for something to watch in the background, or you have a habit of checking your Instagram account on your phone while you 'watch' a movie then you're probably best off glossing over this one.  It really is a story that needs to be properly watched to be properly appreciated.  As each story ends, times rewinds around half an hour for the next story to begin.  Each new set of characters then goes some way to shed light on the questions you're left with from the previous story, until - finally - all loose ends are tied up by the time the credits roll.

Plus it has an excellent cast.  I know Patrick Swayze will always be remembered for 'Dirty Dancing/Ghost/Point Break,' but he's pretty damn good here.  And, although Hillary Swank will probably never win another Oscar for her role here, she's also an excellent addition to the cast.  The you have Colin (son of Tom) Hanks and a fair few other familiar faces you've probably seen here or there.

Perhaps, ultimately, whether or not you're going to enjoy '11:14' rests on whether you're into severely black comedy.  Yes, as the stories unfold, the body-count rises (and that's not including 'intimate' appendages that are severed in some freak accident.  So, if you fancy taking a break from watching superheroes flying round a major city killing aliens and want to watch something that forces you to actually watch it and take in what's happening, then - seriously - give this one a go.  And I will continue to do my best to 'plug' it as, even without the 'cult following' it really is a hidden gem of a movie (plus it's not that long - if that goes any way to sway your opinion).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

House - Welcome to the house of fun

No matter how much I have loved this film all my life, I still have to point out that the 'cover art' is a little misleading.  If, like me, you've seen the rotting, disembodied hand floating as it presses a doorbell, then you may believe that what you're about to see is one of the most scariest films ever made.  It isn't.  I read online that the original script was written as a straight-out horror and a later revision added humour.  What you're left with (thank goodness!) is one of the most entertaining black-comedy horror films ever made.

Yes, it's very silly.  Yes, there are big rubbery monsters lumbering around and yes it knows exactly what it is and never tries to be anything else.  However, for all its (knowing) cheesiness, it's actually a very compelling story.  Its characters all have purpose and there's a real sense that our hero - divorced former Vietnam soldier, turned horror writer, Roger Cobb - has been on a real adventure where he's grown as a character and actually accomplished something (a feat that many of today's Hollywood blockbuster scripts could take a lesson from!).

While visiting his aunt in the titular 'house' Roger's young son vanishes almost inexplicitly, causing his marriage to break up and, eventually his aunt to commit suicide.  Instead of selling the large house straight away, he decides to temporarily move in and write his new book.  However, once there he discovers more than a few secrets - literally - coming out of the woodwork.

Roger Cobb is played by William Katt (and actor I've never heard of, or at least haven't seen in much else).  And he's brilliant.  He's a hero we can get behind and root for in unravelling the mystery in what happened to his son - mainly because (a) he's not perfect.  He has made plenty of mistakes in his life and is knowing that he's now living with the consequences and (b) he actually does things we - the audience - would in his situation.  An example would be his first encounter with the supernatural - once safe he goes on to order about three large crates full of state-of-the-art (for the eighties!) camera equipment in an attempt to record proof of this encounter before he tries to convince others of his find.

However, our hero would be nothing without something to overcome.  And the house itself throws up more than a few antagonists for him to despatch.  I won't go into who you could consider is the 'primary' antagonist, as this may well lead to 'spoilers,' but my personal favourite is the purple 'she-witch' who wouldn't look out of place duking it out with Bruce Campbell.  Basically, 'House' is a delight to watch if you're into 'practical effects' rather than today's CGI, for there are all sorts of rubber nasties trying to hack, slice and possess everything around Cobb.

As you can probably guess, I love this film to bits, but then I'm a big fan of comedy-horror.  I'm guessing if you're into 'straight scares' this may not be what you're looking for.  Plus if you're into today's form of more 'serious/gory' horror, this will seem too silly for you.  However, if you're just looking for something simply to entertain with plenty of chuckles and silliness with teeth then this is definitely for you.  Another film I say that you should watch before it gets remade!

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

The Shallows - Yeah, not that deep (but not that bad, either)

Woman versus flippin' massive shark?  Who's going to win?  Well, 'The Shallows' goes some way to answer that question (and Blake Lively as the women in question is really going to need a 'bigger boat').  She plays a young woman who goes on a personal pilgrimage to an isolated beach where her (now deceased) mother went to just before she fell pregnant.  Blake indulges in a spot of surfing before finding herself trapped on a rock a few hundred yards away from the shore with a 'fin' swimming round and round her position.

And that's basically that.  What follows is an entire hour and a half of her trying to find a way off a rock.  Yeah, it's a pretty simple premise and, although it does drag in some places, it's actually a perfectly watchable way of killing time.  Being the only human on screen for much of the run-time Blake has to carry the film and she does that well enough.  There are a few other characters who pop up here and there, but I don't think you'll be too surprised to find what happens to them!

The location is great and the film could almost be used as a tourist video for the area (assuming you weren't bothered about being eating by a huge, angry fish), plus there's plenty of epic surfing shots.  I'm sure I could find out on the internet whether Blake actually did all of them herself, or whether there was CGI trickery involved somewhere.  Either way, they're really cool and totally convincing.  And, while we're on the subject of special effects, I should mention the shark.  We don't see much of it (besides the obligatory fin) for much of the movie, leaving its 'reveal' to the final act.  And, I was a little disappointed.  We're many decades away from 'Jaws' and yet creating a convincing shark hasn't really moved on that much.

I can see a lot of the other reviews have marked 'The Shallows' a lot higher than I have.  I can see how it might be enjoyed more than I did.  I didn't hate it.  I just felt that a story about a woman on a rock could have been trimmed down to a more 'TV episode' length rather than an entire movie.  But, I don't regret watching it, however I doubt I'll bother watching it again, simply because it's simple story means you can quite clearly remember all you need to for quite some time without feeling the need for a re-watch.

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

House 3 - Kind of an afterthought

I have to confess absolutely loving the first 'House' film.  Yes, the (now iconic) marketing poster of a decomposing severed hand ringing a doorbell may have been a tad misleading.  You may think you were in for one scary experience when, in fact, you received one hell of a tongue-in-cheek black horror-comedy.  The (inevitable) sequel was so-so, but by this third instalment, it had well and truly lost its way.

Where as the first two 'House' films were both heavily linked to - surprise, surprise - a house, this film seems to forget why it's called what it is.  In fact I believe in some territories when the film was released the 'House' part of the title was completely dropped in favour of a more ambiguous 'The Horror Show' title.  I guess this tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the project, i.e. it's not really a sequel but more of a horror script that was sort of crow-barred in under the familiar (and therefore profitable) 'House' brand in order to increase sales.  But is it any good?

Unfortunately, not really.  Even by a stand-alone horror film it's a bit lame.  However, that's not for the efforts of leading man Lance Henriksen, who does everything in his extensively-cool acting range to bring some drama to the proceedings.  It's starts okay enough - Henriksen is a cop tortured by his previous experiences with a serial killer, only for said nasty to come back from the grave to haunt his family (in the house, in case you were wondering).  Then it all kind of falls apart as the scares become fewer and further between and the plot descends into predictability.  The serial killer is portrayed by (Bladerunner's) Brion James and he too does his best to add some terror with the limited script available to him.  However, in the end, both main actors end up just chewing up the scenery in an attempt to try and elevate what is a particularly forgettable B-movie into something vaguely memorable.

There's some nice practical effects here and there and it's always nice to be reminded of a time before CGI gore ruled the horror scene.  But, at the end of the day, it's not enough to save this film.  I'm a big fan of Lance Henriksen and watch most of his output, but even I would struggle to sit through this film again (I've watched it twice - the first time over twenty years ago and completely forgotten it.  Therefore I've just seen it again and felt I better review it before everything about it escapes me again).  The first 'House' film is a classic.  Just stick to that.

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