Die Hard 4.0 - John McClane in the MCU

Okay, so my title is a little bit misleading - Bruce Willis' tough-talking, no-nonsense New York cop will never fight Thanos alongside Captain America and Iron Man.  The reason I mentioned Marvel movies is because I always see 'Die Hard 4.0' as a 'superhero movie.' The original 'Die Hard' film was about an ordinary man who was flawed and just so happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  When terrorists took over a large building, he was the only one who could stop them.  It's wasn't just an action film, but a tense, claustrophobic thriller.  However, as the sequels piled in, the action got more and more overblown and it became less 'Die Hard' and more 'Die Impossible.' In short, it's probably easier to kill the entire Avengers line-up than one - supposedly normal - human.  Now, that may be a criticism, but then I quite like Marvel superhero movies, so I just go with it.

Sometimes 'Die Hard 4.0' is also known as 'Live Free or Die Hard.' If you're wondering what that means then don't expect an answer here.  It simply marks the beginning of the film-makers' desire to start naming the films using 'cool-sounding' phrases that don't actually make any sense.  Therefore, I prefer 'Die Hard 4.0' (what followed, aka 'A Good Day to Die Hard' is even less fathomable!).

This time round poor ol' McClane simply gets a call to escort a young man to the FBI one night.  This results in him (eventually) destroying a helicopter with a car and taking out an American fighter jet while armed only with a truck.  Yes, the 'Die Hard' franchise has progressed to that from one man with a gun and no shoes.  Therefore, if you're willing to accept this mega change in the way the story is told, you'll have an absolute blast.  I see this film more like a Bond film (pre Daniel Craig, of course), rather than a super-serious, ultra-realistic spy-thriller (ala Bourne).  It's got so much overblown action that it's the perfect film to watch while munching popcorn (if anyone still eats popcorn at home while watching various popular online streaming services).

The trick is simply to suspend all disbelief to enjoy this.  You'll have to just accept that Bruce Willis is - once again - in the wrong place at the wrong time (possibly making him the unluckiest man alive in the process!).  You'll also have to accept how a bunch of cyber-terrorists trying to bring down the American economy also directly happens to threaten McClane's daughter (after his wife was put in the firing line in the first two and his son in the - next - fifth instalment).  And, if you can do that and put up with Bruce Willis' trademark smirk and array of one-liners, then you should have a lot of fun in this.  Big.  Dumb.  Fun.  Besides, it's a worthy of Oscars if you compare it to what came next in Russia alongside Jai Courtney.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Predator - Yes, it - sort of – works

Yes, everyone loved the 1987 action/sci-fi classic, 'Predator,' (or at least every male!), but ever since then, the franchise has kind of wobbled between one lukewarm offering to the next. 'Predator 2' lost the irreplaceable Arnold Schwarzenegger, the two 'Alien vs Predator' films felt like missed opportunities and the most recent 'Predators' just seemed to be covering old ground.  No one wanted a reboot, so 'The Predator' makes sure it doesn't overwrite anything that came before it, while at the time trying to expand the lore and keep everyone happy.  Well... it's reasonably entertaining.

Apparently, it went through 're-shoots.' Now, I'm reliably informed that most films do, however, 'The Predator' seemed to have its entire final act reshot.  And it shows.  It's a bit choppy to say the least.  We have a soldier who comes across some 'alien tech' while on a mission and he then posts it home to his autistic son to keep it safe.  Now, if you're thinking this is an odd thing to do then you're probably not alone.  And this is an example of how the story progresses.  Most films, especially ones about head-hunting aliens, require a certain amount of disbelief to be suspended in order to gain maximum enjoyment from them.  However, you do need to suspend your disbelief on numerous occasions to come close to enjoying this latest instalment.

Anyway, those nasty aliens don't take kindly to us humans getting our little pink hands on their finest intergalactic hunting equipment and decide they want it back (and so kill anyone that stands it their way).  This time round the action takes place in the suburbs.  I guess this was because jungles had been done.  As had the city, an alien planet and the arctic.  This doesn't recreate the 'claustrophobic' feel of the initial Predator film.  However, if you're simply looking for a fun film with plenty of killings, a few aliens and gore then you could probably sit through this.

Just don't expect much in the way of anything new, plus, like I say, you have to ignore major logic points (most of which I'll leave out due to 'spoilers'), but characters (both human and otherwise) seem to change motivation without any real reason.  Plus there's more humour than any of the previous films.  We're not just talking about the odd one-liner here and there, but full-blown 'Marvel-style' gags amidst supposedly tense and dangerous scenes.

The Predator' is what it is.  Which is basically a B-movie with a major cult following who still hang out hopes for something that even comes close to the original.  This doesn't, but it's not as bad as it could have been.  And, that's seemingly all us Predator fan-boys can hope for these days.  Oh, and excuse the final scene - it's clearly tacked on by what feels like a completely different writer all together.  Definitely a re-shoot (and, if you'll believe the internet rumours, only exists to overwrite the scene that the film-makers hoped would have seen Schwarzenegger reprise his iconic role of 'Dutch' - apparently he said he didn't want to appear in such a small role!).

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

I, Tonya – Harley does figure skating

I know it’s really bad to typecast an actor, but all the way through ‘I, Tonya’ I couldn’t help but see Harley Quinn from the –debatably-popular – ‘Suicide Squad’ wielding her baseball bat all the way through.  However, don’t take that as a negative.  Whether the cinema-going public loved or loathed DC’s villain ensemble, most seemed to agree that Margot Robbie was a stand-out point.

Back in the early nineties I remember hearing about the story ‘I, Tonya’ was based on, but never really knowing too much about it, i.e. an American Olympic figure skater was so determined to win the gold medal that she had a rival on her own team beaten up.  Now, upon watching that brief summary stretched out into a two-hour movie, I’m still little clearer about the details of the event, but then I think that’s the point.  Many stories that are based on real life (or ‘inspired by true events’ as seems to be the popular phrase these days) are debateable as to how true they really are.  However, right from the beginning, this film states in some opening text that it’s based on multiple versions of many unbelievable events.  I liked that.  Not only does it suggest that what you hear is subjective, but it also sets the tone of the movie.

Once the ‘characters’ have been introduced, the story progresses and, quite often, we see different versions of the same event – as seen by the different person who witnessed it/is telling that portion of the story.  I know I mentioned that Margot Robbie gives off a real ‘Harley Quinn’ vibe, but it works.  I hope she’s not actually going to just get typecast as the – borderline nutty – woman of the big screen, as I’m sure she can play numerous roles.  However, in this case, I dose of ‘Daddy’s Little Monster’ is just the ticket and she steals every scene she’s in.  And she has to work for that accolade, as the supporting cast all do their best to upstage her.  There wasn’t a single bad performance in this movie and it was a real treat to watch.

I’m not sure how much actual skating Margot Robbie did and how much is some form of CGI trickery.  I did my best to stare intently to see if I could pick out anything that would give the effects away and either my eyesight isn’t that good, or the CGI was just better, as it looks like she’s on the ice the whole time.

I don’t know how true to what really happened this film is, but I do know it’s great entertainment and has a great cast on display.  Special mention to Allison Janney, who plays possibly the worst on-screen mother since poor Carrie White’s single parent!  Only after I’d seen this film did I understand that one marketing quote was something along the lines of ‘The Goodfellas of ice skating.’ I’m not sure I saw the similarities, but I would say it’s an epic tale that’s definitely worth watching.  It’s like Harley Quinn gave up crime, became a figure skater and then took up crime again (maybe!).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Robocop 2 - Should have been so much better

The original 'Robocop' film probably never deserved to be as good as it turned out.  It was totally a B-movie that just seemed to come together brilliantly in the perfect storm of over-the-top bloodthirsty action with even a sprinkling of political satire and social commentary thrown in there for good measure.  I sometimes wonder whether the film-makers even predicted how popular it would be, hence they never bargained on a sequel so quickly after the first.  However, even back then sequels were big business and the studio threw one out as soon as possible.

In short: a lot of people hated 'Robocop 2.' Yeah, I have to admit, it doesn't seem to come anywhere near capturing the atmosphere and feel of the original.  However, it's probably not (quite) as bad as most people make out.  If you liked the first then you'll probably enjoy this one, especially now you can either view it cheap of online as part of a streaming service.

The first film was set in the near future in a run-down Detroit where the police department was privatised and farmed out to a money-grabbing firm called OCP.  They decided to try and aid their law-enforcement money-making programme by creating robot police officers and, when unlucky subject Alex Murphy was 'killed' in the line of duty, what was left of his remains were used to create the titular cyborg.  The film was good because it had a perfect beginning, middle and end (again, something that leads me to believe that a sequel was never intended).  The conclusion was truly satisfying, which goes some why to explain why people were so annoyed that 'Part 2' effectively ignores most character development and starts the same story again...  only not as well.

It's the story that lets it down.  In short… it's a bit of a mess.  I hear a few writers gave their input on the script (and it shows!), including legendary comic book guru Frank Millar (who I believe gets credited, although there's debate as to how much of his story remains).  It's starts off pretty well.  In the first film Robocop slowly regained his humanity and remembered his family and life before his change.  This carries on until it doesn't.  It sort of gets dropped quite quickly in favour of going in a completely different direction where Robocop gets reprogrammed with more 'politically correct' directives.  This is quite funny, but it all seems a bit unnecessary as he soon recovers from that.

There's also no clear villain.  Okay, so you could say that it's Kane - a drug dealer Robocop is trying to catch.  Only, it's not just him in human form, but also the corrupt and uncaring OCP executives, bad cops and even the Mayor turns to criminal activities.  They really should have picked one (probably Kane) and stuck to him.  Only, Kane sort of goes out of it three quarters of the way through (no spoilers as to why and how - you'll see).  Other characters also come and go, most notably Robocop's human partner Lewis, who could have been cut altogether.  Then there's the only redeemable OCP executive 'Johnson' from the first film, who comes back only to act completely different and no explanation is offered as to his motivational change.
The story in general is pretty far-fetched (if you're okay with suspending your disbelief into thinking that robots are real).  OCP wants to create an upgraded Robocop (imaginatively called 'Robocop 2' believe it or not) so they decide to put a criminal's brain into the next version of the droid instead of a police officer's (ala 'Robocop 1').  If this seems a little stupid then you're right.  Who can't see what's going to happen?!

Yes, the end battle is quite well done, especially for the film's time (no major CGI here!) and it's kind of worth it for that, but there's a real sense of lacking a pay-off.  Many storylines aren't that well concluded (maybe they were thinking of ending these in another sequel?) and the film kind of ends exactly where the first one did, making the whole sequel kind of redundant.  However, like I say, it's an okay outing if you're in the mood for more Robocop.  Besides, the spoof adverts throughout the whole film are as amusing as before and, if you compare 'Robocop 2' to 'Robocop 3' then this is actually a masterpiece!

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

Terminal - Style over substance

The trailer to 'Terminal' looked damn good, but don't they all?  Hover, seeing as it depicted Margot Robbie (hot off the heels of her excellent performances in 'Suicide Squad' and 'I, Tonya') as some sort of 'femme fatale' (not to mention a fair few other recognisable actors) in a weirdly, futuristic neon world full of gangsters, I thought how could this be bad?  I guess it isn't bad.  It's just not as good is it should have been - which sometimes can be worse than being plain awful.

Simon Pegg plays a man dying of a terminal disease, so he stops off one night at a café where Margot Robbie works as an all-night waitress.  There they mull over the meaning of life (and death!), all the time the narrative is interspersed with Dexter Fletcher and understudy as a couple of gangster hitmen awaiting orders on their next job.  These two tales sort of merge in the end and everything is tied up in a nice - if slightly unbelievable - kind of way.  However, it's the 'getting there' process that's such a mess.

Yes, I've decided that if there's a word that sums up this film it's 'messy.' The narrative structure bounces all over the place making it just about possible to follow without having to look up the meaning on the internet.  The characters talk to each other and kind of ramble on in sudo-philosophical ways, trying to sound clever and make you - the viewer - think.  But it's not enough.  It's like the film-makers had a great idea, but couldn't quite seem to pull it off.

Yes, the neon and world-building is visually stunning.  It looks great to watch and you get the feeling that this setting really is a place out of time.  But you need more than just visual flare.  The story just drags.  There are a few twists here and there which are supposed to be deep and shocking.  However, I saw most of them coming and those I didn't see I just didn't care about or didn't believe would really happen.

Ultimately, 'Terminal' is an example of how you can take as many great actors as you like and put them together, but just having them on the same cast list doesn't mean the film will be any good.  You also need a good story to go with it.  I've noticed that this film didn't stay in the cinema for long and was quickly shunted onto that new 'straight-to-video-style' way we watch movies, i.e. online streaming services.  I'm sure some people will find it all really deep and meaningful, just not me.  Sadly average.  I think I should have just stuck to watching the trailer.

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

Guns Girls Gambling - Lucky Number Sleven (but in the desert)

This film mainly reminded me of (the far superior) ‘Lucky Number Sleven’. I won’t say why, because that might spoil it for you if you watch ‘Guns, Girls and Gambling.’ The two films follow (dare I say a ‘more British’ style?) genre of film where a character gets into trouble with numerous different warring factions (normally gangsters – think Lock Stock, Snatch and Layer Cake) and ends up having to dodge the lot of them and/or pit them against each other in order to come out on top.
Christian Slater’s offering is – sadly – not quite as good as any of those films I’ve mentioned. However, that’s not to say it didn’t have a certain charm. Did I like it? Yes, I did. It kept me entertained for its duration. It’s not the longest of films, but it does have some fun scenes which go a long way to make me stay the distance.

From the title, you can probably tell that it is going to be a little tongue-in-cheek. It could never be played totally straight. There’s plenty of black humour as one assassin murders another, before being offed himself in another gruesome way. There are plenty of characters, all of which get their own ‘freezeframe introduction,’ complete with title. This probably happens a little too often and ceases to be cool pretty soon, especially as most of the characters get killed only a few scenes after they’re introduced. The other downside – in my opinion – is the blonde ‘bombshell’ assassin who spouts poetry before she kills her victims. It’s supposed to be cool, but it just doesn’t work and I found it pretty hard to stand.

You may have noticed Gary Oldman on the cover. That’s about his biggest part in the film. What he does is little more than an extended cameo, but – naturally – he steals every scene he’s in. There are some twists in the story – some you’ll see coming, others may take you by surprise, but by the time the credits roll, you’ll feel satisfied that everything adds up (well, just, but it does more than it doesn’t!).

If you like those sorts of Guy Richie gangster movies, or are just looking for something loud, a bit cheesy and quick, then give this one a go. It’s no classic, but it is entertaining if you set your sights low enough.

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

Extraterrestrial - Could have been quite good (well... okayish)

I’ve watched a lot of straight-to-DVD horror movies recently – many of which I haven’t even managed to sit through all the way to the end. Don’t get me wrong... ‘Extraterrestrial’ is nothing special, but I actually managed to watch it until the end credits.  And it all started so well!  A young couple are at home together and they’re actually quite fun.  They have good chemistry and the dialogue is pretty snappy between them.  I was impressed and actually felt like they were the sort of ‘real’ couple I could root for in whatever horrors were to come.

Then their friends arrived.  I hated them instantly.  From the first time you hear their (male) friend’s voice, via an intercom, you know he’s an idiot.  He’s an idiot because he says idiotic things (all the time) and swears while he does it.  And that’s just while things are going well.  When things go a little pear-shaped, he’s even worse.

Then the group of friends go to a cabin in the woods.  It was about now my ‘cliche-alert’ radar was bleeping.  What had good characters was fast descending into your typical horror/slasher B-movie.  However, the presence of Michael Ironside went some way to redeem it.  In short – he was cool.

It’s probably not a ‘spoiler’ to say that the kids fall foul of aliens (unless you don’t quite understand what the title means!) and it all sort of falls apart.  They’re hunted by creatures who have basically mastered the power of space travel and can snatch an entire phone booth off planet Earth in the blink of an eye.  Yet, on several occasions, these monsters from the stars are thwarted by a locked wooden door.

In short, it was okay.  It had a nice ‘Matrix-esque’ element to it at one stage, which was pretty cool.  Perhaps the major problem was that I grew up through the height of the X-files and I’ve seen everything to do with aliens done before (and better!).  I supposed if you haven’t seen the classic sci-fi TV show, it may all be a little more original, but for me it was retreading old ground.

It filled an hour and a half perfectly well enough.  I just won’t watch it again.  I have all nine series of the X-files and both films on DVD.  I don’t need to see ‘Extraterrestrial’ again.

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

Oz the Great and Powerful - At last ... a prequel that works (George Lucas - take note!)

`Oz - the Great and the Powerful,' in case you don't know, is a prequel to the classic Wizard of Oz film of the 1930s, showing how the wizard himself got to the magical land and his encounters with the witches before Dorothy squashed one and doused the other.

My hopes weren't high when I went in to see this. Maybe that's the key to enjoying it - don't expect too much. My theories of prequels and re-envisionings is based on film companies trying to cash in on popular franchises and trying to squeeze that last bit of cash out of them.

However, Oz actually works. It seems that some thought has actually been put into making up a genuinely new story which wasn't touched upon by what you've already seen.

I thought it was a great film which actually adds to the `Oz legend' rather than cashes in on it. It's got just the right mixture of humour, adventure, new quirky characters and menacing threat (but not too menacing, as it's pretty suitable for any child who enjoys fairytales).

It's not all perfect, there are some minor grumps. First of all, some aspects of the much-loved tale are owned by a different company who made this film, therefore popular aspects, such as the ruby slippers have been omitted. Plus there's too much computer-generated scenery. The backgrounds, while nice, look pretty unreal and you can tell what's a set and what's a green screen (think Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland). Plus some people have criticised Mila Kunis, saying she was brought in more for her star power, rather than her ability as an actress.

But these are all minor gripes. If you can ignore them and put your heart and soul into this movie, then you should feel right at home in a magical land where little people sing at the drop of a hat (there's only one - half - song this time).

Enjoy it (and, for Bruce Campbell fans - watch out for his cameo, courtesy of his friend and director, Sam Raimi).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Jack and Jill - This film needs a warning label on it

Okay, so I'm not Adam Sadler's biggest fan. His films are hit and miss in my opinion, but I'm always willing to give them a go (I did recently enjoy Funny People). However, this is one time when I should have researched a film before I watched it. If you look at the online reviews you'll see what I mean.

The other thing I should point out is that my `review' is only based on the first half an hour. That was all I could stand. I'm sorry. I hope I'm not doing this film a massive disservice by not watching it in its entirety. Perhaps it really picked up and I missed some real comic gold. However, from the opening act, I really don't think so.

Adam Sadler plays two roles - twins Jack and his `identical' sister Jill. Jill comes to stay with his family and `hilarity' results. Unfortunately, Jill is the most annoying character ever to grace cinema screens. I know what you're thinking - you're thinking that you've seen the Phantom Menace and that no one can top Jar Jar Binks. Wrong! Seriously, it's like Jar Jar has had a baby with Ruby Rhod from the Fifth Element and produced Jill. All she does is shriek on and on, in between generally being rude and stupid and insensitive towards anyone who is unlucky enough to get near her.

Now, I have nothing against annoying characters in films. If a character is annoying then that's part of who they are. My problem with Jack and Jill is how other characters deal with them. If we meet someone annoying, we stay well clear. However, in this film everyone extends her too much courtesy to make it believable. Yes, I know she's family, but even so, you wouldn't let her anywhere near you if you know what she's like. Yet, everyone makes massive allowances for her, even berating her long-suffering twin brother Jack (who is pretty unlikeable in himself) for not being nicer to her.

In short, there is not a rating low enough to describe this rubbish. Do not watch it, it's truly that bad. The only thing vaguely interesting about it is how they persuaded Al Pacino to appear in it. Does he really need the money that badly?

1/10 This might as well have been written, directed and produced by Uwe Boll

The Boy - Actually pretty good

It seems like ever since 2002's (US remake) of 'The Ring' those modern horror films which don't involve the undead or people in masks with chainsaws succumbs to the following template: woman encounters something supernatural, no one believes her, she confront the entity in the final act (and most of her friends/family die somewhere along the way). 'The Boy' is not that different.  Apart from the fact that it is.

If I was being cruel I could say that I've seen everything in this film before.  However, I actually really enjoyed it, finding it a lot better than many other of its recent competition.  Yes, it doesn't offer much in the way of 'new,' i.e. a woman takes a job as a nanny to a child in a big creepy, English house.  And she finds there's more going on than she expected.  It's just a lot of the cliches that normally come with this sort of story have been spun on their head and, many times, I thought to myself 'I know what's going to happen,' only to find that I was completely wrong.

Lauren Cohan (better known as 'Maggie' from 'The Walking Dead') is the lead as she travels to England to take a job as a nanny, partly in order to escape an abusive relationship.  Once she arrives, she finds that the 'child in question' is simply a doll (and a creepy one at that!).  Now, some of us would just walk out there and then (possibly thinking they were part of some 'hidden camera' TV show), but, because she feels like she doesn't really want to go back to America just yet and how easy taking care of a doll would be, she stays.  Guess what... she ends up regretting that decision.

There's not a massive cast and it's Cohan's show all the way (unless you could the doll itself, which deserves a certain amount of credit for creating mood and threat).  Plus you have a great atmosphere created all the way as you, like Cohan, slowly learn what's going on.  I won't go into the plot details too much as, like I say, it does enough to avoid horror conventions to take you places you may not see coming.

I know there's plenty of horror movies out there and this one may well get lost among the crowd.  However, if you like this sort of film I do suggest you give it a go and it may just be different enough to be worth your time.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Changing Lanes - Sad and subtle thriller

I always remember the movie pitch for 1979's 'Alien.' If the legend is correct the film-makers simply said 'Jaws in space' and it was green-lit.  What I'm getting at is that sometimes a film doesn't need to be particularly complicated to be good. 'Changing Lanes' is a film with a very simple premise - two men have a 'near miss' on the freeway (yes, while changing lanes).  What follows is an example of how something as mundane as this can spiral out of control into a tit for tat game of cat and mouse.

Okay, so maybe some men wouldn't go to quite such extremes to get back at each other, but when you have Ben Affleck (at the height of his popularity) and - the ever awesome - Samuel L Jackson, you know you're in for some fireworks.  Affleck is a lawyer in the midst of the most important - and morally dubious – court case of his career.  While Jackson is a former alcoholic whose combination of drinking and temper has lost him his wife and children.  Both of these characters are flawed from the start, but, if nothing else, their encounter with each other helps them refocus their priorities in life and grow as a character.  Therefore, it's hard not to roof for either, as both take turns in playing the hero and the villain.

I won't go into too much detail regarding the story as it twists and turns all over the place and yet is easy to follow at all times - largely because the only direction the story can go is 'downwards,' as the two central leads resort to more and more extreme methods to get what they want, even if what they want is no longer within reach.

The film perfectly depicts today's modern life where we exist at a hundred miles an hour and never take the time to stop, take a deep breath and re-evaluate the things that really matter. 'Changing Lanes' isn't an action film and is only loosely a thriller.  Perhaps more of a 'thriller-drama' if anything, but just because it doesn't display iphones, Twitter or any form of technology that marks it as set 'today' doesn't mean that it isn't timeless because of its central themes of petty revenge and getting your priorities mixed up.

Don't let this minor classic slip by - it's probably a film that can be appreciated by most of us as we can always relate to 'having a really bad day' (although hopefully none of us will ever sink as low as these guys!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Hybrid - Utterly daft, yet strangely watchable

The latest `horror bad guy' to grace our screens is a car - a car that kills people. Um, and that's about it. I could leave the review there. If you can deal with that concept you may just like the film.

Said nasty car is trapped in a large garage (certainly not your average Kwik Fit) with people who, for some reason, are equally trapped IN with it as it is with them. I watched Shark Night 3D recently - a film about killer sharks. Now, the thing about sharks is that they're kind of constricted to water and not too good on land, in the air and anywhere else. Hybrid is a bit like that. A car is only really good on flat roads, but, luckily for the metal monster, our hapless heroes find every excuse to sort of run around a bit in front of them.

It has all the horror clichés you've seen in all the other horror films out there. It's pretty daft and the acting is questionable - certainly in the first third (I was contemplating whether it was actually a foreign film and had been dubbed, but you get used to it as it goes on). You have the sensible woman, the daft plank who wants to catch a monster car instead of leaving, cell phones that don't work and an ensemble of unlikeable characters who you won't miss when they start to attack a large metal beast with a bit of wood (or something equally questionable).

If you've seen a film where a beastie stalks a load of slightly inept people, you've basically seen this. If you fancy seeing idiots stalked by a car that sees the world as if it was a Predator alien, give it a try. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to buy a bike.

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

The Negotiator - A lesser-known 90s action classic

There were plenty of great (and dare I say 'overblown?') action films to come out of the nineties, most notably 'The Rock, Speed' and 'Con Air,' but 'The Negotiator' always seems to get overlooked in my opinion.  Maybe it's because its two lead normally get linked with other nineties classics, i.e. Samuel L Jackson with 'Pulp Fiction' and Kevin Spacey with 'American Beauty.' Yes, there may not be quite as many explosions and high-octane chases in this one, but it still seems like it should exist in the same (and to use a modern phrase) 'shared universe.'

Jackson plays a police negotiator who gets framed for a crime he didn't commit.  While he takes hostages and holds up in the very police building he's being investigated by, he specifically requests the services of fellow negotiator Spacey to help him clear his name.  Therefore, if you can overlook the fact that this film probably should have been called 'The Negotiators' (plural) it really is pretty good fun.

There's always going to be a market for films where you can basically forget about realism and enjoy the action and when you have two leads like Jackson and Spacey, you know they're going to turn in excellent performances.  There are enough other characters they interact with along the way, but you probably won't remember too many of them (with the possible exception of a weirdly-young looking Paul Giamatti) - it's the two leads who you'll remember all the way.

It's a simple premise and what little 'extras' to the plot I won't go into for fear of spoiling it, but if you ever get bored of watching Sean Connery and Nicholas Cage saving San Francisco, or Keanu Reeves flagging down buses, you really could get a similar 'fix' of action from spending a couple of hours with Samuel L Jackson and Kevin Spacey.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Xtro 3: Watch the Skies - Xtro goes from bad to worse
If you ever saw the classic eighties sci-fi/horror Xtro, you may be tempted to check out either of its sequels. Don't. Number two was a poor rip-off of Aliens and number three is more like a poor man's Predator. Neither have anything to do with the original.

After the - slightly out-of-character - borderline-comedy, black and white, fifties-style opening, we find that the American military sends the most useless troops it has to an island in order to destroy some allegedly old equipment. Unfortunately for them, they find there's actually a rather nasty abandoned alien there who wants to give them some serious (killer) tongue action.

The alien in question is possibly the most unrealistic alien ever created for a movie. It doesn't look too bad, it's just the way it moves that makes it appear totally unreal. They might as well have just used a toy Jabba the Hutt and chased the soldiers around with it. The only thing more unlikeable than the plastic alien that does its best to emulate the Predator with its (bad special effects) `cloaking device' are the soldiers themselves. They're not only incompetent (they take drugs, get into fights and fire their weapons into the air for fun), but they're also unlikeable - hardly the type you'll shed a tear for when they're wrapped up in cotton wool and licked to death (you'll probably have to actually watch the film to get that). They also can't act and run about screaming from model helicopters when they're not being tongued to death or hearing random cougar noises.

If you like classic horror, stick to the first Xtro. If you want proper action, watch Predator.
If it bleeds, you can kill it. If it looks like its operated by rods and a man with his hand up its rear, then its probably Xtro 3.

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

Zombies Zombies Zombies - Zombies vs Strippers - Bad, but not that awful 

Come on, what do you expect from a film called `Zombie, Zombies, Zombies,' based on an undead attack on a stripclub?

The film-makes say it's a `zombie comedy.' Yes, there are zombies, but not much in the way of laughs.

 Some people say it's terrible. They're not far off. It has its perks, but largely if you're into seeing attractive women with not many clothes on. I would say naked, but the best looking ones always kept their clothes on.

 It's no Dawn of the Dead. It tries to be more of a Shaun of the Dead, but doesn't even come close. Yes, it's badly-acted, yes the special effects are anything but special and yes George Romero would not be seen dead in this, but, believe it or not, I've seen worse (but then I've seen a lot of films - you might not have).

6/10 May just keep you awake if Freddy Kruger was haunting your nights

The Departed - Jack shows 'em how it's done

The Departed' is a remake.  Therefore it must be merely a cynical cash-grab, right?  Wrong.  And it's not often anyone says that these days.  Yes, it may be a remake of a 2002 film from Hong Kong, but, when it's directed by Martin Scorsese, stars Jack Nicholson, Leonardo DeCaprio and Matt Damon (to name but a few) you know that it's going to be very different some other recent remakes, reboots and re-imaginings!

I haven't seen the original, so I can't compare the two films.  And I have a feeling that this US version will be remembered so fondly that many will soon forget that an 'original' ever existing - no matter how good it was.  A director as talented as Martin Scorsese, it's no wonder he's dabbled with numerous types of film and genre, but here he returns to - arguably - what he does best - epic gangster movies.  I reckon that in time 'The Departed' will be remembered alongside 'Goodfellas' and the like.  It really is that good.  Or at least it is if you're into gangster films in general.

First of all there's the cast.  I've already mentioned the main three, but add Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Ray Winstone (just don't mention the Londoner's attempt at an American accent!) and Vera Farmiga.  It's fair to say that there isn't a bad performance among them (and, no, Winstone wasn't THAT bad when it came to the accent - they probably should have just made his character British and be done with it).  However, for all these big names, it's Jack all the way.  The 'old man' of the film shows everyone how it's done.

Jack plays Frank Costello, who is the 'head' of the Irish mafia in Boston.  And, therefore, he's hardly a nice, sympathetic character you'll feel inclined to root for.  Only you sort of do.  In the same way you'd hardly feel comfortable sitting down to tea with Hannibal Lecter, yet you can't help but see him as a hero (or rather anti-hero!).  And this is all down to Nicholson's performance.  He oozes charm and likeability, even when he's clubbing people to death, or generally engaging in high-level criminal activities.  In short, this is Jack's baby.

The general story revolves around Frank's attempt to 'plant' a bad police officer within the ranks of the force charged with the task of investigating him.  However, what he doesn't know is that that very same unit is hatching a similar plot to plant a police officer among Frank's gang.  What follows is a pretty tense tale of 'cat and mouse' where you're wondering which side will find out the truth first (and, more importantly, the repercussions when they do!).  I'll leave it there in terms of plot, as there are more than a few moments that you probably won't see coming - avoid internet spoilers if possible before watching!

There's little negative to say about the film (it's quite long - if that's really a problem when a film is this good?) and I think that the only people who may not enjoy it are those who generally aren't a fan of the genre.  If you don't like crime movies in general, you won't like it.  Same goes for if foul language and violence is not your thing.  However, if like most, you can appreciate an excellent film that doesn't pull any punches and is just about as perfect as any film is these days, then this is definitely worth a watch.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Cult of Cucky - Back on (crazy) form

I’ve been a fan of the ‘Chucky’ franchise since its first ‘Child’s Play’ films which depicted a murderer transferring his soul into a children’s toy doll, only for the doll to continue his foul deeds.  Along the way the franchise obviously decided to concentrate on the doll himself (Chucky – perfectly voiced by Brad Dourif), rather than the – no redundant – ‘Child’s Play’ aspect of the series.  The first three films were ‘straight’ horror, whereas the fourth and fifth then changed to more black comedies, part 6 tried to go back to the horror roots and emulated some sort of weird 'who-dun-it' (even though by the sixth instalment we know full well who's doing the killings!) so I had no idea in which direction part 7 would go.

With other horror franchises, you may be forgiven for thinking that by the seventh outing the formula would simply be reproduced ala ‘Friday 13th’ and ‘Nightmare on Elm Street’ brands.  However, one of the main things I like about Chucky’s killing sprees is that they are quite different from each other (whether they work or not is down to personal taste!).  Now, with the ‘Cult of Chucky’ we’re treated to a bit of a hybrid of everything that’s gone before.  We have everything from throwbacks to almost all the previous instalments to humour, to gore to… well, a story that goes in completely new directions.

If there’s one word to describe this film it’s ‘crazy.’ I really had no idea where it was going as it bounces around with characters and narrative.  Now, you could also call that sort of story a ‘mess’ – if you were being cruel.  However, I have to confess for enjoying the sheer ‘not knowingness’ of this horror movie.  Normally, with the genre, you’re introduced to a bunch of (mostly forgettable) characters, then they’re gradually whittled down to just one (girl?) for the final showdown.  Not here.  And the film is all the stronger for it.

Brad Dourif is, as usual, on form as the murderous doll, but, once again, he’s ably assisted by his (real life) daughter Fiona Dourif as the lead.  And, once you know they’re related, you’ll find it impossible not to see her father in every expression she pulls (she’s also got his maniacal laugh down to a tee!).  I suppose if the film has a bit of a weakness it’s that it’s a direct follow up to ‘Part 6’ and you really should have seen that one to fully ‘get’ everything that’s now going on (although, saying that, you really need to watch everything that’s come before it to FULLY get every last little reference).

A lot of people (even those who worked on the franchise!) said that Part 3 was the weakest of the franchise.  Personally, I thought Part 6 was – mainly because there wasn’t enough Chucky in the first half for my liking.  Luckily (for me) in Part 7 we have more Chucky than I could cope with!  I loved it, but perhaps my only gripe was that it’s clearly a ‘middle chapter’ of a story that the producers want to add more to.  Therefore, things are set up which don’t get resolved here and left me wanting to see what comes next.

I hear the story is going to be continued on TV (maybe?), but at the same time more films are in the works.  I don’t know whether either of those online rumours are definitely true, but I do hope they continue this story rather than finishing it all here and going for some (completely unnecessary!) reboot.  The Chucky saga is evolving and each instalment is different enough to attract new audiences while hopefully not alienating its core fans.  If you’re looking for a cheeky, darkly-comic and pretty sick horror movie, you’ll definitely find it here (just don’t expect to get every last reference if you’re not totally up on all things Chucky-related).

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

Crying With Laughter - A sad, funny film

‘Crying With Laughter’ is certainly a film that won’t be for everyone.  It’s meant to be as tragic as it is funny.  Stephen McCole plays a club circuit comedian, Joey Frisk, who is looking for his ‘big break’ while also succumbing to the excesses that come with even his minor ‘showbiz lifestyle.’ He’s the very definition of an ‘anti-hero’ – someone who is completely flawed and doesn’t always do the right thing and yet we can relate to him and root for him to overcome his demons in order to better himself.

During the film, Joey has to face all sorts of physical and mental horrors from his past, not to mention battling the effects such torment has had on his present day situation.  However, don’t expect too much ‘happy-happy’ comedy.  The funny moments come with seeing the clips of his stand-up comedy and we – the audience – knowing how he bases his real life events on what goes into his act

The film does delve into some pretty dark places (and subject matter), so you’ll need to be ready for it not to pull any punches.  Also, there’s a fair amount of bad language – both in and out of the stand-up routines, so this can hardly be described as a ‘family film.’

I’m trying to be as vague as possible when it comes to the plot, as I don’t want to spoil it for everyone.  All I’ll say is that you’ll need to be in the mood for a strong, character-driven piece with plenty of adult content.  It could be average, but, as with a one-man stand-up show, its strength lies with Stephen McCole himself, whose portrayal of a flawed man who you really do want to succeed makes you want to root for him all the way.

The old phrase 'tears of a clown' has never been more applicable when it comes to this film.  Expect to laugh at him and also - hopefully - cheer for him.  Uplifting… in a weird sort of way.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Captain America: The Winter Solider - If only 'The Dark World' was like this

I don't know why some people didn't really go much for the first 'Captain America' film.  Yes, I know it was a success, but it's never really talked about as one of the MCU's vest offerings.  Maybe it was because it wasn't set in the present and therefore somehow felt less relevant to some cinema-goers?  Anyway, I liked it.  But, for those who wanted to see our (now UNfrozen) 'First Avenger' getting to grips with the modern world, they really got what they were looking for here.

I think the best way to describe the 'Captain America' sequel is by calling it a 'Jason Bourne film with superheroes.' If you're familiar with the 'Bourne' franchise then you'll know the titular character is a spy who uncovers some disturbing truths in his own intelligence organisation and has to go on the run, pursued by rogue agents who were once on his side.  This is basically the plot to 'The Winter Solider.' It may not be completely original, but it is damn good fun.

There's all the action and chase scenes you'd expect from a spy thriller, plus it's naturally 'beefed up' as many of the protagonists have a multitude of special powers to give the action an added boost.  Plus, because it's all set in our modern surroundings (no need for a 'Ragnarok-style' alien planet to be created here) the computer effects required aren't too overbearing and noticeable.

I guess the best thing about 'Part 2' is that it has more 'character development' that your average superhero movie.  We last saw 'Cap' in his 1940s world, so there's plenty of time for the story to show us how a man from the past deals with present day, not to mention the fact that he was once used to fighting for an 'honourable' power system whereas now the lines of good and evil can sometimes get a little blurred, even on our own side.

If the film has a flaw then it kind of falls into that oh-so familiar trap than many Marvel films do (or at least the ones not featuring Loki) and that's the fact that the villain is a little underused.  I guess you could say that 'The Winter Soldier' has two villains - one you'll probably forget completely and the other is the titular 'Winter Soldier' himself.  The problem is that he just pops up here and there to cause a bit of bother for Cap and then we don't see him again for a while until the next action scene is upon us.  There's also a bit of an over-used plot device in which characters 'die' only for us to find out that they're not really dead later.  I won't say who or how many as that runs into 'spoiler' territory.

But, don't let those minor gripes detract from what is one hell of a fun ride.  It really does cover more than a few genres, i.e. superhero, action, spy, chase, thriller and does them all justice here.  There's pretty much something for everyone here and Marvel show that not all second instalments have to be a 'Dark World' (that's a 'Thor' joke, that is!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army – What should have been the ‘middle chapter’

Those nasty Nazis only tried to resurrect a demon to help them win WWII!  Lucky we – the Allies – put a stop to that, but figured the demon in question was only a nipper, so we might as well keep him and get him to help us out instead!  So goes the basic plot of ‘Hellboy’ – a superhero movie that came along sort of before this major superhero trend became so popular.

Despite not everyone clamouring to see it (let’s face it… the promotional posters of a red demon sporting an oversize claw and pistol hardly made it as ‘family-friendly’ as ‘Spiderman!’), but it certain did well enough to deserve a sequel.

The titular ‘Hellboy’ is played by (self-confessed) ‘grumpy old man’ Ron Perlman whose natural (grumpy) charisma shines through and brings this reluctant anti-hero to life.  Familiar faces from the first outing also return to help out our demonic saviour including Selma Blair, Doug Jones and John Hurt and, although they all play their roles well, it’s Perlman whose big red face steals every scene. 

So, Hellboy goes about his ‘normal’ business of saving us humans from those things that go bump in the night and there’s as much action and hideous monsters as you may expect.  However, before you write it off completely as just another action movie, it’s worth mentioning that visionary director Guillermo del Toro is at the helm and his natural flair for visuals shines through and brings the world to life.

Of course there are plenty of computer-generated special effects, but there’s also more ‘practical’ effects on show here (most likely del Toro’s influence, based on his previous body of work) and it’s nice to see that models, masks and sets can still be used to great and very effective use when building a fantastical world like this.

Creator of ‘Family Guy’ Seth Macfarlane pops up for some moments of levity (or rather his voice does) as a friendly German spook whose misty form can inhabit various metal bodies, but if the film has a weakness then it’s something that the Marvel films would later suffer from – the villain.  We have Luke Goss thrown in there as the new baddie – an elf with a grudge against humanity.  Yes, he looks suitably evil and is pretty deadly, but he feels a little ‘generic’ when compared to everything else around him that’s so much above average.

‘Hellboy 2’ is certainly worth a watch, whether you’re into superhero films or not.  It’s just a shame that del Toro and Perlman never got the third instalment they were so desperately pushing for.  I hear there’s a ‘reboot’ on the horizon.  I’m sure it will be okay, but it’s going to have to be VERY okay to beat either of the existing ‘Hellboy’ movies.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Cannonball Run - Big, dumb fun (with the emphasis being DUMB)

I used to watch the 'Cannonball Run' when I was little, i.e. during the eighties and throughout Roger Moore's stint as James Bond.  And I loved it.  Now, several decades later, I still do.  Only now I can appreciate just how bad it is… in a good way, of course.  It's effectively a sketch show on the road.  A bunch of wacky misfits all decide they want to win a legendary race which runs 3000 miles across America and adopt various schemes with which to accomplish this feat.

And that's about it as far as the 'plot' goes.  It's soooo totally silly.  In fact, it could be one of the silliest films ever made.  I guess you could say that Burt Reynolds is the 'star' rather than just one of the ensemble, but there simply isn't enough in the way of character development and story to focus the whole film on him alone.  That's why all the other drivers take their turns in providing the laughs along the (free)way.  All the characters are basically one-dimensional cliches, but that doesn't matter when they're providing the laughs.

There's not too much to say about a movie that's so simple.  It is what it is and it doesn't ever try and exceed its limitations.  It's a love-letter to films of the past and would probably never get made today (or at least not in this form - it's kind of UN-politically correct, poking fun as the sexes and even Islam!).  It doesn't even run that long (a quick hour and a half if ever I saw one) and it doesn't need to, yet it flies by if you're in the right mood for something like this. 

The cast all work well with each other, whether it's the drivers bickering with each other, or finally catching each other up in order to try and throw a not-so metaphorical spanner in the other driver's engines in order to slow them down.  There's a totally over-the-top antagonist who is constantly trying to shut the race down - he's as beautifully one-dimensional as our anti-heroes.  Plus there's an excellent mass punch-up near the end which made me feel like I was a kid again.

Maybe it's not a film that will appeal to many of today's generation (besides under 11s whose childish form of humour it will probably appeal to).  However, ultimately don't take the 'Cannonball Run's' silliness as a negative - only something you need to know before you sit down to watch it.  If you're looking for high-brow entertainment with excellent character development and well-defined character arcs, you definitely won't find any of that here.  If however you're looking for some totally over-the-top car chases, daft humour, fat men in capes and Roger Moore sending himself up perfectly, then look no further.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Child's Play 3 - Weakest of the initial trilogy?

Child's Play 3' is the sort of 'final part' to the 'Chucky' franchise.  Not that it was ever really marketed as so (such as something like 'Friday 13th: The Final Chapter'), but it just felt like the end.  The original two films were about a doll, possessed with the soul of a killer, trying to escape his 'plastic prison' by re-transferring his soul into the first human he had revealed his 'true self' to, i.e. a little boy called Andy.  I guess there was a limit as to how many times the evil doll could try, fail, be destroyed in a grisly fashion and then find himself accidentally resurrected again to rinse and repeat.  Therefore, a new actor plays a (slightly) grown up Andy here where he's at military school now.  But - guess what - Chucky still wants to transfer his soul into the teen.

It's interesting to note that 'Part 3' comes out a mere nine months after its predecessor and it feels it.  Overall, it just feels rushed with nothing that original here.  Even the film's creator and also the voice of Chucky, Brad Dourif, came out after the film's release and mentioned that it was their least favourite of the franchise.  It's also the last one before the *ahem* 'reboot.' And, when I say 'reboot' I mean that after this the producers basically dropped the 'Child's Play' title and focused on (arguably) the film's true star, the Chucky doll himself.  The films that followed were all more 'horror-comedies,' rather than really trying to be out and out scare-fests.

The story is pretty identical, i.e. killer doll stalks kids and no one believes them when they try and tell the adults around them.  It's not scary and not that gory.  Brad Dourif is typically on form as Chucky, but this is still the most average (certainly of the three originals).  The other characters are equally forgettable.  All adults are only there to berate the kids for their silly fantasies about living dolls before being killed and the supporting youngsters all conform to their respective cliches.  I guess maybe we - the audience - felt a far greater attachment to a young boy being stalked by a psychotic killer doll, rather than a teen who has access to firearms and an entire army around him. 

If you're looking for laughs then keep going with the franchise, as the 'Seed' and 'Bride' of Chucky are very funny, whereas if you prefer the darker tone then the first two films should be for you (until the later 'proper' reboot which tries to tale the story back to its horror roots).  If you're a fan of the series you might want to have this one in your collection, but if you're generally just dipping your toe into the franchise, you can sort of gloss over it.  Parts 1 and 2 are far superior.

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

Legion - Such a guilty pleasure flick

If you were to ask me, 'Is Legion a good film?' I would have to reply a resounding 'No.' However, that flies (like an angel?) in the face of the fact that I originally hired it, then bought it on DVD and have subsequently watched it a few times since.  What can I say... I clearly have little taste in films!  Sometimes you don't want DeNiro's excellent acting ability, or Christopher Nolan's tales of head-scratching, mind-bending concepts.  You'll even forfeit decent dialogue and little character development for simple shooting monsters with big guns.  And this is what you get right here.

Basically, God himself is disillusioned with the human race and decides it's time to get rid of them (and kill a baby while he's at it).  However, God's top angel (played by Paul Bettany) says 'No way!' and decides to save this special child and, while he's at it, all of us mortals.  Now, if this sounds like a feat that couldn't possibly be crammed into just an hour and a half, it all takes place in a restaurant by a freeway in the middle of the desert.  Our - sort of - winged hero has to help a band of human survivors fend off wave after wave of (fallen?) angels until the child is born.

It's basically a 'siege' movie.  Think 'Assault on Precinct 13' but with monsters attacking those held up in a small, barricaded dwelling.  There's nothing more grandiose than that, so if that's the sort of low-brow film you want to watch at the end of a long day's work then you should get what you're looking for.  There's plenty of action and shoot-outs and for what it is it's not bad.  Just don't go expecting anything too deep and dramatic and you won't be disappointed.  Oh and Dennis Quaid is also in it - he tries to act his best with the script he's been given and occasionally comes close to succeeding.  But then another battle comes along and you end up losing another extra in a hideous way possible.

It's not amazing, but then I don't think it ever tries to be.  Know what it is and keep your expectations low.  Don't worry, there's plenty of time to check your smartphone during the lulls in the action.  You won't miss a thing.

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

Scarface (1983) - Pretty much perfect

Scarface' is just about as near as you can get to a perfect movie.  It is also a remake.  How many times have you heard those words put together?!  I dare say not many.  The original was made back in 1932 and I think it's fair to say that film-making techniques had progressed enough (along with the world around us!) to create an original and totally different spin on the story of an ambitious criminal slowly climbing the underworld's seedy ladder until he becomes the kingpin himself.

You'll probably notice from any associated artwork for this film that it depicts Al Pacino, almost always on his own.  That's because he plays the lead Tony 'Scarface' Montana - a South American immigrant who comes to Miami and sets about taking over the local drug trade.  It's totally his film.  Many say it's his equivalent of Robert DeNiro's 'Taxi Driver' as it would be almost nothing without him.

It's also worth noting that he's possibly one of the most unlikable leads ever to grace the silver screen.  He's a truly horrendous character with almost no redeemable traits - I suppose the only exceptions to his evil is that he only really hurts/kills those who are already involved in 'the business' or know what that sort of lifestyle is all about and he does his best not to hurt any innocent bystanders along the way.  However, even his attempts to protect those he has some genuine feelings for (i.e. his family) often end up in disaster.

I suppose it's worth mentioning about the protagonist's character as some may find it a little hard to watch a man like that for over two hours of screen time.  If you're looking for a hero you can root for and even relate to then you probably won't find him here!  I guess most view him like a human 'car crash' who you just can't help but watch in order to see how bad it (i.e. his life) can get.  There are certainly some other familiar supporting cast-members, Michelle Pfeiffer being the most famous (or rather PRE-famous!), but, again, it's all Pacino's show.  It really is a vehicle to show off his acting talent.
There's not an awful lot else to say about the film. 

If you're into your gritty crime/gangster films then you should probably own this one already.  I suppose the only negative thing about it is its content.  Due to its foul language, violence and drug abuse, it's probably not going to appeal to everyone (mainly those with a more 'sensitive' nature!), but it really is the pinnacle of cinematic gangster films made about a true anti-hero (of course 'Breaking Bad' later copied the idea - sort of - and made plenty of changes to create something completely different for the small screen, but the similarities are all there -keep an eye out for them!).

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

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues - C'mon, it's not THAT bad!

The original 'Anchorman' film was a comedy classic.  Apparently.  I watched it and didn't like it.  Then, as the years went by and everyone raved about how 'hilarious' it was, I gave it a second chance.  And I loved it!  I guess it's one of those films you have to (a) be prepared for and (b) be in the mood for.  Either way, I guess a sequel was the only way to go for the producers.  Some fans wanted it, others didn't - either way many were sceptical about what it was going to be like.  It certainly seemed to divide!

Both films are set in the eighties and centre around a news anchorman, Ron Burgundy (played by Will Ferrell) and his news team of familiar faces (possibly most notably Steve Carrell).  And, the reason I said you need to know what you're getting and be in the mood for it is largely to do with the 'Anchorman' himself, for he's a complete idiot.  He's stupid, sexist and a complete tool.  So, you need to expect this of your leading man in order to get any sort of enjoyment out of either outing.

Both films are therefore pretty low-brow entertainment.  Nothing wrong with that and yet the second instalment didn't seem (that) much worse than the first and yet it gathered colossal amounts of hatred from a fair proportion of the fans.  I suppose it does re-tread old ground and hardly offers much new in terms of story, but it's one of those films that's so close to the original that I sort of feel that if you enjoyed the first I can't really see how you wouldn't appreciate the second almost all the way.

Maybe because I only thought the first outing was 'good' rather than 'amazing' that I found plenty to enjoy about the second one.  Yes, it's just as silly and sexist and Ron is most likely not someone you'd really want to hang out with on a day to day basis, but it's just entertaining enough to have on in the background and get a few daft chuckles out of it.

I've seen plenty of 'one star' reviews for this film and I think that's a little harsh.  No matter how much it doesn't capture the originality of the original it's definitely not that bad.  Steve Carrell is only really a minor character in this film and yet every time he was on screen he had me in stitches (he's possibly the only man alive even less blessed in the brain department than our hero-anchorman himself!).

If you like your humour dumb then you could do worse.  One of those films that you should probably rent before you buy (assuming anyone out there still rents DVDs - but you know what I mean).

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