Cam - Nice little contemporary attempt

I must confess to being a bit of a sucker for films which make some attempt at being different.  Even if 'being different' simply means trying to incorporate the latest fads in our world into the story.  But, to be fair to 'Cam,' this film would simply be classed as 'science fiction' probably only around twenty years ago.  Once upon a time, the prospect of being able to speak to someone on on the other side of the world via a screen from the comfort of your bedroom sounds like something from 'Star Trek' (let alone interact with them and make them do what you want!).  However, everyone knows about webcams these days and - technically - even have them on our phones.

Therefore, when a film uses perhaps what could be considered as the 'darker' side of webcams as a central theme, I thought I'd give it a go.  It's about a girl called Alice who 'works' on one of those 'adult' webcam websites (you know the ones - you probably have a hundred emails from them in your junk mail folder right now!).  Every night she, er, does things online for money (I'll leave the details up to your own imagination!) and her audience 'tips' her for her services.  This makes her a reasonable income and her only goal is to get into the 'Top 50' girls on this website (and maybe then one day to number one).  However, things - naturally - don't go according to plan when her 'feed' (I think you'd call it) gets 'cloned' - and so does she!

Cam' is a bit of a 'straight-to-DVD' film (albeit in this day and age 'straight-to-DVD' means 'straight-to-Netflix!'), so don't go expecting any major stars or budget here.  In fact, most of the film takes place in one location - Alice's bedroom.  However, just because it could hardly be described as 'big budget' doesn't mean that it doesn't work.  First of all Alice is portrayed by Madeline Brewer and she does a good job at portraying a 'sympathetic' character that we can root for.  Secondly, the 'style' in which it's shot is very 'contemporary,' i.e. expect plenty of emojis and 'text speak' scrolling up and down the screen as Alice's viewers interact with her.

I won't go into the plot too much as it's actually not that predictable and it uses technology in a way that we might not expect.  I will however mention that there is a strong 'supernatural' presence involved, so don't go expecting any 'real world' kind of endings here (think 'The Ring' here).  It's quite a short film, so you don't need to invest too much of your time into watching it.  If you like your spooky films spliced with a bit of social commentary and technophobia (ala 'Black Mirror') then you should get something out of this.  Plus it does offer a bit of an insight into the life of someone who uses the internet in this way (or at least it felt like a realistic portrayal of a woman who does this - I have to confess I haven't researched the topic that thoroughly!).  The only thing I felt let it down a little was the ending.  Although it had a resolution, there was never much of an explanation as to why this sort of thing happened.  Although, I'm guessing there will be those out there who feel that that's a bonus, as it does leave a lot up to your imagination.  Unlike the film itself - so expect strong language and nudity.  Overall, a decent little film to add to your watchlist on Netflix.

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

Eden Lake - Horrible, but very effective

Eden Lake is about a young couple from the south of England, who go camping by none other than `Eden Lake' in the midlands, as part of a romantic getaway. However, their plans go slightly astray when they run into a bunch of local kids - a situation which quickly descends into a pretty gruesome encounter.

There's not too much new in the way of plot, but what I thought elevated it above the normal `real' horror films (i.e. those without monsters or killer video tapes) is that the two central characters do the things that most sane people would do. In other words, they try to escape, rather than run around in circles like headless chickens.

There you have it - a group of youngsters stalks an innocent couple (think `Deliverance' but with Chavs). If that's your thing, you might like it. It's kind of like one of those `home invasion' movies (only not at home, obviously) like Funny Games or The Strangers.

However, it also (believe it or not) raises a few more questions than your average film of the genre. Some have commented on how it portrays `middle-class' as `good' and `poor' as `bad,' not to mention a few other shocks and surprises that I won't go into. Perhaps your enjoyment of the film depends on who you empathise with more. Check online - there are some interesting comments made regarding the (obvious) villains of the film.

Of course, if you don't want to delve too deeply, just enjoy it for a pretty nasty horror ordeal.

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

50/50 (2011) - Not a comedy, but not bad either 

50/50 is about a man, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who discovers he has cancer and only has a 50/50 chance of surviving.

The fact that his best friend, played by Seth Rogen, takes a prevalent place at his side on all advertising, might make people think that this is a comedy. It isn't. Sure, it has its lighter moments, but, ultimately, it's a drama. And it's quite a good one too.

Cancer is affecting more and more people and the more the media can do to raise awareness is a good thing (my humble opinion). I watched Weeds (granted a comedy through and through) and a character got cancer in that and was basically better a few episodes later.

50/50 tries to show, as best a light-hearted film can, about how cancer can affect relationships. It's not totally dark and nasty, as many cancer sufferers can sadly relate to. It tries to appeal to a wider audience.

If you want something a bit serious, I'd recommend this (only the TV series Breaking Bad has dealt with cancer better in my opinion).

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

Outlander - AKA 'Vikings and Aliens'

I always find it interesting that a film that gave away its premise in the title, i.e. 'Cowboys and Aliens' was given such a hard time when it was released.  I enjoyed it!  Sure, it was no masterpiece, but it was fun! 'Outlander' by its very title suggests mystery, as if it's trying to hide what it really is.  And, what it really is is a blatant B-movie with enough of a budget to make you think that it may just be more than it really isn't.  And it isn't.  It's just good, harmless monster-munching fun with Vikings taking on one hell of a nasty alien.

You can almost imagine a group of studio executives sitting around in a meeting room, trying to come up with something new.  Zombies vs Eskimos?  Samurai vs Vampires?  Why not Vikings vs Aliens?  It was about that time they decided to give up and just go with the last.  A so a spaceman (Jim Caviezel) crashes on Earth during the reign of the Vikings, but only goes and brings a giant monster with him (which promptly escapes and starts chowing down on all that juicy Nordic flesh on offer).

What follows is a pretty ordinary story where Jim Caviezel is captured by the local tribe of Vikings where he's - naturally - disbelieved about who he is and the threat he's brought with him - until of course the bodycount rises sufficiently.  Plus there's the (cliched!) sub-plot regarding the Viking chief's (John Hurt) daughter (Sophia Myles) being forced to marry someone she doesn't want to, for the good of the tribe of course.  Then you have the (late addition) of Ron Perlman as a rival Viking chief and a small boy they constantly need to protect (who looks like 'Newt' from 'Aliens' for some reason).  All in all, not a bad cast really.  Granted no one is on the level of Daniel Craig or Harrison Ford, but they all do a decent job and, as long as you remember that what you're watching is a glorified B-movie then you can forgive any slightly clunky performances and uninspired plot structure.

Of course the 'real' star of the show is the monster and he's not bad.  Yes, he's probably created more via CGI than practical effects, but the digital stuff is good and the creature is kept hidden for a fair proportion of the film (probably to save money, but it does work to build up a bit of tension and, after all, it worked for 'Predator!').

About my main gripe with the film came towards the end.  I hope it's not too much of a 'spoiler' when I say that the monster's er, 'motivation' changes about what he's doing.  This appeared to be just so a certain Viking Princess could suddenly play the part of the 'damsel in distress' in order for our space-Viking to come and save her.

If you like your sci-fi B-movies and/or mindless monster-munching movies, then 'Outlander' is definitely worth a watch.  As I say, keep in mind what it is and at least you'll have to agree that it doesn't really try to be anything that it isn't.  It's actually quite fun (although I'd still pay money to watch 'Zombies vs Eskimos').

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

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back - Better than the original

I'm aware that sequels do tend to be inferior to their predecessors, however, after watching 'Jack Reacher: Never Go Back,' I can only conclude that this one is one of the few exceptions to that rule.  And, from my own perspective, I back this claim up because I can't actually remember a thing about the original film (besides some reviewers who had obviously read the book it was based on, moaning about how the titular character was well over six feet tall - Tom Cruise falls quite short of that I believe!).

Although, during the 'build up' to the point where 'Part II' really gets going, I was feeling that this film would also be forgotten in my mind as well.  The first half an hour is pretty generic, as Tom, er, sorry, Jack, is set up and forced to go on the run to clear his name.  Am I writing about Jack Reacher, or Jason Bourne here?!  Yes, the plot is hardly inspiring and the rest of the film is effectively a 'chase' with moments of bonding and character development from Jack and the woman he's on the run with, plus a possible daughter-figure.

The other characters do their best with what they're given, but Tom Cruise is such a big star that any film that has him in it means that everything is going to centre around him and the others can only do their best with the screen time they're given.  But they're all functional for what the story required.

I can't really say too much else about the film.  It's quite simple and nothing that you haven't seen before in recent time, i.e. with the Bourne franchise.  Yes, it has a lot of the same plot points and flaws, such as the villains fall into that 'Marvel Cinematic Universe' category of being pretty forgettable and little more than bad versions of Jack.  It's nearly two hours long, so you'll have to invest a little more time in it than most.  However, based on the fact that I can remember this one over a week after I've seen it and I couldn't remember anything about the original besides the narky comments about Tom's lack of stature, hopefully that means it's at least worth a watch if you're into your spy/chase-thriller type movies. 

In fact, this sequel has made me want to track down the original Jack Reacher film and give it another watch to see if I missed something the first time round.

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

National Treasure - The clue is NOT in the title

Once upon a time, back when Nicolas Cage could actually 'sell' a big budget movie, some clever producer at Disney came up with a script for 'Indiana Jones' mixed with 'Ocean's Eleven.' Then someone else added a dash of 'True Lies' and then wrapped it up in 'The Da Vinci Code,' before the man in charge of the money mentioned that whatever this Frankenstein's monster of a film had to be fit for all the family... and promptly gave it a PG rating.  What once might have been a good idea with a major star somehow became something that was less than the multitude of all its inspirations.  And that's a shame, because I think - once upon a time - there was a good film in here trying to get out.

It opens with a young boy (later we discover is Nicolas Cage) being told by his grandfather about an artefact in US history that has been long forgotten and only accessible via certain clues left by their forefathers.  And tell the boy he does.  This opening scene goes on for about ten minutes (it felt like more) and is basically one long exposition dump setting up what the characters will later be looking for.  When it finally ends, we join Cage and his team in the arctic (or a studio in California that has a freezer in it).  They all find something and spend the next ten minutes adding more exposition as to how they will eventually use this new information to track it down.

I get the feeling that at this stage the producers realised that what they were making was a little 'talk heavy' and figured they better blow something up in order to wake the audience up (hopefully not literally).  Cue an action scene and a reminder to all American adventurers never to include a Brit among your party as Sean Bean decides it's time to pull off an early double-cross and - guess what - the film's villain is revealed to us all.

National Treasure' is not a short film.  It's close to two hours of more of the same.  The characters are never really given any time to develop.  Diane Kruger is the (tragically so) generic 'love interest' for Cage.  There's a younger guy who I never got his on screen name and can't be bothered to look up the actor's name - he's the comic relief.  As I mentioned, Sean Bean is the villain because... er, he's British.  That appears to be his only real motivation for wanting to get ancient relics before Cage (or Indiana Jones, I guess).  Expect more generic action, more generic characters and a hell of a lot more generic exposition.

Cage does his best with the script that he's given and, although he's never afforded the luxury of going 'the full Cage' (fans of his will know what that means), he does his best with what he's given.  But he's not given much.  There's no real chemistry between him and anyone else.  And that's not their fault either.  No matter how good any of the actors are, they just look bored - Sean Bean especially!

I know a film doesn't have to be completely be original to be good.  In fact, pretty much everything's been done now in terms of story-telling, so we're used to things being repackaged and churned out, just in a slightly different way that now makes them - at least appear - watchable.  However, 'National Treasure's' biggest problem is that it just doesn't know what it wants to be.  The obvious genre would be 'adventure' (ala 'Indiana Jones'), but then it veers off to some sort of comic spy movie like 'True Lies,' before quickly trying to pull off a heist like 'Ocean's Eleven.' I know many good films that have combined genres and worked; in fact... most do!  However, this is an example of a film exceeding its reach and trying to be too many things at once and not having a - true - target audience in mind and ending up appealing to very few.

I wonder how well it did in America, compared to the rest of the world.  To quote (the far superior) 'Team America: World Police' it is pretty 'America!  F*%k yeah!' all the way through.  Perhaps this is a 'national treasure' to the good citizens of the US of A, whereas out here in that small part of the world known as 'everywhere else,' it all feels a little overblown and self-indulgent to be the classic it could have been.

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

Mandy - Atmosphere over story

I'm a huge Nicolas Cage fan and with every one of his new movies (of which he seems to be releasing about four per year) I always hope that this will be the one which re-launches his career and puts him back on the 'A-list' where, in my opinion, he truly belongs (he did win a 'Best Actor' Oscar, remember that?!).  However, most of his output goes straight to DVD (or popular online streaming service, which is beginning to feel like the same thing these days), so my hopes were high when I heard that 'Mandy' had received a standing ovation at its initial screening and even got a theatrical release in America.

Now I've watched it I'm trying to work out whether I liked it or not.  It's not the most inspired story… a couple (Cage as 'Red Miller' and Andrea Riseborough as his girlfriend 'Mandy') stay in a cabin in the woods that must be only a few dirt-tracks along from the one Bruce Campbell did in the 'Evil Dead' franchise and, like Ash, fall foul to the locals.  In this case a cult of humans who want to bring about demons, or something.  Anyway, it quickly turns into a 'revenge tale' where Cage has to go nuts (or 'the full Cage' as many of his fans like to refer to his performance as) and snuff out all those who've wronged our (initially) hapless heroes.

So, nothing we haven't seen a hundred times before in terms of story.  However, what it lacks in originality, it more than makes up for in 'visual flare.' Each shot is perfectly crafted to maximise the atmosphere and add to the horror through simply (and seemingly forgotten in these CGI times we live in) by lighting, set design and simple colour palettes.  The director obviously hasn't got much of a budget to work with (I hear Cage can be hired for roughly the price of a Big Mac and fries) and so utilises every camera trick in the book to create a weird, neon-lit eighties vibe which puts the film almost more in the 'art house' category.

I felt that the human villains were pretty nondescript, however the creatures they conjure up were akin to something out of 'Hellraiser.' Again, the budget obviously didn't allow huge monsters with tentacles, but the lighting and the fact that these things are actually quite hard to see at times, means we have to take our best guess as to what they look like - and they look pretty hideous.  Again, showing that CGI isn't required to create horrific monsters.

During the first half of the movie, I suddenly realised that I was watching a Nicolas Cage film which basically didn't have him in it.  Seriously, he's hardly in the first 45 minutes.  Thankfully, when he does come into it (properly), he does what he does best - go absolutely mental while covered in blood (again, Bruce Campbell could probably have done much of this!) while wielding various instruments of death.  However, for all the film's prettiness, it doesn't really hide the lack of story.  It's quite long for a 'slasher/horror/revenge' film, weighing in at nearly two hours.  As visually epic as the film is to look at, you have over an hour where Nicolas Cage just walks up to one baddie.  Kills him.  Rinse and repeat.

Overall, I'm glad I watched 'Mandy.' Cage is great (if you like his terms of bonkers acting).  It was truly awesome to watch what could be done with simple camera techniques (think what David Lynch does, but more eighties-looking) and it certainly makes a change from watching a superhero flying around New York hitting armies of computer-generated villains.  However, I just think the story could have been a little bit deeper (or edit a bit out of what there was) to make it tighter and generally less repetitive.  Nevertheless, full credit to the director who was the true star of the show.  I hope to see more of Panos Cosmatos' work in the future and would love to see his visual style applied to a more polished script.

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

Sometimes They Come Back - Sometimes King's work works

If you've ever watched any of Stephen King's books translated to the big screen, then you've basically seen this… only much, much better.  If you haven't watched any of the other adaptations then you'll need to know that almost every other story is set in a small American town where something supernatural takes place.  And there's bullies.  There's ALWAYS bullies!

I've seen plenty of King's work turned into films and, sadly, most of them range from awful to simply forgettable.  There are a few classics (granted they adhere to the above synopsis), but on the whole they are pretty nondescript.  Sadly, 'Sometimes They Come Back' falls in the 'awful' category.  It's just one major cliche after the next.  It has horror cliches and Stephen King cliches, but either way, just cliches.

I first watched it back when it was released in 1991 and thought it was okay - although not okay enough to ever bother buying on VHS back then and certainly not worth tracking down a DVD copy.  Now, nearly thirty years later I found it online on a streaming service and thought I'd give it a go.  I have to say it's a hard watch.  It's about a family who comes to - yes, you guessed it - a small American town where the father (Jim Norman) is going to teach at the local school.  However, he holds a deep, dark connection to the town.

He lived here when he was young and his brother was killed by bullies who were then, in turn, killed in the process (yes, it's a pretty unlikely scenario, but you just have to go with it).  We know they're bullies because they bully people.  It's as simple as that.  The antagonists are never given any further character development, or backstory.  They just drive around picking on people - a lynchpin in King's work.  Now our hero has grown up and has a family of his own, he thinks his past is firmly behind him, but - guess what - sometimes they come back!

Yes, those deceased bullies come back to haunt him and his new family because… er, well because they're now spooky bullies (with no new character traits thanks to their supernatural abilities).  So, can he lay them to rest once and for all and save his family?  By the time comes for him to do so, I didn't really care.

It really is a 'straight to video' horror film.  It's not particularly horrific, creepy and thanks to having - at best - TV actors in all the lead roles, there aren't any memorable characters you'll really care for, let alone remember.  Since reviewing this film I've noticed a lot of people who clearly disagree with me - giving it top marks and calling it an 'underrated horror film.' Sorry, I always give King's work a go, but I can't really give this adaptation a pass.  Like I said, I sat through it in 1991 when I was 14 and clearly hadn't seen that many horror films.  I think only 14 year olds who aren't schooled in cinema will get something out of this.  It certainly isn't an 'IT' (if you know what I mean).

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

The Babysitter (2017) - Cinema is dying

Don’t let the kind of bland name, i.e. ‘The Babysitter’’ fool you into thinking this film isn’t anything special.  Yes, it’s a ‘Netflix original’ and don’t let that fool you into thinking that it’s just there to make up the quota of ‘in-house content’ on the web’s streaming service.  In the UK Netflix costs less than a tenner a month to watch a variety of film and TV and, before you think I’m being sponsored by Netflix, I’m merely pointing out that if you can get original films like ‘The Babysitter’ for that price, what’s the point in going to the cinema that often?

Anyway, onto the film.  If you check out the blurb of the film you’ll see that it’s a horror movie, but I won’t go into too much detail as I don’t want to give anything away that you might not have guessed.  It’s about a twelve-year-old boy who, much to his disgust, still has to have a babysitter whenever his parents go away.  However, despite his initial humiliation, it’s not so bad, as he’s head over heels in love with his sitter.  She’s a good looking young girl who is literally his ‘fantasy’ woman, as she indulges in everything he’s into (well, all apart from the obvious thing he’s interested in, but that’s left up to his teenage imagination).  In fact, she seems too good to be true and, whenever that happens, you know something is going to go wrong.  And it does.  And, in horror terms, something ‘wrong’ normally involves vast amounts of blood and guts. ‘The Babysitter’ happily provides such gore.

‘Meta’ is the word I’d use to describe the film.  Don’t expect to be scared, more amused.  The script is light-hearted and self-knowing, even when bodies are being diced it never takes itself seriously – and it’s all the better for it.  It’s your basic ‘horror-comedy’ (or should that be ‘black comedy?’) with the emphasis on the humour.  Of course the jokes are only really as good as the actors delivering them and I’m pleased to say that a film who stars a twelve-year-old as the lead could be a risk.  Luckily, he never comes across as brattish or annoying (like so many child actors do!) and he’s quite a believable and relatable hero to root for.  Then you have the babysitter herself.  She too is a joy to watch as she comes across as cool, caring and friendly, meaning the two leads can play off each other well.

If you’re into horror-comedies that are simple enjoyable (adult!) romps then you definitely have to watch this one – especially as you probably won’t be able to get it on DVD or see it in the cinema!  It’s definitely worth adding to your ‘watchlist!’

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Cabin Fever - Really enjoyed it (in the end)

I remember watching ‘Cabin Fever’ in the cinema when it first came out.  If you’d asked me what I thought of it after my initial viewing, I’d have said, “Yeah, it was okay,” and left it at that.  It wasn’t until after I saw it did I keep hearing how it was a ‘homage to 'Evil Dead.’' Now, I’m a big fan of the 'Evil Dead' trilogy (excluding remake!) and I didn’t remember much in 'Cabin Fever' that could be considered a ‘homage.’ So I watched it again when it came out on DVD and I guess I saw what I’d missed the first time round.

Basically, 'Cabin Fever' is hardly original – five college friends go to a remote cabin in the woods and meet a sticky end.  However, it’s done just differently enough to make it worth watching.  It’s not perfect by any means – there are still a couple of ‘plot points’ which I always objected to – namely because I felt that I could see them coming a mile off and I could tell that the writers were trying to make what happened a surprise.

However, despite the odd wrong turn, the narrative is pretty good.  It’s worth noting that the man responsible for some of the musical soundtrack to (the brilliantly-weird) 'Twin Peaks' did the music for this, too.  And, like each other, they have more than their fair share of ‘weird/surreal’ moments which makes the whole thing stand out.


The five characters aren’t that nice.  You won’t really like them, but that doesn’t really mean that you won’t root for them.  Even the annoying one with the really bad haircut is stupidly-annoying enough for you to enjoy watching him, but special kudos to ‘Bert’ who is a total wally and yet he’s still quite entertaining to watch.

I won’t go into too much detail as to what happens to our five, daft teens as you probably already know or, if you don’t, it’ll hopefully be a bit of a surprise.  But, I will say that it is a definite horror movie, therefore you’ll get more than you money's worth of gore from this outing.

After all these years I’ve now watched 'Cabin Fever' a number of times and I seem to enjoy it more and more each time.  Like I say, it’s not perfect, but if you’re looking for a nice little tongue-in-cheek film with plenty of gore and sets out not to take itself seriously, then this is it.  And, yes, there were a fair few nods to Evil Dead which completely went over my head the first time round (just don’t ask me for ‘pancakes’ after this film).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Ali G Indahouse - What were you expecting?

Ali G is undoubtedly an important character in terms of entertainment.  He's a fictional gangster rapper, created and played by Sacha Baron Cohen and was used in short sketches in order to trick unwitting celebrities into giving interviews.  And everything about the set-up worked, perfectly.  However, when something is designed for 'small bursts' there's sometimes some problems when it's transferred to a full-length movie in terms of story.  Here is an example of a film that just about pulls it off.  Just.

I quite enjoyed 'Ali G Indahouse,' but then I'm a big fan of the series (and I wasn't expecting too much!).  However, I can't see the film attracting too many new converts, or really appealing to a wider audience.  Gone are the clever interviews the character was known for, plus any real attempts at poking fun at popular culture or social commentary.  Now, all that is replaced by a pretty generic story about Ali G trying to save his local youth centre by running for Parliament and getting used by political heavyweights in order to try and appeal to the youth of today.

There's nothing particularly inspiring about the story and it's all wrapped up in plenty of pretty unsubtle 'toilet' humour (or at least that of the s3xual kind!).  What was once a cutting attempt at poking fun of those too stupid or embarrassed to say what's literally staring them in the face has become one 'body-part' joke after the next.

The supporting cast are there for Ali G to play off, including an underused Martin Freeman (before he was mega famous!) and acting greats Charles Dance and Michael Gambon (playing those dastardly 'suits' in power), but it's Sacha Baron Cohen's show all the way.  He really does put his all into the role and certainly isn't afraid to send himself up, looking the fool at every given opportunity.

And it's this kind of commitment that saves the film.  Even as a fan of the original (sketch-based) creation of Ali G, I wasn't too sure about the full length film.  Luckily, it's not too long and, although completely predictable, is certainly watchable enough if you're not offended by the language and subject material.  It's definitely not 'high brow,' but I feel there should be a place for films which aren't supposed to tax you mentally after a day's work.  Here, you can just put your brain on hold and smirk at the silliness on screen.

I enjoyed it at the time and I still do today.  However, I do feel that Cohen's future (big screen) releases were much 'sharper' in terms of taking a character developed for TV sketches and turning it into a feature-length movie.  If you like Cohen's work, you should definitely check out his later offerings 'Borat' and 'Bruno.' Maybe 'Ali G Indahouse' was effectively Cohen honing his art?  But, if you're still unsure as whether to watch or not, maybe just look up an old Ali G sketch on YouTube and, if you like it, you may just like the big screen version, too.

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

3 Days to Kill - Rented.  Watched.  Reviewed.  Forgotten.

By the time you reach the end of this review, I will have totally forgotten even watching McG’s latest action offering, ‘3 Days to Kill.’ Does that mean it’s a bad film?  No.  Not really.  Kevin Costner stars as a CIA agent in Paris who has been diagnosed with only a few months to live... unless he completes ‘one last job’ (in which case the CIA will cure him).

So... have you ever seen a film where a man (normally CIA/FBI etc) has to run around a city trying to kill someone?  You have, right?  Probably starring Liam Neeson, Matt Damon, or someone just like him.  In that case, you’ve basically seen 3 Days to Kill, only you’ll have watched a better version.
There’s nothing really wrong with this film.  There’s just nothing that make it stand out over all the dozens other similar spy/chase movies.  You can literally do something else, like surf the internet, while it’s on and still understand every last aspect of the plot.

It tries to be serious, but comes across a little too ‘comic book-like.’ The villains are TOO villainous, the sexy CIA contact Kevin has to meet is a little TOO sexy.  It all just comes across as too far-fetched.  I lost count of how many high speech car chases I watched through the streets of Paris with bodies falling out of car windows every few hundred yards, only for the police to never feel the need to investigate and every civilian just getting on with their lives as if there wasn’t a real life game of Grand Theft Auto going on all around them.

There’s a subplot that seems to date back to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ‘True Lies,’ where Kevin has to ‘reconnect’ with his estranged wife and daughter.  Just because Arnie’s offering was twenty years ago, doesn’t mean that time has managed to top it.

If you like spy/chase films then you’ve probably seen all the best ones.  I’m sure a film or genre will eventually come along to top the Bourne films or whatever Liam Neeson’s latest offering is and that’ll be great.  However, this film isn’t it.  In fact... what was it called again?

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

Heat - A game of 'cat and mouse' (with machine guns)

Heat' was the movie many cinema devotees had been waiting for - for it was the first chance to see modern screen legends Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro lock horns and face off against each other (or at least share some 'proper' screen time since 1974's 'The Godfather Part II').  And the posters and general marketing didn't disappoint - depicting the two acting legends looking equally fierce while wielding some seriously big guns (plus you had Val Kilmer thrown in there for good measure, but - despite him being roughly at the height of his fame in 1995 - no one was really talking about him).  But did it deliver?

It terms of sheer scale it certainly did.  Weighing in at around two and a half hours, 'Heat' is certainly an epic crime tale about a burned-out cop (Pacino) trying to catch a notorious bank robber (DeNiro) in the act.  Although most people would have gone to see it based on those two names alone, there was plenty of other star power involved.  I've already mentioned Val Kilmer, but there was also (reasonably well-known faces - in comparison) Jon Voight, Tom Sizemore, Ashley Judd, Wes Studi, Danny Trejo and even a young Natalie Portman.  However, no matter how many other faces you see, most people just wanted to watch the two leads slug it out (either physically or metaphorically).  But, as the early reviews rolled in, the one main criticism was regarding the lack of screen time the two share.

Yes, Pacino and DeNiro's performances are as good as you'd come to expect from them and if you're only watching the film to see a crime movie, regardless of who's in it, then you'll certainly get your money's worth here.  But the simple fact remains that, despite it being an excellent film, the two men only share a single scene together (or at least one where they're allowed to do a good bit of verbal sparring, like we'd come to expect from them).  And, of course, that scene is awesome, but it lasts for about five minutes out of a film that's nearly three hours.  Yes, 'Heat' is great, but I can't help but feel that the producers missed a trick at not getting the two men to share more screen time and that the marketing campaign kind of lied to us.

Don't go expecting too much action either.  The amount of guns displayed in the promotional material is about as misleading as making it appear that Pacino and DeNiro would being the same scene.  Yes, there is an excellent gunfight using M16s in the middle of Los Angeles, but this comes about two thirds of the way through and only lasts a little bit longer than the two leads' shared scenes.
The bottom line is that 'Heat' is a great crime movie, filled with plenty of 'cat and mouse' antics where Pacino gradually gets closer and closer to DeNiro, however I - like many others - felt it could have been so much more.  The next time we'd get to see these two heavyweights together would be 'Righteous Kill' which kind of disappeared without a trace.

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

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit - Seen it all before, unfortunately

Just in case you didn’t know... ‘Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit,’ is a reboot of the ‘Jack Ryan’ franchise which starred about three different actors as the titular spy during the nineties.  This time, he’s a younger incarnation, played by Chris ‘Captain Kirk’ Pine.  Our new Jack works as an analyst for the CIA, but discovers a plot by the Russians to crash the US economy, therefore he’s shipped off to Moscow to sort things out.

Naturally, things don’t go to plan (and that’s just his personal life!).  For he leaves behind his long term girlfriend, Keira Knightley, who, naturally, hasn’t got a clue what he does between 9-5.  Therefore, poor little Jack has to balance keeping her in the dark, while saving the world.  Does that sound familiar?

It should.  It’s been done a hundred times before.  Sometimes it’s been done better.  Sometimes not.  How many times have you seen a spy/hitman/killer struggle to keep his better half in the dark regarding his murky profession?  How many times have you seen the hero have dinner with the baddie before they finally square off?  How many car chases have you seen?

There’s not an awful lot wrong with Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit.  Its major flaw is that it’s been done so many times before and there just isn’t that much new here to get excited about.  Everyone plays their parts well and there’s action and stuff.  But, if you’re into action and/or spy movies, then you’ve probably seen better and worse.  If you’re really desperate to watch yet another international spy movie then you could do worse.  It’s just that if that’s what you want to watch then you’ve probably seen better as well.

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

The Iceman - Nicely dark

I didn't know much about `The Iceman' going into seeing this and, I'm pleased to say, that I was glad I didn't. For it was a nice surprise. It's a real life case (or as `real life' as any Hollywood adaptation) of a hitman who tries to balances a `normal' home life with his rather brutal job.

I don't know anything about the case it was based on, but I know a good story when I see it. It's as dark as you'd expect it to be and, despite being a complete psychopath, we find ourselves strangely drawn to our antihero and unable to help ourselves from rooting for him, hoping that one day he'll see sense and put his day job in favour of putting his wife and daughters at the forefront of his life (all of whom he does seem to genuinely care about).

In some ways it reminded me of a cross between 'Dexter' and 'Goodfellas.' It had the same gangster-feel as 'Goodfellas' (and Ray Liota probably helped it along that way), while, at the same time, showing us a monster who was trying to lead a normal life away from (as Dexter would say) his `dark passenger.'

Michael Shannon is the titular assassin and he plays the part well, as a brooding, but strangely likable and doting father and husband to his family.  Naturally, they simply think he works doing sound effects for cartoons and have no real idea how he makes his money.  However, the cracks do start to show as the film progresses.  Winona Ryder is his stay-at-home wife who equally dotes on him and their two children.  She has less to do and evolve as a character, only really having to show more emotion when her happy little world starts to fall apart.  Chris 'Captain America' is on the cast list too, but if you think he looked different in the later 'Avengers' film when he has a beard, he's practically unrecognisable as a fellow hitman here.

If anything though, 'The Iceman' is a gangster film.  Expect plenty of characters who wouldn't feel out of place in an episode of 'The Sopranos' all shooting each other in the head for this disrespect or that.  It's not about the police trying to catch him, it's about him trying to survive the murky depths of the criminal underworld. It may not be as seminal as 'Goodfellas,' but if you like American gangster films, real life crime, or are just interested in hitmen, give it a go.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Neon Demon – I obviously didn’t get it

Sometimes when I watch a film and totally dislike it, I feel really bad. ‘The Neon Demon’ is one such example.  I’ve checked out other people’s reviews and there are those out there who clearly loved it.  And I can see why.  It’s visually amazingly and disturbingly creepy.  And yet I still found it a chore to sit through.  In short… I found it dull.

It’s about a young girl getting into the seedy underbelly of the modelling industry and encountering the sleazy men who dominate it and the catty women who already exist in it.  I know a deliberately slow pace can be used to great effect in order to create tension, mood and atmosphere.  However, as I said above, I just wanted something to come along and ‘properly’ move the story along.

So, I sat through it and berated myself for not liking it more.  It’s very tempting to have a go at modern cinema audiences for only wanting ‘simple’ films with plots that involve car chases, punch-ups and a damsel in distress.  I like to think my taste does incorporate a little more than the next Michael Bay disaster film.  However, there are times when a more ‘linier’ story is needed.  I felt that this is one of those times.  And, it’s a shame.  I’ll say again how much I enjoyed watching the shots.  They truly are well crafted to perfection and intensely creepy.  It’s just not much happens quickly enough.

There are nice moments of satire in the dialogue between the models, but it wasn’t enough for me. Basically, if you’re thinking of watching this, you need to be aware that it’s very ‘feel’ over story.  It’s like an ‘art movie’ where it leaves you to fill in a lot of the action yourself and interpret characters’ actions as you will.  It does look great though and should be shown to anyone looking to get into film and create artistically-awesome shots which create mood and atmosphere.

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

The Hamiltons - It's like Twilight, but with less twinkling

The Hamiltons are a nice, ordinary middle class family in America. Apart from the fact they like to trap people in their basement and then eat them.

The film does its best to try and inject some new life into the current obsession the cinematic public has with vampires, as it tries to portray them as basically a normal family (i.e. they don't fear Peter Cushine's crucifix, throw up when you try and feed them garlic bread, or sparkle in the sunlight - like any self-respecting vampire would actually sparkle in sunlight!). Their only weakness is their blood lust.

It's pretty low budget, so don't expect A-list actors staring longingly into each other's eyes, nor any amazing transformations when neighbouring werewolves steam in to save the day. It seems to be filmed on video, giving it quite a student-feel.

Is it any good?

A lot of people say no, but I think that's a little unfair. Because the main character looks suspiciously like a `Cullen' I suspect that a lot of people thought this might be in some way like the Twilight films. It isn't. It's more pure horror and horror without an awful lot of gore.

If you're looking for Twilight then look elsewhere. If you don't mind a low-budget, slow-burning horror flick with characters who you probably won't really care much for, then you might be able to get something out of it.

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

Sabotage - Come on... it’s not THAT bad!

I’ve read a lot of reviews for ‘Sabotage’ and, judging by what I read, I was getting ready to endure the worst film I was going to watch all year.  Seriously... I know Arnie isn’t famous for making deep and meaningful pieces of cinematic art, but I’ve never seen one of his films get so many one star ratings.

I should point out that I’m a big fan of the ‘Governator.’ I spent a lot of the late eighties/early nineties watching Predator, T2 and Total Recall.  However, as he got older, his star lost its shine and his movies failed to capture the public’s attention the way they used to.  However, I still found something in each of his later outings.  Granted, they were not up to his ‘glory days,’ but they were still fun action romps.  And that was all I was hoping for with Sabotage.

Here, the big man plays the leader of a drug enforcement unit who is accused of stealing money from a cartel and find themselves being picked off one by one.  And, based on that brief summary, you’ll get whatever you expect from it.  I think a lot of people didn’t like how serious it was.  If you watched Arnie in Running Man or Commando then you may be expecting a wry pun thrown into the carnage to lighten the mood.  Here, there is no lightening of the mood.  It’s dark.  And bleak.  Arnie is not a happy man, but then his whole family were killed by drug lords, so I’d be surprised if he was constantly doing cartwheels of joy all over the place.

Also, a lot of people have criticised the film for having no likable characters.  Yeah, that’s probably a fait comment, but then I didn’t see much of a problem.  Most of them are there to be killed until Arnie and his cop lady-friend can work out who’s behind it.

Apparently, if you read the trivia behind the production, you’ll see it was originally meant to run for a massive three hours and be a murder-mystery.  However, the studio wanted an action flick, so it was cut down to highlight its shootouts etc.  So, if you’re looking for a dark, brooding gun fight with characters who don’t really appeal much, then you’ll get it here.  However, if you’re looking for your ‘traditional’ Arnie film with silly puns and over-the-top action, then you may feel a little short-changed.

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

Zombeavers - If you don’t like this it’s kind of your fault

This film is entitled ‘Zombeavers.’ Think about that for a moment.  Cute little woodland animals turned into bloodthirsty undead beasts (who then go on to plague the living hell out of three scantily-clad young maidens).  If you think that sounds like possibly the worst idea since sharks caught in a tornado then it’s best you never ever think of watching this film.  If, however, you can lower your mind significantly to appreciate it, you may just get something out of it.

I had had a long day and I needed something totally un-intellectual to relax my mind.  This fitted the bill just perfectly.  Believe it or not, I do watch somewhat deeper films, but I totally wasn’t in the mood for something deep and meaningful.  About the level of my IQ was laughing at badly animated puppets with glowing eyes chasing girls in bikinis.

This film is daft and, most importantly, it knows it is.  It never tries to be serious and never tries to be anything but what it is – daft, silly fun.

It has no budget.  The special effects are anything but special.  It has no big name actors.  Those who have turned up are largely there for their good looks.  And the dialogue isn’t great at the best of times.  And yet, with all these down-points, I still can’t bring myself to hate it.

So, if you’ve had a long day and want to relax in front of a film where you can totally put your brain ‘on hold’ for an hour and half, then this is the one for you.  If you think you’re going to be in for a story filled with excellent character development and broad story arcs the you may need to skip this one.

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

Van Helsing - Good, but somehow not as great as it should be

`Van Helsing' has always been a bit of an enigma to me. I own it and have watched it every so often and I can never quite put my finger on what exactly is wrong with it. Obviously, I quite like it, but it always leaves me with the feeling that it should have - somehow - been so much better.

The film was practically made for me - I love Hugh Jackman and he makes a great `monster hunter.' Kate Beckinsale is naturally sexy as his kick-a$$ love interest. David Wenham adds some comic relief as Van Helsing and Richard Roxborough is brilliantly campy as Count Dracula. Then there are more monsters crammed into this film than Jabba the Hutt's palace. What more could I want?

Um, I don't exactly know, but I'm not alone in my confusion. Van Helsing was supposed to be the start of some sort of action/horror franchise. It was certainly given the budget and star-power to launch such a venture. However, it was - almost - a financial flop. It was sort of successful, but not enough to get a proper sequel (there is a lower budget animated one, but that wasn't the original intention).

Perhaps it's the overuse of CGI? Sometimes everything on screen starts to blur into one mass of animation. Perhaps it's that the characters are a little too indestructible to be believable. Seriously... these (supposedly totally human) characters get dropped from great heights again and again and just get up like nothing has happened - a minor gripe, but it always bugged me.

If you're a fan of `old school' horror, i.e. you know about the Dracula/Frankenstein myths then you might like this, because it certainly pays homage to the classics. It has a lot of charm (kudos to Frankenstein's monster and Drac himself), but somehow falls slightly short of being the modern day classic it was meant to be.

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

Mortal Kombat - It may be a computer game-based movie, but it's fun!

I feel kind of bad giving 1995's 'Mortal Kombat' 5/5.  I mean… that's the top rating possible and basically makes it sound like it's up there with 'The Godfather' and 'Empire Strikes Back.' Spoiler: it isn't.  But it is good fun.  Video games have a bad (no, make that TERRIBLE) reputation for their transfers from pixels to film.  However, I dare to argue that 'Mortal Kombat' is one of the - very few - exceptions.

In case you weren't around in the early to mid nineties and didn't play the game in the arcade (or 'Mortal Monday' as it was known when the game came to the home consoles of the era), it simply centres on a supernatural fighting tournament where you had to select one of a handful of fighters and beat the rest into a bl00dy submission.  Hardly an inspiring 'story,' but at least that allowed the film-makers some creative liberties to build a narrative around it.

There are no real 'stars' attached to the project.  Our plucky trio of human heroes who enter the 'Mortal Kombat' tournament to defend our 'Earth Realm' against the evil forces of 'Outworld' are Robin Shou as Liu Kang, Linden Ashby (as the 'comic relief') Johnny Cage and Bridgette Wilson-Sampras as Sonya Blade (no, I've never heard of them either - not before and barely after!).  The only real 'name' attached was Christopher Lambert, as their Thunder God guide, Lord Raiden and, although he's pretty amusing, his screen-time amounts to little more than an extended cameo.  They all look the part (i.e. like their computer-generated source characters), however they seem to have been chosen on their looks (and vague martial arts fighting ability), as what they have in looks, they kind of lack in the acting department.  However, if there's one bright spark in terms of casting, it's the villain 'Shang Tsung' (played by Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa).  I've never seen him in anything before or after, but, based on his performance here, I kind of wish I had!

I think if you're sitting down to watch 'Mortal Kombat' nowadays, you need to be aware that special effects weren't quite as, er, 'special' back then.  The sets are nice and resemble the computer game's levels, plus the fight scenes are well-choreographed, however when computer generated effects are used, they do look a little dated.  Plus, if you're hoping that what was arguably one of the most gore-laden computer games ever made at the time will be filled with heads being ripped off and hearts being pulled out (if you're aware of the games infamous 'Finishing Movies' then you'll get my references) then you won't find them here.  I think it was classified as a '15' here in the UK at the time.  Watching it now it would probably be a PG.  I can't remember a single moment of 'real' gore and next to no bad language.  I guess a couple of the baddies are a bit creepy and intimidating, but nothing worse than you'd find in any of today's Marvel movies.

Also, if you're sitting down to the film 'cold' today and know very little of the game, all the 'in-game references' will pass well over your head.  The film-makers have done their best to include plenty of subtle (and not so subtle) nods and winks to fans.  I'm guessing anyone who hasn't played 'Mortal Kombat II' and performed Johnny Cage's 'Friendship' finishing move will be at a loss as to where that signed photo comes from!

My main criticism came that there were no (or hardly any 'proper' in my opinion) 'special moves' performed by the (human) fighters.  In the game you can shoot streams of fireballs from your fingertips etc and I expected those to be replicated on screen.  They - sort of - are, but I just think the producers missed a trick on that one.

Ultimately, 'Mortal Kombat' certainly isn't the best film ever made (although there can be an argument made for it being the best VIDEO GAME film ever made!).  It's more of a 'guilty pleasure' movie and definitely a B-movie with just enough of a budget (and a cult following) to justify its theatrical release in the cinemas.  I have to say that it's held up pretty well over the years.  Fans of the nineties games/arcades should love it and anyone who likes 'good bad' movies should also find it a fun little offering.  Just don't mention that absolutely awful sequel that was just 'bad-bad.' Oh, and the soundtrack to 'Mortal Kombat' is worth listening to as well!

Just don’t expect the film to answer the question, ‘Why does ‘Kombat’ start with a K?’

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Rage - Carrie 2 - it's all the rage

The first film was a classic. How it remained `stand-alone' for so long is a mystery to me. I can't believe so bright Hollywood money-man didn't think of doing a sequel waaay sooner than twenty-three years later. And, as we all know, how many times are sequels even nearly as good as the original? Not many. But Carrie 2 doesn't totally disgrace itself.

 Carrie 2 felt a bit like a `part remake/part sequel.' It was certainly good to see the one of the main actresses come back for the sequel - it helped bridge the gap quite nicely. The `new' plot basically recycles the old one. If you don't know what happens - basically, bullied girl gets revenge on her tormentors through her uncontrollable telekinetic powers.

 Anyway, the film is actually pretty good. No, it'll never recapture the `shock value' of the original as you basically know what's coming, but it's an enjoyable horror-yarn nonetheless. If you liked the original, you shouldn't feel too aggrieved at someone cashing in on the Carrie-name after two decades. And, if you haven't seen the first one, you should get what's going on without feeling you've missed out.

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

Octopussy - Moore of the same

Growing up in the late seventies and early eighties, it’s fair to say that (despite the numerous amounts of evidence to the contrary supporting Connery) Roger Moore is my favourite Bond.  I watched (the absurdly-titled) ‘Octopussy’ when it came out in 1983.  I was six at the time and I loved it.  However, now many decades later I can saw that there are Bond films that stand the test of time and will be enjoyed by future generations just as much and there ae Bond films that only appeal to you as a child.  Now, I can see that Octopussy is probably the latter.  Even as a cynical adult I still watch it and enjoy it for what it is (plus the nostalgia it induces in me), however, it’s probably the (first) best example that those who like to criticise Moore’s interpretation of Bond use when they say how much better Connery was as the superspy.

Many liked Connery because of his darker take on Bond.  People felt that Moore was often too silly and self-knowing to be taken seriously.  As I said, I personally liked Moore best and he probably peaked during ‘The Spy Who Loved Me,’ after that it was a slow descent into a little too much reliance on glib one-liners and parodies that would make Austin Powers blush.  It focuses on a Soviet General who is trying to finance a new European war via purchasing rare jewellery.  Naturally, Bond must stop a few bombs going off along the way.

Along with the obligatory car chases and punch-ups we see the first ever instance of a Bond girl returning for a new film. Maud Adams plays a different role than the one in ‘The Man With the Golden Gun,’ but I’m not really sure why she was chosen as she’s hardly the most memorable Bond girl of the franchise.  Plus the villain is kind of weak, too.  Gone are the days of ‘Jaws’ or ‘Blofeld’ and in their place are a forgettable Indian bad guy and the generic Russian general who’s always out to crush the decadent West.

Overall, I enjoy the film because I pretty much will watch anything Bond-related and I have a soft spot for the campiness of the Roger Moore era (even when it does come across more like a Flash Gordon movie during some of the climactic fight scenes!).  However, I do appreciate that ‘Octopussy’ will not be for everyone.  If you lean towards liking ‘dark and gritty’ Bond then you’re really going to have a hard time taking Bond seriously when he’s swinging through the jungle while they overlay a ‘Tarzan-like’ noise over him.

Perhaps the most pertinent thing to point out is that Bond has to infiltrate a circus and, in doing so, decides to (perfectly) disguise himself as a clown.  He then flaps and waddles in his oversize shoes past all manner of guards in order to stop mass genocide.  It’s a daft sight, but then it’s a pretty daft film.  If you’re okay with that, then you’ll hopefully get some enjoyment in this over-the-top spy film (and not think that it’s a complete horse’s a$$ - as depicted in the opening stunt!)

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

Poltergeist II: The Other Side - Not a bad sequel

I can't imagine many people will watch 'Poltergeist II: The Other Side' without seeing the original first, but, just in case you decide to do that, the first film deals with a family whose daughter is abducted by a very nasty ghostly spirit who infests their suburban home, forcing them to enlist a team of psychics to travel to 'the other side' to get her back.  Apart from the fact that the original tied things up quite nice, 'Part II' carries on reasonably smoothly (making me wonder whether the film-makers ever expected that there would be that much of an appetite for a sequel).

First of all, all the original cast return (with the exception of the family's older daughter who gets a brief mention as to why she's not appearing) and it carries on nicely, pointing out how their life has progressed in the event of their house - literally - disappearing and the effects it's had on the family.  Naturally, things don't go smoothly and the spirits haven't finished with them quite yet.

While I'm on the subject of the cast, besides the young actress, Heather O'Rourke, playing Carol Anne and her iconic delivery of the line "They're here…" the other most memorable character from the first outing was loveably mini psychic Tangina Barrons (Zelda Rubinstein).  And, although I was pleased to see her also return, I couldn't quite help but think that her part had kind of got (partially) given away to a new character (Will Sampson, as the Native American, 'Taylor') who turns up and basically does what Tangina did in the first, only in not such a memorable way.

Anyway, as I've eluded to, much supernatural shenanigans ensue and it's nice to see the more 'practical' effects in action, as opposed to today's overuse of computer effects.  Plus, in terms of sheer scares and creepiness, the stand-out performance is from Julian Beck as the 'human face' of the unseen poltergeist, 'Kane.' I couldn't look at him without getting severely 'weirded out!' I doubt any parent would let him happily approach their children in a shopping mall without getting Security on to him!

If you liked the first film then you should enjoy this one, too.  Arguably, because it's a sequel, it's inferior, but there's enough here that's different and adds to the overall mythology to make it a welcome addition to the franchise, plus it doesn't go back on what's come before it.  Of course, if you know your film history (or just do a Google search on these films) you'll find out that much of the 'true horror' surrounding the ‘'Poltergeist’ franchise happened OFF screen, but enough said about that the better.

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

Madison County - Squeal piggy, squeal! (in boredom)

When will American college students ever learn? All they seem to do is constantly drive off to remote towns in the mid-west in groups of four or five and get killed.

The five of this batch of kids has obviously never seen a slasher film (as perhaps has the writer, otherwise he might realise how `borrowed' every element of this movie actually is) as they stop at an out-of-the-way diner where every snaggle-toothed yokel stares at them menacingly. They pay for food, but never eat (I didn't get that bit!) then leave, only to be threatened by another knife-wielding nut-job.

So, what do they do? All decide to split up. No sooner does this happen than a psycho in a pig mask hunts them down one by one as they run, screaming through the woods in random directions. Sometimes one of the teenagers manages to fight back and knock out the killer, but they never bother finishing him off - only knocking him to the floor so he gets straight back up to chase them down again. Oh, and they never bother finding or keeping a weapon.

What you have here is nothing you haven't seen a hundred times before in the slasher genre. The only way this film would be any good is if you invented a time machine, sent it back to the early seventies and showed it to people then. Therefore, Madison County would be the `film that started it all' and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre would just be a poor imitation. Sadly, in the real world, it's the other way around.

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

Zombieland - Still don’t (quite) get it

Okay, so I’ve pretty much seen and enjoyed most zombie films – everything from George A Romero’s offerings to the general silly B-movies featuring shuffling corpses eating people’s brains.  So I was always going to put ‘Zombieland’ on my ‘to watch’ list.  As soon as I heard it pretty much had A-list actors in it and a theatrical release, I was definitely looking forward to it.  Plus it’s worth noting that most people who saw it loved it.

I didn’t love it.

Granted, I didn’t hate it.  It kind of left little impression on me – neither good nor bad.  Yeah, there were some humorous moments where I giggled, but, generally, I found it a bit forgettable.  As the title would suggest, the world has been overrun by the living dead and there are few humans left, desperately trying to survive.  Jessie Eisenberg is our ‘hero’ who talks us through the ‘rules’ of how to live in a world where most of the population is trying to eat you.  His voiceover is pretty funny, but after the first act it kind of drops off when he meets his ‘love interest’ and they head to a theme park.

I think the biggest flaw in it comes near the end.  I’m not sure I can mention it as it probably constitutes a ‘spoiler,’ but it’s generally to do with a weird (and rather stupid) decision made by the two girls which totally goes against anything a sane person would do in a world infested by zombies.

For some reason I just couldn’t really get over that and no matter how good the rest of the film was, that one moment of madness (involving doing something that literally drew the attention of every flesh-eater in Los Angeles to them).

After a second viewing I do like it a little more.  It’s not a bad film.  It has gore.  It has laughs and it has a good celebrity cameo from Bill Murray.  I just wish they’d changed that one (theme park-related) aspect towards the end.  It really bugs me.

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

Daleks - Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. - Not exactly Dr Who, but not exactly bad either

The only two big-screen outings for Dr Who have always been met with scepticism and mixed reactions from fans and public alike. People seem to either love them or hate them. They're not considered as `cannon' therefore they have no links to the TV series.

This is the second and last Dr Who film to date and sees the Doctor travel into Earth's future, only to discover the Daleks have only gone and taken over the planet, turning the population into leather-clad slaves (like something out of 50 Shades of Grey!). However, the Doctor is on hand to sort them out. But there are some differences with the official series. For a start, the Doctor is human and has a family. So, if you can get over that (quite major) change, you may just enjoy what follows.

If you're used to the current Dr Who series, you may be a bit disappointed with what goes on here. The budget is small and the effects slightly corny. It's unlikely to win over any new fans here, most of which will probably find it a bit too cheesy to be watched. But, if you've watched sci-fi that was made in the sixties, you'll probably know what to expect - bright, garish colours, wooden sets and some of the least futuristic gadgets known to aliens across the galaxy.

If you've already seen it, you'll know what to expect and will probably still love it for its sheer nostalgia value. If you haven't, don't expect an alien invasion movie on the scale of anything made today. Lower your expectations and enjoy.

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

The Echo - The very definition of `slow burner'

Actually, a `slow burner' denotes something that takes a while to get going. Sadly, `The Echo' goes so slowly through most of the film, that you're probably asleep by the time the last act (and by `last act' I mean `last few minutes') comes along (either that or turned it off).

The film follows a man recently released from prison, who returns home to find all sorts of spooky goings on in his apartment. The film start predominantly with him wandering from room to room, trying to work out where various noises are coming from. It is nicely shot, which does give it a suitable creepy atmosphere and, every now and again, there is the odd eerie scene.

However, it's all too little and not often enough. Whatever spookiness is too sparse to really be bothered about. The ending isn't bad. There's the obligatory `twist' (or should I say `explanation'?) regarding what's going on, but, by the time it happens, will you care?

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

The ABCs of Death - Something for everyone (if you like murder)

`The ABCs of Death' is a hard film to review. Largely because it's not really a film. It's a two hour set of twenty-six different short films, each dealing with a different way of death (normally pretty horrific ones).

I can't imagine there are many people who will love EVERY single segment. I certainly didn't. Because each part is written/directed by a different person, you have every type of interpretation of a death, ranging from humorous types, to sadistic types, to gory types and generally just surreal types.
Yes, any horror fan is bound to love a percentage of them, you're also bound to find a few that leave you absolutely cold.

I would say - as a horror fan - I `got' about half of them. The other half I could quite happily have skipped. At least each part is only about five minutes long, so, when you encounter one that just doesn't do it, you don't have to endure it for long.

One for horror buffs only (just keep your thumb on the DVD remote's `skip' button - you'll quickly get the measure of each one and probably know if you're going to see it through to the end. If not... on to the next).

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

The Babadook - Functional little horror

‘Babadook’ has come in for some ‘high praise’ from a lot of the people who have seen it.  I’m not sure that I’d go as far as to praise it highly here, but it’s not that bad.  I think that the reason it’s been so well received is because it is slightly better than the average horror movie.  Let’s face it... just because there are load of horror films around right now, that doesn’t mean that most of them are totally forgettable.

The ‘Babadook’ is vaguely better than the average modern horror film.  It’s dark and moody, yet at the same never really reveals the ‘time period’ it’s supposed to be set in – people dress and speak like they’re from the nineteen forties then use a mobile phone (couldn’t spot an iphone though). 

It’s about a single mother and her son.  The youngster clearly suffers from various ‘behavioural problems’ – many of which stem from his father’s untimely demise on the day of his birth.  He’s expelled from school and his mother does her best to raise him.  Only there’s a bad book (or anagram of ‘Babadook’ if you noticed?) in their house that seems to bring on an equally bad presence in the house.

And the ‘bad presence’ is pretty eerie and nicely done.  That’s another plus point.  Then you also have the child actor.  Now, ninety per cent of kids in films deserve to be eaten by monsters and, despite this young boy spending much of the early part of the film screaming, he just about does enough to stop you from completely hating him.

There’s nothing new here.  It could almost be ‘The Ring’ under another name.  If you don’t watch much horror, you may enjoy it more as you probably won’t have seen as much like it before.  However, if – like me – you’ve seen a hundred and one different spooks tormenting a hundred and one different families, then there’s a certain amount of de ja vu going on here.  It’s not bad.  I didn’t resent sitting through it.  I just can’t promise not to forget it totally in a few months time.

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

Conan the Barbarian (2011) – In a world without Arnie

Long ago in a magical land, nine rings were forged - some for the elves, some for men and some for dwarves, but then a dark lord came along and... oh, wait, wrong film.  However, the opening recap that Morgan Freeman so stoically narrates could be mistaken for the opening to ‘Fellowship of the Ring’ (albeit without the drama).

Yes, it had to happen - even a Schwarzenegger film can be remade.  Although Arnie's Conan outing is looking a bit dated these days and can hardly be described as his finest hour, do we really need an updated version?  Hollywood says yes.

So, `Not Arnie' is now Jason Momoa - a skirt-wearing barbarian in `Not Middle Earth' whose father dies at the hand of some of the world's ugliest baddies who wear menacing black armour (and a witch who is the coolest of the lot).  A fair bit of the film is dedicated to Conan as a child and his interaction/training from his father (Ron Perlman).  Okay, so obviously most of it is with Momoa, but I’m mentioning the bit when he was a child because there was so little of this ‘backstory’ in Arnie’s version.  Anyway, the nasties who destroy his village when he was a boy happen to spare his life and roll off into the sunset while dragging a massive galleon around with them through whatever part of the so-so 3D computer-generated `Not Middle Earth.' Why?  I don't know, but they seem to like having their own ship with them while on land.  It also made me wonder why, in the time period between him being a boy and growing into a man, apparently this group of baddies was so hard to find!

Anyway, `Not Arnie' (sorry, Jason – I can’t help it!) then meets the last attractive female left in `Not Middle Earth' and protects her from the leader of the ugly baddies, whose sole motivation is to ‘be bad and take over the world’ (about as well-developed as your average MCU villain!) by getting pieces of what looks like a burned computer-generated Facehugger (from ‘Alien’) on his face and sacrificing the female lead to pay homage to ‘Willie’s near demise in ‘Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.’ She, in turn, from being a priestess becomes almost as good a swordsman as Conan within the hour (how much do you want to bet that she gets captured in the final act?).

Yes, the special effects are an improvement on the original, the 3D didn't do much for me, but the story is nothing new.  Everything is pretty run-of-the-mill when it comes to the narrative.  You could almost write it yourself, so don't expect any dramatic plot twists.  The blood flows quite freely for gore-hounds, but is a little darker than the real stuff.

Verdict: occasional use of slow-motion special effects doth not make a remake (even if part of it does try to emulate Pirates of the Caribbean midway through the film).  It’s just yet another pointless remake that relies on the name to sell the film, rather than trying to produce anything new.  I know I’m sounding pretty down on the whole thing, but – believe it or not – it’s not actually that bad.  It does the job if you’re looking for a ‘sword and sorcery’ type action film.  It’s just a shame it really needed to be made.

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

12 Strong - Thor vs the Taliban

When I watch a film like '12 Strong,' i.e. one that's 'based on true events,' I always feel like I should research the true story before deciding on how good the film is.  It tells the tale of the first group of American soldiers sent into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks who paved the way for the Allied invasion and subsequent regime change for the Middle Eastern country.  Naturally, it's all told from America's perspective, but with any Hollywood war movie, what did you expect?  Anyway, it's naturally very patriotic and, although I can't confirm or deny on how close to the actual story this depiction is, it's still pretty good fun.  And, dare I say that's mainly to do with its leading man, Chris 'Thor' Hemsworth.

Hemsworth plays 'Captain Mitch Nelson' - the squad leader of the twelve special forces operatives sent in to meet up with various local tribes, all of which only too willing to help overthrow the Taliban.  There are a couple of familiar faces thrown in there as well - the ones I recognised were Michael Shannon and William Fichtner, but, in my opinion, it's Hemsworth's show all the way.  It's hardly controversial to say that he can carry a franchise with ease and here is an example of how he can generally take what is probably a bit of a mediocre and predictable film into something very watchable.  He's just so damn easy to watch and somehow doesn't let his (annoyingly, in my bitter opinion!) good looks get in the way of him portraying a kind of 'everyman' soldier who you could just imagine leading a platoon of troops into battle.

As you can probably imagine, the film centres around Hemsworth and his men.  There is some attempt to show what's going on in the country at the time, but I did get the feeling that this was there for the added effect of showing how bad it was and therefore doubling down on justifying America's invasion of the region.  They try to show the 'villain' of the film (i.e. the leader of the Taliban in the area they're attacking) and what he's up to, but the fact that the story dictates the fact that he's obviously never going to interact with our heroes, he's about as effective as a villain as a bad guy in the Marvel Cinema Universe (excluding Loki, of course!).

Besides Hemsworth, I thought the other stand-out performance came from Navid Negahban as local warlord/American ally, 'General Dostum.' He actually gets enough screen time to show us that not all residents of the country are our enemies and its good to see the bond develop between him and Hemsworth's characters.  Naturally, there are also the obvious battles that you're going to get in any war film.  Most of them seem pretty well done and realistic, but I think there were a few CGI explosions thrown in there as well.  Like I say, I'm not sure how historically accurate this film is, but there is some text at the end (which I always go by!) that tells us a few facts and it does seem that the film-makers have done their best to tell the actual story, rather than just throwing out some US propaganda.  So, if you're interested in the early days of the 'War on Terror,' like war movies, or are just a fan of Chris Hemsworth, this is actually a film that's better than I expected it to be.

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