Only Lovers Left Alive - Know it’s sloooooow

Okay, I hate to be the one to knowingly disagree with the majority, but I didn’t like this film.  If you check out the other reviews of ‘Only Lovers Left Alive’ then you’ll see it’s getting some pretty high scores.  Sadly, it just didn’t do anything for me.  Not that I’m saying it’s all bad.

It’s about two immortal lovers (Tom Hiddleston and Tilda Swinton) who are basically vampires (although the ‘V-word’ is conspicuously absent from all dialogue) who find each other after many years apart.  And they sit around and chat.

That’s about it.  They chat.  Not much else really happens.

Hence my comment about it being very slow.  It’s a talking film where two eternal souls debate about the pros and cons of living forever etc.

If you’re in the mood for something with no car chases or explosions then give it a go.  Naturally, with two great leads like Hiddleston and Swinton you’re going to get some interesting and layered performances.  So, any fans of the pair of them will definitely get more out of it than most.
It wasn’t a bad film, just slow.  I don’t know what I was expecting, but I was hoping there would be something else to it than the deep, art-house kind of feel to the film-making.  I’d have probably appreciated it a little more if there was less music.  Yes, Hiddleston is a musician, but there’s a lot of him playing and people dancing.  Too much in my opinion.

So, fans of the leads and generally those who are tired by watching buildings falling down should give it a go.  Maybe when I’m more in the mood for something a little deeper I’ll give it another go and appreciate it a little more than I did on my initial viewing.

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

Avengers: Endgame - A fitting (if long!) conclusion

Where do you begin with this film?  I doubt there's that many people who turn up to the cinema (or pick out a random DVD etc) and see a film called 'Avengers: Endgame' and decide to watch it without really knowing anything about it.  Basically, it's the finale to a series of 21 (I think!) films which have spanned over an eleven year period.  So, do you need to watch all those films before watching 'Endgame?' No.  But it sure helps!

However, to give the most briefest of summaries, 'Avengers: Endgame' is a superhero movie where Earth's mightiest heroes come together to right the wrongs of a bad purple dude called 'Thanos' who has only gone and wiped out exactly 50% of the universe by collecting a load of magic (on 'infinity' to give them their proper name) stones and then putting him in his equally magic glove and snap his fingers to achieve this feat.  Luckily, Earth still has enough heroes left to stop him.

If - and I find this hard to believe - you have never watched anything that has come before it, you may just about get what's going on.  There are battles, shocks, surprises, plenty of action and computer-generated characters in crazy worlds and locations.  So it's fun.  But I think that's a severe minority who will view it like that.  For the rest of us - particularly people like me who have been following the franchise from the very beginning - will see it through completely different eyes.  We will get every last reference and portion of 'fan service' (and there is plenty of that).

I won't go into details because this could well be the biggest cinematic/filmic event to date.  Franchises like 'James Bond' may have had more installments, but they were individual stories and didn't all link up and come together in one almighty conclusion.  So this is the longest-running story ever on film (yes, I know you can probably watch the previous entries on their own and understand them as one-offs).  In contains all the endings you'll need for your favourite characters, such as Thor, Iron Man and Captain America.  All three superheroes are played - as usual - to perfection by Chris Hemsworth, Robert Downey Jr and Chris Evans.  If you've followed these characters since the beginning, you won't fail to be moved by watching their various conclusions.

I loved it, but it's not without it's flaws.  It's worth noting that it's over three hours long and, for all its fan service, it does tend to drag in one or two areas.  Plus it's quite 'exposition heavy' meaning characters have to explain the 'science' of various fantastical events for us - the audience - to properly understand the ways they're going to dig themselves out of such a hole as restoring the other half of the universe's population.

However, if you've watched the majority of what's come before 'Endgame' then you'll probably sit through this and enjoy it to various levels.  I've seen plenty other reviews and most - if not all - have been positive about the film.  I don't know where the MCU (or 'Marvel Cinematic Universe' to be correct) will go from here.  I'm sure it'll be good, but - for some reason - I just can't see it ever living up to the hype and novelty of this first 'phase' of the overall story.

Oh, and for those who weren't too taken with Brie Larson's 'Captain Marvel' character - don't worry - she's not in it that much.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Jason X - Such a guilty pleasure of mine

Okay, so this film is a total ‘crowbar’ attempt at breathing new life into a dying franchise. I mean… it’s basically ‘Jason Voorhees in space’ killing people. Yeah, like it must have taken the film-makers years to come up with that offshoot of the classic Friday 13th mythology.

Do you really need to know how a psychotic undead serial killer gets up into space? You probably don’t. He just does. It’s not important. What is important is what he gets up to – which is killing people (like he hasn’t done that before, huh?). Only this time it just seems like a lot more fun.

It’s as if the film-makers knew they were really stretching believability with this offering and decided to just have fun. The end result is a big, loud, kind of silly space-age romp. Think ‘Alien,’ but with dafter teenagers instead of Ripley, Kane and co (and an alien wearing a hockey mask).

If you like serious films, or straight unflinching horror then you’ll probably HATE this. It’s daft, tongue-in-cheek and you have to seriously suspend your disbelief to accept half the plot devices, but, if you do (like I somehow can here) you may just enjoy it.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Mr. Brooks - More that's right than wrong

The word that springs to mind when I watch 'Mr. Brooks' is 'messy.' Now, that probably normally means that if a film is a complete mess then it's not worth watching.  However, this one may be one of the few exceptions to the rule.

The titular character is played by Kevin Costner and is a completely normal man - on the outside.  He has a great job, a loving wife and an intelligent daughter.  Unfortunately, he's also a completely insane serial killer who hallucinates a 'partner' in crime - another man, 'Marshall,' played by William Hurt.  Therefore the film could be about him (or should I say the TWO of them?) going on their killing sprees.  It isn't.  Or it only is a little bit.

This is what I mean when I say that 'Mr. Brooks' is a mess.  For a film that's only two hours long, it tries to condense numerous story-lines and plot threads into one film.  If I didn't like the film so much I'd be tempted to offer more examples of this, but then I'd run into 'spoiler territory,' but I will say there's a cop on his heels (Demi Moore), a blackmail element, his daughter's problems and an ex husband and former prisoners of Ms Moore.  That's quite a lot.  I guess this is an example of when a story had nowhere else to go than the big screen to be made.  I get the impression that if 'Mr. Brooks' was pitched now, it would more likely get an entire series dedicated to it on Netflix.  That way all these elements would be allowed their own time to grow and be fleshed out, rather than rushed in order to be concluded within the film's run-time.

Also, I'm not normally a fan of either Kevin Costner or Demi Moore, but I'm glad to say that neither ruins the film at all.  Well, Costner is excellent and shows why he was once one of Hollywood's most bankable stars.  Moore does look a little out of place being a tough, hard-as-nails detective who is capable of taking down ruffians twice her size!  But the 'real' star of the show is William Hurt as the  completely imaginary - 'Marshall.' He is totally one dimensional in his insane desire to murder for fun and is a sheer joy to watch.  Probably could have done with him in it even more instead of some of the other plot-lines.

Anyway, 'Mr. Brooks' will probably never be remembered as a classic as all stars have got together a little too late after they had their turn centre stage.  Plus, as I've already stressed, the plot is a little all over the place for the story to be truly as gripping as it definitely should be.  However, it does seem to have gathered quite a cult following.  So, if you're in a bit of a forgiving mood and are ready for some plot threads to be a little more rushed than they probably should, give this one a go.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Land Of The Lost - Daft, harmless, silly fun

Looking at the figures for Land of the Lost, it tells us that the film was a box office flop, recouping less than half its cost to make.

I think that's a little unfair. Granted it's never going to win any Oscars, but if you're in the mood for something silly then you could certainly do worse.

It tells the story of Will Ferrell, playing basically Will Ferrell (his acting isn't much different to most of what he does) as a scientist who - and it doesn't really matter how - slips into another time/dimension/world - whatever - with hotpant-wearing Anna Friel and some redneck guy. There, they come up against various monsters like ape men, dinosaurs, lizard men and a T-rex with a grudge.

Yes, it's completely daft and stupid. But it's also quite amusing. Just sit back, put your brain on hold and enjoy.

Did I mention Anna Friel wears hotpants a lot?

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

Walking Tall - Short and Sweet

Despite being a fan of Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, I've only just got round to watching 2004's 'Walking Tall' - an (apparently!) 'true' story about a soldier returning to his home time to find that pretty much everything centres around a corrupt casino.  Now, it's up to him to take it on and take it down.

The film surprised me on a fair few levels, but most of those are based on how I now see Dwayne Johnson and the typical type of film he now stars in.  Back in 2004 he wasn't quite the Box Office powerhouse he is today, therefore 'Walking Tall' was almost more 'low budget' than I ever imagined I'd see him in.  Now, that's no bad thing.  You don't need mega-budget and tonnes of computer-generated special effects to make a good film.  You just need to tell a compelling story.  And, to be fair, 'Walking Tall' was a simple and effective tale.

First of all, it's pretty short - weighing in at well under the typical hour and a half.  Therefore it does cram quite a lot of story into a short space of time.  This means that it's never dull, but sometimes the plot does just seem to gloss over major plot points and jump from major factor to the next in - literally - a single scene.  For example, a court case happens almost within days of the (alleged) 'criminal' act it resides over.  Don't crimes usually take months (or even years?) to come to trial normally?

However, that's just a minor gripe.  I don't know much about the 'real' events it was based on, so I don't know how exact anything really plays out, but it is certainly an interesting piece as it begins to show Dwayne Johnson's natural charm and screen presence.  He's not quite ready to take over the entire Box Office, but, if you look closely, you can see that it's going to happen pretty soon.

Plus fair play to making a piece of wood feel like one of the cast!  I'd like to see the plank of wood go on to bigger and better things - just like the man who wielded it!

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

Bad Grandpa - Low brow. High quality

To enjoy ‘Bad Grandpa’ all you need to ask yourself is, ‘Do I like Jackass?’ If you don’t know what ‘Jackass’ is then you really need to watch a clip on Youtube or something and find out. If you know and hate Jackass then you’re not going to like this film.

It’s basically an extended ‘hidden camera show’ where a young man (Johnny Knoxville) dons a brilliant latex disguise as an old man and escorts his young boy across America. This film is the result. It’s basically a load of individual sketches linked together by a wafer-thin story. But, the real result is that it’s very funny. Or at least it is if you like severely low-brow humour which is totally politically incorrect.

It’s disgusting, cringe-worthy and will make you want to look away, but it is funny. I laughed more in this ninety minutes than I did in the last twenty ‘comedy’ films. Again, I say that you need to be in the mood for something this deliberately cringe-worthy and lowbrow. If you hate Jackass or hidden camera shows in general, don’t go near this.

Know what you’re getting and you’ll have a great time!

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

The Silence – ‘The Quiet Place’s’ lesser-known cousin

Anyone who’s been into films over the years will recognise that weird trend where two films arrive on the scene at almost the exact same time and both cover near identical topics (‘Armageddon/Deep Impact, Mars Attacks/Independence Day, Dante’s Peak/Volcano’ and so on).  In 2018 us horror fans were treated to an unexpectedly little awesome film where monsters took over the world who hunted humans purely by noise.  This was, of course, ‘A Quiet Place.’ Now – sort of – a year later, along comes ‘The Silence.’

And – guess what – it’s about a load of monsters who hunt entirely by sound attacking the world.  Now, if that was the only similarity I could probably be a little more forgiving on ‘The Silence’ and, from what I’ve read online, so many of the similarities are purely coincidental.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t hide the fact that if you’ve already watched ‘A Quiet Place’ then you’ve already seen everything ‘The Silence’ has to offer – only much, much better.

I feel bad about running ‘The Silence’ down too much.  It’s not that bad and I’m guessing if you HAVEN’T seen ‘A Quiet Place’ then you’ll enjoy it all the more.  However, pretty much every aspect I saw was done better.

‘The Silence’ is about a family.  So it ‘A Quiet Place.’ Only the family in ‘A Quiet Place’ are far more interesting and likable.  Actually, the family in ‘The Silence’ are so annoyingly-perfect that I found it quite grating.  And, the family in both know ‘sign language’ due to the daughter (in both) being deaf, therefore giving them a tactical advantage at living in silence.

I could go on with the similarities, but there are too many to mention.  Plus the monsters in ‘The Silence’ aren’t half as nasty-looking (or well animated with computer effects) than ‘A Quiet Place.’ I will say that about the only major difference between the two were the films’ starting points. ‘The Silence’ kicks off before the monsters attack whereas ‘A Quiet Place’ begins long after humanity has almost been hunted to extinction.

Basically, if I hadn’t seen ‘A Quiet Place’ I could probably have enjoyed ‘The Silence’ so much more, so, if you only see one monster-munching film about blind monsters who hunt through sound, I think you can tell by now which one I’d recommend!

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

Ready Player One - A future family favourite

Growing up in the eighties, there were plenty of movies which I watched with my friends and an assortment of parents.  These began at the cinema and gradually found their way to the small screen where we continued to enjoy them on those lazy Sunday afternoons we all had during our childhoods.  Now, several years later we look back on those films with a sense of nostalgia.  Now we can see they're not perfect, but we love them anyway.

'Ready Player One' is like that and, perhaps more importantly, will be like that.  As an adult, I can say that it's far from a perfect film, but there are undoubtedly millions of youngsters all over the world who would disagree with me and tell you that it's the best film ever made.  And it probably is to them.  To me, it's a fun little outing that I enjoyed, despite its flaws.

Stephen Spielberg is possibly also enjoying this resurgence of nostalgia, as he seems to have gone back to his hey-day and given us a family-friendly adventure-romp with a more modern day spin.  It's set in a broken world where the population practically lives in a virtual reality-style world called 'The Oasis.' It's basically like the internet meets VR.  However, one large corporation wants total dominance over this cyber world and will stop at nothing to achieve this.  Lucky we have some plucky youngsters on hand to thwart these terrible 'suits.'

The VR world naturally lends itself to some fantastic visuals and, for once, it's impossible to complain about the overuse of computer-effects because 75% of the movie is set inside a computer simulation.  The youth of today will enjoy watching their peers 'stick it to the man,' but there's also plenty of things to enjoy for us 'oldies.' This film possibly contains the most 'pop culture' references from yesteryear since that episode of South Park called 'Imaginationland.' You can't go more than thirty seconds without spotting a reference to things you loved from the seventies, eighties and nineties. 

The young cast do well.  Sometimes, when a film rests heavily on inexperienced actors' shoulders, it can sometimes fail, but I didn't find any of them annoying.  The only flaw I really saw was that it's a bit drawn out in some places.  I would have cut about ten minutes out of the middle section and then massively edited the ending by about fifteen minutes (it's one of those films that has - what you think is - an ending, only for it to start up again.  And again).

But that's a minor gripe.  I will be buying it on DVD and doing my best to spot yet even more references to my childhood (watch various YouTube videos to find out the full list of everything in there), but I may skip the odd chapter here and there - especially towards the end!)

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Elysium - Matt Damon - the working class hero

In the future evil people will wear suits and not want to live in slums. Therefore they construct an almighty space station called `Elysium' to orbit the earth which is protected by robots who can shoot as straight as the Stormtroopers from Star Wars. Unfortunately, anyone who can't afford to live up there feels aggrieved and is therefore constantly trying to get up there in shuttles (to live for free at someone else's expense presumably?).

Enter our white Latino hero (?), Matt Damon, who is a hard working and virtuous pauper on Earth, who falls victim to an evil suit-wearing man's cruelty and only have five days to live. So he must find a way of getting up to Elysium to get the urgent medical treatment he needs.

So, he and his friends basically set out to steal, kill and blow up any evil person in a suit who stands in their way. Jodie Foster is the most evil person in a suit who is so evil she believes that Elysium should be inhabited by people who can afford to be there, instead of anyone who simply wants to go and live there for free. Therefore, she sends her top hitman Sharlto Copley (by far the film's best part) to hunt him down. And, while Copley is the best part -amazingly - Jodie Foster is the worst. For a great actress, she doesn't really shine. She delivers all her lines like she's reading them in the most clichéd way possible. If this film was made in a single day then it would definitely be Jodie Foster's `one bad day.'

However, Elysium does look good. It's written and directed by Neill Blomcamp (of District 9 fame) and could almost be a companion piece to it. It has a great `future-industrial' feel to it.

What lets this film down is its total in-your-face political message that `all poor people are virtuous, hard-working and there simply to be exploited by the rich' while anyone who has earned their money (and wears a suit) is evil. In every second to Elysium the story rams this message down your throat, showing how whatever violent means the poor take, it's justified because they're poor. Yes, the film looks nice and Sharlto Copley is great (as ever), the whole thing seems a little too preachy to be taken as seriously as it tries to be.

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

The Facility - Not bad, but a missed opportunity

`The Facility' is about a group of middle-to-upper class people who volunteer to test a new drug called Pro9. If you can get over the fact that all but one appear far too well-to-do to feel the need to be human guinea pigs, then you have a reasonable premise for a horror/thriller movie.

Naturally, things go wrong. The drug makes people go crazy and look like they're suffering from extreme sunburn. I'm sure the writer wanted to convey a message about how bad pharmaceutical companies are. However, if that was the `hidden message' then it's a little too well hidden.

What transpires plays out like a low budget zombie film (almost like a rough prequel to 28 Days Later). When the side effects start to show themselves in the test subjects, they just go crazy (think `The Infected' from 28 Days Later) and, due to the `sunburnt-effect' make-up, appear like zombies.
What's left is people running and hiding from their former colleagues all the way through it.

That wouldn't be so bad if the characters were a little more defined. However, half the test subjects are pretty unlikable and the others (even the good ones we're supposed to root for) are just too bland for us to be bothered about. The acting is as good as you can expect, but it isn't the actors' fault that they have so little to work with.

It's not the worst horror/thriller film out there, it just probably could have been a little better.

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

Pan's Labyrinth - A classic fantasy film (in some people’s opinion)

Personally, I loved ‘Pan’s Labyrinth,’ so much so I recommended it to my friend (who’s also well into fantasy films).  His verdict: it was a war film.  To be fair... he had a point.  It’s set in the dying days of World War II in fascist Spain where the ruling powers are hunting down any rebels who still believe in democracy.  Amidst all this is a young girl whose mother has married the Captain of the fascist troops.  And, having moved to his home/woodland base, starts to meet all sorts of weird and wonderful visitors.

Yes, it has the ‘feel’ of a war movie.  You have the uniforms, the period in time and the soldiers fighting it out.  However, if you can’t see the ‘fantasy’ elements then you’re obviously as blind as my friend!

When it comes, it comes.  I will admit to the fact that most of the film is very ‘period,’ but when the fantasy elements appear on screen, they’re really pretty spectacular.  The sets and magical characters have been brilliantly designed and create a great counterbalance to the more mundane setting of ‘real life.’

Also, I should mention that – in case you didn’t know – the film is Spanish, so you’ll have to put up with the subtitles.  But, if you’re okay with that and generally like fantasy epics (with more than a healthy dose of good old-fashioned fairytales) then you should love this.  It really is a classic.  Enjoy it before it gets remake by Hollywood (please no!).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

The Village - M. Night Shyamalan's last decent film (in my opinion)

The Indian auteur burst onto the scene with the classic `The Sixth Sense' and followed it up with the equally impressive `Unbreakable.' However, since then, his record at the box office has been shaky to say the least.

In my opinion, `The Village' (despite receiving mixed reviews) was his last excellent film, although I can see how it's not everyone's cup of tea. Those expecting a straight out horror film will be disappointed. And anyone hoping for bucket loads of blood and guts will be sorely disappointed. The Village is a slower affair, moody and well-shot as a group of people refuse to leave their village for fear of the creatures who live in the woods all around them.

Perhaps The Village could be best described as a `love story,' as the relationship between Bryce Dallas Howard and Joaquin Phoenix is central to the story.

The film boasts an impressive cast, all of whom play there parts subtly and with great understatement, all of which adds to the overall creepy, isolated environment.

It's very possible to enjoy this movie, but only if you're in the mood for something a little more subtle. It's a slow burner if ever there was one, well shot, well acted and often overlooked. Give it a go if you're up for something a little different.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Heartbreakers - Why is this film not more popular?

I should point out that, as a guy, I'm generally not a fan of romantic comedies.  I prefer films with car chases, aliens invading New York and anything where the title ends in '...of the Living Dead.' However, 'Heartbreakers' is the absolute exception to that rule (and possibly 'Chasing Amy' and 500 Days of Summer').

Possibly one reason that it's about a million times better than your average 'boy meets girl' storyline, is that the 'romance' element always comes secondary to the 'heist' (or rather 'scam') element of the film.  A mother/daughter (Sigourney Weaver and Jennifer Love Hewitt, respectively) make their living from scamming wealthy men.  However, after taking part in one such escapade (at the expense of Sigourney's latest male victim, played by Ray Liotta), Jennifer Love Hewitt finally decides she's had enough of 'living in mother's shadow' and wants to go her own way in the world.  However, due to a mix up with their ill-gotten gains, they need to pull off one last 'score' before they part company.  This involves finding the most wealthy elderly man they can (a liver-spot clad Gene Hackman) and taking him for all he's worth before he coughs himself into an early grave.

And that's basically the plot.  Yes, there is a strong 'romance element' in there, but you'll probably see where that's going in both cases and - yes - it does succumb to every cliche associated with that genre.  However, as I said before, it never dwells on this side of the story, instead concentrating on clever dialogue and the brilliant performances of the leads.

Sigourney Weaver holds it all together and proves why she's still awesome, even when not slugging it out with xenomorphs.  It's worth seeing for her alone.  I know a lot of people criticise Jennifer Love Hewitt for her general acting ability (and I'm not saying whether that's true in other projects), but here, she does everything perfectly as the bratty, yet strangely endearing young con artist (and, for the lads, she wears mini dresses during almost every scene!).

The two women may be the stars, but they're backed up by some fine male performances, too.  Most people seem to agree that Gene Hackman is the one who comes closest from stealing every scene from Sigourney, but Ray Liotta seems to enjoy sending up the 'gangster-type' character he normally plays and Jason Lee was still charming in these days.

I remember when 'Heartbreakers' was first released in the cinema.  The critics' reaction was kind of 'meh' at the time.  I loved it when I saw it back then and I think it hasn't lost any of its charm over time.  I know you may have to suspend your disbelief a little bit when it comes to some of the ways the leads get away with things, but if you just forgive a few gaps in 'plot logic' and enjoy it for what it is, I really do think it's a great film that can be enjoyed by men and women (dare I say as opposed to the 'average' romantic comedy where men simply are forced to endure!).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Get Out - Good horror isn’t dead

Let’s face it, the horror genre seems to have got even more stale than ever lately.  Sure, ever since ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ kind of launched the ‘slasher’ sub-genre of mainstream horror, many films have followed that particular layout, especially when teens were the leads.  However, I’m pleased to say that ‘Get Out’ is actually a breath of – pretty horrific – fresh air.

I’m going to get the word out the way straight away – awkward.  Yes, this film’s primary emotion it generates in you is not fear, disgust or dread.  It’s awkwardness (an emotion we’ve all felt from time to time and one more associated with turning up to work in trainers in an office full of people in smart shoes than full blown horror).  However, there’s more to it than that.We meet a young mid-twenties couple who are returning to her parents’ house in a small, but ‘respectable’ town in ‘Middle America.’ Nothing particularly out of the ordinary there, but Chris Washington is a black man and his girlfriend, Rose Armitage, is white.  Again, nothing that would raise an eyebrow in most places these days, but this is – at heart and despite its overall awkwardness – a horror movie after all. 

When this black man arrives in his potential inlaws' house, there’s quite an uncomfortable feeling in the air.  They’re not racists or bigots, just people who haven’t really experienced people of other cultures and races – queue the start of the awkwardness.  They do their best to make him feel welcome, constantly referencing supposedly ‘black’ culture in an effort to make him feel at home.  But there’s still that awkwardness in the air that something else is going on.  This is the point where I can’t say too much more without dipping my toe into the territory of ‘spoilers.’ I will just say that if you thought Ben Stiller had it bad in ‘Meet the Parents’ you won’t believe what poor Chris Washington has to go through!

Eventually, the awkwardness and uncomfortable atmosphere cracks and ‘Get Out’ turns into what it’s meant to be – something pretty horrible.  It’s definitely a pleasant change from the slasher/zombie horror films which seem to be infesting the cinema these days.  The closest film I could liken it to may be a certain other dark classic from the seventies starring (amongst others) Nannette Newman, but I’ll leave you to wait and see any slight similarities.  It does touch on quite a few modern issues with race and the perception thereof, however it’s never preachy or annoying by trying to put its message over the fact that it’s a dark, disturbing film first (social commentary later!).

‘Get Out’s’ primary strength is its two young leads.  They have to be believable as a normal couple who you can relate to in order for us to buy into their plight.  And they do.  Daniel Kaluuya (Chris Washington) ultimately carries the film and it’s impossible not to sympathise for him when the bad stuff really starts to happen.  All in all, whatever your politics, as long as you enjoy good, solid, slow-burning horror films which gradually crank up the tension, you really do need to watch this.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Happytime Murders - So good (but probably not for everyone)

I didn't see 'The Happytime Murders' in the cinema, simply because it wasn't in there long enough for me to manage.  I'm guessing it didn't stay long was something to do with the reviews - which were pretty poor to say the least.

Brian (son on legendary 'Muppets' creator Jim) Henson creates a work where puppets co-exist with us 'normal' humans and yet are kind of considered 'second class citizens' - possibly due to them being filled with fluff, constantly wanting to engage in mass song and dance routines and, in some cases, hopelessly addicted to sugar.  However, if you've seen any of his father's work, you may be thinking you're going to get some sort of light-hearted, family-friendly, happy-go-lucky adventure to keep the kids entertained.  Oh how wrong you would be.  In fact... this film should probably never be shown to children (which is most likely one of the main reasons it failed, commercially).

Despite the (literally) colourful cast of puppet-characters, 'The Happytime Murders' is definitely for adults only.  Expect violent murder (as the title refers to), puppet-sex (which makes the 'love scene' from 'Team America: World Police' seem tame) and plenty of snorting lines of purple powder.  And all that is why I think it's become one of my favoutite films of recent times.

Melissa McCarthy is the main human lead.  I know some of her films can be a bit 'hit of miss' (and the 'Ghostbusters' remake didn't help), but - don't worry - she's back on form here.  The only thing that doesn't go in her favour is the fact that she's totally upstaged by the film's 'true' star - the blue-faced puppet 'Phil Philman' who, despite being made out of material and clearly operated by puppeteers' hands, somehow manages to convey more expression and range of emotion than most of the human actors working in Hollywood right now.  In a matter of minutes you'll probably actually forget that he's not real and get behind him as you would with any protagonist.

So many recent 'comedies' (note the quote marks?) barely get me to raise a smile.  Yet in 'The Happytime Murders' I'd go as far as to say that almost all the jokes land and hit their mark.  Believe it or not, many of the gags are pretty well thought out and only really can work in a film about puppets.  Plus you also have a bit more of a subtle take on prior racial inequalities where puppets are seen as a 'sub-class' of society.  However, this kind of message is never blatant enough to appear 'preachy' and get in the way of the film's true purpose - to make you laugh.

For me, the film was pretty much close to perfect, but I do understand that it's not for everyone.  It's vulgar (see the silly-string gag), crude and some may say distasteful, plus 'puppets for adults' is always going to be a 'niche film' to sell to the masses.  Basically, you're either going to love or hate it.  Possibly best to really be sure that you're into some sick and twisted stuff like this before you sit down to watch.  If I had to compare 'The Happytime Murders' to another film, I'd say 'Ted/Ted 2,' simply because both take (traditionally) children's characters and make them crude, vulgar and for adults only (and are all the better for doing so).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

A Nightmare On Elm Street - The original (and best)

Say what you like about the (numerous) sequels that followed ‘A Night on Elm Street’ (and many people did), but most will agree that this one was a classic horror movie that still stands the test of time. And, if you don’t know, it’s recently been remade, so you want to make sure you check out the original if you’re new to the franchise. The remake was universally despised and critically panned.

If you don’t know, ‘Nightmare’ tells the – not particularly nice – story of Freddy Kruger, a child murdered who was burned alive by the parents of his victims. However, you can’t keep a good child killer down and he gets supernatural powers which he uses to return to children’s dreams, only to despatch them again.

The ‘Nightmare’ films were a little different to your average ‘slasher’ flick, as you don’t just have a masked killer wandering around hacking people to bits one by one (normally after they’ve just had sex). The ‘dream-angle’ provides the film-makers with a broader pallet to work with, one where they can be more creative and have fun with the locations. As Freddy only attacks when his victim falls asleep, the landscape is normally individual to the victim and he can manipulate it suitable to ‘mess with their heads’ before he kills them.

Of course, Nightmare wouldn’t be Nightmare if it wasn’t for Freddy and therefore finding the right actor to play him was paramount to the film’s success. Step up Robert Englund. He really makes the film what it is. He’s suitably nasty, but strangely fun to watch at the same time.

So, if you’re into eighties horror, slasher films in general, or just like a film that’s genuinely creepy, give this one a go (and for heaven’s sake please steer clear of the 2010 remake – despite having an equally great actor to portray Freddy, it’s just plain awful).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - Not an improvement

Having grown up in the eighties, playing with 'Transformers' toys, reading the 'Transformers' comic and watching the weekly 'Transformers' cartoons, it was fair to say that I was delighted when they were brought to the big screen in 2007.  However, what I got was an hour and a half of a teen romantic comedy/drama, followed by a couple of brief scenes with robots who were CALLED names that I recognised then a battle which looked like a load of splinted metal crashing against each other.

Surely they wouldn't do the same again?  Oh, wait - they did, only much, much worse.  This is the second time I've watched 'Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen' and it hasn't got much better with age.  It's a long film (2.5 hours) and dare I say 90% of it is dedicated to the humans.  I know I harp back to the eighties cartoon which did also include humans.  However, they weren't often the stars of the show (and if they were for a SINGLE episode, I tended to skip it).  Here, I'd quite happily skip every single scene with only humans in it (and therefore reduce the film's runtime to about half an hour).

The film follows on from the first, i.e. the good robots (Autobots) are now settled on Earth and are working with the humans to pick off any remaining evil robots (Decepticons).  To me, that premise never really worked.  Decepticons are huge, nearly indestructible machines of death.  An entire army of humans wouldn't really stand a chance against even a single Decepticon.  And they don't.  It's the Autobots that do all the fighting, meaning what's the point of humans even trying to help in the first place?

Anyway, what you get is about two hours of annoying humans and badly-forced attempts at humour.  The Transformers are never really used, other in the action scenes which are so badly-shot that it's impossible to tell who's fighting who.  You may just about figure out who Optimus Prime and Bumbebee are, but that's only because of their colours.  However, every other Autobot and Decepticon looks exactly the same, i.e. a bunch of silver metal thrown together.  If you know the characters from other mediums, like the TV show or comic, you'll know all robots have very distinctive looks and personality.  In this film, all is thrown away in favour of generic robots who you never really get to know (and example of this is the Autobot 'Sideswipe' who's always been a red car.  A RED car.  Here's he's silver and on wheels in robot form.  Just... why?

The robots themselves are the stars, however they never really get to shine in the way that they should.  Peter Cullen returns (fortunately!) as the voice of Optimus Prime, but even he's not in it for as long as the LEADER and most recognisable face of the franchise should be.  I won't spoil it as to why he's not in it, as the film-makers have spoiled the film enough.

I know pretty much every 'Transformers' film has made a tonne of money and this one was no exception.  Kids probably love it, but I always feel that films/stories/characters that have been around for a long time with established (and now older) fans need to be handled with a little more care.  I'm all for bringing the Transformers to a new generation, but surely it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a way of doing so that appeals to fans, old and new.

I suppose I shouldn't be too hard on the film.  The youngsters of today clearly lap it all up.  I guess I'm no longer the demographic for these 'robots in disguise.' And I haven't even touched on the way the director, Michael Bay, lingers on Megan Fox's body at every given opportunity and the borderline racial stereotypes applied to some of the robots (when they're allowed on screen!).

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

Maximum Overdrive - Silly fun (but hasn't aged too well)

I first watched 'Maximum Overdrive' in the late eighties and I thought it was great.  Then again, I wasn't even a teenager, so I'd hardly call myself a 'connoisseur' of good film-making.  Normally, when a Stephen King book gets adapted for the big screen, someone else writes/directs it.  However, here the man himself did it all, i.e. wrote the screenplay as well as directs it.  And, I think it's fair to say that he should probably stick to his day job.  Although, to be fair, I'm not sure whether he was trying to be scary or funny.

We're told at the beginning of the movie that a comet is passing by the Earth.  The next thing we know every electronic machine has come to life and is attacking us poor old humans.  And I do mean every machine has it in for us.  If you've never been intimidated by a scary garden sprinkler system then you just haven't lived.  Yes, even vending machines have it in for us.  So, if you're smirking at that - kind of ridiculous - prospect, then you're probably not alone.

That's kind of what I mean when I said I didn't know whether King was going for scares or laughs.  When a typical garden lawnmower 'chases' down a boy on a bicycle, we're treated to those sinister sound effects (you know the ones I mean - those 'dink-dink-deeking' sounds as used in the 'shower scene' in 'Psycho').  Now, 'Psycho' was definitely supposed to be scary and so those sorts of film tricks worked.  Here, you just can't help but laugh when the 'baddies' of a film are things like electric knives and bridges.

The main plot centres around a band of survivors (led by Emilio Estevez) who hold up in a gas station while a gang of evil, self-driving lorries circle the building, trying to run them down).  It's effectively a 'siege movie' only nowhere near as tense or believable as other similar films of the genre, such as 'Assault on Precinct 13.' Not only does poor old Emilio have to deal with a bunch of trucks led by one with the 'Green Goblin' on the front (obviously back in 1986 Marvel weren't too fussed about other films using their property!), but also his boss (Pat Hingle), who has absolutely no redeeming features and wants him to basically work for free and isn't concerned whether he lives or dies.

Yet, however daft the premise (and execution!) is, I couldn't find it in myself to hate it.  Yes, I can see how bad it is now, but I think that's part of its appeal.  I guess you could refer to it as one of those 'so bad they're good' kind of films.  Also, from what I've seen on the internet (and a mention on the animated show 'Archer!') I do believe that it has found at least a little fame as a 'cult hit.' If you're expecting something horrific, look elsewhere.  If you're looking for something believable, again - look elsewhere.  However, if you set your mind low enough and what to see something totally unbelievable that makes no sense whatsoever - here it is.

Plus you get to see a cash machine call the man himself, Stephen King, an 'a$$hole' to his face in the opening scene.  What more could you want?

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

Cube Zero - Passable entry into the franchise (but no more please now)

The original/first 'Cube' film was an instant cult hit, proving that you don't need major stars or special effects to create an interesting and intriguing little horror film.  The premise alone was enough for it to stand out, i.e. six strangers wake up in a mysterious cube-based prison, filled with lethal traps (and they have to find their way out, obviously).  The second installment retrod old ground and I enjoyed it, even if it wasn't that different.

I'm guessing the film-makers felt that they couldn't just repeat the formula for a third time without majorly alienating audiences.  Therefore, they did their best to keep what we enjoyed about the films, while at the same time expanding on it.  Whereas before we never saw what went out outside the cube, or any clues as to its existence and the world around it, now we see who runs it and get a good idea as to why.  As before, a handful of strangers find themselves trapped inside the cube, however the majority of the story is based around the two men 'on watch' duty who are tasked with keeping an eye on what's going on inside the deadly experimental 'prison.'

I didn't mind this film.  It's the definition of 'okay.' However, the first of my two gripes involves the fact that now we know what's going on outside the cube, it kind of ruins the magic of it all.  The first two films left it up to the viewer as to the motives surrounding building such a - seemingly pointless - structure.  Now we know a bit too much.

The second thing which I felt didn't work was the introduction of a weird (dare I say 'comical') 'man in black-type' character midway through the film.  Everything in the 'Cube' franchise up until this middle part had been played completely straight.  The story was dark, intense, claustrophobic and - above all - serious.  Suddenly, this 'spook' enters the story and behaves like something out of a totally different film - one where the horror is totally spoofed.  Not only does he look like Rik Mayall, but he has a - supposedly - artificial eye.  This facial abnormality is supposed (I'm guessing) to make it look like he's 'part cyborg' (or something), however it's wonky and just adds to his completely over-the-top and kooky performance.

If you liked the first two films then you'll probably get something out of this one.  Like I say, it has some interesting moments, but will never compare to the original and, in my opinion, is even less than the second installment.  Hopefully, the franchise will end here without being sunk any further.

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

Overlord - Fun little film

I don't know why, but I can't think of that much to say about 'Overlord,' other than I really enjoyed it.  So... what's it about?  It's obviously a war film.  So picture Allied troops storming into German territory during World War II.  But it's also a horror film.  And a zombie movie.  Sort of.  I guess the only thing I know it's not, is part of the much speculated 'Cloverfield' anthology series, as there was a rumour going around that it was.

During the D-day landings into France, a team of American paratroopers drops in behind enemy lines to take down a communications tower in order to aid Allied air forces during the invasion.  However, they get more than they bargained for when they discover that there's more going on than they first thought beneath the target location - namely some pretty nasty experiments conducted by those dastardly Nazis.

Jovan Adepo is the lead soldier - one of the many who signed up to fight the good fight, but without really that much of a notion of the true horrors that awaits him on the battlefield (and that's just the human foes!).  And he's pretty good.  Despite playing a soldier, he's not automatically a 'badass' who's only too happy to waste every bad-guy he comes across.  He's actually more of a pacifist who quickly finds he's pretty out of his depth among the carnage and has to adapt quickly if he's going to survive.  He's aided (and sort of 'mentored') by more experienced soldier played by Wyatt Russell (son of on-screen action hero Kurt - seriously, once you know he's his son, you'll never be able to UN-see his father in him!).  He's more of the tough-guy gritty action hero we're used to and it's nice to see the opposite dynamics between the two.  Personally, I could have enjoyed the film with just those two being the centre of it all.  However, the film-makers had to throw in a - sort of - 'love interest' in there in the form of Mathilde Ollivier.  She plays her part well, but I can't help but think the film would have been equally as good without her, plus - for whatever reason - she reminded me of someone out of 'Inglorious Bastards.'

During the beginning of the film, there's quite a bit of computer generated effects (namely getting from plane to ground) and, in my opinion, it doesn't look that good.  I was wondering what I was in for, but - luckily - the film-makers quickly start to use more 'practical' effects as the story progresses and it does do a damn sight better job at creating an atmosphere you can believe in (although the 'blood splatters' still did look a little too exaggerated!).

I guess if you like horror you should enjoy this film as there's plenty here you should enjoy.  It does a good job of focusing on the characters, rather than just having numerous jump scares - one after the other.  Although there are zombies in this film (and they've been heavily 'talked up' in promotional material, don't expect something like 'The Walking Dead' - there's plenty more 'evils' our Allied protagonists have to deal with before they get to the zombies.  If there's still anyone out there who enjoys war movies as much as me, it'll certainly make a good film even better.

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

Sahara - A good film ruined by a book

First of all, let me say that I have never even heard of the book that `Sahara' is based on. I have no idea how accurate the film is, or whether the actors portraying the characters are doing a good job. In fact, I've never even heard of the author of these - apparently famous - books (sometimes, I wonder whether I've actually read anything other than `Mr Man' books).

However, apparently I'm in a minority, because whatever books 'Sahara' is based on are actually pretty famous. And that's where the problem lies. According to (almost) everyone who has read the book and then went on to see the film, the film bears no resemblance to the source material and is a total poke-in-the-eye of this literary fiction that so many love.

Hence 'Sahara' got one hell of a rough ride when it was released. The producers made no secret about the fact that they were hoping for a success to then go and green-light the many sequels. But that's never going to happen now.

But, as I've already said, I haven't read the books, so I'm basing my judgement on the film through and through. And I rather liked it. Yes, it's not that complex. Goodies and baddies are easily defined and the hero saves the planet, gets the girl and finds some treasure for good measure. But it's a family film, so why shouldn't good come through in the end? Many people draw comparisons with the 'Indiana Jones' movies. Granted, 'Sahara' will never be as good as an `Indy' outing (unless you count 'The Crystal Skull' which everyone apart from me seemed to also hate!), but it's in the same mould of rip-roaring adventures (think more `The Mummy' but with no supernatural element).  I guess that because much of it is set in deserts and out modern day, swashbuckling hero is fighting off hordes off faceless soldiers, does make it feel a bit 'Indy-ish' so to speak.

If you want deep narrative structure and excellent character developments then look elsewhere. However, if you want a fun popcorn movie to watch with the kids on a Saturday afternoon, then give Dirk Pitt a go (and never open one of the books it's based on... ever).

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

Cube 2: Hypercube - Reasonable horror sequel

Sequels generally have a bad reputation for not living up to the originals and, especially in horror movies, it tends to be almost unheard of.  I'm certainly not saying that 'Cube 2: Hypercube' is as good as its predecessor.  The first one was tight, had good special effects/sets and, above all a unique premise.  The next installment tries its best to hit all the beats and, for the most parts, it succeeds enough to at least warrant a watch.

Once again, a handful of strangers wake up in a mysterious cube (or rather giant cube made up of hundreds of interlinking smaller room-cubes.  And, just like before, there are plenty of traps and hidden dangers to hamper any escape efforts they try to make.  In other words... the producers really didn't try to stray far from what worked the first time when it came to plot.

I mentioned earlier how the first movie had good sets.  The 'set' was basically the same room, only in different shades of colours.  It was dark, sinister and gave a real sense of claustrophobia.  The second time round, the rooms aren't different colours and it's now all much brighter.  I guess this is due to the 'rules of the game/film' slightly changing as to what the cube is and its various powers.  Whereas the first film dealt more 'physical' threats/traps, the sequel goes for a more 'technological' feel.  So, although I understand the need for a change of scenery, it does mean that the film loses the dark, dingy feel.

Also, when it comes to special effects the same can be said.  The first story required a lot more 'practical' effects and models whereas 'Hypercube' uses computer-generated imagery.  Now, neither of these films have a particularly high budget, therefore the CGI is actually pretty poor and is similar to something you may have seen on TV in a very early episode of 'Dr Who.'

Then you have the characters.  If you have seen the first one then you'll recognise what are - effectively - the same character (types!) repeated again.  I realise the film-makers kind of knew that they were deliberately copying their own template, but I'm guessing the 'in-movie logic' can explain this based on the type of people/victims the powers that be select to be placed inside one of these cube-prisons.

Reading back what I've already written about 'Cube 2: Hypercube' I can't help but feel like I've been a bit negative towards it.  However, the strange thing is, even though I know it's definitely less of a film that the first, I do quite enjoy it.  There's just enough explanation surrounding what's happening to give this film a completely different feel and there are some moments in there that I'm guessing most people won't see coming.

In summary, if you're ever going to watch a 'Cube' movie, definitely go for the first.  However, if you enjoyed that and are aware that horror sequels normally fall a little short of what you originally enjoyed, you could do worse than retreading old ground in a slightly new way.

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

Absolutely Anything – Pegg and the Pythons

It’s hard not to like ‘Absolutely Anything’ – Simon Pegg, best known for his role as ‘Shaun’ in ‘Shaun of the Dead, Spaced’ and almost every other film where he’s played a slight variation of his usual loveable slacker alter-ego – plays, well, her a variation of his usual loveable slacker alter-ego.  However, when he’s wandering around in London one day pining over his neighbour, Kate Beckinsale, he’s given the power to have anything and everything he wants by the cast of Monty Python (albeit computer-generated alien monstrous versions of themselves who live in a space ship and decide to test humanity in this way to see what happens – and whether to blow the entire planet up while they’re at it!).  All Pegg has to do is wave his hand and his innermost desires come to fruition.

He therefore fixes the entire world’s problems and everyone lives happily ever after. 


Okay, so that would make a pretty dull film.  Everything goes about as swimmingly as you’d expect given a man who talks to his dog unlimited superpowers.  You’ll notice I opened this review with the line ‘it’s hard not to LIKE Absolutely Anything.’ I didn’t use the word ‘LOVE.’ And the reason being that this is basically one of those films that you can have on in the background and do other things and not really miss that much.

It’s definitely not bad.  It’s just not a ‘classic’ comedy.  Yes, the appearance of the (remaining) Monty Python boys is always welcome.  Even their beautifully-weird alien incarnations are as madcap as their geriatric human selves.  And it’s great to see them all together on screen again.  In some ways... the film could just be about them and would be even better!

Pegg plays Pegg.  Kate Beckinsale plays ‘generic love interest #56’ and there’s an array of characters who you’ll sort of recognise from other things, but not really know where.  The only real stand-out character (besides the CGI pythons) is the dog.  The reason being because one of Pegg’s wishes is that his pet can talk.  And talk her does.  For he’s voiced by none other than the (sadly) late, great Robin Williams and, yes, he’s definitely on a par with the Pythons when it comes to enjoyable screen time.

If you’re looking for a fun little comedy to pass the time then this would fit the bill.  It’s a nice enough film which doesn’t really try to be anything too amazing and should appeal to pretty much everyone.  Once you know the premise then you’ll probably predict every last plot point that’s to come.  However, I certainly couldn’t bring myself to hate it and will definitely re-watch it again in a couple of years.

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

Cube - Good horror doesn't need a big budget

From what I can tell of the other online reviews for 'Cube,' it's one of those films that you'll either love or hate.  Personally, I absolutely loved it from the first time I saw it and have subsequently seen it many times since.  I guess I can understand people not really getting behind it.  It's hardly a rollercoaster or a thrill ride with hordes of brilliantly computer-generated monsters ripping people apart.  Although it is pretty horrific - you just have to think it through.

Six strangers wake up inside, what is technically, one giant Rubik's Cube.  However, this one doesn't just take half your life getting one piece of blue square out of an entire side of red - this one has lethal traps inside which can do anything from melt your face, to completely dicing you all together.  How did they get there?  They don't know.  All they know is that there's no food or water on hand, therefore they better figure out how to get out of there before they starve to death (and so rob the traps of the honour of killing them).

And that's about it.  It's a simple (and highly condensed/claustrophobic) little tale with no real major set-pieces (the cube is technically the same one room, endlessly repeated - only in different colours), no recognisable stars, few special effects and - possibly most importantly - few (if any!) answers to the questions raised.

Like I say, I personally love it.  I find it as tense now as I did when I first watched it (even though I know what happens to everyone!).  Yes, I know the lack of 'star-power' does actually mean that some of the actors deliver their lines a bit poorly, but I forgive it on account of the fact that it clearly doesn't have that much of a budget and yet it still was able to pull together something that is truly memorable.

If you want something big budget and exciting, this is definitely not for you.  However, if you're looking for something small, tense, creepy and downright scary if you think about putting yourself in any of the protagonists' situation and work out how you might survive in such a foreign situation, then definitely give this one a go.  It's not a 'cult classic' for nothing.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Immortals - Clash of the Titan's lesser-known cousin 

The Immortals is one of those Clash of the Titans films about ancient Greek mythology where the humans wear sandals and the Gods occasionally fly down to poke their noses in.

My first thought about it was that it was probably a film for young boys. If you're young and like lots of cool fighting, plus you've never seen one of these films before, then it might appeal to you. However, there's too much blood and gore for it to be shown to the audience who would probably actually really love it.

Instead, you have a film which seems to go through the motions - hero, heroine, evil baddie and so on. The sets are mostly computer-generated, leaving them looking not particularly real and quite fuzzy. Micky Rourke phoned his performance in as the baddie and the characters seem to do the most unbelievable things at the best of times.

It's strange that The Immortals was even commissioned. The remake of Clash of the Titans was pretty badly received by critics, so I'm surprised that people thought that the cinema-going public actually had a thirst for this type of movie.

It's not terrible, just decidedly average given the obvious amounts of money that had been poured into it.

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

John Wick 2 – Keanu shoots more people

Would it be harsh if I said that many people were actually quite surprised at how good the first ‘John Wick’ film was?  Keanu Reeves’ star seems to have waned over recent years and he’s hardly the A-lister he once was.  However, with such success of the first outing, I guess a sequel was guaranteed.  I eagerly sat down to watch ‘part 2,’ but somehow I didn’t feel that lightning has struck twice.

The first time round the – seemingly indestructible – titular assassin went on a murderous rampage of revenge because some hoods killed his dog (no, seriously – that’s the kind of ‘character motivation’ we deal with in these films!).  This time round, some baddies only go and total his car.  Guess what… John Wick doesn’t just call his insurance company and hire a rental car until the garage can knock the dents out.  He gets pretty much gather every gun not already used by Schwarzenegger and starts shooting people. 

And he does shoot a lot of people.  He travels from one location getting surrounded by baddies who can’t really shoot straight (I believe this is now technically called ‘Stormtrooper aim’) and, if any do manage to scratch him, bullets only seem to graze him slightly.  Then he shoots more people in a different setting.

And that’s about it really.  As much as I do enjoy action scenes (some of the shoot-outs in ‘The Matrix’ were literally revolutionary and nothing had ever been seen like it before in cinema) here it was literally Keanu shooting people.  If a film’s main selling point is its action, I’d like to see something a bit more original.  I know most fans of the genre will probably have seen every hero blast every type of gun in every type of location known to man, but, even now, there are still ways of coming up with something new (think of how the action is portrayed in recent films like ‘Kingsman, Shoot ‘em Up’ and ‘Upgrade’).  Here, it’s just shooting people.

At the end of the day, ‘John Wick 2’ isn’t a bad film.  I didn’t hate it.  I just was hoping for something a little more than one generic shoot out after the next.  I felt his car ‘died’ for nothing here.

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

A Cure For Wellness - Horrific (in so many ways)

I know the word/phrase 'carcrash' is normally used to describe something awful that, for whatever reason, you can't look away from, but in the case of 'A Cure For Wellness' that's only half true.  I really enjoyed it, even though I wasn't always sure what I was watching or where it was going - only that I really couldn't turn it off, let alone look away (apart from the bit with the teeth, but we'll get to that later).

The bizarrely-titled film is about a young man called 'Lockhart' (Dane DeHaan, sporting some of the biggest bags under his eyes ever consigned to film) who gets caught with his 'fingers in the till' (so to speak) in a large American company.  Rather than fire him on the spot, his board of directors give him the (not particularly subtle) 'choice' of going to prison for a long, long time, or going to a reclusive and exclusive health spa in Switzerland in order to bring back one of the directors.  Hardly a choice, is it?  However, things get off to a rocky start when Lockhart is involved in a car crash of his own on the way there and ends up as one of the retreat's patients.

And, guess what... Lockhart soon finds that there's more going on than first meets the eye.  The elderly residents all seem just a little too happy NOT to leave and the enigmatic owner of the facility, 'Volmer,' (Jason Isaacs, complete with German accent) seems just a little too happy to have Lockhart there, too.

All that happens pretty early on in the film and that's about all I'm going to say on the plot, as there's so many aspects to what happens next that I really don't want to give anything away.  You'll only get to watch it the once without knowing what's really going on and where it's all leading, so I do recommend you deliberately DON'T find out much about it before you sit down.

What I will say is that there are plenty of moments during the film which really made me squirm in my seat.  This film is definitely a 'horror,' but it does also contain aspects of a Gothic drama and even murder mystery, however the 'horrific' elements are - in part - down to really nasty imagery (one of which involves teeth, but then that may be due to my numerous trips to the dentist in my life!), rather than monsters running around or simply lazy 'jump scares.'

I would definitely recommend 'A Cure For Wellness' if you're looking to invest your time into a film which genuinely tries to be a little bit different in terms of horror.  Gore Verbinski's direction is truly stunning and it's rare that I really notice just how well various shots are composed and the beauty of how the film looks really does mirror the darkness of what's going on below - so to speak.

As I mentioned you do have to 'invest' your time into this one.  It is well over two hours, so you need to have enough to time really sit down and appreciate it.  If it does have a flaw then it's probably that it doesn't quite know when it wants to end.  During what feels like the last third of the film, I kept thinking that it was going to end on at least three occasions, only for it to start up all over again.  Still, that's a small gripe compared to just how different this film is and how it deserves to be watched by horror buffs who are looking for something more than just another slasher or zombie outing.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Magnificent Eleven - Sadly, not very magnificent at all

The Magnificent Eleven must have been an easy sell. After the runaway success of Trainspotting, anything with writer Irvine Welsh's name on it gets the greenlight. However, this film is nothing like its dark and moody predecessor.

Trainspotting had social commentary and healthy doses of black humour. Here, we have a sort of `London's answer to The Full Monty,' only with humour that just doesn't work.

It's about a pub football team who blag their way into getting a local Indian Restaurant to sponsor them, only to find later that the restaurant is in debt to `the mob,' therefore they have to help them out and defend the naan bread and tikkas-to-go. Yes, as its name suggests, it's a homage to The Magnificent Seven. Whereas the cowboy film had action as its main selling point, this one has - er - not much. The humour is really weak, most of the characters are stereotypes and, although it's easy to sympathise with some of the characters who are finding it hard to find work in these times of austerity, they're just not interesting or funny enough to truly get behind.

About the only point is a spirited performance by Jenna Harrison, who comes across as suitably lovely. The rest if the cast,

despite boasting some impressive British acting talent, come across as pretty bland.

However, the bottom line is, if you want some British comedy, stick to the Full Monty. If you want a cowboy film, stay with the Magnificent Seven.

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

Cannibal Ferox - Maybe I watched the wrong version?

I recently watched Cannibal Holocaust and, in some strange way, actually enjoyed it. I'd heard that Cannibal Ferox was similar, so I thought I'd give that one a go too.

Ferox has the tagline `banned in 31 countries' on the front and all I can say is that, now it appears to have got a mainstream release, they must have taken a lot of it out. The version I saw ran at about 83 minutes and was not just bad, but pretty tame.

The plot centres around a budding scientist, dragging her brother and her friend to the Amazon in order to prove that cannibalism doesn't exist. Once they get there, they meet the most psychotic drug dealer there is and decide it would be a good idea to team up with him. Unfortunately, said dealer has slaughtered half a tribe of natives around here in pursuit of some emeralds. And, guess what, the natives want their revenge.

I couldn't really see why some people seem to enjoy this. Even if it had its full compliment of gore, it was pretty awful. The acting was bad (okay, so horror films never normally have Oscar-worthy performances in, but this went even lower than normal); it was almost as if they were trying to be over-the-top and bring a parody edge to it (not that I can find any actual evidence to back this up - it just seemed this way).

The `heroes' are too stupid to like (and that's just the most likeable ones!), the drug dealers are the type you want to see eaten alive.

And, while these hapless souls are trudging through muddy swamps in the Amazon, there's a subplot about the police in New York trying to track down one of the dealers. This wasn't necessary, as, by now, you're probably gagging for whatever `pay-off' is going to come at the end of the film. When it does come, it's over before it gets going.

Like I say, I could be being unfair on Ferox, as I've clearly only watched a heavily edited version. However (and I never thought I'd say this), if you only want to watch one gut-wrenching sick cannibal film about people eating each other, stick with Cannibal Holocaust.

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

Bad Boys II - Have you seen the first one?

Apparently not many people have. ‘Bad Boys II’ is one of those rare films which seems to have totally eclipsed the original.  Most people seem to have seen the second part without seeing what came before.  Therefore, if you’re wondering what Part II is like, you really should start by watching the first one.  It’s basically the same, or at least the same tone.  If you like Part I then you’ll definitely like Part II.

Martin Lawrence and Will Smith play two Miami cops who ‘do things their own way.’ Yeah, nothing new there.  In fact, there’s nothing much new about the whole ‘Bad Boys’ package... and yet it’s still soooo much fun.  Okay, so you may have to suspend your disbelief slightly – a lot of what happens is probably a little more exaggerated than it would be in real life.  However, it’s not supposed to realistic – it’s just a great film to watch and enjoy.

It’s about a drugs kingpin who...well, does what evil drugs kingpins do.  And Will and Lawrence have to bring him to account.  You really don’t need to know much about the plot.  It has fantastic car chases, wicked shoot-outs and Martin and Will play off each other perfectly.  Again, the fact they tend to argue their way through gunfire is just one of many telltale signs that this film isn’t supposed to be ‘hyper-realistic,’ but, what the hell, it makes a good film.

Don’t let the fact that it was directed by Michael Bay put you off.  It was done waaaay before the travesty that is the Transformers franchise.  Just put your brain to one side and enjoy the craziness and general banter between Martin Lawrence and Will Smith.  If you want ‘realism’ in police drama, watch a reality TV cops show.  If you want overblown shoot-outs, car chases and beautiful scenery – you know where to come!

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

Only God Forgives - Warning: know what you're getting before you watch this

`Only God Forgives' is one of those `Marmite films.' Basically, you'll either love it or hate it. I daresay there are few with feelings in between those two ends of the scale.

Some will say that it's a beautiful, arty masterpiece. Others will simply label it dull and boring. Basically, it's both and neither. How you perceive it will largely depend on how much you like these types of films.

It's billed as a `revenge thriller.' That may not sit well with some people as they may feel a bit mislead. If `revenge thriller' makes you think of plenty of action and fast-paced car chases, you are severely far from the mark. Yes, it's about revenge, but it's more of an `art-piece' than an all-out action thriller.

The scenes are slow, filled with painstakingly long shots of characters as the camera pans backwards. Every shot has been crafted to perfection, primarily utilising colours and lighting, over snappy dialogue. Plus, if you're watching it for the film's leading man, Ryan Gosling, you may need to know that in the ninety minutes the film runs for, he only has about twenty-two lines to say.

Basically, don't expect action and thrills (even though it's labelled a `thriller'), expect violent art and understated performances. If you can live with that, you'll love it. If that doesn't sound like your ideal way to spend an hour and a half then it's probably best to steer well clear.

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

Raw Deal - A lesser-known hit for Arnie, but fun anyway

Throughout the eighties Arnold Schwarzenegger reigned supreme, but most people remember his films for Terminator, Predator and Commando. ‘Raw Deal’ often gets missed off the list of his movies.  It’s kind of understandable; when you compare it to the affore-mentioned classics, it does seem a little subdued.

Yes, Arnie breaks a lot of bad-guys’ bones along the way, as he goes from smalltown Sherriff to undercover gang syndicate member, but it never seems to have the required action that fans were synonymous with during this stage of his career.  You could almost call it a ‘thriller,’ only that would definitely be miss-selling it.  It’s more of a crime drama which has had action scenes added into it as a result of having Arnie fronting the bill and naturally wanting to play to his strengths.

People may criticise the ‘big man’ for his lack of acting talent.  I always thought he does what he does well and am normally quite happy with his performance.  However, he does seem to struggle a bit here and there during ‘Raw Deal,’ leaving some of his lines coming out as a bit awkward.  At least it does have a decent (if not as long as usual) action sequence near the end which is pretty fun where Arnie slays countless henchmen while driving round a gravel-pit listening to the Rolling Stones.

If you’re a fan of Arnie in general, you’ll probably enjoy Raw Deal.  Again, if you just like your crime/action films, you may also get something out of it.  However, if you’re just a casual fan of the genre/actor then it may come across as a bit forgettable, especially in the wake of Arnie’s other hits of the day.

Just don’t ask Arnie’s (on-screen) wife to bake you a cake.

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