A Dark Truth - Or you could just watch the trailer...

I watched the trailer for this and thought `Hey, that looks like a reasonable film.' It's about an ex CIA agent who's hired to look into an illegal massacre in a South American country, which may or may not have been carried out on the orders of a large conglomerate. It has Andy Garcia and Forest Whitaker in it (both well capable of putting in good performances), so it seemed to have a lot going for it.

However, it was one of the most run-of-the-mill films I've ever watched. Not only did the trailer address every plot point along the way, but there was nothing vaguely different enough about it to make it stand out.

It has a message - one that smacks you in the face as if it was Avatar promoting `save the trees' - only this time it's about how big businesses rampage all over the world, not caring who they trample on along the way.

A Dark Truth isn't a bad film in any way, it just has absolutely nothing out of the ordinary to mention. It's just over an hour and a half long. If you decide to invest that much time in it, you probably won't think you've totally wasted your time. Alternatively, you could always look up the trailer online and watch the same film in a fraction of the time.

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

The Hateful Eight - A film of two halves (even moreso than 'Kill Bill!')

Film-lore goes that Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Kill Bill’ was running so long that the studio took it upon itself to split it in two, hence giving us parts 1 and 2.  That was probably true, but I get the feeling that the same could have been applied to Tarantino’s latest offering The Hateful Eight.’ However, perhaps one reason this never happened was because no one ever bother watching the first half!

As much as I do love Tarantino’s work, I do sometimes think that portions of his various epics can be a little ‘overblown’ and wordy for the sake of it.  I know that good dialogue establishes character motivation and development.  But then if it’s done too much then I start fiddling with my phone until it’s over.  I felt that this was the case for the first half.  We’re treated to one long dialogue-heavy scene after the next.  Yes, they’re well-acted and every star on the screen could probably headline a mainstream film on their own, but I have to confess that my attention started to wander.  We’re introduced to the eight (all-star) cast members who are all assorted Wild West types destined to get trapped together in an out-of-the-way wooden house during a blizzard.  And, once they’re stuck with each other’s company, they don’t just rely on their sharp tongues to spar with each other – they have guns, too.

Samuel L Jackson’s (arguably) breakout role came in Tarantino’s ‘Pulp Fiction’ and, although he’s never had a quiet day since, he has occasionally struggled to be quite as formidable his former hitman.  Not here.  The coolest dude in Hollywood is back with a vengeance.  Despite great performances from Tarantino ‘stalwarts’ Michael Madson, Kurt Russel, Janet Jason Leigh, the wonderful Tim Roth (and even Channing Tatum!), it’s Jackson who steals every scene.  Although Walton Goggins does deserve a mention – I just can't remember him in anything else.
I did enjoy The Hateful Eight, just more the second half.  It’s where everything comes together.  I won’t go into the hows and whys of everything and who’s going to double-cross who as that will run into ‘spoiler territory’ but when the bullets do start flying it is a welcome relief from the constant dialogue. 

When I watched it for the first time, I definitely enjoyed it.  However, a couple of years later when I decided to sit down and re-watch it, I actually enjoyed it even more.  Yes, I’d still say that the first half was a lot slower and less dramatic than the second, but it didn’t drag half as much as the first time I watched it.  Overall, I’d describe ‘The Hateful Eight’ as a longer version of ‘Reservoir Dogs’ set in the Wild West.  It’s basically a violent, claustrophobic little number with much dialogue and plenty of characters stabbing each other (or rather shooting to be precise) in the back for reasons that only eventually become apparent.  Just don’t zone out too much in the first half – the second act more than makes up for the talking (although ‘Reservoir Dogs’ did have a better soundtrack in my opinion!).  Just get ready for yet more bad language and blood splattering across your screen!
8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Orgazmo - Definitely NOT part of the ‘Marvel Cinematic Universe’

‘South Park.’ What more needs to be said?  If you aren’t aware of the animated cartoon aimed at adults then you really should check it out.  And, if you do (and you like it of course!), then you should then definitely check out ‘Orgazmo.’ It’s written and starring South Park’s two creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone and the film could almost be described as a ‘live action version of the cartoon.’ Basically, it’s the same mixture of irreverent humour mixed with slapstick, f*rt jokes and a healthy dose of satire mixed with just enough heart to elevate it over your average ‘gross out’ comedy flick.

So, just like South Park, the film opens mixing two of their favourite topics: adult circumstances and Mormons.  We meet ‘Joe’ – just your average Mormon (played by Trey Parker) who’s going from door to door in Los Angeles trying to spread the ‘good word.’ Now, he’s well used to getting one door slammed in his face after the next.  This is all just part of the life of a Mormon and he takes it with good grace, already affirming him as a decent – if only slightly annoying – character.  However, he gets more than he bargains for when he knocks on the door of a house where an *ahem* ‘adult’ movie is being filmed inside.  And, through a complete coincidence, they’re on the lookout for ‘new talent.’ What follows is basically the story of a devote Mormon masquerading as a p*rn star.  Now, that may be crazy enough, only they go one step further and transfer him into a crime fighting superhero who wields a ray-gun which, if hit by its beam, makes you… er… well, the clue is in the film’s title.

Now, ‘Orgazmo’ may not be the funniest film and it may not be the most well-written.  However, what it lacks when the jokes and/or plot fall a little flat is heart.  You just can’t help but love the characters themselves.  The good is truly good and the bad guys are just crying out to be thwarted.  You will need to be quite broad-minded when it comes to what sort of humour you find funny.  I’ve already mentioned the word ‘adult’ when talking about this film – and for good reason.  Basically, if you’re a fan of South Park then you should love this film as much as I do.  It’ll never rise to the heights as it’s animated cousin, but it’s definitely a cult classic that deserves an hour and a half of your time.

The only drawback for me is that it’s all Trey Parker and not enough of his co-creator Matt Stone.  Stone is in it, but not enough for my liking (but what he does when he’s there is typically awesome – and did I mention ‘adult’ in nature?).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Mandrake - The very definition of `low budget'

This film opens with a woman running through woods (being chased by a mainly unseen being). This is never a good sign. If you've watched pretty much any handful of random horror films, you'll know that `woman running through woods' is possibly the most overused cliché of the genre (with perhaps the teenagers having sex and dying being a close second).

That opening is a kind of warning of things to come. Some films thrive on having a low budget. The lack of money behind the picture forces the film-makers to use new and more subtle techniques to tell the story. Not here. This film has no budget and it shows in every scene.

It's about a team of archaeologists, sent somewhere in South America (like the location really matters!) to retrieve something for someone (again, such details are kind of pointless in the scheme of things). However, this `South American' jungle looks suspiciously like some nice grassy fields in America. Plus the `natives' also look a little Caucasian, considering they are supposed to have lived in the hot jungle all their lives.

The acting isn't all bad, but the dialogue is. Just because the film is set in a wood (sorry, jungle), the writers seem to want to make the characters talk like they're out of Predator. Yes, there's something hunting them, but whereas Predator used a monster that was actually there, the makers of Mandrake spent the entire $2.50 budget on some `creepy' CGI tentacles. Woo.

If you like cheesy monster-munching movies, then you probably know plenty out there which will amuse and entertain (try things like Deep Rising, Tremors, or Grabbers to name but a few). Mandrake is not one of them.

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

Cassadaga - Move along - nothing to see here

Judging by some of the online comments about Cassadaga, I was expecting something a bit special out of this indie horror. Sadly, there just didn't seem to be much new here to really stand out.

It's okay - that's about it. It's one of those films where a young woman gets mixed up with something spooky. Obviously, no one believes her and she does that thing they do in all horror films where they research it on the internet and then seek out `professional' help.

It's definitely not bad. There are a few pretty sick scenes (nicely executed - no pun intended) for the gore hounds and everyone plays their part pretty well. However, it descends into territory where, if you're an avid horror watcher, you'll have seen it all before - how many times does the heroine knock over the killer and then just run away instead of continuing to batter him to death? Well, you get that sort of thing here.

If you can be bothered with another horror film, you could do worse. Sadly there's nothing here that is that memorable or that will lift it out of that vast middle ground of straight-to-DVD horror flicks.

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

Jingle All the Way – C’mon, there’s worse out there

Arnold Schwarzenegger made the comedy movie ‘Twins.’ Everybody loved it.  The he made ‘Kindergarten Cop.’ Everyone loved that, too.  Then he made the comedies ‘Junior’ and ‘Jingle All the Way.’ I guess the joke must have worn a bit thin as both were labelled as some of the worst films ever made.  Now, I watched ‘Junior’ when it was released and admittedly the reviews were correct when they said it was a ‘one-joke’ movie.  And, possibly because of this, I never got round to watching ‘Jingle All the Way’ until I found it on an online streaming service nearly twenty years after it had been released.  And, as it was Christmas and I’d already watched ‘National Lampoon’s Xmas Vacation’ I thought I’d give it a go.  I guess because I’d heard so much negativity surrounding it I feared the worst, therefore I was actually pleasantly surprised.

Now, don’t get me wrong, ‘Jingle All the Way’ is no classic.  If you’re a fan of ‘Predator’ and ‘Terminator’ then you need to know that this isn’t the ‘action’ Arnie on display here.  This is definitely the ‘comedy Arnie’ who is doing his best to make fun of himself and the various clichés that have sprung up around his batch of movies and action films in general.  He plays a harassed father of Darth Vader (well, that kid who played Anakin in the Star Wars prequels) who’s always putting work over family.  However, on Christmas Eve, he vows to get his son the one ‘hot toy’ of the year – a ‘Turbo Man’ action figure.  And, as we parents who are annually forced to purchase that one mythical item for our children, we know you should never leave it till only a few hours before the big day to buy one.

What follows is possibly every parent’s (Christmas-related) nightmare where Arnie is driving round New York, visiting one toy shop after the next, desperate not to be shown up in his son’s eyes by coming back empty-handed.  I’d love to say that it’s as funny as ‘Twins’ or ‘Kindergarten Cop,’ but it’s not.  However, that doesn’t make it the worst film ever.  The humour is pretty low brow and slapstick, but, if you’re in the mood for something very silly (and it probably helps that you’re a fan of Arnie) then this should keep you entertained over the festive period.  Not all the jokes land and it’s a bit corny in places and there are some gags that definitely feel dated, however that’s due to bombs in New York not being a particularly funny subject of comedy in this ‘Post 9/11 era,’ but it does take a satirical swipe on consumerism and the shameless ‘supply and demand’ toy manufacturers employ when it comes to mass merchandising their products.

It's also great to see James Bellushi reuniting with Schwarzenegger for an appearance as a ‘bad’ Santa.  Ultimately, ‘Jingle All the Way’ was probably never worth paying full price for in the cinemas, so I can imagine audiences feeling short-changed with what they got.  However, it’s much more at home as being a film that’s included in an online streaming service that you can put on in the background/  It’s probably a film that children would enjoy more, due to the ‘obvious’ slapstick humour.  Kids probably won’t get the consumerism references, but at least adult will be able to get something out of it, too.  It’s probably worth saying that – as a fan of Arnie – the best I can say about this is that it’s ‘okay if you’re in the mood.

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

Sanctum - A film ruined by accents 

Oh, dear. I really wanted to like this, but I didn't. Yes, the scenery is great and the caves are truly spectacular to look at (even in 2D - I didn't watch it in 3D). However, just because you have a decent location, doesn't really make a decent film.

Sanctum is about a group of cave explorers who get cut off from the outside world and have to rely on their experience and wits to survive. Nothing wrong with that, but the characters were as two-dimensional as the format I watched it on. There's a sub plot about one of the cavers trying to get reacquainted with his billionaire father. It's overworked, unnecessary and overplayed. Richard Roxburgh just seems to shout in an Australian drawl. He is Australian, but seems to be exaggerating his accent for almost comic effect. Ioan Gruffudd has dropped his Welsh accent in favour of an American one - or rather he does when he remembers, while his on-screen girlfriend's accent is pretty much indeterminate at the best of times.

Complaining about accents all sounds like it's a bit trivial, but, when you apply it to clichéd dialogue it all ends up being too much and you end up not caring about any of them.

The film is basically like The Cave or The Descent, but without the monsters. I would rather there were some monsters in there to liven it up a bit. At least there would be more growling and less bad dialogue.

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

The Equalizer - Seen it all before

Okay, maybe I’m missing something, or I’ve become simply too cynical to appreciate ‘The Equaliser.’ If you check out the reviews you’ll notice that they’re overwhelmingly positive.  I’m not going to slate the film, but I certainly wouldn’t say that it’s as good as the majority of people seem to think.

In fact, I can’t really think of anything negative to say about it, but then I also can’t think of anything positive to say about it either.  We have Denzil Washington as the star.  Naturally, he’s a great performer and puts in a decent enough show as a man with a dark past who has lethal ways of getting revenge on those who set out to harm the innocent.  The film is shot nicely stylish.  Every now and again you’ll get a fast paced montage of images with highlight the director’s flare.  The action scenes are nice (if violent, naturally) and everyone gets what’s coming to them.  And there’s a decent enough amount of other stars, ala Chloe Grace Moretz and Bill Pullman to make this a little more than just a mindless B-movie action flick.

Yes, for all the plus points, I found the film pretty average.  Bad guys hurt the innocent.  Once man stands up to them.  Despite everything that’s good about it, I just felt that I’ve seen it all before and, no matter how flashy and violent the action scenes were, I still found it was one of those films where you could do the ironing while you were watching it, or nip out for a drink and you wouldn’t have missed that much.

Perhaps the most average thing about the film is the bad-guy.  How often have we seen Russian gangs bullying their way around America?  The lead bad-guy is just a bad-guy.  He’s completely generic.  Yes, he’s evil and will kill anyone who gets in his way, but aren’t all villains?  Seriously, he could have been replaced by any actor and the film wouldn’t have changed much.

So, I’ll end by saying that most people seem to like it.  So maybe you should take their word over mine.  I’m clearly in the minority here.  But I didn’t hate it.  I just didn’t see anything that I hadn’t already seen a hundred times before.

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

Fall of the Essex Boys - How do you say `overacting' in Essex?

Let me just say that this will be one hell of a short `review' and I even feel pretty embarrassed called it such. I could only manage the first twenty minutes of this film before turning if off.

It's about the infamous `Range Rover murders' of the mid nineties in the criminal underworld of Essex. Only this topic has already been covered numerous times (and better!) in recent films, plus Rise of the Footsoldier from a few years back, which was the best of the bunch in my opinion.

I watch a lot of horror and gangster movies - both hardly known for their `Oscar-worthy performances,' so I like to think I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to acting. However, the simple fact is that the acting in this film is just too painful to watch. The voiceover alone is enough to get you reaching for the remote control's `off' button. It's seriously like someone trying to do an exaggerated Danny Dyer impression, but without what little `talent' Dyer actually possesses.

I should have checked online before watching this. At the time of writing this review, Fall of the Essex Boys currently holds a 3.1 out of 10 on IMDb. Quite generous in my opinion.

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

Paranormal Activity - The original (and best)

The `found footage' branch of the horror genre is everywhere these days and, just as 'The Blair Witch Project' acted as the catalyst to the `roaming found footage,' 'Paranormal Activity' moves the goalposts enough by keeping the camera static (well, mostly).

It was made for a meager $15,000 and yet went on to take tens of millions of dollars at the Box Office.  This kind of profit/return meant only one thing... sequels.  And - to date - it has since spawned four further installments (surprise, surprise). However, every last one of them all kind of pale in comparison to this one.

When I first saw it, I was pretty bored. I was even on the brink of turning it off. I just couldn't get into a film which is primarily people walking into empty rooms in their typical suburban American home (sometimes empty dark rooms - if they were trying to be different) and then finding absolutely nothing (rinse and repeat). However, in the second half, it really came into its own. If you were really being cynical, you could probably skip the entire first half of the film, as nothing much happens, but, I guess it has something to do with that filmic lost art of `character building.'

Anyway, when the film passes the halfway mark, things start to speed up. The film is about a young couple who move in together.  However, one thing the woman never told her man was that she's spent most of her life being haunted by some unseen benevolent spirit.  Now, the man takes this well and decides, instead of just rubbishing it, attempts to document the haunting taking place in their home, using video cameras. Because this is supposed to be all filmed as it happens, the film has that 'genuine' home movie feel and the actors have to act like they're not reading a script and playing for the - deliberately-placed - camera.  Anyone who has seen either the British/US version of 'The Office' will know the score.  I'm glad to say that the actors all play their roles well and act like they're just talking normally to one another.

If you haven't already seen it, then I will say that it's worth a watch if you're into horror films. Best to watch it on your own late at night for some really spine-tingling moments. Stick to this one though - the sequels are exactly the same, but in that bad way where they offer nothing different to warrant wasting an hour and a half of your life on.  Just don't expect any major gore or a budget that challenges other Hollywood epics.  Here we have a 'slow burner' with more emphasis on creating a tense atmosphere that the audience can relate to, rather that just throwing every monster they can at the screen.

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

Last Action Hero - Officially one of the most underrated movies of all time

And, when I say ‘officially,’ I basically mean I think it is and that I’ve seen a fair few other people say that too on the internet.  But, anyway, back in the late eighties and early nineties Arnold Schwarzenegger really couldn’t do much wrong in terms of Box Office revenue.  Then, from out of nowhere (and fresh off the back of arguably his biggest hit ever – Terminator 2) came ‘The Last Action Hero.’ How could it fail, people asked.  It did.  Well, it did... sort of.

It wasn’t a huge commercial disaster and probably made its money back and, when you factor into video sales (and probably DVD and Blu Ray by now) it pretty much did all right.  It was just it was hyped and many felt that it didn’t live up to its hype.  And, when I say ‘many’ I kind of mean the film critics of 1993.  Basically, they didn’t like it.  And they made their feelings clear.

The plot of Last Action Hero is a little more complicated than Arnie’s millions of fans were used to.  Normally, he just kills one bad guy after another, pausing only to say a dry quip before carrying on the slaughter.  Well, Last Action Hero certainly follows suit there – he probably kills more people that in Commando, Total Recall and Predator put together (not to mention more witty one-liners).  However, the difference here was that the film was a parody of what Arnie was known for.  And it just didn’t seem to sit right with the critics.  Arnold Schwarzenegger plays ‘Jack Slater’ – a fictional super-cop in an action movie inside this action movie.  Confused yet?  The ‘real world’ is inhabited by Arnold/Jack’s biggest fan – a young boy named Danny who comes into the possession of a magic ticket which allows him to be transported into the ‘Jack Slater film’ itself and ride along with his on-screen hero, literally ‘in-screen.’ Then, just when we’re secure in the ‘movie world’ Danny has found himself in, the ‘baddie’ of the Jack Slater film only goes and gets his hand on the magic ticket, allowing him to cross over into our ‘real’ world, forcing Danny and Jack to follow him through.  And, once in the ‘real world’ things work differently and Jack finds punching through glass windows slightly more painful than he used to on screen.

Therefore, we’re treated to countless ‘in-jokes’ and movie references that you’ll only really understand if you know, love and generally appreciate that action movies are pretty far-fetched at the best of times and very over the top.  In fact, rather than being an all out no-brainer action movie, the Last Action Hero is actually quite a clever satire (wrapped up in explosions and car chases).  There was a theory thrown around in 1993 that critics didn’t like seeing film itself mocked on the big screen.  I don’t know whether that was true or whether Last Action Hero was just a little bit too different, or too ahead of its time.

Plus I think people did tend to wonder who the film was aimed at.  If you look at the cheery marketing poster that famously accompanied the film, it kind of looks like a happy-go-lucky action romp, similar to Indiana Jones, i.e. something for all the family.  It’s not.  It’s much darker.  There’s plenty of killing and references to films that no younger audience would appreciate.  Therefore it’s a film starring a kid that’s for adults.  And that’s always a hard sell.

But, as I sort of alluded to at the beginning, Last Action Hero has kind of matured over the years.  Now many regard it as a classic.  Granted it may not be ‘pure’ action like many of Arnie’s fans were used to, but it is action better than that.  It combines great actions sequences with clever humour and pokes gentle fun at its own genre.  Quite a rarity really.  If you like Arnie you should like this.  Also, if you like action films in general, you’re going to get double out of it.  It seems that Last Action Hero does have more than just a few loyal fans out there who refuse to let it be forgotten.  Hercules in New York it will never be.  And I for one am glad of that.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Ghostbusters (1984) - Never bettered

‘Ghostbusters’ was one of those films where lightning just struck in all the right places and was – seemingly – impossible to recapture.  The story is so simple that it’s amazing no one ever tried to do it before – four men set up a business capturing ghosts.  End of.  It could have been awful.  I’m pleased to say it was perfect.

Recently, I’ve read that all sorts of actors were attached the to the project before the final cast was signed.  I don’t know what it would be like with anyone but Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson (oh, and Sigourney Weaver is along for the ride, too – no bad thing to also have ‘Ripley’ on the cast list).  They made a direct sequel which – sort of – worked (I liked it, but the popular consensus is that it was vastly inferior to its predecessor) and then a half remake/half reboot in 2016 (and the least said about that, the better).  Neither direct attempts, nor any half-baked rip-offs ever lived up to the original and I doubt any ever will.

Like I say, it’s first and (possibly main) selling point is its simplicity.  We get to know all major characters straight away and none require any lengthy plot explanations to ‘explain’ who they are and their various motivations.  The action (i.e. appearance of the ghosts) happens almost within the first quarter of an hour and this is probably as good a time as any to make mention of the special effects – they’re pretty fantastic, not just for 1984, but – believe it or not – basically stand up to scrutiny to this day (okay, so the ‘dogs’ look a little ‘stop motion,’ but apart from that…).

I could say that the uber-catchy theme song and subsequent cry of “Who you gonna’ call?” went some way to establish the film’s hold on popular culture, but, ultimately, it wouldn’t be anything without humour.  The cast are – as mentioned – perfect and play off each other like few ensembles can ever do.  Just as the special effects hole up today, so does the humour – effortlessly.

If you’re looking for comedy – look no further.  The fact that it’s – loosely – sci-fi is secondary to the charm of its stars.  In many of today’s films (and I’m thinking of the Marvel movies, mainly) many lament the lack of a ‘strong villain’ for our heroes to go up against.  Here, interestingly, there isn’t really one central bad-guy to fight.  I suppose you could argue that a pen-pushing civil servant who’s constantly trying to shut the Ghostbusters down is a ‘semi-baddie,’ but the ‘true’ nasty doesn’t really show up until the final act, but, that doesn’t really matter.  The film is perfect and will truly stand the test of time.  I can’t see today’s generation being any the less taken with its brilliance.

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

Re-Animator - Great gore and guts

How have I only just got round to watching this? Somehow, despite my love of eighties horror and zombies, Re-animator completely passed me by. My loss. It's truly amazing - in the most gruesome and terrible way possible.

My first thought, as the film started, was that it looked like it was made on a surprisingly high budget - almost like a B-movie coming across like a blockbuster. Yes, the haircuts now look a little dated, but the storyline is pretty different and the actors all put in a better performance than you'd expect for an eighties horror film.

A moody young surgeon joins a class of medical students. He believes he can bring dead bodies back to life. He teacher doesn't believe him. His teacher soon lives to regret that.

Expect gore aplenty and bodies dropping like flies (and then standing up again). In this day and age, where Hollywood is remaking every vaguely successful film from yesteryear, I find it amazing that no one has got round to making this one yet. The plot is decent enough so that you'd probably not have seen anything like it before (despite the multitude of zombie movies flowing across the screen).
If you like horror, if you like gore, if you like zombies or just cheesy eighties movies in general, you really have to watch this. I'm glad I did. Now I'm off to see what the sequels are like.

The only thing you need to ask yourself is: what's worse than being eaten by a zombie?

The answer: being eaten by several naked ugly zombie (with eighties haircuts).

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

The Voices – It’s raining (murderous) cats and dogs

Ryan Reynolds – often thought of as one of those actors who gets by on his looks over his acting ability.  Not true.  He’s actually pretty good (and I’ve been saying that since I saw him in ‘The Nines.’ Here, he plays ‘Jerry’ – a lovable factory worker who everyone gets on with.  Unfortunately –for the afore-mentioned ‘everybody’ – he’s also completely insane.  His primary flaw (besides his traumatic childhood which you’ll learn more about if you watch the film) is that he’s lonely and, because of this, he’s started lying to his psychiatrist about taking his medication.  And, without his pills, he’s started hearing voices.

Throughout the film you’ll see the world through Jerry’s eyes where more than just the TV talks, namely his cat and dog – both of which give him dubious advice to put it mildly.  And, without medication, it’s not long before Jerry’s actions start becoming more and more dark – to the point of murderous.

It would be quiet easy to despise Jerry for his actions, but, as you’ll see, he really is as much of a victim as those who die at his hands.  It’s not so much a case as you’ll be rooting for a killer as you’ll be hoping he finds some sort of happiness (or professional help that actually HELPS him!) in his depressed life.

Plus it’s funny.  Okay, so grisly and horrific murder is never really a laughing matter, but the fact that all the violence is – technically – orchestrated by an evil talking cat and dog does go some way to lighten the mood.  If there is a definition of a ‘black comedy’ then this is definitely it!

You don’t have to like horror or drama, just dark humour.  That’s the key to enjoying this film.  It’s as tragic as it’s funny and there are many occasions where you won’t know whether to laugh or cry.  It’ll never be mainstream as it’s too dark for big screen success.  I advise watching it and then enjoying the fact that you’ll probably be the only person among your circle of friends who’s seen it.  Spread the word – it’s good (gory) fun.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Baby Driver - Nearly disappointed

One of the problems of not watching a film soon after it was released (and hearing a lot of positive praise about it in the meantime!) is that you expect it to be absolutely amazing.  I like (writer/director) Edgar Wright's other work (i.e. 'the Cornetto trilogy' - Google it if you don't get the reference!), plus I'm a fan of slick heist films and the actors on display here, so I figured that this would be the film for me.  And it was.  But only just.

'Baby' is a young (18-21 year old, I'm guessing - I don't think his age was ever officially disclosed) man who has a natural gift at stealing cars and then driving them away at high speed.  He's currently working for a criminal mastermind, but only to 'work off a debt' - after that he's gone.  However, the criminal life is never that straight forward. 

I was about 20-30 minutes in and I was really contemplating turning it off!  Yes, Wright's style and direction is uber-slick and a joy to watch.  The cast was shaping up nicely to be as good as advertised and the dialogue wasn't that bad either.  The problem was 'Baby' himself (Ansel Elgort).  We soon learn that he doesn't talk too much, mainly because he deliberately excludes himself from conversations by plugging himself into his personal musical device.  However, later we learn there is a deeper meaning behind this.  I've never seen the actor before, so I can't comment on how good he normally is, but here (with pretty much the entire film resting on his young shoulders) he just doesn't seem that charismatic to really carry the film (especially when he's hampered by being practically mute for long periods of time).  Worse still, he started coming across as rather smug with these weird little 'song and dance' numbers that were particularly noticible in the first half of the film.

Luckily, when the tension starts to mount, Baby seems to glide into being the 'leading man' a little more.  There is - the obligatory - romance element, which does seem a little forced and, believe it or not, the film would probably have been just as good without it.  But, what really makes it is the cast.  If you have seen Jon Bernthal's name attached, don't get your hopes up - his scenes are almost just an extended cameo.  The 'real' stars are the ever excellent Jon Hamm, Kevin Spacey and Jamie Foxx.  They're long-standing appeal and screen presence saves the film and picks up and slack left by Elgort's inexperience with shouldering the burden of an entire film's weight.

I have read a couple of reviews which stated that the film is a 'film of two halves.' I can agree with that completely, although many of the other reviews seem to like the first half and say that it then fell apart in the second.  I was the other way around - I was bored with the first half and then found that when the action picked up around the midway mark, everything got a lot better.  The chases and car stunts are excellent and worth watching on their own, plus there's a little kid that totally steals the show - pity he's in it even less than Jon Bernthal!  Overall, I'm glad I watched the film and stuck with it.  If there is a major fault it's that it feels about 10-15 minutes too long.  I reckon you could have cut down the romance element and made it a tighter film.

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

Harry Brown - A more subdued tale of vengeance and retribution

Ever since Charles Bronson starred in `Death Wish' the theme of a - usually - mild-mannered individual taking up arms in pursuit of avenging a loved one lost to the undesirable elements of society has been well-known. Over the years there have been various takes on it and here, for the first time to my knowledge, we have the British take on it.

Our very own Michael Caine takes the titular role of `Harry Brown' - an ex-marine who now lives in one of London's roughest estates. When his best friend is murdered by a gang of young thugs, he takes the law into his own hands and starts meeting out deadly retribution. However, anyone expecting anything in the way of `action' will be left sorely disappointed. This has to be the most `subdued' version of the `classic revenge-thriller' ever made. Whereas you could almost cheer Paul Kersy on in Death Wish, here, you can almost feel the reluctance in Michael Caine as he is forced to `despatch' yet another brainless thug from his housing estate.

Like I say, there isn't much action and - believe it or not - there isn't as much violence as you might expect from a film like this. This is more about the man himself and how he deals with having to -technically - kill out of wartime (and also civilians, albeit evil ones).

This is a dark and gritty tale of one of London's worst parts. It's definitely not feelgood and the overall vibe I took from this film was one of sadness. So, if you're a fan of Michael Caine, you should automatically love this. Otherwise, it's one that you have to prepare yourself for a peek into a world you probably do your best to avoid.

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

It Comes at Night - No, it doesn't

I watched 'It Comes at Night' all the way to the end.  I probably shouldn't.  It became clear by about the halfway mark that I was probably not going to like it, but, by then, I just wanted to see where it went - if anywhere.  And it didn't.

The world's population has been wiped out.  Nothing new there in terms of modern horror films.  And it was because of a disease.  We know this because the cast talks of 'infection' and wears gas masks when they go outside.  If you're wondering as to the hows and the whys of this apocalyptic event then don't bother - it's never explained.  But then that's probably the least of of this film's sins.

I saw the 'screengrab' advertising this film on a popular online streaming website and - to me - it looked like some sort of monster.  I therefore thought that the hideous deformed humanoid, combined with the creepy title indicating that some sort of threat arrived after dark, meant that I'd be in for some sort of gory and cheesy monster-munching movie.  How wrong I was.  I think if ever there was an award for 'misleading titles' then it should go to this film.  In short (and I hope this doesn't count as a 'spoiler') nothing comes at night.  It's about a virus.

A family have holed up in a secluded house in the woods where they do their best to cut themselves off from the rest of society to avoid contamination.  However, a man arrives and pleads with them to let him and his family stay.  It kind of all goes down hill from there.  Although, in the slowest way possible.

I said I stuck with it until the end, just because I was hoping for some sort of answers.  But nothing came.  What you have here is a slow burner which, by the minute, makes you more and more desperate for some sort of big 'payoff' for all the time you've invested.  And it never comes.  It just ends.  And I'm glad it did.  Avoid.

3/10 Jabba the Hutt wipes himself down with this film

A Nightmare On Elm Street 5: The Dream Child - Well... I liked it!

However, I should warn people that I’m in the minority when it comes to the latter Nightmare on Elm Street movies. The first one was a classic (and pretty scary). However, as the series went on, the main villain (Freddy Kruger) got less and less scary and more and more funny. This turned a lot of people off the franchise, yet I still enjoy it.

If you don’t know much about the story then Part 5 is probably an odd place to start. It follows the pretty samey formula of ‘dream demon’ Freddy Kruger, as he stalks another load of teenagers in their dreams and despatches them in yet more ingenious and gruesome ways.

This time Freddy faces his previous teenage nemesis ‘Alice’ and her new friends, all of which have a single personality type which Freddy will later use in their worst nightmares.

I would say that if you like horror films in general you’ll like this, but it’s not very horrific (although the – non CGI – special effects aren’t bad here and there. It’s no mistake that Robert (Freddy) Englund gets top billing, as he steals every scene. It’s more a horror comedy as Freddy delights in spouting of yet more one-liners while he ‘works.’ If you like your horror ‘straight’ you may not appreciate this entry. However, if you enjoyed the slightly more ‘light-hearted’ way Part 4 was done, then you should enjoy this, too.

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

Dark Skies - Welcome back to the nineties

Having spent my teenage years in the company of Scully and Mulder, watching their exploits every week, I sometimes forget that there might be one or two people out there who haven't watched the X-files.

`Dark Skies' (despite being named after a failed TV show/X-files clone in the nineties about an alien invasion) is about... well, it's actually about aliens. It's like the film-makers have taken the typical `horror film template' and, instead of having a regular family harassed by ghosts/monsters/whatever, they've had them harassed by aliens.

During the X-files, Scully once - cynically - said, "The alien abduction culture is now so prevalent in our society that you can ask anyone to imagine what it would be like and they would come up with the same story." What we have in Dark Skies is basically your typical alien abduction story. Yes, alien abduction stories have taken a back seat in recent years (basically since the X-files ended), but obviously the producers have felt that a suitable enough amount of time has elapsed and people might have forgotten how many there were in the nineties.

If you like horror (and possibly science-fiction) and have never seen an alien abduction story, you may well find this pretty different and scary. The aliens are creepy, the characters well-acted and the film overall quite enjoyable. Therefore, it probably deserves 4 or 5 stars (depending on how generous you're feeling).

However, I've watched the X-files. I've seen this done better on a weekly basis. I felt that Dark Skies was nothing I had seen a hundred times. It used the clichés of having the kids being targets first and their parents not believing them and fighting over what was real and what wasn't. The police then show up, but are basically useless. Then when the parents do come round to the idea of the paranormal, they seek the help of an expert (and there's always an `expert' conveniently on hand to fill in the plot points).

The X-files had the advantage of running for nine series, therefore we could slowly learn the aliens' agenda. However, Dark Skies never really lets us know what these mysterious visitors want. Even some of the bits that are meant to be scary actually made me laugh (aliens seem to want to make us pull funny faces). So, without adding anything new to the alien abduction mix, I found this watchable, but made me feel like we haven't got anything new to say on the subject in the last twenty years or so.

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

The Oranges - Decent enough film, but a little rushed

The Oranges is about two suburban families who are the best of friends until the father of one family has an affair with the daughter of the other. Chaos follows...

First of all, The Oranges has a fantastic cast, all of which play their parts well. However, it is a character piece and to really enjoy these characters, we need to learn a little more about them. It's only an hour and a half and it all seems a little rushed.

The two `lovers' get together pretty quickly and there's little explanation as to why they should fall so head over heels in love with each other that they don't care about destroying both their families.

Some people have described it as a `comedy.' I would say it's definitely more of a drama. I only laughed the once (scene involving an ice bucket), but that doesn't mean that it's a bad film. It's nice to see a film with slightly more controversial subject matter. I'm not sure who the target audience is. Its `lack of moral compass' may offend some more traditional viewers, but hopefully it will still be received positively.

Apart from the whole `rushed feel' of trying to get everything wrapped up neatly in an hour and a half, I felt the ending was a little predictable. You'll probably be able to guess what happens to every major character. But, don't let that stop you enjoying this. It's an odd movie which doesn't really fit anywhere, but with a bit of luck it will find an audience and end up something of a cult hit.

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

Men in Black: International - I soooo wanted to like this

I loved the original 'Men in Black' film and, contrary to the majority, I really enjoyed the two sequels that followed (I clearly had low expectations for them!).  Plus, who can dislike Chris Hemsworth right now?  He's one of the coolest, most charismatic actors working in Hollywood right now.  I avoided most reviews before I watched this 'International' version, but I sort of heard that the opinion on whether this incarnation was any good was quite split down the middle.

First of all, it is a direct sequel to part 3, i.e. it set in the same universe/timeline, but no appearances from either Will Smith or Tommy Lee Jones to be found.  I thought it was worth noting that point in these days of reboots, soft reboots and re-imaginings etc.  Chris Hemsworth is already working for the shadowy agency who protects the general public from knowing about all the alien life coming and going from Earth and Tessa Thompson is the new recruit he takes under his wing when a new case arises.

Apparently, there's something amiss in the MIB's London branch and Tessa Thompson's character, 'M' is sent there to partner up with Chris Hemsworth, 'H' in order to investigate.  You get the usual stuff from a 'MIB' movie, i.e. plenty of slick-looking tech and random aliens wandering around.  I couldn't help but think that the computer effects used to bring these creatures to life didn't look much better than the CGI first utilised in 1997 in the first outing of the franchise.

They soon discover that there's a 'mole' in the agency, working against them from within.  This kind of robs the storyline of a definite bad guy.  The past three movies had a 'main alien' who they have to catch/fight.  I know there are a couple of aliens who - sort of - fit that description, but it's clear that the main 'antagonist' of the story is unseen for the best part.  I wouldn't mind that too much if it wasn't for the fact that - to me - the mole was clearly obvious from the start.  Okay, to be fair it was a guess between two characters, but one was blatantly too annoying/obvious to actually turn out to be the bad guy.

It's fair to say that when watching anything like 'Men in Black' (and almost any science fiction/horror film in general) you need to suspend your disbelief.  Here, you REALLY need to suspend your disbelief.  In fact, about every five minutes something happened where I totally rolled my eyes and shook my head as one plot device unfolded after the other, simply there to move the story to the next location.  People just were able to walk into secret and heavily-guarded facilities at will and no one stopped them.  The (so-called) most secretive agency on Earth basically operated in full view of the public and no one called this out.  Scenes were set in broad daylight in London, Paris and New York involving lasers and spaceships and yet there wasn't a single civilian anywhere to notice any of these out-of-this-world incidents.  Now, I know the two leads have both played superheroes in their time, but these MIB characters are distinctly human.  Although, you might not notice based on the amount of punishment they take and then walk away without so much as a scratch.

There was definite chemistry between the two leads and the fact they had starred together in the Marvel movies certainly helped.  However, I felt that Tessa Thompson's character had a bit of the 'Mary Sue' about her.  No, she wasn't half as bad as 'Rey' from the latest 'Star Wars' films, but 'MIB: International' spends much of its runtime telling us how intelligent she is and showing us just how capable she is.  When she's left to just interact with her co stars she's really watchable and fun, but every scene seems to lead to something which shows us just how great she is and it all seems a little forced.

I'm quite gutted at how many faults I kept picking out.  I'm hardly a fussy devote of films.  Most of my DVD collection contains cheesy horror and sci-fi, plus tonnes of those films that are just 'so-bad-they're-good' types.  For some reason I just felt the writing here was so lazy and people developed new powers that they had never used before just to get themselves out of the latest situation.  I like to think I can suspend my disbelief and enjoy a film, but this one was just a little bit too hard to find believable, even in a world as 'make believe' as this.

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

I Am Mother - You know something is amiss

Netflix's latest original movie tells the story of the human race and it's (near) total decline.  Now, a lone robot ('Mother') plucks one (lucky?) embryo from among many in a secret underground laboratory which seems to have survived the apocalypse and raises that child as her 'daughter.'

Throughout the first part of the story we see the robot lovingly tend to the little girl's every desire, whether emotional, physical and even playful (from the confines of the lab complex).  Mother often informs her how humanity destroyed itself and she is trying to raise the little girl as the first of many 'children' who will one day take back their planet.  It's all very sweet.  Only it isn't.  If it was a Pixar animated movie then it would be sweet, because it would clearly be aimed at children.  However, below this nurturing tale, appears to lie something deeper - and possibly darker?

As you watch, you just get the feeling that something is very wrong (besides the obvious fact that humanity has destroyed itself!) and there are many clues as to what's really going on, plus a decent amount of 'red herrings' which may throw you off the scent.  It ends up one big exercise in trying to second guess the ending and what's really going on.

As the film goes on, more and more of 'Mother's' mantra starts to fall apart under questioning and the addition of a 'survivor' from outside entering the facility throws both Mother and 'Daughter's' world into turmoil.

This is one of those films that doesn't look cheap enough for you to dismiss it as 'something that should be on the 'Sci-fi Channel,' as it has a decent budget (plus it was able to afford both Rose Byrne's voice for 'Mother' and Hilary Swank as the survivor).  The sets look good and the computer effects depicting the outside world look realistic enough to be believable.  However, overall I would say that this probably isn't the kind of movie that would exactly 'set the Box Office alight.' It's probably best on Netflix and with an audience who can find it and enjoy it at their leisure.  If you like slow-moving, quite thoughtful sci-fi then this is worth adding to your watchlist.

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

Carrie (2013 remake) - Haven’t I seen this somewhere before?

The 1976 version of ‘Carrie’ is undoubtedly a classic – the tale of a troubled teenage girl who gets bullied and exacts her revenge via her telekinetic superpowers.  And here we have the remake.  Or ‘re-envisioning’ as the film-makers would prefer we referred to it as.  Remakes (for that’s what I call them) always have a difficult time.  Either they’re nothing like the original and no one can understand why they’ve been called a ‘remake’ (besides the producers trying to cash in on the title), or they’re exactly the same (albeit updated) and therefore nothing new.

Carrie (2013) falls into the latter.  If you’ve seen the 1976 version you really don’t need to watch this.  It’s basically the same film (i.e. same story, same ‘scare scenes’ and same characters), but with modern hairstyles and references to Youtube etc.

As with the original, everyone in the remake plays their parts well.  As with the original the scares are effective.  And, as with the original, it’s a pretty decent film – the reason being it’s exactly the same.
I loved the original, so I suppose that means I love this one, too.  However, although I enjoyed watching Carrie again (I don’t need to mention which one as both versions are the same!), I doubt I’ll watch the remake again as I already own the original on DVD so I’ll stick to that one.

Yes, the special effects have been beefed up in the 2013 remake and they work well, plus some scenes have been ‘fleshed-out’ to give them a more modern spin, but, apart from that, there’s nothing new brought to the table.

If you haven’t seen the original and don’t want to watch a horror film where people sport big seventies haircuts then go straight to the new version.  Plus fans of Julianne Moore and Chloe Grace Moretz should get more out of it than most.

If nothing else... this film proves that you really shouldn't mess (or throw tampons) at 'Hit Girl!'

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

Afflicted - A ‘found footage’ film which actually has a few good bits

Let’s face it... ‘found footage’ films have been pretty terrible of late.  Yes, historically, there have been a few good ones.  However, with so many wannabe film-makers trying their hand at the (cheap) genre, there are an awful lot of ‘duds’ out there in the ‘straight-to-dvd’ market.

I’ll say right away that ‘Afflicted’ isn’t anything THAT good.  It’s hardly revolutionary and most of it you’ll feel like you’ve seen a hundred times before (I’m assuming you’re familiar with the ‘found footage’ genre).  The first third is all about introducing us to the characters.  Basically, a – possibly – terminally-ill man decides to go on a trip around Europe and therefore his mate has to film every last second of it to put up on the internet.

Unfortunately, our heroes who like talking into the camera fall foul of a local when one gets bitten by... you’ll see.  Anyway, bad – supernatural – things start to happen.  Expect plenty of the usual found footage stuff – running, screaming into camera, falling over, shaky camerawork and yet more screaming.

However, there are a few ‘set pieces’ which actually left me wondering how they do that.  Well... probably with the help of computer–generated technology, but, just because I know how they did it, doesn’t mean I wasn’t impressed with the results.

There’s just enough here to warrant a watch if you’re (a) not totally bored of found footage films and (b) generally don’t mind horror films in general.  But, don’t be fooled, it’s hardly anything special.  Much of it you can sort of have on in the background while you idly surf the internet and you’d still ‘get’ what’s going on.  Just be sure to be watching when the really cool stuff comes on.

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

Jeff Who Lives At Home - Whoops, not as funny as I thought

It was probably my fault. They say you should never judge a book by a cover and, in this case, I didn't really read much about the film before I watched it. I just looked at the cover and figured it was going to be one of those light-hearted `Judd Apatow' adult comedies where things get a little silly and a lot saucy. I was wrong.

They claim `Jeff, Who Lives at Home' is a comedy, but I would say that if falls firmly in the `off-beat drama' category. It's about two brothers (one a slacker who lives at home - Jeff, obviously) and one who's trying to make his way in the business world and their capers dealing with a day of fate and revelations when they think the brother's wife is having an affair. All in all, that sounds like a reasonably good recipe for comedy, but the film focuses on the more quirky dramatic aspect of it all, rather than pies landing in people's faces.

It's one of those films that probably requires a second viewing to appreciate it properly. I sat down expecting an American Pie-esque comedy. Therefore I was always going to be disappointed. However, if you're in the mood for something just a little bit more dramatic where the humour is a lot more subtle, this one could be for you.

As a comedy it's only a 6/10, but as a drama it should be looked at a little more highly.

The Mummy (2017) - Not as bad as people make out, but I can see why it failed

Wouldn't it be great to see Iron Man fight it out with Captain America?  Of course it would!  And it was!  Which is just one reason that 'shared universes' are so popular (and financially successful!) these days.  I'm guessing that the film studio 'Universal Pictures' saw the success Disney was having with their superhero movies and thought they'd do a bit of 'shared universe' creating.  Only with old monsters.  And lo the 'Monsterverse' was born.  And, after 2017's 'The Mummy,' it's pretty much as dead as its titular star.  Shame really.

Despite having mega-star Tom Cruise as the lead, 'The Mummy' bombed at the Box Office.  I didn't watch it at the cinema, but I was well aware that it didn't make enough money to guarantee the various other movies the studio were planning, i.e. all those others with 'classic' monsters such as Frankenstein and the Invisible Man etc.

However. now I've seen it on DVD I actually quite liked it.  It's certainly not as bad as many make out and yet the reasons it flopped are all apparent.  First of all, if it just did its best to tell a story then it might be a lot 'tighter.' As it was, it spends a great deal of time giving us - the audience - a hell of a lot of backstory and exposition as to the 'world' the characters are living in.  It's about two hours long and I'd say that every quarter of an hour, the story grinds to a halt in order to one character to drone on about something which could have been cut, but has only been included because it relates to films that haven't even been made yet.

Secondly, 'The Mummy' was already made in 1999, starring Brendon Fraser.  Yes, many argued that it was a 'poor man's Indiana Jones' rip-off.  And they'd be right.  However, it was just so damn fun that many people seemed to forgive the likeness and just enjoy munching popcorn to it.  Plus, despite being released about twenty years ago, its special effects have aged well and hold up just fine when compared to this new version.  In short... the audience had its 'Mummy' film and we didn't really want another one so similar so soon.

But, saying all that, I did enjoy what was there.  Tom Cruise has proven himself time and time again that's he's more than capable of carrying a film on his shoulders and he does that here (even if he does take more punishment than all his 'Mission Impossible' films put together and still get up again without so much as a bruise!).  He has a 'love interest' who I will call 'love interest.' Not the actress' fault.  She does her best with what's there, but is only really there for Tom to save.  Russell Crowe pops up as 'Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde' to (a) deliver exposition and (b) you guessed it... set up his own film in the universe.  The real star is the mummy herself.  Sofia Boutella smoulders (sometimes literally!) as the villain of the piece and can even manage to upstage Tom himself when she hisses her way on screen.

Overall, if you like Tom Cruise and you're into anything from big budget action films to supernatural, er, action films (yes, there's plenty of action - some good CGI and some not so good) it's worth a watch, especially now it's on DVD and you can skip the bits that are basically 'filler' for what was meant to come, but probably never will now.

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

San Andreas – Sorry Dwayne!

I have to start by saying that I do tend to watch anything that Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson is in.  For someone primarily known as an action star (and former wrestler to boot!) he does tend to offer *slightly* more range in the acting stakes than some of his contemporaries.  Here, in ‘San Andreas,’ he doesn’t have to utilise an awful lot of acting ability to portray a tough-as-nails helicopter pilot who must utilise his aerial skills to save his family when a freak earthquake hits the city.  Yes, that’s about the size of the plot.  Anyway, I knew what I was getting.  I’ve seen enough disaster movies to know the score – the actors normally come secondary to the special effects.  And this film was no different.

I began by actually quite enjoying the film.  It doesn’t take long before buildings start crumbling on a large scale and, when this happens, the special effects are indeed well done enough to at least make the devastation appear believable.  Plus you have the ever-great Dwayne Johnson at the helm, who, as I’ve said, is always fun.  However, it was about there that the fun started to come to an end.

There’s little even Johnson and the special effects department could do to prevent not only the city of San Andreas, but also the entire film, from slipping into oblivion.  It was about a quarter into the film when I started asking the question: Is this film trying to be serious, or not?  You see… these kind of disaster movies do follow patterns, or to put it a little harsher, have their own clichés.  And ‘San Andreas’ starts to conform to so many of these that I was left wondering if they were checking every box on purpose in some sort of ‘self knowing’ kind of way.  Sadly, by the end of the film I can confirm that they never had their tongue anywhere near their cheek.

Once the disaster is underway, we’re also treated to the couple who have split up getting back together, their subsequent inability to die while all around them drop like flies and the search for the child in danger.  Now, I could almost forgive all of those if it wasn’t for the fact that some actors appeared to be doing possibly the worst British actors since Dick Van Dyke!  (Feel free to correct me and look them up online and inform me that they really WERE true Brits – but I’d be shocked!)

So, a film that could have been really good fun was only reasonably due to Johnson and the effects.  It’s a shame that they couldn’t have at least tried to make the sub-plots a little more original, as it makes the film pretty forgettable if you’ve seen as many disaster movies as I have.  Plus Paul Giamatti was wasted and only there to try and give the film more of an air of gravitas.

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

End of Watch - Yes, it's a cop movie

I should probably find out more about a film before I watch it. I'm a big fan of Jake Gyllenhaal ever since Donnie Darko and watched the film on his name alone. I didn't even pay much attention to the fact that there were two armed police officers on the front cover. Then, for some reason, I seemed surprised when the film was about the police.

And it is about the police. If ever there was more of a `police movie' then I have not seen it. End of Watch follows Jake and his police partner/best friend as they go about their duties, enforcing the law in Los Angeles. The first thing you should know about it is that it's shot like a documentary, i.e. plenty of shaky, handheld camera work. It's not supposed to BE a documentary (ala Blair Witch Project or Grave Encounters), it's just filmed like one. There's nothing wrong with filming it like this, it's just it seems a little pointless to me.

End of Watch is well-acted and you'll find yourself caring about the characters. I did enjoy it, although I felt there was something missing. It could be that the story was a little weaker than it could have been. Adding to the whole `documentary' feel, we're treated to many scenes that don't really advance the story much and seem like filler. There are only a few real scenes that link the whole `story' together.

It's not a bad movie - it's gritty, tough and pretty hard-hitting; it's just that with the obvious acting and film-making talent available, they could have kept the story a little tighter. People who really LOVE cop movies will probably think it's amazing. Anyone who doesn't like them will think it's awful. Personally, I'm in the middle. I can take or leave these `criminal-catching' films, so I certainly didn't think I wasted nearly two hours watching it (also, don't watch it if bad language offends you!).

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

Falling Down - You’ll never go into a fast food restaurant again without thinking of this film

Rumour has it that the script to ‘Falling Down’ was kicking around Hollywood for years before it was picked up.  No one wanted to touch it, yet, once it was made, it became arguably Michael Douglas’ finest performance to date and an enduring classic which is as relevant today as it was in the early nineties.

A man – just a man – finally snaps which sitting in a seemingly never ending traffic jam in L.A. and decides to walk ‘home’ through the city.  Along the way, we’re given an insight into the type of people who live there and the human tragedy unfolds.

Michael Douglas plays ‘the man’ who is mainly referred to a ‘D-Fens’ throughout the majority of the film due to his personalised number plate.  He’s already more than a little unhinged and we’re treated to the final day of his breakdown.  On his journey he encounters one or more people who we’ve probably met along the way – the types we wish we hadn’t and yet have to simply roll our eyes and/or ignore them.  However, D-Fens is not in the mood to ignore life’s annoyances.  He tackles them head on in ways we can only dream of.  An example of this is when he goes into a burger bar and orders something from the ‘breakfast menu’ two minutes after they’ve stopped serving breakfast and moved onto the ‘lunch menu.’ Most of us would just tut to ourselves and pick a burger.  D-Fens pulls out a machine gun and demands his rights to have breakfast.  Wonderful.

Douglas was (deservingly) nominated for an Oscar for his performance, but it’s worth noting that his tale is a parallel to that of Robert Duvall’s character – a cop on his last day on the force before he retires.  He’s the man who is the only one who can see that D-Fens’ actions are slowly spiralling out of control and something needs to be done (apart from eat his retirement cake and pick up groceries for his wife).  Duvall’s performance is much more understated and yet equally as sad.

I think the true test of a film is how it stands up to time.  Apart from a lack of mobile phones (pay phones being used frequently here) Falling Down could be made today and would be just as relevant as ever.  It’s a film that everyone should enjoy and find it leaves them thinking of all the things we’d probably like to do if there were no consequence to our actions.  However, what we do in life does have consequences and the ‘D-Fens’ part of our souls must remain caged (probably for the good of those around us!).  Just never let me get hold of a bazooka when workmen are blocking the road ahead of me.

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

Tag - A one-note comedy that could be worse

I'm always a little skeptical of films which say something like 'based on a true story.' However - unbelievably - this happens to be one when at least it is (partly) based on a pursuit that people really did.  We've all played 'tag' when we were children (or 'it' if you were in my gang), but most of us give up 'play' like that when we grow up (or notice the opposite sex - whichever comes first).  But, this film covers one group of male friends in America who don't stop playing (or at least for the month of May every year, right the way through their adult life).

What follows is a bit of a 'screwball' comedy as four of the friends track down the fifth, who has - as yet - still never been tagged in their game, from childhood to present day.  They figure that seeing as he's getting married, this might just be their chance to pounce.  Yes, the 'stakes' are hardly high.  Up against films like 'The Avengers' when the heroes are literally trying to save 50% of the universe, all that matters here is that a man gets 'touched' by a mate once.

It's quite a silly film and it knows it is.  The laughs come from the ensemble cast, which (mainly) includes the pairing of Ed Helms and Jon Hamm.  They have the majority of the screen time and it's them who pretty much carry most of the film as they try to track down the 'untaggable' final member of the group, played by Jeremy Renner.  He has the least to do of the cast, besides thwart their attempts at tagging him via a series of 'set-pieces' of action scenes which would probably look more at home with his 'Hawkeye' persona in 'The Avengers.'

Isla Fisher is in their as Ed Helm's onscreen wife and she's pretty good with just the little time her character is given.  However, the female journalist who is tasked with writing a story on this unusual adult pursuit is used so little I sometimes forgot she was even in the story!

Overall, 'Tag' is good - harmless - fun.  There are plenty of laughs to have and it's a simple story that works because of its cast.  My only two criticisms were that about halfway through the film the comedy seems to rely a little too much on 'slapstick' humour where people seem to take about as much punishment as Tom and Jerry and simply walk away unscathed.  Plus, seeing as this is pretty much a 'one joke' movie, it did go on a little too long.  I checked my watch figuring it was nearly wrapping up (at what I believed was about the ninety minute mark) to find I was only fifty minutes in with a further fifty to go!

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

Paradise Lost - Satisfying slasher flick

Ask yourself this question: do you like `slasher' films? If the answer is yes, then you probably enjoy daft youngsters getting stalked by killers, women running around in very little clothes, blood and gore and, of course, the most virtuous of the group surviving. Therefore, you will also probably like Paradise Lost, as it ticks all those boxes.

There's nothing new here - a group of annoyingly fit backpackers goes to Brazil, only to stumble into somewhere they really wish they hadn't. I won't go into detail about what exactly the `nasties' want from them, but it's no advert for the Brazilian tourist board.

Saying the film is just `average' would be a little unfair. It's definitely better than the vast majority of B-movie, cash-in, slasher films, but it's no masterpiece. Basically, if you enjoy the genre, you should enjoy this one.

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

Ticks – Daft 90s horror fun

There are some films when you can’t claim not to like them, simply because everything you need to know about them is in the title.  If you think you’d like a film called ‘Ticks’ then you’re probably the sort of person who appreciates daft, cheesy (and gory!) B-movies, therefore you’re quite willing to put your brain ‘on hold’ for an hour and a half and have fun.

‘Ticks.’ So... what’s it about?  Well, believe it or not, giant, mutated insects!  

And , of course, a small bus-load of s3xually-charged teenagers who are bound to fall victim to said bugs (or ‘arachnids’ to be technically correct, but then the movie doesn’t address this, so why dwell on it?).  A bunch of kids are taken to a remote cabin in the woods where they soon realise that they’re on the menu for this creepy-crawlies.

The characters – who cares?  They’re possibly one of the most stereotypical bunch of cast-members you’ve ever seen.  You won’t remember anyone’s name, but you’re probably okay with that if you’re still reading this.  You may notice a young Seth Green among them, but he’s about as famous as this cast gets.

But it’s not just stereotypical protagonists here!  As if being hunted by a swarm of flesh-eating bugs gets, the kids are being stalked by two of the most inept (human!) villains since that pair of burglars in the ‘Home Alone’ movies.  You have a clichéd Englishman (I think he’s English, judging by his accent which sort of comes and goes) and a clichéd Redneck henchman of his who looks like a cheaper version of Randy Quaid.

But, you didn’t come here for the humans.  What about the ticks themselves?  Well, they’re not that bad.  This was made long before computer effects were so common, so the bugs are all ‘practical’ effects and they’re animated pretty well.  There’s a decent amount of gore as far as the budget will allow.

Overall, don’t scrutinise this one too closely.  It’s not meant for that.  It knows that it’s daft and plays to its strengths.  Just sit back after a long day and enjoy the scuttling little creeps.

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

The Inbetweeners movie - Carry on inbetween

I can imagine there are those who have not heard of The Inbetweeners, after all, it has been well hidden away on E4 for its three-series run.  However, I can't imagine there are that many people who have seen the show and not enjoyed the film.  If you've watched the series, you'll love the film.  If you haven't seen a TV episode then I advice you to borrow a DVD from a friend (ask around - someone will have one) and check it out first.

And, even if you haven't seen the TV series, this is pretty good fun.  I guess its target audience is mainly young men who have lived through those precarious teenage years of uncertainty, drinking and (attempted) womanising.  Women seem to enjoy it too - mainly because the four male stars continue to make a fool of themselves.  In fact, I don't know any person under 35 who doesn't like it.  The only people I've met who don't `get it' are my mum and a friend's mum.  There's a reason it's one of the highest-grossing British comedies of all time and that's because it's pretty damn funny!

Basically, it's about four lads who leave school and go on a drunken holiday to the a Greek island (I forget which one).  There, they get into all manner of embarrassing scrapes.  As it says on the sleeve - think American Pie meets Peep Show.  There are plenty of cringe-worthingly bad moments for the stars and expect a fair amount of bad language, nudity and plenty of laughs.  Basically, it's like everything that a Richard Curtis movie isn't!

I found it like what a `Carry On...' film might be like if it was written today and the humour carries over from the TV series well - you'll laugh out loud more often than not.  It does slow a bit towards the end, but it's definitely more hit than miss.

Also, it teaches a guy not to put too much gel in his hair and don't pass out face down on an ants' nest.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather