Manhunt - Visually great, sadly lacking in originality

I'm all for films paying homage to other `genre-defining' movies, however `Manhunt' doesn't so much as pay homage to its predecessors like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Wrong Turn, as completely rip them off.

It's about a foursome of young students who go into the mountains, only to be picked off by various redneck hunters. There's nothing wrong with that as a premise, but only if it's done in an original or slightly different way. However, it's just not. Manhunt is basically every other film of that genre, just set in a different country (oh, and there's subtitles for those of you who don't like non-English speaking films).

Unfortunately, some of the teens being stalked are completely unlikeable, one man even going as far as to practically terrorise his girlfriend and physically abuse her BEFORE the rednecks even get them. With characters like that, you can hardly work up much sympathy when they're murdered by the (real) baddies. And those we are supposed to like are just too stupid to relate to. When being hunted they never stop giving away their position by screaming for their separated friends.
Also, the film adheres to every slasher cliché in the book: chased through woods. Check. Rednecks. Check. Camper van and hitchhiker. Check. And so on.

We're never told anything about the redneck hunters and their motives. They don't even speak, leaving us to wonder why they're doing what they do.

Apart from the gore (which is very good/brutal, depending on what you like) and the cinematography (which is also nicely shot, creating a bleak and brooding atmosphere with the use of colour pallet), Manhunt will never be a classic. Just a rip-off that offers nothing new. I know I've slated it here, but actually it's not that bad. It's only real flaw is how totally unoriginal it is. Pity.

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

David Brent: Life on the Road - The ‘Brentmeister’ rides again

Ricky Gervais.  Chances are you’ll either love him or hate him.  And, basically, your enjoyment of his latest film ‘David Brent: Life on the Road’ will largely depend on whether you’re a fan, or find him excruciatingly annoying.  Like most people, they ‘found’ Gervais during his award-winning BBC sitcom ‘The Office’ where he played the self-proclaimed ‘chilled out entertainer’ David Brent (or ‘boss from hell’ as the rest of the world referred to him as).  So, if you’re a fan of either the character, or the cringe-worthy humour he specialises in.


There’s always that worry when a good show which is usually half an hour is suddenly dragged out for a feature length movie’s runtime that it’s going to dip in places and fall flat in others.  I’m pleased to say that ‘David Brent: Life on the Road’ does not suffer from this (too much).  Yes, I loved The Office and have followed Gervais’ career ever since, so I was crossing my fingers for the best.  This film does deliver.  It serves as a ‘sequel’ to the part of The Office which was about Brent’s life.  If you watched the series then you’ll know about his dreams and aspirations to become more than the manager of a paper merchant in Slough.

‘The Office’ was a ‘mockumentary’ about the life of the workers in Slough and now we have follow-up documentary about – arguably – the ‘star’ of the fictional show ‘David Brent.’ We meet him now after he’s long since left Wernom Hogg and is now a – much ridiculed – sales rep who travels up and down the country peddling his less-than-necessary wares.  However, he still dreams of becoming the next big thing in music and, rather than go on X-Factor as most people who share his ideals seem to, has sunk all his life savings into promoting his own musical band.

What we see is a depressing take on humanity’s desire for fame without the talent to back it up.  Gervais has already (majorly!) touched on these subjects in his other TV show ‘Extras,’ but we witness a man who is more ambition than talent.  He won’t accept that he’ll never have the fame and fortune he craves and, even when it’s staring him in the face, he will adjust his perception of reality to suit the situation.  What we get out of it is the knowing that he’ll never be what he wants and, despite probably not wanting to associate with a man like this, we can’t quite bring ourselves to hate him because we know that he’ll never achieve or ‘win’ the fame and adulation he craves.

‘David Brent: Life on the Road’ is a good little compendium piece to ‘The Office.’ I guess it is a little stretched and sometimes it feels like there should be one or two jokes more than there is, but, overall, it stands up on its own.  Sometimes there are more heart-wrenching moments than laughs, but they add depth to the film and make it a little deeper than a straight-up comedy.

Many people have moaned that there are no other ‘Office’ characters in it from the British version, but the new characters we meet along the way should – slightly – make up for that.  I’m sure we’ve met one or two of them in offices up and down the country from time to time.

Not as good as The Office, but, then again, what is?  Still solid.  Maybe a feature length Extras next?

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Perfect Host - A hidden gem

Sometimes, low budget films with few locations and lesser-known actors are sent to B-movie oblivion - many in fact. However, I'm pleased to say that this isn't one of them.

Sure, it doesn't have much action, it's only really filmed in one (major) location and (unless you used to watch 'Frasier') you probably won't recognise too many of the cast. It's even got a couple of questionable plot holes towards the end, but the fact is, the film was just too damn enjoyable to let any of that bother me.

Clayne Crawford plays 'John Taylor,' a low-rent criminal who has to go on the run when he robs a bank.  To elude the authorities, he seeks refuge in a random stranger's house, Warwick Wilson (David Hyde Pierce).  Naturally, Clayne takes Warwick hostage, but things get a little intense for the pair throughout the course of the evening.

Just like the big-screen adaptation of `American Psycho's' success was down to Christian Bale's excellent (and psychotic) performance, `The Perfect Host's' charm is completely down to David Hyde Pierce's character. You can tell he's clearly loving doing what he's doing... and it shows.  He's a true joy to watch and carries the film all on his own, especially when he's basically front and centre for the first three quarters of the movie.

I won't go into too much detail about the plot, but it may just put you off dinner parties for life. It's a cheap, but enjoyable little black comedy/thriller/horror.  Like I say, it doesn't really have too many different locations and it's one of those films that could well have been adapted from a stage play (perhaps it was?).  Of course it'll never compete with 'The Avengers' or 'Avatar' in terms of special effects or spectacle, but it is good fun if you have a black sense of humour.

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

A Haunted House - You've probably seen better

Oh, dear - how best to describe `A Haunted House'... it's the sort of unofficial sequel to the first couple of `Scary Movie' films, only the people who made the first two didn't return for the next ten (or however many sequels they've made by the time you read this). So, instead of having anything to do with the parody of `Paranormal Activity' which is basically what `Scary Movie 5' is based on, Marlon Wayans, is doing his own spoof.

If you've actually seen Scary Movie 5 before you've watched this... then I wouldn't bother. Both parody Paranormal Activity and use the same `slapstick formula' jokes. A Haunted House uses a little more `risky' humour, but it's primarily people tripping over or getting up to sexual shenanigans.

But is it funny? Well, it's about as funny as any fifth movie in a comedy franchise (even though it's technically not part of the Scary Movie franchise, you could be mistaken for thinking it is). Was Police Academy 5 as funny as the first? If you're thinking of watching this, you'll get a couple of laughs and smirks here and there, but it's not great.

If you like horror parodies, stick with the first Scary Movie. Since then it's been pretty hit and miss from there on. It might keep you amused if you found it on TV late at night and were slightly tipsy.

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

Still Waiting - A 'background' comedy

The first 'Waiting' film was a 'cult classic.' Okay, that may be a little generous when you consider other 'similar' cult classics include movies like 'Clerks' and 'Office Space,' while 'Waiting' (although fun) was definitely not up to those standards.  It charted a day in the life of a group of restaurant staff and was - believe it or not - headed by Ryan Reynolds.  It was all good, light-hearted adult humour and if you've ever worked in the service industry you'll definitely be sympathetic to the waiters and waitresses' plight.  Then they made the sequel.

Of course Ryan moved on to bigger and better things and we're left with a whole load of unfamiliar faces which we sort of recognise from one B-movie, or that TV show that we can't quite remember the name of.  Justin Long pops up again and reprises his role, but it's basically just a cameo and, if you believe what you read on the internet, he wasn't very happy with the production.  Again, the story tells the tale of a day in the life of the staff at a restaurant, however this time it's vying for popularity against another eatery next door, only this one uses scantily-clad waitresses to bring in a certain demographic of diners.

There are plenty of characters in the film and therefore not even half of them are as well-developed as they could probably have been.  In fact, the majority of them are stereotypes, but - seeing as this film is hardly supposed to be 'high drama' and just simple fun - it's kind of forgivable.  Most of them have 'supposed' character-arcs which seem to be a little too neatly/conveniently tied up at the end of the film.

If you only watch one 'Waiting' film then definitely go for the first one.  This one doesn't have half so many laughs.  However, it's not all bad - not even nearly.  Just because it doesn't have that many 'laugh out loud' moments doesn't mean that it's not worth a watch.  If you have it on in the background then you can dip in and out of it.  You're not going to miss that much and will soon pick it up again.  But there's definitely a drop in quality in the writing between the original and this one.  Let's just hope that they don't really sink lower and make a 'third installment.'

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

The Other Guys - A surprisingly funny film which isn't really a comedy

Sometimes a `comedy' film boasts a whole host of A-list comedic actors and ends up not being particularly funny at all. Now, `The Other Guys' may have veteran comedian Will Ferrell as top billing, but Mark Wahlberg is an unlikely partner for an out-and-out comedy film.

But then The Other Guys isn't really a comedy. The humour is strange and not that obvious, let alone appreciated by all. I've seen plenty of reviews where people claim not to have laughed once. I, on the other hand, couldn't seem to stop laughing all the way through. However, like I say, this isn't really a comedy. It's only slightly less serious than the Lethal Weapon films. It's really a buddy-cop movie with shoot-outs, car chases and double-crossing that just so happens to be quite amusing as an off-shoot.

Ferrell and Wahlberg play off each other well and the supporting stars all have their moments, too. It's hard to say what the target audience is, as the film encompasses so many genres. I guess it's a bit of a shot in the dark as to whether you'll enjoy it or not. But, if you're generally into Will Ferrell movies, or you're in the mood for an action/thriller/cop movie/comedy then give it a go.

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

Level 16 - Watchable little number

'Level 16' is one of those films where the review shouldn't be too long.  That's because, if you ask, 'So... what's the film about?' you can't really say too much without giving away vital plot points.  It's even a little too much if I give away the genre, as that would also point to the story's motive.  I guess I'd have to call it a 'thriller' as that's the broadest term and one that just about fits it.  The whole reason you'll watch this film is to find out what's happening. 

We join a 'school' of young girls as they - er - 'graduate' to the final year of their educational institution, aka 'Level 16.' The reason I use so many quote marks around words is because this isn't your average American high school.  There's something very amiss.

Only giving away mild clues (that you'll get from the early parts of the movie) are that the girls are hardly 'enlightened' and seem to be 'taught' by a single teacher and a load of videos which push 'cleanliness' at all costs.  The outside world is never seen, but there's the ever 'exciting' promise that adults will one day come for the girls and adopt them into their new, perfect families.

Now, naturally we - the viewers - can see that something very bad is happening here.  You'll ask yourselves question like, 'Is there even a world out there?  Has there been some sort of alien takeover and the girls are merely human sacrifices?' and 'What's the deal with keeping the youngsters so clean?' All are valid questions and - don't worry - whatever you think is going on will eventually be explained to a satisfying conclusion by the end of the movie.

The stars of the film are - mainly - the young girls and - sometimes - having less experienced actors carrying a film can lead to lesser performances.  Luckily, all play their parts well and lead actress, Katie Douglas, could well be one to watch in the future.

So, assuming you enjoy watching the film through to the end, the only real flaw is that you can only ever watch it the once and not know what's coming.  Even if you love it (and it's certainly very watchable!) I can't see much point in re-watching it any time in the (near) future, as you'll know everything that's coming.  Definitely one to watch, but not one to re-watch very soon afterwards.

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

Catch .44 - From `Die Hard' to `Try Hard'

Quentin Tarrintino. There, I said it. I got it out the way straight away. It's just you can't really talk about Catch 44 without mentioning the man in some way. Catch 44 is so `Pulp Fiction inspired' that you'll be expecting Samuel L Jackson to pop up in a gimp mask at any time.

Instead of a predominantly male cast, Catch 44 centres on three female drug smugglers and what happens when one of their (supposedly routine) drop-offs goes very wrong. That's about the extent of the plot. I've read in other reviews phrases like `the film stretches a single scene out for the entire ninety minutes.' And they're not far off it.

The whole film is - technically - set in a diner (the location for the illegal exchange). What other parts of the film come in flashbacks and repeats of the initial scene, over and over again. This has picked up more than a little criticism from some as being repetitive and annoying.

I didn't think it was that bad. Granted, Catch 44 is no Pulp Fiction, but I found it entertaining enough to watch for an hour and a half. One thing you should know is that Bruce Willis (despite featuring heavily on all major advertising) is in it for about ten minutes. The story is mainly about the girls. Forest Whitaker does his best to inject some much-needed characterisation, but really, the lack of any forward momentum is the film's major downfall.

My advice: know what you're getting. This is no masterpiece, but it's not quite as bad as some of the reviews make it out to be. It just could have been a lot better, based on the star-power that seemed to be attached to the project.

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

Judge Dredd (2015) - Not as bad as people would have you imagine

I have no idea about the comic book 2015's 'Judge Dredd' was based on, so I can't say how well it compares to the source material, however, all I know is that it was met with quite a degree of disdain at the time of its release.  From what I gathered it was largely down to the fact that the titular character never takes his mask off, whereas Sylvester Stallone (who plays the man in question) spends the majority of the film running around without any form of facial covering (or Judge armour!).  However, if you can get past that (and I assume most of us non die-hard cinema-goers can) then you'll at least find a competent little action/sci-fi film here somewhere.

In the near future overpopulation has forced the majority of human life to be based around various giant 'Megacities' while the vast surrounding area is all desert.  To maintain law, 'Judges' are allowed to be judge, jury and - if necessary - executioner.  And, the most famous of all these 'Judges' is - you guessed it - Judge Dredd.

No sooner are we introduced to him, does he end up getting framed for a crime he didn't commit and forced to go on the run.  This is therefore the part where Stallone ditches all recognisable Judge Dredd garments in favour of a simple vest and tight trousers.  I suppose it would be like the level of criticism leveled at 'Iron Man 3' when you barely see the character in his most famous outfit throughout the whole film.  Anyway, Dredd has to do the usual things a character in his position has to, i.e. escape, unravel the conspiracy, prove his innocence and get the bad guy.

Yeah, it's all kind of run-of-the-mill, but it's definitely not as bad as many made out it to be.  The sets are great and it's nice to see practical effects instead of today's computer-generated versions of giant futuristic cities.  A few of the visual effects do look a little dated now, especially the blue-screens behind the characters during chase scenes, but it was 1995.

Stallone does as good as he does in most action films.  Unfortunately, he's just Stallone rather than the character fans came to see.  Therefore, this is probably more one for his audience than those of the comic book character.  There's a minor love interest and the bad guy (plus his female helper).  None of those really stand out, but there's a giant evil robot who's cool without having half the lines the human actors get.  Then you have Rob Schneider - an actor known for his low brow comedy films.  Here, he's the 'comic relief' and his 'comedy' kind of wears off quicker than the film-makers probably would have liked.  I'm surprised he's not mentioned more when it comes to film's 'most annoying characters ever,' as - in my opinion - he's well up there with Jar Jar Binks.

Anyway, if you like sci-fi, action, Stallone or films with practical effects you should get something out of this.  However, if you're a fan of the 'Judge Dredd' comic book, it looks like you're best off waiting a couple of decades until Karl Urban dons the outfit.

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

After Earth - Not as bad as everyone said (but not that good either)

`After Earth' is a science fiction story starring Will Smith and his real-life son Jaden Smith. And, if you believe pretty much every critic's review, you could be forgiven for thinking it's the worst film ever. And it's not. However, that doesn't mean it's that good, either).

For a start, there are (excluding the first twenty minutes) only two characters in the entire film: Will and Jaden. They crash land on a barren Earth some time after humanity have left it due to excessive alien attacks and various human-gobbling monsters. This lack of characters might not be so bad if they were that likeable, but they're not. Will plays the `bad-ass' soldier and Jaden plays his pretty-timid son. This mean that there's no initial warmth between them (but, of course, I'm sure there will be by the time the end credits roll). It's like having two Vulcans as stars, only Vulcans are actually quite helpful and friendly, rather than just biting each other's heads off.

However, it's not all bad - the initial special effects were good. I liked the atmosphere and gadgets while Will and Jaden were still aboard the space ships. It's just a pity that the good special effects degenerated into one CGI monster after the next.

Then there's the story. Basically, you could have the film on mute and still know what's happening, or even watch it on fast forward. It's just one disaster after the next and you know that, baring in mind there's only two cast-members, neither will come to that much harm.

For kids, who might not have seen much sci-fi, they may like it. Jaden is the star and they'll probably like seeing a kid save the day for his parent. However, for us hardened sci-fi geeks, we really expect a little more than a few computer-generated landscapes and monsters.

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

Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile - Zac saves it

Yes, the title has been claimed to be a bit 'click-baity.' You're probably thinking you're going to be watching the most hardcore and depraved film ever made.  Well... you're not, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth a watch.

It's the - sort of - biography of real life seventies serial killer, Ted Bundy.  And, if you're interested in his life then this is definitely going to interest you.  Plus it has the - quite bankable - Zac Efron as the titular killer, Bundy and this is where the film starts to draw criticism from some people.  They say that, because of Efron's natural good looks and charm, he draws quite a lot of sympathy towards the crazed killer.  This may be true, however it's also worth noting that the real life Bundy was also considered attractive and it was his natural charm that allowed him such easy access to his unsuspecting victims, so, in my opinion, the casting is spot on.

In fact, it's Efron that steals the show in his portrayal of the psychopath and this is definitely one for his acting C.V.  Now, back to the title again.  I've watched other films about Ted Bundy and they were pretty strong stuff, all choosing to show his hideous kills and various crimes.  In 'Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile,' unless I'm much mistaken, you don't actually see a single kill.  Whereas most other biopics start with the crimes and progress to show Bundy's capture and imprisonment etc, this one pretty much starts off with him getting arrested and the rest is the subsequent trial.  Therefore, anyone expecting gore and violence will be sorely let down by the title.

The rest of the cast all play their parts well, including Lily Collins as Bundy's conflicted (main) love interest, plus John Malkovich shows up in the final third as a judge in Bundy's trial.  From what I understand the film-makers have done their best to portray the events pretty accurately, even going as far as to recreate photos from Bundy's life and also copy parts of the dialogue from public appearances word for word.

So, as I say, if you're into real life killers and/or Zac Efron then you're in for a real treat here.  However, if you're looking for kills and gore then you're not going to find it here.

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

Sausage Party – No one should enjoy this film (and yet I did)

There are some films which should probably come in blank DVD boxes.  That way, when they’re mixed in with your collection and you have friends or family round, they will never know that you really enjoyed watching an animated sausage discover the meaning of life in a supermarket by indulging in everything from murder to... I’ll stop there when it comes to details (that’s for the film’s final act only).

Yes, seriously, ‘Sausage Party’ is basically the polar opposite to all those delightful Disney/Pixar movies we’ve been taking our kids to over the years.  Pixar films are delightful fun for all the family.  Sausage Party is something you want to keep your kids away from for as long as possible.  As I mentioned in the opening, a hotdog learns the (awful) truth about his existence.  This particular hotdog is one of many different food types, all living in a supermarket (where else?!).  Every morning all the foods for sale cross their fingers (yes, most at least have arms and hands, if not legs, too) and hope upon hope that a friendly human will ‘choose’ them for a better life in the great beyond (basically through the supermarket’s sliding entrance/exit doors).  Naturally, our hotdog (voiced perfectly by Seth Rogan) soon realises that his ‘perfect life’ will ultimately involve being roasted alive before being ground up in a human’s mouth and then pushed out through the afore-mentioned human’s rear.  Hardly an attractive ambition for a sausage in love.

Therefore, he – and his various buddies – set on a plan to escape this.  At first it’s a little hard to work out where this film will go.  It’s almost entirely set inside the supermarket and you may well wonder if this setting gives the film enough scope to really go anywhere.  I’m pleased to say that that’s an incorrect assumption.  It never really lets up for a moment.  The (very adult) humour comes thick and fast and, if you’ve seen any other recent Seth Rogan movie, you’ll know to expect much profanity, sexual references and the – seemingly obligatory – getting high scene.

You may not be able to tell some of the actors who have leant their vocal talents to this film by their performances, but Edward Norton and Salma Hayek are both newcomers, along with Seth Rogan’s usual bunch of suspects such as James Franco and Jonah Hill.  If you’re into their collaborations then you should enjoy this.  It’s hard to imagine it will ever be that successful as the concept is just too ‘niche’ to ever get a mainstream following.  It’s definitely not one to watch with your grandmother, but it is extremely gross and adult fun if you’re in the mood for that sort of entertainment.
Oh, and as a Meat Loaf fan, I loved the ‘Bat out of Hell’ sequences, but that’s probably just me.

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

Xtro II: The Second Encounter - If 'Aliens' was remade on a budget of £1.50

Just by coincidence, 'Aliens,' is my favourite movie.  I think it's the perfect blend of many genres, including action, horror, sci-fi and drama.  I don't know why I watched 'Xtro II: The Second Encounter.' I must have been bored and - occasionally - you can find a little gem of a B-movie here and there.

What I got was effectively a photocopy of the script for 'Aliens,' only with all the decent and believable dialogue removed and given to a four-year-old to rewrite.  Then all the special effects shots were removed and replaced by models, sets and monsters made out of Play Dough.  In short... it was truly awful.  And yet I sat through the whole thing, never once wanting to turn it off.

I should point out that, despite being a sequel to the 'cult classic' horror B-movie, 'Xtro,' this installment has basically nothing to do with the first (besides the obvious use of the name in order to get a few extra views by fans of the original).  It's a totally new film with totally new characters in a totally new setting.  And, possibly worst of all, is that the monster is a totally new concept and therefore is totally not connected to the first one.

Here, those naughty government scientists in one of those - seemingly numerous - shady, black-budget research facilities, open a portal to one of those places that contains worlds full of nasty beasties who want to eat us.  Naturally, one comes into our dimension and a team of (not Colonial!) marines are brought in to rectify the situation.  What you get is the most poor clone of 'Aliens' ever as the team tries to hunt the monster in a facility.

'Xtro II: The Second Encounter' is one of those 'so-bad-they're-good' movies.  If you're a fan of 'Aliens' then you really have to watch this.  Not for the bad acting (you probably already guessed that there would be no real actors you'd ever heard of - unless you're a major fan of 'The X-files' and know Nicholas Lea as 'Alex Krychek') or not special effects, but simply to see just how many references and rip-offs a film can make without actually getting sued.  In fact, if you were feeling brave you could even make some sort of drinking game out of it where you take a shot of alcohol whenever a blatant 'Aliens' nod occurs.  Actually... don't.  Your liver would not be able to take it.

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

The Fantastic Four (2005) - The ‘Just About Okay’ Four

Yeah, you heard the general consensus regarding ‘The Fantastic Four’s’ first major big screen outing.  Most people hated it.  I didn’t hate it, but I’m not warming to it with time.  When I first saw it in the cinema I thought it was ‘just about okay.’ Now I’ve watched it again on DVD a couple of years over time I’m sticking to my original verdict.

In fact, one of its problems is the rest of the ‘Marvel’ movies.  Since 2005 we’ve been treated to the whole ‘expanded universe’ where all the Marvel superheroes pop in and out of each other’s films.  And, it’s safe to say that most people like all that (plus Avengers etc).  So, basically the current way of doing superhero films is miles above what 20th Century Fox tried back in 2005.

The cast isn’t really the problem.  Even if some of them did get some stick for their portrayals of the characters, I didn’t find any of them a problem.  They all looked the part to me.  However, the problem I had with the movie is that it never really gets going.  It’s not a long film (only an hour and a half) and, despite getting their superpowers early on, the four central characters don’t really do that much with them until literally the final few minutes.  I thought this when I first watched it in the cinema, but it wasn’t until I saw it again on DVD that I was able to time exactly when the film actually ‘got going’ (in my opinion).  It was about at 1h 20 minutes (out of an hour and a half!).  That’s when the superheroes finally come together like I was expecting them to and fight Dr Doom. 

Oh yes... Dr Doom.  I mentioned that the casting wasn’t that bad.  I was referring to the Four.  Dr Doom is pretty unspectacular and not that evil.  And they only gang up on him at the end, making the whole film seem like a prequel that could have been told in about twenty minutes until the story starts properly.

All in all, The Fantastic Four will always be classed as a ‘missed opportunity.’ Yes, it’s already being ‘rebooted’ and die-hard fans are hoping that Fox will get the formula right this time.  Although... rumour has it that the writers are already changing HOW the Four got their powers.  Therefore I’m not holding my breath!

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

Planes, Trains and Automobiles - Still holds up

I don't care how cool Robert Downey Jr currently is, even when he was in the - sort of - remake of 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles,' it couldn't even come close to the original.  One thing that always strikes me about movies made in the eighties versus today's crop is how quickly they seem to get going.  Here, we don't get massive amounts of backstory about the two main players (Steve Martin and John Candy), we're just hurled into their lives at breakneck speed.

It's the day before Thanksgiving and Steve Martin has to travel from his high-flying job in New York city, home to his family in Chicago.  However, due to a freak snowstorm diverting his flight, he finds himself forced into an unlikely friendship with shower curtain salesman, John Candy.  It's a tale of the proverbial 'odd couple.' Martin is straight-laced and conforms to all tropes of 'the American Dream,' while Candy is - well - a slob.

What you have is a road movie that never slows down in terms of pace or laughs.  It's not a long movie (again, by today's standards).  Every twist and turn the pair take seems natural.  I know there will be some who will argue that - in real life - Martin would just 'ditch' a person like Candy at the earliest opportunity, so you may have to suspend your disbelief a little bit there if you subscribe to that way of thinking.

Otherwise, what you have is a comedy that still holds up today - a rare breed indeed for any film, let alone a comedy.  The gags are 'character and situation-based' which aids their longevity.  Today many movies go for 'pop culture' references which mean that you have to 'get' the reference at the time, or, if you're watching several years later, the gag needs to still be relevant.

It's a testament that a great film can be one without any major special effects or outlandish situations.  Here, you simply have the tale of two men travelling home for the holidays.  It all rests on the talent of the two stars and the chemistry between them.  Luckily, both are on form and it's hard to resist their charm (unless you're my Mum, who claimed that John Candy was just 'too annoying' to be funny - but I guess you can't please everyone!).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Bag of Bones - Bad of bones

Being a fan of Pierce Brosnan, I tend to watch anything he's in. Therefore I was quite surprised that he appeared in a `made-for-TV' movie (or two-part mini series to be precise). Granted it was based on a Stephen King book, but, in my opinion, I thought Brosnan was `slumming it' a bit.

Then again, about fifty per cent of King's work has managed to survive the transition from book to film, so I was hopeful. That was until I watched it.

Unfortunately, `Bag of Bones' comes in the half of King's work which is - most likely (and I have to confess to not reading the book) - better in print than on film. It's simply too slow. Yes, being a two part TV series, it's allowed a little more screen time than a normal ninety minutes film would probably be given and it uses this time for `character building' purposes. Sadly, I think I speak on behalf of most of the viewers when I say we'd rather have scares and horror than yet another conversation about something pretty mundane.

Like I say, I am a fan of Pierce Brosnan, but I felt his heart didn't seem into this. He plays a writer who loses his wife and goes to retreat to their country house to get away from things and write his next book. It's hardly an original plot on its own and, as you've probably guessed, spooky things start to happen. Only they're not particularly spooky and nothing much happens until the end. There's nothing very unexpected about the film. You can see most things coming and even some of the `scares' at then end are almost comical in how they're presented (there's a scene with a `killer tree' that reminds me of something out of the comedy/horror `Evil Dead' starring Bruce Campbell).

I keep watching Pierce Brosnan's films and I'll also keep watching Stephen King's big screen work. However, I can see why this was made for TV and never made it to a theatrical release.

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

The Ice Pirates - So much silly fun

In the wake of 'Star Wars,' many film companies tried their hand at some sort of 'big budget space opera.' Most failed.  Few could ever create such a rich and memorable universe.  However, in the case of the - now 'cult favourite' - 'The Ice Pirates,' it actually managed to produce something truly memorable, if a little bizarre.

The premise is pretty straight forward for a science fiction movie: in a far-flung galaxy water has become the most hard to come by commodity and a big, evil planet controls the supply, therefore leaving the rest of the universe to become subservient to them.  What makes it different is that 'The Ice Pirates' is an outright comedy.  It never takes itself seriously and is all the better for it.  For a start, it sort of shoots down its own 'serious' plot by having - literally - 'pirates in space.' When you think of pirates your mind probably brings up images of Johnny Depp in 'Pirates of the Caribbean.' And you wouldn't be far wrong here either.  You have effectively, long-haired, blouse-wearing dandies with cutlasses hijacking spaceships.

You could probably ask questions like, 'Why do the space pirates use cutlasses and swords when the people they're fighting all have laser guns?' But if you really want to dwell on plot inaccuracies such as that, then you're not going to get much out of a film like this.

For a start you'd be missing the amazing eighties sets and costumes.  Seriously, for a low budget film the sets are amazing and it's a testament to what can be achieved with 'practical' effects over vast (and, in my opinion, unrealistic) computer-generated landscapes.

The cast all play their parts well.  I didn't really think anyone really stood out.  You may notice both Ron Perlman and Angelica Huston's names on the cast list, but they're not really in it as much as you might expect and their performances are not an indication of what they're capable of.  The real 'stars' of the film are the armies of robots both the pirates and those they're robbing from seem to possess.  Despite the droids never actually talking they steal every scene they're in due to their slapstick and crazy antics.

If you're in the mood for a well thought-out space opera that doesn't take itself too seriously and has all the rich and varied style and flair of 'Star Wars,' but played for laughs rather than drama, then check this one out.  It's a well-deserved cult classic from yesteryear.  It really does have scenes that will stay with you forever... even if it's just what the bad-guys do with captured pirates on a conveyor belt - OUCH!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

ParaNorman - This film was made only for me... probably 

I just watched 'ParaNorman' - a film about a boy (called 'Norman' by the way) who can talk to ghosts - and wondered who it was aimed at? The cinema was filled with children (ranging from three years old to early teens) and I came out of the auditorium wondering whether I was the only person in there who TRULY enjoyed all aspects of it!

Don't think that just because this is a story about a boy who `sees dead people' that it's anything like 'The Sixth Sense.' It more than slightly cashes in on today's obsession with zombies. We've seen zombie movies for adults, zombie movies with `infected' people instead of walking corpses, romantic zombie movies, comedy zombie movies, zombie movies from the point of view of the undead themselves and now we have a kids' one. It had to happen (and, after watching 'ParaNorman,' I say no bad thing).

First of all, this is NOT 'Toy Story' or 'Shrek.' For a start it's made from `claymation' (think 'Wallace and Gromit') rather than all on computers. Plus, it might pass itself off as a childrens' movie, but it seemed more like a homage to cheesy B-movie horror films of days gone by. There are tonnes of in-joke references to horror films that, unless you show your five-year-old 'Halloween' and 'Return of the Living Dead' instead of 'In the Night Garden,' they will have no hope of ever picking up on.

In these days of `target audiences' where `Film A' is meant for women and `Film B' is meant for children and so on, watching 'ParaNorman' made me wonder whether the filmmakers just sat down, made a movie that they liked and never really gave much through to who it was meant for, hoping it would find an audience out there somewhere. A brave, if not that economical, decision.

Bottom line: 'ParaNorman' was awesome, but then I'm a man who has grown on up on horror and zombie films. It has loads more heart and character development than other recent `kids' movies, such as 'Brave,' it looks visually stunning, has a definite look and feel of its own and it's packed full of gags - I just wonder how many children will actually get?

Afterthought: I was so caught up in enjoying this movie, I obviously didn't get some concerns from parents. I've read some internet message boards where parents are annoyed at a kids' movie bringing in issues of child death and (takes a deep breath) sexuality. Maybe if you don't want Little Johnny asking you, "Daddy, why does HE have a `boyfriend?'" you really shouldn't take your child to see this.

Paranorman = possible future cult movie.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

The Naked Gun - Still so good

I first watched 'The Naked Gun' on VHS when it was released at the tail end of the eighties.  I was much younger then and appreciated - how would you call it - more 'juvenile' humour.  Now, some thirty years later, I was almost scared to watch it again in case it didn't live up to how I remember.  All I can say is that it's either as funny as it ever was, or my humour never actually grew up.  I think it's probably both, seeing as I also like the 'Jackass' movies.

You may never have heard of, or never bothered with, the TV show 'Police Squad.' It wasn't on telly for very long and I believe it got cancelled after only one series.  However, that didn't stop the producers from effectively reusing the story (and even some of the jokes) for their feature length film, 'The Naked Gun.' It follows the exploits of Detective Frank Drebin (played to perfection by a totally deadpan Leslie Nielsen) as he is tasked with foiling an assassination attempt on Queen Elizabeth when she visits his home city of Los Angeles, proving his partner Nordberg (creepily played by O.J. Simpson, before he, er, fell from grace - so to speak) and generally falling in love with the new lady in his life, Jane (Priscilla Presley).

Now, all that sounds quite a lot to fit into what is actually quite a standard length film (roughly ninety minutes) and yet every moment flies by simply because it never wastes any time by NOT putting jokes in.  In short... the gags comes thick and fast.  In fact, sometimes you've only just finished laughing at one joke when another comes along.  They're that closely packed in. 

I guess the only person who wouldn't get some amusement out of this would be someone who really despises slapstick and slightly low-brow humour.  Many of the jokes are visual and revolve around the 'bumbling' antics of the leading man as he tries to unravel the conspiracy surrounding Ricardo Montalban's evil plot.  And, if you've only really seen Montalban as 'Khan' from 'Star Trek II' and think he can only play things seriously, it's a treat to see him do something a little lighter than trying to hound Kirk to the ends of the galaxy.

There are few films that stand the test of time and, in a world of comedies where many of the laughs revolve around 'pop culture' references, i.e. making the subject matter only funny if you 'get' the reference and it stays relevant forever, it's nice to see a film that will always be daftly funny, no matter how many years pass by.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Last Days on Mars - Not bad, but not that memorable

There’s a strange myth going around Hollywood that any film with ‘Mars’ in the title (or primarily connected with Mars) fails to do well at the Box Office, i.e. Mars Needs Moms, Red Planet, John Carter of Mars and Ghosts of Mars (even though Ghosts of Mars happens to be a ‘guilty pleasure’ film of mine!).  Maybe it’s just coincidence, or maybe the rumour is true, but ‘Last Days on Mars’ is hardly going to be remembered as a classic piece of Hollywood cinema (and probably not even a cult favourite).

After having watched it, I have to say that I didn’t hate it.  However, I felt I better write a review on it pretty quickly, as I doubt it’s going to stay in my mind for much more than a week.  It’s about a team of astronauts (yes, camped out on the red planet) who are days away from completing their mission when something bad happens.  I won’t go into too much detail for fear of spoiling what’s to come, but let’s just say our budding group of ‘Major Toms’ start dropping like flies, courtesy of something nasty.

So, one by one the cast is whittled down until... well, you have to watch it to take a guess at the old ‘who lives vs who dies’ scenario.  But, once you’ve met all the characters, you’ll have a pretty solid idea at who’s going to be left standing in the final act.  Liev Schreiber is a solid enough leading man, but hardly embodies any ‘A-list’ qualities that will really elevate him to the next acting level.  Much of the supporting cast are British – you have ‘Scardy-Brit,’ Stuck-up Brit,’ ‘Needy-Brit’ and so on.

Basically, if you come across ‘Last Days on Mars’ late at night and you’re in the mood for a little ‘sci-fi/horror’ you may just stick with it.  It’s not so bad, but just nothing particularly new either.  You need not go out of your way to seek this one out.

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

247*F - Cheap and not particularly cheerful

They always say that the best stories are the most simple. 'Alien' was famously pitched (and then green-lit) as simply 'Jaws in Space.' So, bearing that in mind, '247F' should be an absolute classic.  Hopefully it's not too much of a 'spoiler' to say that it's not.

However, it is certainly simple.  Four teenagers go to a cabin in the woods and, for once, don't get attacked by any form of supernatural entity.  Sadly, that doesn't mean their trip isn't without tragic incident.  For, instead of being chased by various chainsaw-wielding nut-jobs, they get locked in a sauna.  Now, some may say that that's probably a lot less traumatic than being stalked by inter-dimensional demons wearing ice hockey masks.  Apparently, though, it's just as deadly.

If you can get past the fact that the only wooden door (entrance/exit) to the sauna is seemingly protected by a class 9 forcefield, making it completely impervious to any form of physical attack, then you'll go on a journey with the teens as they try to figure out a way of escaping their ever-heating 'prison.'

The cast is... er, there.  Apparently, some of them have done other TV work, but I'm afraid I haven't seen any of them before.  They do their best with what they have to work with.  They're teens in effectively a 'slasher' flick without a slasher.  You know that some are 'expendable' and I guess you can have some fun trying to work out who's not going to make it out of there.  One girl has a backstory, summed up in a three minute montage sort of scene at the beginning of the film.

Anyway, this film is cheap and not that memorable.  It's not bad, but it's certainly hardly one that I'd recommend.  If it's on and you're bored then give it a go.  If you don't then you're hardly missing much.

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

Ghosts of Mars - Wonder if we’ll ever know...

First off, I’d like to point out that I’m quite a die-hard John Carpenter fan, so I’ll watch pretty much anything he does.  I first saw ‘Ghosts of Mars’ back when it was released in 2001 and loved it.  Then bought it on DVD and continued to watch it a few times since.  However, now, in 2016, not having seen in for a while I decided to give it another go.  Sadly, I was actually quite disappointed.

It’s fair to say that it wasn’t a hit with fans or critics on its release and – maybe – I’m starting to see what they saw then.  It hasn’t really aged well.  First of all we’re told in a section of opening text that Mars is a ‘Matriarchal’ society.  Why?  We don’t know.  It’s an interesting concept of the future, but one that’s then abandoned.  Perhaps the biggest flaw is the beginning, in that the film chooses to start the film at the end and basically give you one huge spoiler from the start as to what happens in the end.  This whole story-telling mechanic is pointless and ruins any real tension.

A team of space police officers go to Mars to escort a known prisoner back to Earth for trial.  Only, when they arrive, they find the Mars colony deserted and have some pretty nasty surprises in store for them.  Natasha (the woman from Species) is in the lead and she does her best and being hard-as-nails, while also flawed due to a futuristic drug addiction, but the script is hardly dynamite.  Jason Statham has his first major Hollywood break here and is about the one light that still shines in this film.  Ice Cube is supposed to be the male lead, but comes across as bored, wooden and even a little on the overweight side.  Rumour has it that Statham auditioned for Cube’s role, but wasn’t a big enough star at the time.  If only what could have been...

When the action kicks off between those nasty dark forces on the red planet and our band of (mainly disposable) heroes, it’s actually quite fun.  This is probably the bit that stuck with me.  The set pieces are fun, but it’s the direction which lets it down – amazingly when you consider how good Carpenter normally is.  I’ve already mentioned that the film is one big story told by one person all the way through.  Then every ten minutes or so, the action cuts off and reminds us that we’re witnessing a retelling.  This is annoying and breaks the pace, but also we have numerous flashbacks from other characters.  Sometimes a scene will be repeated literally minutes later from someone else’s point of view.  This just feels awkward and totally unnecessary.  Then, in one case we’re even treated to a flashback within a flashback within the main story (which is technically also a flashback!).

Ghosts of Mars could have been at least a cult classic, however its flaws which even I overlooked are now becoming very apparent.  I seem to remember at the time I rated this film 8/10 on one internet site.  Now, definitely a generous 7.

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

The Next Three Days - Solid little thriller

Sometimes you gets films that aren't exactly 'classics,' yet aren't bad either. 'The Next Three Days' is one of those.  You could call it 'average,' but that would make it sound like it's just run-of-the-mill and not worth your time.  I probably wouldn't invest paying full-price for a cinema ticket in Imax surround-sound 3D to watch it, but if you can find it on some sort of online streaming service, then it's definitely worth adding to your 'watchlist.'

Russell Crowe ditches his typical 'tough guy' routine to play a husband/father whose wife is convicted of murder and sent to prison.  Being the loving husband, he totally believes in her innocence 100% and, despite the wealth of evidence supporting her conviction, decides that the only way of getting her out is - literally - by breaking her out of jail and going on the run.

That's the general premise of the film, but I won't go into too much detail as there's quite a few twists and turns where you'll wonder whether things are going to work out or not.

The film isn't that short and therefore can spend a lot of time looking into the pros and cons of this course of action.  Despite the film's length it never feels slow (definitely a bonus!) and there's plenty of adversity for a father to face when he decides to embark on this new life 'on the lam.'

There's certainly nothing negative I can really say about the film.  All the performances are solid, as is the whole execution.  However, it's just not one of those films that's worth paying 'full price' for.  Once upon a time you could use the phrase 'rent, don't buy,' but, seeing as no one really rents anything any more, I guess the phrase should be 'stream, don't buy.' Plus, you get a cameo from Lian Neeson, playing a rare character than doesn't kill half the cast!

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

Rec 2 - Solid sequel to Spain’s very own 28 Days Later

Ignoring the – rather pointless – Hollywood remake, Quarantine, REC was a cult classic in the horror genre. However, naturally – being a Spanish movie – it was cursed with subtitles, therefore it never reached a mainstream audience. However, that didn’t stop it spawning a sequel, which takes place immediately after the events in the first film.

If you haven’t seen REC then stop reading and watch it now. It is the better of the two movies, but, as far as sequels go, REC2 is actually pretty good. Here, a team of armed police officers enter a quarantined building to see what happened to the original occupants. And here’s a clue… zombies.
Of course naturally things don’t go too well for our boys in blue and, if you can ignore the fact that armed, well-trained men get easily overpowered and forced onto the back foot by unarmed (albeit zombified) civilians, then you can enjoy this one, too. There’s more gunplay as the budget is bigger than the original, so they can afford to add a few shoot-outs into the mix. However, if you’ve seen the original, you’ll have already seen the best scares. REC2 certainly isn’t as intense as its predecessor, but it’s still a decent enough follow-on.

Plus you probably won’t care about the central team as much as they’re all just ‘men in armour’ and it’s hard to make out who’s who. There are some other characters added a little way into the film, but that feels like an interruption as you’ve done your best to follow (and care about) the initial team before this new lot are thrown into the frying pan.

It’s not as good as REC, but in a world of terrible cash-in sequels, it certainly stands out as one of the better ones (which is more than I can say for ‘REC3’).

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

21 Jump Street (2012) - A pleasant surprise

Sometimes I find that the best films I see are those I know nothing about. Apparently, '21 Jump Street' was based on a TV show from... (I don't know when, but it was, apparently). Anyway, I've never seen it, so I can't say how faithful the film was, compared to the TV series. Either way, it doesn't matter. The point is I knew nothing about the film and watched it anyway.

And I'm glad I did.

It's about two high school clichés - the nerd and the jock, spending their youth hating each other, only to become best friends when they both enrol in police training school. They think that being part of the law will solve all their highschool problems, but only find that modern day policing isn't as 'gung-ho' as the movies make out (and they're forced to catch criminals via push bikes!).  Then, after a botched bust, they're recruited by `21 Jump Street' to go undercover back to high school and crack a major drugs ring.

Based on the plot, I would say it sounded average. However, it does have one ingredient that most modern Hollywood comedies seem to be lacking these days - it's actually funny!  First of all the characters are great and Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum have amazing chemistry and play off each other perfectly.  Their performances are enough on their own, but I have to give full credit to Ice Cube for sending both himself (and police chiefs in movies in general) up perfectly - he's a real 'scene stealer.'

I don't know why it is, but it is. Something about it just works. I think it's best not to try and overanalyse a film like this. If you do, you'll end up finding plot holes and ripping it apart for no good reason.  It's big dumb, loud fun which works in a playfully adult manner.  It even goes a bit 'meta' when it starts to lampoon action/cop movie clichés and the scene with the chickens is sheer comic gold (no spoilers here - just watch it).

Yes, ultimately the story is a bit formulaic, but when it's this good you can forgive that in favour of simply having fun.  Just go with some adult humour and plenty of silliness (and watch out for the unexpected cameo near the end - okay, so if you know the TV series, maybe you're expecting it - but I wasn't, okay?).

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

Night of the Demons 2 (1994) - Pretty good, bar nun

‘Night of the Demons 2’ is the unimaginatively-titled sequel to ‘Night of the Demons,’ but at least when a film gives you such a big clue as to what it’s going to be about, you should know what you’re getting.  And, unsurprisingly, here you get one night (and some demons).

However, I was a little disappointed at the lack of demons.  There’s only really one main one and, granted she can possess people to help swell her ranks, but I was expecting hordes of the nasties.  Perhaps I was thinking it would be more in line with the Italian horror classic B-movies ‘Demons’ and its own unimaginatively-titled sequel ‘Demons 2.’ Despite also having demons in it, ‘Night of the Demons 2’ was its own movie.

You have the typical mix of obnoxious, over-s*xed teenagers, all of which attend a religious school run by nuns and priests.  They hear an urban legend of a haunted house and decide to go and investigate on Halloween.  Naturally, rumours are true and they end up unleashing one nasty old demon-woman among their numbers.

It doesn’t sound like anything too memorable, but it does have its traits which make it stand out.  For a start there are a few nice touches which go against the horror genre’s conventions (no spoilers here – you’ll have to watch it to find out!).  Plus it’s surprisingly quite a slow burner.  You’ll either see it as a plus or a minus at how the plot progresses, but it takes quite a while before the heads (literally) start to roll.  Then there’s the plot itself.  Normally slasher/horror films are set in one location, however this one seems to bounce its location back and forth between various sets.  Again, this can be seen as a positive or a negative.  Some may find it refreshing that the story defies the norm, others may find it a bit disjointed and think that it doesn’t really have any direction.

There’s gore and bits that stand out, but what saves it from being totally forgettable amongst the infinite ranks of similar movies is one character: the nun.  Far from being one of God’s more passive servants, she kicks demon butt at every given opportunity and, as a result, single-handedly saves the movie from oblivion.

If you like tongue-in-cheek horror with the occasional moment of story brilliance and a nun who wouldn’t look out of place wielding an Uzi, then sit down and watch this.  As long as you’re in a forgiving mood you’ll find enjoyment here.

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

Murder By Numbers - Solid little thriller, saved by its cast

`Murder by Numbers' is a pretty run-of-the-mill sort of thriller: two spoilt, rich teenagers decide to commit a murder and see if they're smarter than the cops. Unfortunately for them, the `cops' are Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin - and these two just won't let go.  It's an interesting premise as many murders (at least the ones I've seen on screen!) are never 'pre-planned' to this degree.  The two boys spend much time (thankfully before the story kicks off) going through all the different ways to kill someone without getting caught and working out the 'perfect' crime which will not only never come back to haunt them, but also frame someone else in the process.

So it's a cat and mouse sort of game between the two pairs. Like I say, it doesn't sound like anything that special... and it's not. However, the film is raised above average by the stars. Sandra Bullock acts out of her `kookie-comedy' kind of comfort zone. You'll probably expect her to fall over or hit her head on a frying pan at any minute, but she never does - she plays it straight all the way through. Plus the two kids are kind of creepy and you will be definitely be rooting for Sandra and Ben to bring them to justice.  Even if one of the two murderous teens in question is played by Hollywood heart throb Ryan Gosling, who seems to delight in playing something other than just a 'pretty face.'

However, while we're on the subject of 'creepy,' Bullock really does do a few things that go against her 'good girl' image.  In fact, I'm guessing that if her character was a male, she may well be thought of as a - sort of - villain of them film who needs bringing to justice herself!

And that's about it. If you like either Sandra Bullock or a better-than-average cops hunting killers kind of film, you should like this - at least enough to give you a couple of hours entertainment.

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

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone - Good, light-hearted fun

Basically, this movie - about two warring magicians - got a lot of flack at the box office and was almost branded `a flop.' Yes, it's no masterpiece. It's not even a comedy masterpiece. Perhaps people expected more because of the talent on display. They may have a point - the film does have a stellar cast and maybe it should have been better, or funnier than it actually is. However, just because it's no classic, doesn't mean that it's not worth watching.

Steve Carell plays the titular (if laughably named) 'Burt Wonderstone' - a magician who got into magic to avoid getting bullied at school and is now living the high-life at a top-notch Las Vegas hotel, playing out to sell-out crowds.  However, his fall from grace comes in the form of (newcomer to the 'magic scene') Jim Carrey, playing a (kind of David Blane rip-off) Steve Gray.  The public - and also the hotel's manager (a rather underused James Gandolfini) - start developing a taste for Carrey's form of 'street magic' (largely involving self-mutilation, as opposed to Wonderstone's more 'traditional' entertainment involving pulling rabbits out of hats etc), putting Wonderstone on the back foot and desperately playing 'catch-up.'

It's light-hearted and easy-going. The gags - while occasionally predictable - are still amusing. You may not have many `belly laughs' but, if you're in the mood for something that isn't very serious and quite frothy, the film should maintain a little smile on your face all the way through.  It's a tale of 'fall and rise' for Wonderstone.  He starts off self-centred and completely shallow, but thanks to his impending fall from grace means he can learn and grow.  Olivia Wilde is in there as the obligatory 'love interest' for Carell, but - like Gandolfini - is kind of underused.  In fact, despite her best efforts, her character could probably have been written out of the story all together and it wouldn't make that much difference.

You may get a little more out of it if you're a fan of any or all of the actors. Steve Carell and Jim Carrey are top-billed and for a reason - they play their (kind of stupid) parts very well.  Steve Buscemi is also along for the ride and yet seems never to get any of the best lines in favour of Carell.

My only gripe is that it ran for about ten minutes too long in my opinion. It probably could have been trimmed somewhere in the middle to make it just that little bit tighter. Still fun though.  And don't go expecting a film like that other - much more famous - film about two warring magicians, 'The Prestige' - it's nothing like that!

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

Date Night - You could do worse than have a date with Tina and Steve

Date Night tells the story of a married couple (Steve Carell and Tina Fey) who are stuck in a bit of a rut and whose lives revolve around their kids and work (just like so many of us). However, the similarities end when they get mistaken for criminals during their weekly `date night' and are ruthlessly hunted down across New York by the mob.

I feel after that brief plot summary I should write `...with hilarious consequences.' However, that would not be accurate. Date Night is not a `laugh a minute' film. I actually think it's better than that. It goes to great lengths to portray a `normal' married couple who, although are happy together, there's still that little something - call it a spark? - that's gone out. It's a funny film, but mixed with decent observations and character development that lifts it emotionally from the likes of American Pie and The Hangover.

It's funny and entertaining and, although not that original in its storyline, the chemistry between Carell and Fey is undeniable. I think that most couples married for a long time will easily understand the situation of Phil and Claire.

A great date movie.

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

Jackass 3D (2010) - What are you expecting?

I find it hard to imaging that there are many people who stumble across a film called 'Jackass 3D,' not knowing what 'Jackass' is all about.  Then they put the film on, watch it to the end and thus hate every moment of it and are disgusted by what they just watched.

However, in case you're thinking that 'Jackass' is merely a mildly offensive term for someone who is a 'little bit silly,' then you really need to swat up on your pop culture.  I believe it started out on a cable channel as one of those ridiculously over-the-top late night shows that gains a cult following for all the wrong reasons.  Basically, the premise is a bunch of men hurt each other.  No, this is not 'scripted' in the traditional sense.  It's literally a bunch of guys coming up with weird and imaginative ways to hurt and humiliate each other (and sometimes unsuspecting members of the public or their family).

If you're therefore thinking of something vaguely clever or surreal (ala 'Triggerhappy TV') then you're wildly off course.  There is nothing clever about 'Jackass' and there never will be.  It's pure 'shock TV' and, if that's your thing, then you'll have a blast with this film.

Naturally, there's no story.  It's just one wacky clip after the next of guys doing painful and disgusting 'stunts' (or 'pranks,' depending on who you ask).  Again, if you like that sort of thing then you'll enjoy the film.

If you're in two minds about whether to watch this (or any of the 'Jackass' films or TV) then I'm sure you can find many a clip on the internet.  Watch it then decide if it's for you.  Trust me... it'll save you an hour and a half of watching grown men pull each other's teeth out with sports cars and sitting in a port-a-loo (full of human 'you-know-what') and then getting jettisoned high into the air, making the *ahem* 'brown stuff' go all over the man entombed within.  Yes, that actually happens.

This sequel in the 'Jackass' franchise is 3D.  I didn't watch it in the cinema using glasses, only at home on the telly, so I can't really tell how much the 3D adds to the effect.  Either way, it's pretty disgusting.  But, at the end of the day, I'm almost ashamed to admit that I enjoyed this film (and the previous two).  No, I don't watch them often, but, if I'm in the mood for something so low brow that I can almost feel the IQ points diminishing as the runtime progresses, then this is it.

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

Hatchet - A good chuckle, but make sure you're in the mood for it

I'm writing this review after a second viewing of Hatchet. I do love a good/daft horror/slasher movie and this one was billed as being right up there with the best of them, plus even a homage to the classics of the seventies and eighties.

In short, I didn't like it at first. However, after a couple of years I decided to watch it again and see if I missed anything.

Even now, I probably wouldn't say it's an absolute classic, but it is a decent enough little yarn (with plenty of blood).

Did I say `plenty' of blood? I meant TONNES. In fact, the producers obviously know they're going a bit over the top and must have had great fun throwing bucketloads of the red stuff at trees after every kill takes place.

It's quite a short film (it doesn't really need to be any longer) and, after the thumping Marilyn Manson opening song, we meet about a group of people who go on a boat ride into the swamps of America and end up on the wrong end of a maniac's hatchet. The kills are very violent and, if you're looking for gore, you'll find it here. The best part of the film is the characters. Whether they're horrible or nice, they're entertaining. There's plenty of amusing banter between them to keep us amused (special mention to the two *ahem* `actresses' who continually bicker with each other all the way through).

These good characters go some way to make up for the film's major flaw: they don't kill the killer. This slasher film possibly has the most opportunities to either kill, or severely subdue the nutter with the hatchet, yet they choose to run off every time and leave him to `get better' and resume coming after them. This is the most annoying part of the film and, if it wasn't for the snappy, tongue-in-cheek dialogue, I would have found myself getting increasingly annoyed with the whole package.

All in all, this film is far from perfect, but, if you lower your expectations enough and put your brain on hold, you should enjoy the daftness and gore (like I say, it's not on for long!).

Also, kudos to the film-makers for getting Robert Englund, Kane Hodder and Tony Todd on the same cast list.

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

Joe - Just your ‘average Joe’ of a movie

Nicholas Cage.  Once a bankable star, has found himself falling on the wrong side of some filmic choices of late.  Or, to put it another way, he’s made some right turkeys recently.  However, I’m pleased to say that ‘Joe’ isn’t one of them.  Okay, it’s not great, but it’s better than most of his stuff.

Unsurprisingly, Cage plays the titular ‘Joe’ – the leader of a lumbering crew in America.  He’s doing his best to make an honest buck, but things don’t always go his way.  There are plenty of people who seem to want to either bust his skull in over debts, or just shoot him dead.  And, if that wasn’t enough to be getting on with, he hires a young lad with an alcoholic father – two people who complicate his life yet further.

I guess the first thing you need to know if you’re contemplating watching Joe is that it is a drama.  A straight drama through and through.  There’s no action, adventure or even light comic relief.  It’s a pretty bleak affair.  You’ll need to be in the mood for something very ‘character-driven’ to appreciate this.  But Cage holds it together and we see shades of the reason he was so bankable once upon a time.  It’s his baby, but credit has to go to the young lad who plays his new crewmember.

It’s a long film, clocking in at nearly two hours, so you really need to be in the mood for something this ‘no thrills.’ I would say it was ‘fun,’ only it wasn’t.  But then it’s not supposed to be.  It’s supposed to be a dark and depressing drama.  And for that it succeeds.  You just need to make sure you’re in the mood for something like this. ‘The Rock’ it is not.

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

Wanted (2008) - One of those movies that is very underrated

Maybe ‘Wanted’ wasn’t as successful as – I thought – it should be when it was released back in 2008 because these sorts of (semi) superhero movies were only just coming into fashion?  Maybe it’s because it was based on a comic book that wasn’t that well-known and the film’s producers annoyed the die-hard fan by changing various elements?  Or maybe it’s because it’s got a pretty ‘uninspired’ title which doesn’t really tell you what the film is about?  It could just be someone posting something on Craig’s List!  Either way... I loved it then and I’m pleased to say that it stands up to this day.

It’s about a young man Wesley (James McAvoy, before he really hit the big time in Hollywood) playing a young man who doesn’t know his place in life.  He medicates himself daily while working in a dead end job (don’t we all?) and is routinely victimised by his boss while his girlfriend is having an affair with his best mate.  However, his life takes a slightly more wild turn when a femme fatale known as Fox (Angelia Jolie) inducts him into a super secret society of assassins known as ‘The Fraternity’ led by Sloan (Morgan Freeman) and together they’ll... well, you’ll have to see, but there’s naturally various bad guys to kill and noble causes to fight.

I suppose the plot isn’t that radical to attract much attention, however, it has all the look and feel of a good comic book you could ever want.  Now, I call that a plus, whereas I think a lot of people saw it as a drawback.  Largely, because these assassins are pretty damn amazing – their main ‘special ability’ being the knack of ‘bending bullets’ so they can bend the missiles around corners.  Yes, it’s a little far-fetched, but this is a comic book movie and if you can get over this then I think you’ll have a really good time.

If you’re expecting something uber serious and gritty then look away now.  There are more than a few times where the film does things simply for laughs and to not just bend bullets, but also the movie’s reality.  It never really takes itself that seriously and so is a lot more fun and popcorn-worthy than some type of ‘darker’ modern action movie like Daniel Craig’s ‘Bond’ franchise or the ‘Bourne’ movies

Yes, there’s nothing that new here, but the fact that it’s a great action movie with A-list stars and set pieces that make the most of the unique ‘fighting premise’ that exists in this movie world should be enough to give it at least a ‘cult following’ and stop it fading into complete obscurity.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Orphanage - Creepy little ghost story

In ghost story terms, there’s nothing particularly new about ‘The Orphanage’ – it follows the modern ghost story formula pretty well, i.e. family moves into new location, strange things happen, no one believes them, contact expert to clarify supernatural element and then climax.  The Orphanage ticks all those boxes and in that order.  However, just because its story isn’t that original, doesn’t mean it’s bad.

It’s Spanish, for a start.  I don’t know why I always give foreign films more leeway when it comes to acting terms.  Maybe it’s the subtitles that mean I can’t really tell a ‘good’ foreign actor from a ‘bad’ one.  But, the acting certainly seems well up there to me.  It’s about a couple who have adopted a young boy and move back into an old orphanage to refurbish it and open it up for taking on new children.  However, things go more than a little wrong when their son starts developing ‘imaginary’ friends and then vanishes completely during the opening event and, no, they don’t find that he’s been taken into the TV, ala, Poltergeist.

See?  Nothing particularly new there, but it’s the film’s overall tone, direction and acting which elevates it about the – literally – thousands of similar clones which infest DVD bargain buckets at your local petrol station.  The setting is great and I’ve already mentioned the acting.  But it’s simply the foreboding feel of dream and despair that keeps you watching. 

Basically, if you like your ghost stories slow-burning and creepy (and don’t mind subtitles) then give this one a go.  It moves slowly to a sensible ending and doesn’t have any hordes of CGI monsters or major action sequences, so don’t be expecting a horror marathon of epic proportions.  Just expect something subtle and dark.

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