Warlock - How did this one pass me by?

`Warlock' was released over twenty years ago and I've only just got round to watching it. And, I have to say, better late than never. It really is a fun movie.

No, it never tries to be particularly serious. It doesn't have the budget for that. It's about a warlock (or `male witch' as we learn they are) who, upon being captured in the seventeenth century, only goes and pulls one of his disappearing tricks and ends up in modern day L.A. And, if that wasn't bad enough, he's only figured out a way of `uncreating' the whole of God's great existence. Lucky for the rest of us that Richard E Grant and his (interesting) Scottish accent have also time travelled to stop him. So, he teams up with `average Joette' Kassandra (with a K) and we have our movie.

And, `our movie' happens to be in the same ball park as other great chases through Los Angeles. Due to the film's L.A. setting and the fact that we have two superhuman leads squaring off against one another, I couldn't help but think of 'Terminator.' However, due to budget constraints, it's not quite as slick as the cyborg epic and falls more into those lower budget versions, such as 'Dark Angel' and 'The Hidden.' But then I also loved 'Dark Angel' and 'The Hidden,' so I didn't mind.

'Warlock's' special effects certainly aren't that special, but, by the time you find yourself laughing at how they portray someone `flying' (I'm sure if you look closely you can see the wires) you should already be enjoying the whole film too much to really care.

Take the whole thing with a big pinch of salt. It certainly does. The dialogue is nice as our `out of time' hero struggles to adapt to modern day living and women who wear make-up. All in all, it's nothing new, but it certainly is fun (you may need an appreciation of low budget `so-bad-they're-good' type movies to really enjoy it).

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

Jonah Hex - The definition of mediocre 

'Jonah Hex' is one of those films where it's hard to find much bad to say about it, but then again there's not that many major plus points about it either.  The Marvel Shared Universe was just starting out and, in doing so, setting the trend of 'superhero' movies.  I know 'Jonah Hex' is hardly your average hero who wears tights and fights super-villains, but he's sort of in there.

DC bring to the big screen a sort of sci-fi/western mish-mash where the titular character's family gets killed by a bad man (John Malkovich).  That's all the 'character development/motivation' the antagonist gets.  He's just bad.  Therefore, when Hex is left for dead and brought back to the world of the living by Native Americans, he finds he can now talk - literally - to dead bodies when he touches them.  And he has to track down and kill Malkovich while he's at it.

It's one of those dark, 'gritty' superhero movies (of which DC tends to do more of) and therefore it contains more killing, bloodshed and adult situations.  However, no matter how hard it tries, it never seems to be anything more than average.  If you've seen one superhero movie then you can predict everything that's going to happen beat for beat.  Hero.  Heroine.  Villain who develops super-weapon to wipe out innocent civilians.  It's all there.

Josh Brolin does his best with what he's given as 'Hex' but is pretty one dimensional and has done better before and definitely after (especially in the comic book world with 'Thanos' etc).  Megan Fox is the obligatory 'love interest' and is normally given a hard time over her acting ability.  For her haters, 'Jonah Hex' gives them plenty of ammunition to say she's miscast.  However, she's hardly given much to work with and is as average as everything else.

The scenes where Hex touches a dead body and it comes - sort of - back to life for him to question are kind of cool, but are few and far between and probably could have been taken out all together and no one would be any the wiser.

It's the sort of film you can have on in the background, nip out to get a cup of tea, or check your phone a few times and you'll still know everything you need to about the story.  I didn't hate it.  It's quite watchable, but you probably won't remember much about it in a few days.

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

Hector and the Search for Happiness - Never really knows what it wants to be

Once I’d watched ‘Hector and the Search for Happiness’ I felt compelled to look it up on the internet, just to see what ‘genre’ it was supposed to be.  Officially, it’s billed as an ‘adventure/drama/comedy.’ I can sort of see where it’s coming from – it kind of tries to be all three, only it doesn’t ever stay on one for long enough to pull it off.

Simon Pegg plays the titular ‘Hector’ – a London psychiatrist who decides that he’s bored with his life and sets off on a journey around the world in search for the meaning of what makes people happy.  Nothing really wrong with that, only the way it’s done.  First of all, as soon as Hector sets off on his journey, he takes on the characteristics of ‘Mr Bean.’ From being a very intelligent man, he becomes a complete clutz.  He knocks over everything around him, then, when he tries to pick anything up, knocks more things over.  How did this happen?  It’s just annoying.  Yes, I guess it appeals to those who like ‘slapstick,’ but it sort of comes out of nowhere and doesn’t seem to fit the character’s former traits.

As Hector goes around the world, the writers do make a few meaningful observations and these do come across.  There is plenty in there that will make you think.  And that’s nice.  Only, just when it starts to decide where it wants to go, it changes and becomes really dark (suddenly we’re into hostage-taking territory) and that slapstick comedy seems like a lifetime ago.

Then, every now and again, the film will use funny little techniques like cartoons to illustrate Hector’s mood, or even deliberately cheap and home made special effects.  Again, these pop up here and there without any real need or explanation.  And then they disappear again equally without notice.

All in all, Hector is a mixed bag.  When it’s good it’s nice and thought-provoking and you’ll find it quite uplifting.  However, they it’ll go off on a genre change tangent and you’ll feel a little mixed up as to where it’s suddenly going.

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

Airbourne - Sort of like Murder on the Orient Express (at 30,000 feet)

As I write this review, Airborne current has a - less than classy - 3.8 out of 10 rating on the Internet Movie Database, meaning it's pretty much of a stinker. I saw that rating before I watched it, so that possibly lowered my expectations of what was to come.

I have to admit, I quite enjoyed it.

Take a look at the poster. Take a look at the cast list. What do they tell you? Basically, you should know that this is little more than a low budget British thriller with no real stars. If you feel you can put up with that for just under an hour and a half, give it a go.

Airborne is about an airliner which takes off from England, bound for America. There's not many passengers on it and soon there's even less when they start getting murdered one by one. There's plenty of red herrings and I doubt you'll guess what's really happening, as there are one or two nice twists. Of course for every plus point I can name, there are a fair few low points - lack of character development, daft writing here and there and a moment of sheer disbelief at the end.

I know it wasn't great, but I still didn't think it was all together bad - definitely worth more than a lowly 3.8/10. About the only truly tragic thing about it was how much weight Mark Hamill has put on since he last wielded a lightsabre. I hope the Jedi order have a good weight-loss plan if he's going to reprise his role for Disney's episodes 7-9.

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

Maniac (remake) - You don't have to be mad to watch this...

...but it probably helps. I haven't seen the 1980s original `Maniac' film that this is based on, but I have heard that this is an `improvement' (a rare claim for a horror remake). This can only make me wonder what the original was like to begin with.

First of all, this film is gory. If you haven't got a strong stomach then you might as well stop reading now. The effects aren't comic. They're supposed to be realistic and they succeed.

However, gore doesn't make a movie. There has to be a little more. And there is just... a little more to it. First of all Elijah Wood is suitably creepy as the titular character, going around slaughtering almost every woman he comes into contact with. And the film is almost completely shot from his point of view (ala `Peep Show,' but with more decapitations). However, despite the film's deliberately dark tone, decent acting and excellent prosthetic make-up, I just couldn't seem to get involved with the film.

It just came across as `another slasher film,' only with a reasonably well-known actor in it and some decent gore. I don't know what was wrong with it that stopped me from thinking this was a classic - perhaps it was the lack of story? It just seemed to amble from one kill to the next.

I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it as much as I thought I would either. People who dislike violence should steer well clear - you have been warned!

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

The Grudge (2004) – Pretty creepy (if you haven’t seen the original – apparently)

I watched ‘The Grudge’ in 2004 and was really impressed.  Then I learned it was a remake of a Japanese horror film and everyone who’d already watched that couldn’t stop talking about how much worse this Hollywood remake was.  However, seeing as I’ve never seen the original (shame on me), I guess I can still enjoy the movie for what it is… a tight little horror story.

Sarah Michelle Gellar does her best to play ‘Karen’ – a character not quite so skilled in killing the undead when she begins her new job in Japan of taking care of a housebound old lady (Grace Zabriskie, from ‘Twin Peaks’ who seems destined to play these crazy, tortured souls!).  Unfortunately, the house she lives in is haunted by a particularly nasty ghost (and just a plain weird ghostly little boy).  Soon, Buffy… I mean Karen, finds she can’t go anywhere without hearing an ominous throaty drone which seems to indicate that the ghost is about to make an appearance.

Despite Sarah Michelle Gellar being the obvious star, there are also sub-plots involving other victims of the spook, namely Clea DuVall and Bill Pullman (don’t let the opening scene where he kills himself fool you into thinking there isn’t more to his story than just a cameo in the first shots).  Because of this the movie does jump around a bit from one set of characters to the next.  You have to stick with it to piece together how they are all related before the story finally gets picked up (proper) by Sarah Michelle Gellar, who’s left to ‘finish’ the tale in the third act.

I totally enjoyed the spooky atmosphere created and the setting of a Japanese city made a nice change from an American metropolis.  There isn’t too much blood and gore; instead you get spooky kills where much is left up to the viewers’ imaginations.  And, although you do see the ghosts pretty well, props to the film-makers who came up with the creepy drone-repeating click noise it makes when it’s getting ready for the kill.  I haven’t watched ‘The Grudge’ in years, but the one thing I always remember is that noise!

Now, I know a lot of similar style ghost stories came out in the 2000s (mainly after the success of the Hollywood version of ‘The Ring’) and ‘The Grudge does suffer a little from being released after ‘The Ring’ as to setting the standards for movies.  Yes, a few moments you may see coming, but it’s certainly a lot better than many of the similar genre movies that came out after it and it’s as watchable as ever today (even if the mobile phones are out of date!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Ghoulies II - A vast improvement on the original

You normally think of cinematic greats such as the Godfather 2, Terminator 2, Empire Strikes Back and Aliens as ‘superior’ sequels.  Not many people ever mention the eighties horror ‘Ghoulies 2’ in the same breath as any of the affore-mentioned films.  However, it is head and shoulders about its predecessor.  Although, that’s not saying much.

The original was about a wannabe sorcerer who conjured up a load of evil little critters, aka, ‘ghoulies’ only to have them turn on him.  Sadly, the first film centred on the – pretty bland – humans, whereas the real stars of the show were the nasty little puppets who terrorised people.  I’m guessing this was more to do with budget constraints, but, this time round, they seem to have learned from their mistakes.  The ghoulies are the stars.

They’re in it pretty much all the way through.  Yes, the human characters are still pretty bland, but at least you don’t really notice when the monsters get going.  You could naturally pick faults in the film by saying how the ghoulies are about two feet tall and would probably find it difficult to actually hurt someone (let alone savage them to death), but we’ll just skip that one and assume they are capable of killing tonnes of people.

It’s hardly scary.  There’s not an awful lot of tension of scares in it (unless you’re that afraid of rubbery-looking monsters) and you have to majorly suspend your disbelief to imagine that creatures can walk around a packed fairground and not be seen until it suits the script’s needs.  But, if you like cheesy eighties horror/monster movies, then give this one a go (and ignore the sequels – the series truly peaks here – and that’s saying something!).

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

Everest - I think Marvel has ruined me

I decided to sit down and watch a film that involved a disaster which didn’t involve and army of flying robots dropping an entire Eastern European city on the locals while Robert Downey Jr saves the day.  I know.  I was amazed to find a single disaster movie which couldn’t be described like that.  However, I came across ‘Everest’ – a filmed based on an ill-fated expedition to the titular mountain back in the nineties.  The team of climbers was left in a pretty bad way after a freak avalanche and what followed was a harrowing tale of human versus the elements as they tried to survive in one of the most inhospitable environments in the world.  I have to say that I was quite optimistic.  I’d watched similar films in the past like ‘Alive’ and thoroughly enjoyed them, plus ‘Everest’ boasted a cast which included Jake Gyllenhaal, Josh Brolin and the latest ‘John Connor’ from that ‘Terminator’ movie which no one apart from me liked. 

However, despite my optimism I was left with a feeling that this film was nothing I hadn’t seen before.  A team climbs Everest.  They get stuck.  They have to survive and get back down.  I knew that going into the film so I suppose I can hardly claim to be disappointed about what I got, as I got exactly that.  No more, no less.  Everything about the film can be summed up in a single sentence. 

I don’t know what I was expecting, obviously just more than was on offer.  Yes, the actors were predictably sufficient in their respective roles and the scenery (filmed in picturesque mountains with epic views – don’t know whether it was technically filmed on Mount Everest or not, but it was suitable to fool a geographical novice like me!) was truly magnificent.  However, there just wasn’t that much to keep me interested.  I know it was a true-to-life story, so they hardly bring in a fleet of alien spaceships with death-rays, but there just wasn’t much there to keep me interested. 

I also have a problem with certain war films where soldiers are basically all dressed alike.  I find it quite difficult to tell one actor from another.  Here it’s a similar problem as they’re all wrapped up so tightly to protect themselves against the harsh elements (not to mentions porting full facial beards making identification even harder!) it made telling who’s who quite hard sometimes.

I certainly didn’t hate the film.  The quality of acting talent on offer and the great filming locations made it just about worth sitting through.  However, when a film can be summed up in one sentence I just feel it doesn’t offer (a) much in the way of shocks or surprises or (b) little when it comes to making me want to sit through its two-hour run-time again.  Pity, but only the once.  Maybe I’m now so brainwashed by Marvel-style movies that I can’t appreciate a film that doesn’t involve Optimus Prime smashing his way through New York with a battleaxe for an arm. 

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

The Two Faces of January - Not thrilling, but gripping nonetheless

I always think that the word ‘thriller’ can be a little misleading. ‘The Two Faces of January’ is often described as a ‘thriller,’ however, if you’re expecting wall to wall car chases and edge-of-your-seat kind of action then you’re going to be sorely disappointed.

It’s set in the nineteen sixties and is about an American city trader and his young wife who have ‘escaped’ to Europe, due to owing money to the ‘wrong’ people.  Unfortunately for them, their past literally catches up with them in the form of a debt collector who they subsequently kill.  Now they’re forced to enlist the help of a local young man to evade capture and flee their once safe haven.

And what follows is pretty slow, but deliberately so.  There are no government agents or police officers on their trail.  Their worst (and most dangerous) enemies turn out to be each other.  The two men are sort of tied together, both admitting that they’d drop the other in it if either were to get caught.  It’s almost more of a ‘cat and mouse’ sort of game they play, even though they’re never more than a few feet apart.

Some people have described the film as akin to Hitchcock’s work.  There are certainly comparisons to be drawn, as, not only is 'The Two Faces of January' set in Hitchcock’s era, but it’s more of a subtle thriller, relying on tension in relationships and a slow build up of tension to provide the mood and tone of the film.

Viggo Mortensen is the star.  Yes, Kirsten Dunst is the other ‘big name’ in the film and her (and Oscar Isaac supports the pair of them, but this was before he really hit the 'big time' with 'Star Wars' and other mega-budget movies), but Mortensen arguably turns in the best performance.  You can’t help but at least slightly root for him throughout most of the film.

It’s not a long film and its runtime is suitable.  If it went on too long, people would probably start getting bored.  If you’re into quieter, more refined, character-based thrillers, then you should give this a try.  Those craving fast-paced action will be best off avoiding this.

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

Perfect Sense - Hardly uplifting, but surprisingly effective 

I've become so used to Hollywood showing us disaster movies of epic proportions and utilising millions of dollars worth of special effects, that I seriously doubted a film about the end of the world using absolutely no shots of the Golden Gate bridge collapsing on itself or the White House being blown up by mutants could actually work.  

I was wrong.

'Perfect Sense' gives us an apocalyptic vision through the eyes of a pretty ordinary couple (if Ewan McGregor and Eva Green are your average Glasgow residents) and every now and again through the use of montages.  Everything is going on in the world quite merrily until one day someone loses their sense of smell.  Then someone else does.  And then it spreads.  Soon it becomes clear that an unknown virus has broken and the whole world is affected.  However, losing the ability to smell is one thing, but when other senses start to follow, society starts to break down when people begin to ask themselves how far this virus is going to go.

I would certainly use `gripping' to describe 'Perfect Sense,' although its bleakness may be its undoing for some.  I actually find this to be one of the scariest films I've every seen.  There's no monsters, no 'jump-scares,' or gory scenes involving a chainsaw - just a highly-believable story and a premise that is too chilling to contemplate.

I'm not sure if I enjoyed it in the traditional sense or not. I certainly felt my hour and a half was well-spent, but it's not a film I'd watch on a regular basis. You may need a serious fix of something light, daft and fluffy afterwards (Richard Curtis, I'm looking at you).

If you can stand the bleakness and scarily-realness of a film like this, you may enjoy it. You may even forget that not a single recognisable landmark gets destroyed by an alien mother ship along the way.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Pontypool - Almost a new take on the zombie genre (almost)

We've seen comedy zombie films, zombie films where the undead run, romantic situations between human and zombie and children's zombie stories (yes, seriously - watch 'Paranorman' - it's actually pretty good fun!).  Anyway, you may be wondering if there's anything new anyone can bring to the genre, especially with 'The Walking Dead' on every year.  However, at least 'Pontypool' has a crack at trying something at least a little different.

In a small snow-covered Canadian town, a local radio host goes to work one morning to talk about lost cats and traffic reports over the air, only to find that he's soon reporting on something much more troubling.  Yes, you guessed it, some sort of zombie apocalypse is going on out there.

'Pontypool' could almost be a stage play, seeing as it's filmed effectively in one single location, i.e. the snowed-in radio studio.  I could see it working like that, too.  Therefore, the film doesn't really have much of a budget - what with its single location and gore which, although acceptable for the genre, is nothing you haven't really seen before in any previous zombie film.

However, what it lacks in special effects of big action set-pieces, it makes up for with its leading man, Stephen McHattie.  He plays DJ 'Grant Mazzy' and I think most of us would find it hard to believe after watching his performance that he wasn't also a disc-jockey in real life.  Seriously, he's that good!  If ever a man was 'believable' as a character it was him and the film rests heavily on his shoulders.  And, fortunately he can clearly carry the 'burden.'

Now, you're probably expecting that the one location will soon be under siege from hordes of the undead with the humans inside doing their best to barricade themselves in.  And you'd be right.  Nothing new with the genre so far.  However, what makes it a little different than most is the fact that the 'zombie virus' - so often transmitted through bite or blood - is now transmitted through words.  Yes, honestly!  And that one change to the mythology actually makes the film different enough to make it well worth a watch, even if you're getting tired with the usual tropes associated with the genre.

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

Faster - Rock-solid action

The good thing about `revenge' type films is that you don't need much in the way of a story. And, `Faster' is no exception. The Rock plays a convict, freshly-released from jail, who tracks down all those who had sent him there. Add a dodgy cop and a paranoid hitman and you have all the ingredients for a decent action flick.

First of all, The Rock is perfect for this role.  He has - like most muscular action stars - been criticised for his acting ability. Here, he cannot be accused of being anything other than perfect for the part. Billy Bob Thornton is equally creepy as the bent copper and the (pretty unknown) British actor does his best as the hitman, but despite looking the part (well, if a hitman looked like a male model - yes, I am jealous!) his lack of acting experience makes him a bit of a weak link in the chain.

The film does a reasonable job at establishing some vague backstory for each character, but excels at depicting how their current (dangerous) actions impact on those who love them.  Especially how even hardened villains have families who love them.

'Faster' is not just fast by name, but also quite fast when it comes to runtime. It's only an hour and a half and it flies by.  There are other characters, but not many.  Plus, because it's so short, all the others hardly get much screen time, let alone anything in the way of 'character development' (Jennifer Carpenter from TV's 'Dexter' is one).  Many people have said that it's a kind of update on the old 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly' type film, i.e. where you have three main stars, all set on a one-way path to kill each other.  It's a simple film, filled with plenty of shoot-outs, car chases and general violence. If you're in the mood for that, you really can't ask for much more.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Langoliers - So flawed (and yet so good)

Sometimes a film has so much going for it... and yet it bombs dramatically. 'The Langoliers' is that rare sort of opposite where nothing really works on paper - and yet the end result is something that is highly original, very tense and definitely worth watching again.

'The Langoliers' is one of Stephen King's (many) book-to-film adaptations and, as any horror fan knows, these can be a 'hit or miss' affair (well, most are 'misses' to be fair).  Now, 'The Langoliers' was never released in the cinema; instead it was a two part TV mini-series (spanning nearly three hours across the two episodes).  It tells the story of a flight where most of the passengers mysteriously disappear, leaving only ten left (luckily one of the passengers happens to be an off-duty pilot, so don't worry about the plane simply dropping out of the sky).  Now, it's up to the ten survivors to figure out what's happened and how they can get out of what follows.

Like I say, it's a 'made-for-TV' movie... and it shows.  If you turned in during the middle your first thought would be how cheap it looks.  Secondly, there's hardly any actors you'll recognise.  Dean Stockwell from 'Quantum Leap' is about the only face you may be able to recall, but that's about it.  Then there's the script... it's not that great.  I don't know whether it's the Z-list cast, or the director who's at fault, but a lot of the delivery is pretty lame.  But what 'The Langoliers' is really famous for is its special effects.  Only they're not that special.  They've actually become famous for being pretty awful.  Let's just say that this film is no 'Jurassic Park' when it comes to computer-generated effects.

So the film has many low points.  And yet I now own it on DVD and have watched it many times, the first being when I accidentally came across it on the TV, only to find myself totally hooked (and I had to wait until the next day to see the concluding part!).

If you like your horror not too grisly and a little on the - deliberately - slow side (and that's 'slow' in a GOOD way!), plus you can forgive its overall cheap feel and TV budget then you should definitely give it a watch.  Its sheer premise carries it and you'll be hooked to find out what's happened.  And, if there is a 'stand-out' performance then it comes from Bronson Pinchot as the delightfully over-the-top nut-case 'Craig Toomy' - I know the movie is nearly three hours long, but he makes it all just fly by!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Chained - Difficult to watch, but worth it

‘Chained’ is never going to be what’s described as ‘mainstream cinema’ – it’s just too damn dark.  To sum it up, a prolific serial killer kills a young mum and captures her young son, keeping him chained up inside his house for what could be the rest of his life.  Therefore, you have two principal characters – the killer and the victim.  It’s a simple premise and could go either way.  Luckily, both characters play their respective parts well and you really don’t know what’s going to happen.

The killer is suitably nasty, giving you one hell of a bad guy to want to see get what’s coming to him.  And the boy – who becomes a teenager in his prison-home – is definitely someone we would all root for.  He’s clearly disturbed from his captivity and therefore not some sort of a$$-kicking hero who can just break out through use of force alone.  But it’s not just the actors who shine, you have Jennifer (daughter of David) Lynch behind the camera.  She turns what could just be simply waiting for the good guy to escape the bad guy into some more.  If the story was less dark and more mainstream, we would all be able to sit back and wait for the inevitable happy ending we’re used to seeing.  However, here we know that anything can happen and we’re never sure whether our hero is going to come out on top, or ever turn out to be the hero we desperately want him to.

Chained won’t be for everyone.  You need a strong stomach as it gets pretty nasty quite often, but if captivity-horror is what you’re into then this will certainly be something you’ll want to watch.  If you know David Lynch’s work you may expect varying levels of Lynchy-weirdness to run in the family, but you won’t find it here.  There are no alternate dimensions to escape into.  You won’t even make it out the window if you try and escape this one!

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

Primal - Reasonable little horror

I must have watched 'Primal' about 5-6 years ago.  I watched it again and completely forgot every last moment of it.  That kind of sums up the film.  You'll probably enjoy it if you're into horror/slasher type movies, but it's unlikely you'll remember anything about it in a few years time (and that's generous!).  In fact... one of the reasons I'm making sure I review it this time around is so that I can remind myself what it was like next time I decide to watch it.

If you've seen one teen-slasher film then you've pretty much seen them all.  Ever since the seventies' 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' was released, the premise of a bunch of teenagers (good-looking, of course!) getting stuck in some out-of-the-way location, only to end up being stalked by anything from rednecks to werewolves.

Here, you're typical bunch of overly-attractive teens happens to be Australian this time rather than American and instead of the mid-west States, they find themselves without cell phone reception in an Australian rain forest while researching some sort of... yeah, I kind of tuned out as to why they were there.  It doesn't matter.  Their presence basically awakens something pretty nasty and they start getting picked off one by one, just like every other teen-slasher film.

If you like the genre and you're not totally tired with the set-up then you could give this one a go.  It's pretty good - for what it is.  Of course you won't remember any of the characters' names during and definitely not AFTER the credits have rolled.  You'll know them only as 'brown-haired guy, slutty girl' and so on.

There are some pretty cool moments such as a stylish fight scene towards the end and something really gross in the final act.  There's quite a lot of gore, but nothing too over the top or anything you haven't seen before.  You'll know who's going to die and who's not when you first meet the characters, so there's nothing here you won't see coming.  Either way, like I say, if you're not bored of this type of film you could certainly do worse.

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

Last Knights - Background noise

‘Last Knights’ is a story about... well, I kind of had to work out the premise as I went along.  It’s safe to say that it’s set in a ‘fictional’ world of make believe.  It’s based on an old Japanese Tale and then imported to a sort of Western culture, only during medieval times, hence the use of ‘knights’ over ‘samurais.’

If you’ve seen the marketing then you can’t fail to miss Morgan Freeman’s face on the front cover.  He’s basically sharing top-billing with Clive Owen, only he’s not really in it for the film’s full duration, leaving any die-hard fans possibly feeling a little short-changed.  The story focuses on Clive Owen, as the leader of a band of knights and their attempts to right the wrongs done to them and their people.

And that’s about it.  I sat through the whole film, watch Mr Owen and co generally chopping up all those who opposed to them and was left pretty neutral.  There’s not much wrong with the film, i.e. Freeman and Owen both turn in reasonable performances, but then there’s nothing I can really say that’s particularly positive about it either.  Yup, there’s action.  The sets are decent and reminiscent of the time period.  And it’s a tale about good triumphing over evil.

The problem is that I’ve seen all that before.  There’s just nothing here that’s original enough to really elevate it.  I’m now struggling to find anything left to write.  It’s that mediocre.  Not bad.  Not good.  You could check your emails or make a cup of tea at any time during the story and wouldn’t miss a thing.  Rent or watch for free before you buy.

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

Quarantine - Decent (but unnecessary) remake

There are two ways of looking at ‘Quarantine.’ The first is that it’s actually the (Hollywood) remake of Spanish classic horror film ‘REC.’ If you’ve already seen REC then you probably don’t need to see the remake. It doesn’t bring anything new to the story and is – almost – a shot for shot remake, albeit in English without the subtitles.

However, if you can’t be bothered watching the Spanish film with English subtitles (and you’re also a bit of a horror/zombie fan) then you may appreciate 'Quarantine.' It’s one of those ‘found footage’ films. This basically means that it’s shot from point-of-view at all times, as we follow a reporter ('Dexter’s' Jennifer Carpenter) as she reports on a fire crew who have been called in to investigate a building late at night. Of course things go horribly wrong when the Government seal off the premises, trapping those left inside with a horde of ravenous zombies.

The zombies are the ‘modern’ type – no George Romero ‘shufflers’ here. Instead, we have the type who run at you while screaming into the camera and doing their best to bite your head off.

It’s worth making mention of the film’s set. It was a purpose-built apartment complex, made specially for the film. Therefore the cast can run pretty much where they like and you get a good sense of their claustrophobic environment. Plus, having a decent leading actress helps elevate 'Quarantine' over the dozens of run-of-the-mill zombie/B-movies out there.

With so many undead movies out there, it’s difficult to get that excited over 'Quarantine.' However, if you’re not (also) totally sick of ‘found footage’ movies, haven’t seen 'REC' and feel like sitting through quite an intense little offering, then you might like to give this one a go.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one