Airplane - still funny

There are few films that stand up to the test of time and even fewer that are comedies.  I’m glad to say that ‘Airplane’ is the exception to the rule.  It’s one of those ‘spoof’ films which sacrifices story in favour of joke after joke after joke.  Nowadays, similar humour is applied to spoof movies which lampoon one or two individual films.  Back in 1980 when Airplane was made it was less fashionable to make fun of just one film, instead ‘disaster movies’ in general are the topic of ridicule.  And, luckily, the plot is pretty simple – the titular airplane loses all its pilots (and many of the passengers) to a freak food poisoning accident (just don’t eat the fish!) and a former war pilot, with a questionable track record at the helm of flying machines, must step up to save the day.

You need to know that ‘Airplane’ is hardly ‘highbrow entertainment.’ It never was.  It never will be.  And, most importantly, it was never intended to be.  The film is filled with ‘pratt-falls’ and dumb and silly jokes.  If you’ve watched any of the ‘Naked Gun’ films, or those ‘Scary/Superhero/Disaster/Delete As Applicable’ Movies, then you’ll kind of know the drill by now.  Only Airplane was basically ‘the original’ of this type of film, therefore it’s definitely the funniest!

Part of its appeal is the fact that the film-makers seemed to steer towards casting ‘non-comedic’ actors is as many of the lead roles as they could, meaning everyone plays their parts ‘straight’ and totally deadpan.  Of course the main characters are great, but it’s Leslie Neilson who steals every scene in what was his first comic role on screen (but definitely not his last!).

Airplane isn’t the kind of movie you need to think about.  You just need to be in the mood for something a bit silly (and sometimes irreverent!) to get enjoyment out of this.  Even after over thirty-five years, it still outclasses all those other ‘spoof’ movies.  It is truly the original… and best.

And don’t call me ‘Shirley!’

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Trust - All the more terrifying if you’re a parent

I have to say that ‘Trust’ is a good film, although, if, like me, you’re a parent, you may find it more than a little hard to watch.  It’s a drama about a nice, normal, middle-class American family, whose life is ripped apart when their thirteen year old daughter meets a ‘boyfriend’ online.  It’s fair to say that this ‘boy’ is more of a man, but ‘predator’ may be a better description.

It’s hard-hitting and definitely not a feel-good movie.  In places it’s pretty full on and has received some criticism for taking certain scenes – what some people perceive to be – a little ‘too far’ in the name of making a point.

I found it more ‘horrific’ than most – supposed – horror films, largely because it’s totally believable and sadly very true to most families’ lives, especially those with children who are starting to spread their wings and take a few independent steps online.

Whether you love or hate the film, it’s a story that needs to be told and, more importantly, understood.  Parents need to be aware of who exactly their children may be communicating with online from the privacy of their own bedroom.  While the kids themselves need to be aware that the nice kid they’ve met in chatroom may be anything but who they say they are.

Clive Owen in the biggest name on the cast list and is more than able to carry the film on his own.  Catherine Keener plays his on-screen wife, but, despite being an accomplished actress in her own right, he's not given as much screen time as Owen, or their daughter.  She's the young actress (Liana Liberato) who really is the most believable part of the film and nails what she has to pull off perfectly.

‘Trust’ isn’t suitable for kids – naturally – but, in some ways, I almost see it as a ‘public information’ film about the dangers of internet relationships.  It’s a hard film to watch and, just because it’s not a true story, doesn’t mean that it’s not tragically true.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Man of Steel - The lovechild of the Avengers and the Dark Knight

Now that Marvel superhero films are stealing the limelight at the Box Office and the only (successful) franchise left in the DC stable was Batman, there was a lot of pressure on to ‘reboot’ Superman (or reboot the 2006 reboot which didn’t really hit the mark with fans).

So, seeing as ‘The Dark Knight’ was a more serious and darker take on the Batman legend, they decided to go the same route with Superman and give him the ‘Dark Knight’ makeover.

And, it has worked to a degree. Henry Cavill was definitely the right choice to play the ‘Man of Steel’ and totally nails it in the role. All the other cast members are good, too, but it’s Henry who carries the film. Yes, Man of Steel is darker than the average Marvel superhero film, yet not as dark as the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy. Plus, because Superman’s story/powers are more ‘fantastical’ than Batman’s, it has an ‘Avengers feel’ to some of the (many) action sequences.

As a modern and darker reboot of the Superman legend, it definitely works and fans of the comic shouldn’t be too disappointed with the direction it’s heading. A lot of people weren’t happy with the choice in director (Zack Snyder – 300, Watchmen, Dawn of the Dead 2004), but he seemed to handle the big budget and the various – expected – action scenes. My only gripe was that a lot of the action felt quite computer generated. It would have been nice if it looked as gritty and real as the rest of the film was trying to be. But, overall, I’m looking forward to seeing how the franchise continues.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Gone in 60 Seconds - Gone, but not forgotten

Alas, poor Nicholas Cage, I knew him well... Once upon a time (possibly in Las Vegas) he was a Box Office heavyweight.  Now... well, you can probably pick up one of his latest films from those buckets you find of DVDs for £2.99 in petrol stations.  However, before his decent into depressingly-bad cinema, he made some pretty fun films.  Yes, he’s won an Oscar in his time for his deep and meaningful acting, but you won’t find any of that here.  Just fun.

Nicholas Cage plays (basically) Nicholas Cage – only a Nicholas Cage who used to steal expensive cars, but he's hung up his (stolen) keys and gone on to retire and teach young kids how to go-kart.  However, his loose cannon of a brother steals (or rather doesn’t steal – I forget – it doesn’t matter!) for (or from) the wrong mobster in L.A. meaning Nicholas Cage (the now not-so retired car thief) must put together a crew capable of stealing a load of flash motors in one night or his brother ends up in the car crusher (literally!).

If you like fast cars driving even faster (and, judging by the ‘Fast and the Furious’ franchise a lot of people do) then this one is basically for you.  It’s an action film and it’s pretty much by the numbers, but, when it’s such fun, who cares?

Everyone cranks their performances up to eleven and it all comes across as one of those adorable eighties and nineties ‘over-the-top’ action flicks (yes, I know it was made it in 2000, but it sure feels like a nineties movie) with a real cartoony vibe to it.  You have Christopher Ecleston plays the ‘evil Brit villian’ much like any other evil Brit villains you’ve seen in cinema (he's possibly the weakest of the ensemble cast, as he's hardly given any real screen time, only popping up at the beginning and returning at the end).  Vinnie Jones and Angelina Jolie are also on hand to show their faces, but feel a little underused for what they could have been.

There's a sub plot involving some cops who are on to Cage's scheme (and don't care that he's doing it only to help his brother and just want to bust him at all costs).  But that whole story can be disregarded if you're not into it.

Ultimately, it’s all on Nicholas Cage’s manic shoulders and he does the film proud.  It’s loud, dumb and it’s basically one long car crash that you’ll probably be unable to tear your eyes away from.

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

The Joneses - A thinking comedy

`The Joneses' is an odd mix. It's not that well-known, despite having a cast-fill of recognisable faces heading it. Perhaps it's a difficult film to market, as people might expect an out and out comedy, when what they get is more of a wry satire on modern consumerism in the West.

Without giving away the plot, The Joneses is about - as the saying goes - `keeping up with the Joneses' and what people will do to avoid being seen as a lesser person to their neighbour. The story manages to balance being consistently funny with a scenario that holds up over ninety minutes, while at the same time, makes you think.

David Duchovny is second on the cast list to Demi Moore, but he should definitely do more comedy (his few one-liners in the X-files always added a nice comedic element to Mulder's character). He really gets all the best lines, as she plays the `straight man' to his observations. Their on-screen children aren't as fully developed character-wise as they could have been, but they play their small roles well.

The Joneses may not be an absolute classic, but it is certainly different enough to be watchable and entertaining, while at the same time making you think about a few `what ifs?' If you like satire, then give it a try. It's an undiscovered gem.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra - Doesn’t hold up as well over time

I’m writing this review after none other than my third viewing of ‘GI Joe.’ After I initially watched it, I ever went as far as to buy it.  Yes, I know it’s no work of art, but I enjoyed it enough for what it was –and what it was is a simple, no-frills action movie (mainly for kids, I guess). 

I never actually played with the toys when I was younger, so I can’t say how faithful the film is to the toy-line, but the characters were pretty easy to define as either ‘good’ or ‘evil.’ And I enjoyed it quite a bit, both the first and second time I sat through it.  However, after a third viewing, something didn’t quite sit so well with me.

I know it’s minor, but somehow the special effects just didn’t seem that special any more.  Okay, so I probably could tell that real people couldn’t really jump over (and through) trains on my first two viewings, but this time round everything just came across as too computer-generated – almost to the point of totally destroying what little realism there was in the film.

That said, it was still an okay watch.  It’s pretty much aimed at kids.  The characters are hardly three dimensional and are more ‘cool’ than well-rounded (probably in a bid to sell yet more toys in their likeness).

Like I said... the primary audience is probably young boys, not really fully-grown men like me, but it’s a decent enough story about a terrible tyrant trying to manufacture weapons that will take over the world and a team of special operation good guys who are out to stop him.

Dennis Quid is probably the stand-out of the film, but he’s not young enough to be the star, so his parts – although fun – are limited.  Although, even if you are a fully-grown man, you’ll probably appreciate Sienna Miller’s *ahem* ‘performance’ in the movie (and when I say ‘performance’ I mean costume). 

Whether this is a good film or not, it’ll probably keep the young boys happy on a Saturday afternoon (at least until the new Star Wars films come out).  But could someone explain to me why they needed to cast a British actor to play the President of America?  Surely there are enough American middle-aged actors who could play the small part just fine?

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

Evidence - A mixed bag - you'll either love it or hate it

The `found footage' sub-section of the horror genre is getting more and more overused with every new straight-to-DVD release, so my hopes weren't high when I sat down to watch `Evidence' (a film with a particularly uninspired title).

For the most part, I got what I expected. If you look at comments about the film online, you'll see that pretty much everyone agrees that the first half of the movie is pretty slow and run-of-the-mill. You have four (particularly unlikeable) youngsters who - for whatever reason - decide to film an entire camping trip. So, once you've suspended your disbelief at the constant need for filming every single moment of the trip, you sit back and watch things start to go slowly wrong. Cue mandatory sinister rustling of bushes, running screaming through woods, shaky camerawork, cries of "What was that?" then arguing with the cameraman for his constant shoving of a lens in peoples faces.

So far, so ordinary. However, the second half changes pace. This is the part you'll either love or hate. Some people have even said that it seems like two different films spliced together. The second half is pretty much non-stop action and chasing. Granted there's still a lot of shaky camerawork, covering up for lack of budget, but it's still a decent attempt to add something new to the `found footage' genre.

I would say `Spoilers' here, but there's not much I can tell you as to what (definitely) happens in the second half. There are no `explanations' as to what's going on. You get a good idea of what they've stumbled upon, but no one ever sits down and lets you know the exact whys and hows of what's happening all around them. This too, you'll either love for its vagueness or hate because you're left in the dark.

If you like `found footage' movies, then this has a chance of being up there with the best of them, but that will largely depend on your feelings towards the second half (and ability to ignore the film's ripping off of 28 Days Later and Attack the Block).

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

The People vs Larry Flynt - Interesting ‘opinion piece’

It’s a bit of a cliché to say that you’ll either ‘love or hate’ the film ‘The People vs Larry Flynt,’ but the reason I open with such a phrase is largely down to the source material, i.e. real life.  It’s a semi-biopic picture which tells the story of self-titled ‘King of p0rn’ Larry Flynt and his rise to power, largely with the (in)famous adult publication ‘Hustler.’ I suppose how much you enjoy the film comes down to how much you see things from his point of view.  It does portray him in quite a sympathetic light (largely for the first half!) so, if you’re very ‘anti-adult publications’ then you’ll probably see him as an modern day devil in human form, hell bent on corrupting the morals of the nation.  However, if you’re more liberal in your reading material then you’ll probably tolerate Woody Harrelson’s performance for longer.

I mentioned that he’s effectively the ‘hero’ (although I should probably call him an ‘anti-hero!’) for the first half of the film.  I suppose it’s because he gets slowly more hardened and cynical before finally developing an attitude which generally feels like he’s at war with the world and simply wants to annoy everyone he comes into contact with (mainly judges!).  This is the point in the story where even his most die-hard supporters start to lose patience with him, for he becomes a little unlikeable, which can go some way to impact on your enjoyment of the film.

As if the characters weren’t controversial enough, the film-makers even chose one of the most controversial figures of the modern age to co-star, i.e. Courtney Love.  She plays Larry Flynt’s ‘love interest’ and opinion – naturally, it seems – is divided on how successful her (arguably) biggest on-screen role turned out.  One school of through is that she was amazing as the drug-fuelled woman in Larry Flynt’s life, others simply say that she was merely playing an extension of her true self.  Special mention to Edward Norton who – amazingly – gets overshadowed by the more ‘larger than life’ performances in the film.  He’s probably the most ‘sympathetic’ character among the batch as he plays Larry Flint’s long-suffering lawyer who is left practically tearing his hair out in frustration when it comes to his client’s antics.

As far as I can tell, ‘The People Vs Larry Flynt’ is a pretty accurate depiction of the events in the p0rn baron’s life, so if you think you need to know about the way the law attempted to ‘protect’ the public against the world’s seedy underbelly then give this one a go.  The performances are all spot on and whether you like the film will go hand in hand with how much you’re interested in the history of the subject matter and how much you can tolerate slightly infuriating on-screen characters. 

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Father of Invention - Better than average (in my opinion only)

I was quite surprised at all the ultra negative reviews regarding `The Father of Invention.' Okay, I'll admit it isn't Kevin Spacey's finest film and obviously it isn't up to the standards of ‘American Beauty,’ but I found it had a certain amount of charm to it.

Spacey plays a slick `infomercial' salesman who ends up getting his good-life taken away from him when he goes to jail, thus leaving his wife and daughter high and dry. Fast forward eight years and he's released and desperate to make amends (not to mention lots of money).

It's not the most original of stories and you can probably predict the ending, but it is Kevin Spacey in the lead role and, slightly dubious script or not, he still lends plenty of heavyweight kudos to the whole affair. It's definitely a comedy/drama. If you're expecting a `laugh-a-minute' affair then you'll be sorely disappointed, but I found it had enough humorous moments to keep me happy.

I guess the main gripe I can see surrounding this film probably comes from Heather Graham’s character.  She plays a housemate of Spacey’s daughter… and she’s a lesbian.  The reason I mention this is because – as every film fan knows – the film-makers obviously felt that Spacey’s tale of redemption was not enough.  Apparently, it needed a ‘love interest’ as well.  And, if you’re asking, ‘How can a lesbian be Spacey’s love interest?’ then you’re probably not the only one.  In short… many negative reviews make note of the fact that a ‘lesbian’ (notice the quote marks?) can supposedly be ‘turned back’ by the right guy.  I guess they have a point there.

Like I say, predictable ending and plenty of `lessons' to teach us, but if you're still a fan of Kevin Spacey after his recent off-screen drama, it should remind you of what he should be known for, rather than his private life.

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

Thirteen - I must have led a sheltered childhood (thankfully)

'Thirteen' is the story of two (you guessed it) thirteen year old girls, growing up in Los Angeles. One (Tracey) is growing up `the right way,' i.e. she studies hard and is generally nice, whereas the other (Evie) is too mature for her own good, engaging in all sorts of illegal vices (I'm sure you can guess what they entail). However, she's also thought of as both `popular' and `cool.' Therefore Tracey is drawn into her world and things start to spiral out of control from there.

You can probably take a shot at what out of control thirteen year old girls get up to when they're left to their own devices, so I won't dwell on that. Instead, I'll mention some of the criticism the film got - namely that too much happens too quickly. That may be true. In real life perhaps all these tragic events wouldn't happen all at once and to only one person (think `Kidulthood'), but this is a story after all and it would probably be a lot less interesting if the worst thing that happened to Tracey was that her dog ate her homework. Secondly, people have said it exploits the underage female actresses. They may have a point on that one, but then so do the filmmakers, who clearly aren't afraid of shying away from what kids actually get up to.

'Thirteen' is pretty hard-hitting. It's one of those films that's about kids, but you certainly wouldn't want to let your children watch it.

If it teaches us one depressing lesson, it's that people who appear nice are usually not. I found this the most realistic part of the whole film. Evie is - on the surface - lovely. She's polite to adults, always has the right answer for everything and isn't afraid at lying and dropping someone else in the brown stuff to cover her own despicable actions. Unfortunately, I have met a fair few people like that in life. They're poison and they need pointing out so others don't fall for their act.

Don't expect all sweetness and hugs from these girls. It's pretty powerful stuff and you have to be in the right mood to watch a film like this.

I'm just glad I was playing on my Megadrive at thirteen and not on the streets of L.A.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Last Showing - Alas poor Robert, I knew him well

Like most horror fans, people will know Robert Englund best for his portrayal as spikey-fingered immortal nut-job, Freddy Kruger.  No doubt about it – he was great.  Whether he was darkly evil in the first few films, or comically evil in the franchise’s dying days, he always turned in a good performance.  Which is pretty much why I gave ‘The Last Showing’ a chance.  I wish I hadn’t.

It’s about a couple – the girl from The Inbetweeners 2 and one of the guys from Game of Thrones – who watch a midnight screening of a horror film, only to find that the projectionist (Englund) is intent on making his own – murderous – movie.  Sounds good.  And, to be fair, the PLOT is.  In fact, it could have been so much more.  As it is, the two ‘good’ leads are pretty damn awful.  Now, I’m guessing this isn’t the actors’ fault, as I’ve seen them both in the afore-mentioned shows and they’re both capable of turning in decent performances.  They just don’t here.

I cringed when they were first introduced as they wandered around the empty cinema, spouting *supposedly* knowing social commentary on the state of horror/slasher films in general.  Tip to film-makers: just because it worked well in the ‘Scream’ franchise, doesn’t mean it’ll work every time.

By the time Englund goes off the rails and starts torturing them, we’re almost on his side.  After all, he is – by far – the best performer in the movie.  And he’s the nut-job baddie.  If you’re a massive fan of Englund, you’ll probably get more than most out of it.  I did enjoy watching him, it’s just he wasn’t in it enough to really save it from being anything other than a – questionably-acted – B-movie.

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

Terminator: Dark Fate - Same old story, but is that so bad?

I think it's fair to say that most people (in the sci-fi/action/horror community) loved the original 'Terminator' in 1984.  However, no one was prepared to witness a sequel in 1991 that was actually EVEN BETTER than the original in 'T2 Judgement Day.' With a pedigree like that, the studio must have thought they had a franchise designed to print money.  And it did.  Sort of.  Yet, with all its sequels, it never quite made the dizzy heights of the first two installments.

With 'Terminator: Dark Fate' we now join the story directly after 'T2' (meaning 'Rise of the Machines, Salvation and Genysis' are all now 'redundant' - or possibly now confined to different timelines.  Whatever.  Anyway, the ass-kicking heroine of T2 is back, Sarah Connor.  Yes, she's a lot older now, but then so is Arnold Schwarzenegger and they're both aging as well as they can.  However, a few wrinkles doesn't affect their performances and the true reason any Terminator fan wants to see this film is simply to see the pair back on screen together one last time.

And it's worth the wait.  Arnie doesn't come into the film until about half way through.  I would say that this is a negative, but at least the first half had Linda Hamilton to hold its credibility up.  Then, when the two of them get together, we're truly back in business.

Those who watched Terminator 1/2 will know that the pair (and Sarah's son John Connor) saved the future of mankind from a face of cyborg killers from the future.  And everyone lives happily ever after.  Only they didn't.  For two reasons.  Firstly (and I hope this isn't too much of a spoiler) our beloved 12 year old John Connor (through the magic of de-aging technology) is mercilessly gunned down and murdered.  No matter, as the future has already been changed.  Only it hasn't.  Or at least not that much.

Later, a new artificial intelligent threat known as 'Legion' starts picking up where Skynet left off and sends more Terminators back through time in order to pick off prominent humans.  Luckily for our aware future leaders, the future resistance also sends back a protector for the unlucky target.  So, 'Dark Fate' really is just a rehash of practically every Terminator film that's gone before it (minus 'Salvation').  In fact, you could probably liken every scene in any previous Terminator film to any one in 'Dark Fate.' I know that some people would call this 'homage' while others would say it's purely ripping off a superior film.  Then, of course, the conspiracy theorists will say that the numerous homages to films past is purely to instill a sense of nostalgia in us so that we don't think of 'Dark Fate' too harshly.

I enjoyed it.  Or rather I enjoyed Linda Hamilton and Arnie back together.  Mackenzie Davis is the augmented human sent to protect the young girl destined to save the world and, from what I'd seen of her in the promotional material, I thought I wouldn't like her.  However, I was proved wrong.  She wasn't half as much of a 'Mary Sue' as I thought she'd be.  Also, the new bad Terminator (or 'Rev 9) I think they called him) was okay.  He did look a bit like a man who worked in an Apple store for most of the film, but he was just about threatening enough.  I'd rank him behind Arnie, Robert Patrick, the female one from 'Rise of the Machines' and the other T-1000 from Genysis.

I was enjoying most of it, but the only real 'downside' it had was Natalia Reyes.  She just didn't do it for me as the future leader of mankind (or should it be 'womankind?').  She's supposed to be the new John Connor, i.e. the person who will lead the human race to ultimately fight the machines of the future, yet the actress looked like she belonged in some sort of teen drama.  When she had to hold a gun it practically drawfed her and the lines she was given to say didn't help as they came across as way too corny and forced.

Plus the special effects didn't see that special in places.  When the bad Terminator has to move quickly he jumps are way too fluid to bee believable.  Plus there are some major action set pieces like where a big fight takes place in a giant milatery plane that's crashing down.  Personally, I couldn't tell what was going on in that scene, nor the one that followed straight after where the battle takes place underwater.

Overall, if you're a long term fan of the franchise they you'll get your money's worth simply from having Arnie and Linda back on screen together.  However, it's only really the old characters you'll really care about.  I'd have preferred they kept John Connor alive and he went on the adventure with them.  Really, 'Dark Fate' is just a reboot of T2.  Yeah, there's plenty of 'fan service' for us to enjoy, but ultimately the plot of a 'Terminator' movie hasn't really progressed since 1984 (minus the blip of the under performing 'Salvation.'

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

In Fear - Seen it all before (and better)

This film is low budget. The most telling sign is that it is primarily about two characters. A (sort of) boyfriend and girlfriend) are on holiday in Ireland and end up getting trapped in the countryside and pursued by whatever the Irish equivalent to your average redneck in the American versions of these sorts of films are.

Anyway, if you only have two characters for most of the film then they have to be very interesting and engaging. Sadly, this couple isn’t. They’re your average couple and that’s the problem – they’re just average. And ‘average’ doesn’t really turn a tired and old cliché of a story into something worth watching.

Our heroes fall foul of the locals and end up getting chased and threatened and... and, if you’ve ever seen a horror movie, you’ll guess the rest. And, if you can guess what happens in a film, then you probably don’t really need to watch it.

It’s not the worst film ever made; it’s simply not original enough to make it stand out over the thousands of similar films. If you’re really desperate to see what a horror/chase movie looks like in Ireland instead of the middle of nowhere in the USA then watch this, otherwise, there are much better on offer.

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

Outpost: Rise of the Spetsnaz - It does the job (just)

The first ‘Outpost’ film was a classic (well... a classic in the B-movie horror genre).  However, the second part was totally unnecessary and not even worth trying to watch.  Here we have the third instalment of the franchise.  And it’s a prequel/origins movie.  But don’t worry if you haven’t seen parts 1 or 2.  It also works as a stand-alone affair.

It’s set in 1944 on the ‘Eastern Front’ where Russian commandos are raiding German bases.  While doing so, they only go and discover that those dastardly Nazis are trying to resurrect the dead and turn them into ‘super soldiers.’ Naturally, the Nazis don’t plan on letting this little secret get out and capture our Vodka-swigging heroes, leaving them to escape from the undead-ridden facility.

Okay, so the plot isn’t going to blow your mind, but then the film isn’t either.  It’s average.  There’s not much else to say, but, if you need reasons, I’ll mention that the you won’t care too much for the characters.  The Russian heroes are tough, grunting macho men with no real depth, therefore you can hardly really relate to them.  The Nazi commander of the base is a little too campy for the role.  It’s a gritty and serious film and he comes across like a cackling Bond villain.

Nothing much happens in the first twenty-five minutes, but, if you stick with it, at least you’re rewarded with some violence and zombie-killing fun.  Its strengths are that it’s suitably violent and well-shot so as to make the most of the bleak and gloomy setting.  And it’s not that long either, so, once the twenty-five minutes are over, it moves swiftly for the rest of the duration.

But, ultimately, it’s nothing new.  And that’s its major flaw.  You’ve probably seen plenty of zombie movies.  And many of them are better.  Therefore, do you really need to watch another one?  If you think the ‘Nazi element’ may make it different, just stick to Outpost (1) which is head and shoulders more fun than this.  Or, if you can put up with subtitles and a lighter tone, try Dead Snow for a really gory and light-hearted approach to killing dead Nazis.  Outpost 3 is just too little too late.  You probably won’t hate it, but you probably won’t remember it by this time next week.

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