Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) - A solid sequel

‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’ is actually a remake of... well, who cares?  The original film was one of the ‘lesser’ original ‘Apes’ movies and no one really remembers it.  It is however the confirmed sequel to ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ – the movie that officially buried all memories of Tim Burton’s misfire remake of the first 'Planet of the Apes' film.

The movie kicks off about ten years after ‘simian flu’ has all but wiped out the human race, leaving the animal population pretty much untouched – especially the primates.  Now, our super-intelligent chimp from the first film, Caesar, is in charge of the local ape population just outside what remains of San Francisco.  Him and his clan are living peacefully enough (under the mantra ‘ape shall not kill ape’) when they accidentally bump into a patrol of humans, scouting out the area with the view to repairing the local dam in order to restore power to the city.  Let’s just say that the two species never really see eye to eye.

Despite the best efforts from Caesar and his human counterpart, Malcolm, (played by Jason Clarke) neither the apes and humans who they associate with want to get along.  What follows is the gradual build-up from simple tension to outright hostilities between the two species.

If you have haven’t seen the previous film ('Rise of the Planet of the Apes') I would definitely recommend watching that first.  Granted, you will probably understand much of the sequel as a ‘stand-alone’ movie, but it’s best to watch them in order.  That was you can chart the rise of the franchise’s ‘true star’ – the computer-generated ape himself, Caesar.  He’s obviously created digitally, but performer Andy Serkis deserved much of the credit for bringing him to life.  Never has a CGI character been so lifelike and easy to root for.  In many cases, he even eclipses the ‘proper’ human actors.  And, just for a bonus, you have Gary Oldman in there, who, as usual, turns in an excellent performance.

It’s not often that a blatant sci-fi movie can appeal to more than just ‘the guys,’ but I think this new franchises of ‘apes’ movies can be appreciated by quite a wide range of people.  If you’re looking for a sci-fi movie with heart, then you could do worse than the two ‘apes’ films.  Of course it’s not perfect, I did feel it dragged a little prior to the ending – the total run-time is about two hours and I think they could have shaved about quarter of an hour off that.  But, apart from that, I enjoyed it.  Looking forward to the next installment.  No way the film-makers would let the franchise die now!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead - Enjoyed it more the second time around

I’m writing this review after my second viewing of ‘Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead.’ I watched it on DVD when it first came out and, to be honest, it didn’t leave that much of a lasting impression on me.  If you asked me to describe it, I’d probably say something like, ‘Oh, it was about a heist... or something.’

To be fair, that is part of the film.  I don’t know what I started thinking about it years later, but I decided to give it another go.  And I’m glad I did. Yes, it’s about a heist.  Although, the main ingredient in this film is about moral dilemmas.  Two brothers (Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke), both with financial problems, decide to rob their parents’ jewellery store as a way of making a fast buck (while not admitting that they’re heavily in debt – and why).

Naturally, things don’t go their way and both of them find themselves stuck in an ever decreasing spiral as more and more things get out of control.  I won’t go into the actual plot in too much detail, as anything I say will probably spoil the film of you.  However, what is nice is that you can see things from their points of view.  Both men have problems.  Yes, there may be easier (legal?!) ways of getting cash, but both have already gone too far to be able to turn around and utilise legitimate money-making means.  Then, when things start to go wrong, everything happens logically.  You’ll feel for the two men (even if you don’t always like them).  Albert Finney is on the cast list and he does a good job, too.  Although his part is decidedly smaller than his two on-screen sons, but what he does he does well.

‘Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead’ is a slow film.  Maybe when I watched it before I was expecting some sort of ‘action-orientated’ gangster film where people are shooting each other and delivering a witty quip here and there.  It’s nothing like that.  If you’re looking for that sort of experience, look somewhere else.  This film is quieter, subtle and sadder in tone.  It’s also nearly two hours long, but, despite being slow, that’s not a bad thing.

If you’re in the mood for ‘thoughtful’ over ‘thrilling’ give this one a go.  I’m definitely going to watch it again – probably in a few years, but definitely.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Man With the Golden Gun – A good blend of Bond

The Roger Moore Bond era came in for a fair bit of criticism; not only did he have to compete with Sean Connery’s interpretation of the superspy, but, by adding more wry humour to the franchise, people saw his films as too comic to be believable. ‘The Man With the Golden Gun’ is Moore’s second outing and I think it’s possibly the film that bridges the gap between dark and comic, incorporating elements of both, but never leaning directly towards either.

For a start we have no hollowed-out lair for a Persian cat-stroking super villain to reside in.  Instead, we simply have a rival hitman who has his sights set on being the best in the world.  Of course that means removing one 007 in the process.  So it’s far more of a simple premise when compared to the typical plans for world domination that Bond has to thwart on a day to day basis.  Christopher Lee plays the rival hitman, Scaramanga, with typical charm and menace, making him almost appear as Bond’s ‘dark side.’ There’s plenty of near misses between the two in what could be described as a ‘cat and mouse’ type affair until the inevitable climax.

So, the plot is simple and deadly in nature, but it wouldn’t be a Roger Moore Bond film without humour.  As I mentioned, the jokes never really detract from the obvious danger Bond is in at all times.  Scaramanga’s primary henchman ‘Knick-knack’ may be small in stature, but more than makes up for his lack of size in terms of brutality and mischief (sometimes so much so you could be mistaken for watching a David Lynch film as the ‘arena’ set during the duel is pretty psychedelic – and, when you mix it with a cheeky but mysterious dwarf, you have a precursor to Twin Peaks if ever I saw one!).  The jokes hit the mark and about the ‘silliest’ the film gets is the return of Sherriff JW Pepper who some people will most likely find irritating and detracting from the overall story (however, I really enjoyed his over-the-topness!).

So, combine the darkness of the Connery era with some Moore humour and you have a winning combination.  Naturally, you also have the beautiful locations, exciting chase scenes and Britt Ekland as the obligatory Bond girl.  But if you don’t want to get quite as silly as Bond making Tarzan noises while swinging through a jungle (Octopussy), yet don’t want quit the levels of brutality displayed by Connery when he strangles a woman with her own bikini (Diamonds Are Forever) then this is a perfect in between Bond film that should entertain all.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

The Spirit (2008) - Not as bad as you've heard

In short... 'The Spirit' is a superhero movie (and it bombed - majorly).  I know back in 2008 the Marvel Cinematic Universe wasn't quite as 'all consuming' as it is today and superheros were only just beginning to become the major Box Office draws that they are now, but a film about a hero in a mask who fought bad guys was still considered some sort of recipe for financial success.  It never happened here.  And that's a shame.

Personally, I think 'The Spirit's' failure was down to various elements that were nothing to do with the story itself.  I doubt many of the (mainstream) public/audience will have heard of the titular character (I certainly hadn't!), therefore they didn't know what to expect from the film.  All they knew/saw was that the film was made in the same style (and director) as the wildly-popular 'Sin City' - which was a dark and gritty, super-serious tale about comic book gangsters (not quite 'superheroes,' but not far off).  Therefore, I daresay most people thought 'The Spirit' would be in the similar style.  It was, but only in looks - certainly not in content.

It's quite a goofy tale and filled with surreal moments, over-the-top characters and those who are even playing it all for laughs - in the 'blackest' sense of humour possible. 'The Spirit' himself (Gabriel Macht) is former cop who now (thanks to various superhero-type reasons) can't die and has sworn to protect his city, now wearing a mask rather than displaying a badge.  He's fun to watch, seemingly enjoying his turn in the role and the fact that - somehow - he also has the power to make ALL women fall heard over heels in love with him.  He's up against none other than (Marvel heavyweights) Samuel L Jackson (as 'The Octopus') and Scarlett Johansson ('Silken Floss'), who both deliberately never take themselves seriously in their roles.

If you're looking for a dark and gritty superhero film then you'll only find one that looks - on the surface - like that, but underneath is about as serious as your average 'Carry On...' film.  Therefore, I would imagine that when it was originally released no one really knew what to make of it as they were expecting something X-rated and got a black comedy farce.

It may still be a little 'adult' (in terms of comic violence and scenes of a s3xual nature) for all the family, but if you like your superhero films stylish in appearance and full of dark humour then you should do your best to ignore all the negative comments about this film and enjoy it for what it is - a fun, self-knowing romp.

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

The Gingerdead Man - I was hoping for so much more

Now, there’s a school of thought which I call the ‘Snakes-on-a-Plane’ viewpoint – it’s where a film’s title tells you everything you need to know about the story and therefore, if you can’t work out whether you like it or not from that, you don’t really deserve to complain if the movie turns out to be not for you.  So, armed with my love of cheesy and ‘so-bad-they’re-good’ films, mixed with my enjoyment of the horror genre stories and appreciation for Gary Busey, I figured that the low budget ‘Gingerdead Man’ would be right up my street.

I think it’s fair to say that I’m not ‘spoiling’ the film by letting on that Gary Busey plays (mainly be voicing) a killer who’s murdered, but whose soul is sent to that of a gingerbread man (think ‘Child’s Play’ but with pastry instead of a ‘Good Guy’ doll).  Then he returns to reek revenge on those who, er, turned him into something from a baker’s window display.  I expected daft.  I expected ludicrous.  I expected low budget.  I expected a ridiculously over-the-top performance from Busey.  However, I only really got the low budget part. 

Yes, the film’s premise is as daft as it sounds and the budget is so small that the film stock used actually looks worse than you could probably recreate on your iphone.  In fact, the budget appears so small that there’s only really one location used for the whole film – a pretty bland factory.  Not only is the scenery nothing to write home about, but there are only really three cast members.  Now, the problem with this in a ‘slasher’ film is that it doesn’t really give the deranged killer many options with who to kill.  In ‘Scream’ the film would be over in about a quarter of an hour with that few ‘expendable’ characters!  Of course the lack of people to murder also equates into a lack of gore and/or creative kills, so don’t do expecting too much of the ‘red stuff’ here.

Yes, Busey does do his best with the script and adds an air of sheer manic madness to the proceedings, but I just felt that his best wasn’t enough to justify it.  Or, rather an idea this whacky could have been so much better with a bigger setting, cast and (gore) effects.  I could forgive the awful model of the Gingerdead man himself as that seemed to add to the overall silliness.  So, I think I can safety say that I wasn’t as much of a fan of the franchise as I thought I’d be.  Yes – franchise.  Just because I didn’t like it doesn’t mean that other people agree with me.  It seems to have developed enough of a cult following to warrant a fair few sequels, so what do I know?  I just won’t watch them.  I’ll stick to viewing Gary Busey on the UK’s ‘Celebrity Big Brother’ to get a true dose of his madness!

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

Adaptation - A film about flowers (apparently)

Oh, where to begin with 'Adaptation...' It's a film written by Hollywood screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, who then makes the main character himself, only played by Nicolas Cage (playing both Kaufman himself and his twin brother - so you get 'double Cage' for your money!).  Cage plays Kaufman as he struggles to write a screenplay about a woman looking for a rare type of orchid in the swamps of America and the film itself is about Kaufman being unable to write this script.  Can anyone say 'meta?'

If you watched the (beautifully twisted) 'Being John Malkovich' then you'll probably think that you know Kaufman's writing.  However, 'Adaptation' is set in the 'real' world where 'BJM' is actually a movie and referenced in the story. 'Adaptation' isn't half as twisted and koookie (or supernatural) as its more famous predecessor, but what it lacks in its wackiness, it more than makes up for in being generally hard to follow.

That works (and it doesn't).  The plus points are that it's a film that, if you sit down and really go with it, then you'll probably get a lot out of it and enjoy the - difficult - ride.  However, if you're looking for something a little less taxing on the ol' 'grey matter' then this will probably lose you because you'll never know what's meant to be real, what's imaginary and what's somewhere between the two.

Nicholas Cage is great (as both his roles), so if you're a fan then you'll definitely get more out of this.  His role does mean he's actually been forced to dial down his 'larger than life' on-screen personas that he's recently become famous for playing.  I know Meryl Streep is an excellent actress, but I got the impression that her role could probably have been played by many other actresses of a similar age.

It's not a film I think many people could watch multiple times in quick succession (I've only watched it the twice since its release in 2002 - and I probably won't view it again for at least a decade).  If you like fancy films which take a little more concentration to follow then you should like this, however you may feel that sometimes it tries a little too hard to be 'out there' and accidentally disappears up itself with its desperation to try hard to be different to the rest.

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

Juan of the Dead - Shaun has serious competition 

Zombie fans will all have heard - and probably watched - the British zombie romantic comedy, Shaun of the Dead, so, what does Cuba's film industry have to say on the subject?

First of all they're probably not doing themselves or the film any favours by blatantly copying an existing film. People will think it's just a rip off, when it most certainly is not.

Okay, so the two do share some common traits: zombies (obviously), humour, gore, lovable losers fighting to survive etc. However, believe it or not, Juan does stray into enough new territory to make it worth a watch. First of all, it's seriously darker than Sean - the `heroes' make some pretty self-centred decisions along the way (good fun to watch), also the back-drop is different enough to warrant a mention. Gone are the familiar streets of London and instead we see life in Cuba. Whereas Shaun and his mates simply wanted to escape the zombie menace, Juan and his band decide that they're okay with it. They simply lock themselves in their house and start up a new business where they offer to charge people money to kill/dispose of their loved ones!

All in all, if you like dark, gory comedy (and have a thirst for watching the undead in action), give it a go - maybe one day Shaun and Juan can get together over a pint and glass of rum and swap tips on the best way to deal with an undead outbreak.

Oh, and be prepared for subtitles with Juan (they kill the only English-speaking character pretty quickly!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Batman Returns -The dark Dark Knight

Tim Burton’s second 'Batman' film has been largely regarded as the ‘darkest’ of all the Dark Knight’s big screen outings.  In fact, according to many, it was ‘too dark’ and, because of that, somehow less worthy than the other movies.  Yes, the tone is pretty bleak, but, when you compare it to many of the films today (including Christopher Nolan’s 'Batman' trilogy) I can’t really see the problem.


Where some people see ‘darkness,’ I simply see realism.  Yes, people get killed in ‘Batman Returns’ (shock, horror – even good people!).  If that shocks and disturbs you so then you really should stick to watching Disney cartoons where everyone lives happily ever after.

Besides, if you’re contemplating watching 'Batman Returns' then you’ve probably already seen Tim Burton’s first 'Batman' offering, i.e. 1989 smash hit with Jack Nicholson as 'The Joker.' If you haven’t, I’d start with that one first, as it sets the tone nicely for the sequel.  Today’s audiences may be more familiar with Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the ‘killer clown,’ but, back in 1989, Jack Nicholson WAS the Joker.  It was fair to say that he owned the role and whoever followed him in taking on the Dark Knight would have to be pretty damn evil to top him.  Enter Danny DeVito and Michelle Pfeiffer.  I don’t care what Batman’s modern day fans say... I still think Pfeiffer is a better ‘Catwoman’ than Anne Hathaway.  Both of the new villains stepped up to the challenge and scared and slinked their way around the screen at all times.  It's hard to say which villain steals more scenes - Pfeiffer sets every male pulse racing by her feline persona, whereas I don't think I've ever seen an actor enjoy being evil more than Danny DeVito does as 'The Penguin.' It's a close call and they're both awesome on different levels, but I'd have to say that DeVito wins it for me.

With two such great villains you could be mistaken for thinking that Batman himself might be a bit eclipsed (a common complaint about the first film).  However, he too has upped his game (maybe Michael Keaton demanded more screen time and better lines after being so outshone by Jack Nicholson?).  Either way, you’ll be hard put to find anyone letting the side down.

At nearly two hours, 'Batman Returns' isn’t a short film, but it seems to fly by.  Maybe it’s not a ‘family friendly’ movie and it certainly doesn’t have the ‘happy-go-lucky’ feel of today’s modern (Marvel?) superhero movies, but it is one of Burton’s best ‘twisted fairytales’ to date.  It certainly doesn't have the 'action' set-pieces that a modern (again, Marvel?) film has and, despite being dark, does have a real 'comicbook feel' to it.  So if you’re in the mood for something nicely dark with a cracking Danny Elfman soundtrack, give this one a go and don’t go thinking that Nolan’s 'Batman' was the ONLY Dark Knight out there.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Evil Aliens - So bad.  So awful.  So why do I love it so?

'Evil Aliens' is Britain's answer (or rather 'homage') to 'Evil Dead,' only with aliens, obviously.  It's about a camera crew who travel to Wales to film a local's story about how she was impregnated by an alien baby and, once there, they discover that there's more to the country than just a rogue sheep. 

There are no recognisable actors in this film (unless you count the cameo from Norman Lovett from Red Dwarf and even he's hardly on form).  Therefore, the cast appear largely as novices to their profession.  Please don't expect any form of Oscar-worthy performances here.  Secondly, the special effects are pretty hit and miss.  Those created by CGI are pretty below par and akin to something you'd expect to see on the Sci-fi Channel's worst offerings.  However, the effects created by generally ripping people apart and severing limb with garden tools are actually pretty decent (if you like seeing people being run over and splatting under combine harvesters).

With it's poor acting, clichéd dialogue and so-so effects, 'Evil Aliens' is a pretty poor offering.  However, it does have one saving grace.  It KNOWS it's a poor offering.  It never tries to be a great work of art, therefore it does come across as quite 'knowing.' It knows what it is and it never tries to be anything else.  That leaves you to just sit back, put your brain on hold and enjoy watching people being chopped up in as many and varied ways possible.

No matter how bad it gets, the classic scenes just keep coming.  I've already hinted to the combine harvester, but there are also such delights as alien sex, alien 'Jerry Springer' shows, inbred Welsh farmers engaging in a stand-off against psychotic, bloodthirsty monsters and a low-grade dominatrix who just so happens to be an awesome shot with a shotgun.

If you're looking for a deep and meaningful film, you won't find it here.  If you're looking for a fun, gore-fest to generally laugh at how bad it is, then you should appreciate it.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Saw II - Does well (for a sequel)

Sequels rarely live up to the originals.  And in the horror genre that's even rarer.  I reckon that 'Saw' (part I) will always be better, due to its originality and shock value, but its (first) successor does its best to expand on the mythology and give the audience something more.  In short... it's definitely worth a watch if you enjoyed the original.

The first outing could be summed up best by 'two men wake up in a serial killer's lair and try to figure out how to escape.' However, there was far more to the story than just that and the amount of different twists and turns really struck a chord with audiences (that and the amount of 'body horror' that was involved.

'Part II' ups the ante in every sense.  There are more victims in the killer's latest 'lair,' more gore, more traps, more police officers trying to figure out where these hapless people are, perhaps most importantly, more of the killer himself (who was surprisingly not in the first installment very much).  In fact... out of all the characters in the film, it's the killer 'Jigsaw' (Tobin Bell) who steals every scene.

As with the first film, there's more to the story than just a bunch of people trying to escape from some fiendishly fatal death-traps. 'Saw II' does its best to keep the surprises coming and, like the first, you'll only have one chance to watch it without knowing all the plot twists that will be heading your way.

So, if you liked the original then you should enjoy this one, too.  In fact it's almost like these two films could have been written together and filmed back to back.  After this one I only stayed with the franchise for a couple more films as the quality really does go downhill after this one.  For me the 'Saw' franchise was a two-picture deal.

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

Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas - A lot of style and some questionable substance (abuse)

`Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' is one of those films that completely divides audiences. If you check out most of the reviews, they either describe it as a `masterpiece' or `absolute rubbish.' I can see both points of view, as both as technically correct, depending on what area of the film you focus on.

There's a lot right with this filmic interpretation of Hunter S Thompson's novel of the same name. And there's also a lot wrong with it. But, staying with the positive, it's worth noting that the film's directed by one of the most visually stunning directors ever (Terry Gilliam) and if anyone can get a great performance out of a cast, it's him. And he does just that. There are a host of famous faces who pop up here and there as we join to drug-taking journalists on their road-trip through Las Vegas. However, despite all playing their parts perfectly, they're all eclipsed by (Hunter S Thompson's real life friend) Johnny Depp, who is almost unrecognisable (courtesy of a bald head) and steals every scene as the out-of-his-head loopy journalist.

Therefore the film is stylish and well-acted - almost enough to make it a classic in its own right. And some people will only see this and love it. However, those who hate it normally point out that there isn't much in the way of a story. Perhaps this is down to having to complete junkies as central characters. Their exploits are never going to make much sense, let alone be particularly linier. What `story' there is bounces from one mad scene to the next, therefore making it a pretty lame story.

So, if you're happy to overlook what it lacks in the story department and simply enjoy the wild and psychedelic ride that it is (and Depp's brilliant performance) then you will probably see this as a classic.

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

The Last Supper - Biting political satire to die for

Never let it be said that only the British can do political satire. Here we see five (liberally-minded) housemates accidentally kill a right-wing dinner guest, but then start to believe that it may have been for the 'greater good.' Therefore, they start poisoning all those who they believe will cause more harm than good in life - over pudding.

Hardly a topic for comedy you might think, but then what you get is the blackest of black humour imaginable. However, it's not just darkly comic, but it also poses quite a few questions about morality along the way. You'll find yourself agreeing with both sides' points of view at some stage I'm sure.

Plus, all the performances are equally strong - Cameron Diaz in a most `un-Cameron Diaz-like' role, but it's Ron Perlman and Bill Paxton who probably steal their respective scenes (even if Perlman does tend to chew up the scenery a little bit, but his 'larger than life' personality kind of let him get away with this!).  Just a pity neither of them are in the film for as long as I would have liked.  There's a 'mini side-plot' involving the local sheriff which doesn't quite go anywhere.  It was as if the film-makers watched 'Misery' and tried their best to emulate this, but not as well.

Despite the few big names on display here, it's definitely not 'big budget' and I wonder whether it was actually (originally) some sort of stage play before it featured on the big screen (if not... it probably could have been).  If you're looking for a laugh-a-minute comedy with a feel-good vibe to it, then steer clear. However, if you're after something much darker which will make you think, while even raising the odd smile, then give this a go.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Robin Hood (2018) - Weird film.  Weirdly enjoyable as well

I never thought I'd find it so hard to review a film.  Especially when it's simply a 'modern retelling of the Robin Hood tale.' I know every old myth and legend is currently being reworked by Hollywood and most of them seem to fall flat due to people simply being so familiar with the story that they can't be bothered to watch it again, or young enough to only really care about superhero films.

I'd recently watched the (latest) 'King Arthur' film which was also a modern retelling of the old legend.  The critics hated it.  Audiences didn't support it.  And I've completely forgotten it.  Therefore, because it was released at a similar time as 'Robin Hood' both films got lumped together.

When I first started watching 'Robin Hood' I have to say that I didn't like it much.  I checked how long it was (nearly two hours) and felt that I was probably going to turn it off long before the end.  It was just weird.  It played out like a war movie, but with people using bows and arrows.  Then there were Matrix-like fight scenes and characters who you would never think looked like what you'd imagine them to look like.

However, after a while, I have to say the story grew on me.  Yes, it's a completely new take on the legend, but seeing as Robin Hood wasn't a 'real' person, any artistic license can be taken with the source material and no one can really say it's that historically inaccurate.  I read somewhere online that the costume designers were told to make all clothes one part historically accurate and one part futuristic.  And I can sort of see what they meant by that.    The film comes across like 'Lord of the Rings' meets 'Star Wars,' but with people firing arrows on horses.

Taron Egerton plays 'Hood' himself and I do think that he was the glue that held everything together.  He may be young and this film may not be the Box Office success that propels him to true A-list status, but if he can make something as divisive as 'Robin Hood' so enjoyable then I predict he'll go a long way.  I was also surprised to see that the character 'Little John' was played by a man who looked a bit like Hollywood heavyweight, Jamie Foxx.  I was even more surprised when I read in the credits that it really was Jamie Foxx!  If you've seen anything else he's been in you know that he's always worth the money and he certainly went a long way to help the film flow.  Despite Ben Mendelsohn being the Sheriff of Nottingham, he didn't seem to be given as much to work with as some of the other recent roles where he's been allowed to enjoy being evil.  Every other character did what they needed to and the guy who played 'Fryer Tuck' seemed a little too 'comic relief' for my taste, but he wasn't in it that much.

Overall, I'm glad I stuck with it.  In the end I don't really see this as a film about the mythical thief who got famous for stealing from the rich to give to the poor.  Instead, I just see this as an enjoyable action romp with undecipherable locations (certainly don't look like any part of Nottingham that I've ever seen!).  Definitely better than the recent 'King Arthur,' but I doubt it will ever get the sequel it was clearly hoping for.

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

Red Heat - I finally ‘got’ this film

Like many, I became a fan of Arnie in the late eighties/early nineties, however, despite about three viewings of ‘Red Heat’ I never really liked it.  Until now.  My initial disapproval of the film was the ‘lack of action.’ I guess I was too used to the big man mowing down hordes of bad-guys with machine guns, ala Commando, Predator and Terminator.

But, although the action scenes are definitely subdued (when comparing them to Schwarzenegger’s other output), there is actually some in there somewhere.  I guess that ‘Red Heat’ normally gets lumped into Arnie’s other work and so a lot of people call it an ‘action’ movie.  As I said, there are a few shoot-outs and car chase, but ‘action’ is second to its primary genre, which is ‘buddy cop’ film.

When you ignore the lack of cracking skulls and just focus on the relationship between the two mismatched leads, i.e. the tough Russian cop and wacky Chicago detective, then you’ll find this could well be the most perfectly-formed buddy cop movie ever.  The Schwarzenegger and Belushi combo works brilliantly.  Their opposite personas play of each other and Red Heat could almost be considered a comedy rather than an action movie based on how many one-liners there are in there.

Basically, if you’re looking for out and out action, then this movie will probably fall short of your expectations (like it did with me for so many years).  However, if you’re looking for a no-frills buddy cop film that is just simple and effective, then this one will fill an hour and a half of your life.  It’s not ‘classic’ Schwarzenegger, but it does the job.

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

Chastity Bites – probably should have been better than it is

Even since the original ‘Scream’ film back in 1997, it’s been popular for horror films to kind of parody themselves and point out their own clichés while satirising the genre.  Sometimes it works well, as in ‘Cabin in the Woods’ while other times it kind of falls a bit flat.  Here, in ‘Chastity Bites,’ it sadly falls into the latter.  We open in a high school where a clique of (stereotypical, if you’ve seen any teen movie ever – horror, or otherwise) ‘popular’ girls rules the class with their status and, of course, shallowness.  The two – equally clichéd – unpopular girls (who dress conservatively and don’t want to jump into bed with the first high school jock who takes off his football helmet) walk around discussing poetry, philosophy and generally do their best to show us – the audience – how downtrodden and relatable they are.  Then a – clichéd British – villain comes along in the form of a woman who teaches the virtues of chastity to the young, who wants spokespeople to promote her cause.  Naturally, the vacuous ‘popular’ bimbos all sign up (despite their blatant lack of respect for the rules).  However, we quickly discover that this woman has a darker motive and wants to suck the souls of the young (or something).  She’s a baddie – that’s all you need to know and it’s up to the unpopular duo to ‘out’ her terrible scheme.

So, it’s a kind of ‘teenagers versus evil’ kind of affair and, like I say, it kind of knows it’s a bit dumb and does its best to play up to that fact so that it never takes itself too seriously.  It does this by attempting to satirise today’s obsession with beauty and social standing among teens (and in some cases adults!).  This could work, but sadly it’s just not ‘fresh’ enough to really say anything new or in a different way than we’ve already seen before (and better).  Allison Scagliotti (most famous for her awesomely cool performance as ‘Claudia’ in ‘Warehouse 13’) is the lead and she does her best to use her natural quirky charm to good effect.  However, the script just isn’t up to her talent and the jokes start to fall flat while the whole thing descends into predictability.

It may be a young adult horror/comedy, but it’s not really funny enough to be a straight out comedy and there isn’t enough gore to really make it that bloodthirsty.  They even try to throw in one of the most forced love interest sub-plots ever seen in cinema.  The male love interest only occupies a few scenes of screen time and could have been done away with all together and you’d never notice.

You know a film is getting desperate when you see all the visual promotional advertising surrounding the film depicts shots of girls in short ‘fantasy’ schoolgirl costumes.  I can promise you nothing like this ever appears in the film itself!  All together it’s just a missed opportunity to say something worthwhile about a facet of popular culture than needs a bit of mainstream debunking.  Avoid.  You won’t miss much.  Sorry Allison – you were brilliant in ‘Warehouse 13.’

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

The Town – Somehow better than average

There are so many films out there about gangs of bank robbers versus the law that it's hard to come up with anything vaguely different. And, to be fair, 'The Town' doesn't really succeed. Now, although that may sound like a 'down-point,' despite its mediocre premise, it's actually quite good (if you're into gritty bank robbing films, anyway).

Ben Affleck and Jeremy Renner play the lead bank robbers, while Jon Hamm heads up the FBI task force whose job it is to bring this particular gang to justice in Boston, which is - apparently - the city in America with the most bank robberies in the country.

Again, it's weird, but I can't really think of many major plus points. Yes, the lead cast are pretty 'A-list' (plus you have Rebecca Hall, Blake Lively and Pete Postlethwaite) to add to the heavyweights, but the story really is so little new that I don't understand quite why I like it so much!

I hear the original cut was around a massive four hours and director (also Ben Affleck) had to work hard to trim down the final edit to slightly under two hours. You may think that such a drastic loss would mean that it all feels really rushed. But, again, it doesn't.

There's just something about the film that really does work, even though it never really brings much that's new to the table. Personally, I really enjoyed Jon Hamm's performance, but it was Jeremy Renner who received a nod to an Academy Award for his supporting portrayal of a Boston gangster.

If you like your gangster films dark, gritty and - strangely - watchable, then you should definitely give this one a go. At least then if you like it I'll know it's not just me.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Pet Sematary 2 - Not a bad little sequel, even if it’s just for Edward Furlong

Yes, after ‘Terminator 2’ it seemed that Edward Furlong was going to be the next ‘big thing’ in Hollywood.  Unfortunately, due to his own personal demons, that never happened and he’s remembered more as someone who could have had it all, rather than an A-list actor.  However, before he went off the rails, he made ‘Pet Sematary 2’ and it’s not that bad (especially for a sequel).

The original ‘Pet Sematary’ was based on Stephen King’s book of the same name and was a pretty dark and bleak little affair.  The sequel’s tone does its best to follow that, but does tend to succumb to a few clichés which do bring it down a bit.  Edward Furlong and his dad move to the same town where an old Indian burial ground brings anything interred there back from the dead (with the only drawback being that they’re borderline psychotic and largely lethal).  Before long, circumstances spin out of control and every man and his dog is being buried there... and therefore coming back ready to murder anyone that stands in their path.

It’s no classic, but there are a few quite creepy scenes (even if you can tell it’s just someone in a monster mask, it’s shot well enough to be a bit disturbing).  Also, Clancy Brown does stand out as pretty damn nuts as the local lawman.

It’s not as good as the first, as it’s not as bleak, plus I mentioned the clichés – i.e. new family in a town, meets bullies at school and so on.  However, based on the fact that most sequels to horror films are largely not even worth putting on, this one is actually pretty good.

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