Inseparable - Silly, predictable, but also quite fun

Kevin Spacey. Do you like him? If so, you should probably like this film because, like so many of his films of late, he basically carries the whole affair. That's not saying the other actors are bad (they're all quite good, actually), but it's just that Spacey has the best part, therefore all the best lines to go with it.

It's about a young man who's basically having a bit of a breakdown - his job and marriage are both in turmoil, but things start looking up when he meets his neighbour, Spacey, who gives him some radical advice on taking charge of his life. Before long, the pair are donning costumes and looking for trouble.

It's also a bit of a mind-bender. Don't expect it to be an easy ride when it comes to near the end and the frequent use of subtitles will mean you have to pay attention at all times.

It's not the most original of films (in fact there's a very famous film starring Brad Pitt that it - loosely - reminded me of, but I won't say which as it might give away important plot points). However, Spacey is as good as ever and it's a watchable way of spending an hour and a half. It's not a classic, but you shouldn't feel too disappointed.

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

The Warrior's Way - Way better than it should be

Sometimes a film has everything going for it on paper and yet somehow manages to mess itself up. 'The Warrior's Way' is actually the opposite.  Nothing really should work here and yet it all falls together to make a highly-watchable film.

Dong-Gun Jang is the titular 'warrior,' but don't feel too bad if you haven't heard of him as - apparently - this was his first Hollywood film.  He plays an oriental fighter who leaves his native land in disgrace when he finds he's unable to kill the infant heir of a rival clan.  It goes without saying that the story takes place in the past - this sort of thing doesn't happen that much these days (hopefully!).  So he heads to the 'Wild West' of America where he settles down in a tiny desert town and looks after his (adopted) daughter.  Unfortunately, the clan who he fell foul of has other ideas and follow him over.

However, don't expect wall-to-wall martial arts action from the off.  I hope it's not too much of a 'spoiler' to say that all these evil ninjas don't follow him straight away, leaving plenty of time for our hero to get to know his new townsfolk.  And, if you see any of the marketing surrounding this movie you'll notice that the cast who have obviously been classed as 'more familiar' to our Western audiences take prominent positions, namely Kate Bosworth, Geoffrey Rush and Danny Huston.  They're all good, but only get top billing due to most people not knowing who Dong-Gun Jang is and that's a shame for him as he's more than capable of headlining a film like this.

Don't worry, there's plenty of great action thrown in there, but also a suprising amount of character development thrown in.  A lot of people have mentioned how 'CGI' it looks.  Oddly enough, I'm one of those people who hates computer-generated special effects and finds that - sometimes - too much of them can completely ruin a film for me.  However, here they just seem to work.  And they don't come much more excessive that in 'The Warrior's Way.' I doubt there were more than a couple of sets built for the entire production, as almost all the backgrounds are done (or looked like it to me!) on a green screen.

So, despite looking much like a hour and a half long Playstation 2 cut-scene, the film actually jogs along nicely.  There's humour, fun, characters you'll care about and obviously a couple of evil baddies who you'll want to see get what's coming to them.  If you like your martial arts films on the light-hearted side and have a strong tolerance to CGI effects then this is definitely worth a watch.

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

The Martian – Matt on Mars

Okay, I’ll admit it – I’m not a huge Matt Damon fan.  I can’t get that impression of him from ‘Team America: World Police’ out of my head (if you’ve seen the film you’ll know the one I mean!).  Therefore, when I heard that ‘The Martian’ was about him being an astronaut stranded on Mars, my initial reaction was… oh, well, never mind.  However, after watching the film, I’m still no real convert for Matt himself, but I can say that the film is actually pretty good.

It’s been getting quite a lot of praise heaped upon it and, although I did enjoy it, I’d hardly liken it to the classic that some people are hailing it as.  As I’ve said, Matt Damon is part of the first manned mission to Mars and, when a freak sandstorm hits, his crew are forced to perform an emergency evacuation, stranding him there in the process.  I knew that going into the film and actually expected it to be only about Matt Damon, hardly ever featuring anyone else.  I was pleased to say that the scenes on the red planet are constantly interspersed with those back on Earth as the rest of the world (well, Nasa mainly) is tasked with the solution to finding him a way back home.  But, ultimately, it’s Matt’s show and it’s mainly about him.  And, I’m pleased to say he comes across as a likeable guy to be stuck on – technically – an alien planet with (at least from an audience’s perspective anyway!).

So, he goes about his business doing his best to survive with the limited resources he has to hand.  It’s nice to see a film where it’s actually quite dramatic without the need for all those other – apparent – nasties that Mars has spawned.  Matt Damon’s life is difficult enough staying warm, without worrying about green bug-headed aliens in flying saucers, ghosts who possess your body and force you to self-mutilate, or borderline fascist corporate men in suits who want to keep the air for themselves in order to stay in power.

I should probably mention that it’s directed by Ridley Scott who, when he’s not doing weird things to the ‘Alien’ franchise, still has it when it comes to directing epic landscapes and beautiful scenery.  Also, it’s originally based on a book of the same name; I haven’t read that (I barely have time to watch a two hours film, let alone read words!) so I can’t really comment on how faithful this adaptation really is.

It’s hard to say too much more about this film.  It’s a nicely-simply affair and the threat comes from the harsh environment Matt Damon is stranded in, rather than the afore-mentioned other filmic nasties from Mars.  Okay, so there’s a little conflict with the other characters back on Earth with how they deal with the ‘political’ fallout that stems from effectively blasting off from orbit and not bothering to check whether one of your people was still planting potatoes!  Plus, when I saw the run-time was over two hours I did wonder whether it would hold my attention and I’m pleased to say that it did.  I’d definitely watch this again, maybe not soon, but it’s worth a second watch at some point.

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

Snatch - Lock stock and a much more A-list cast

It’s widely regarded that Guy Ritchie’s first film, ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ is pretty much a classic modern British gangster film.  Therefore, much was riding on the – er – ‘sequel’, simply titled ‘Snatch.’ Now, first of all, it’s not a sequel, although some people may think it felt like one.

Alternatively, if you’re feeling even less charitable, you could even call it a ‘remake’ (or ‘soft reboot’ as has been used post ‘The Force Awakens’).  Because, even diehard fans (of which I confess to being one) have to admit that it’s basically the same story as Lock Stock, with basically the same characters, shot in basically the same style.  Only with Brad Pitt thrown in there (and he’s awesome).

So, despite a fair amount of cynicism associated with Snatch, it’s actually pretty damn good.  Yes, it is a slight copy of Lock Stock, but, when a film was so perfect as Lock Stock, it’s difficult to hate anything that replicates it so well.  To use another term, Snatch feels like it’s set in a ‘shared universe’ (only with gangsters instead of Robert Downey Jr).

The characters, despite most being copies of its filmic predecessor, are still pretty memorable – despite Vinnie Jones and Jason Statham playing almost the same roles as before and the evil mob boss not really straying far from type, we also get a trio of hapless pawn store owners, a Russian hit man who just won’t die and Brad Pitt.  Did I mention he’s in it?

Brad Pitt is the standout for me.  Too many times he’s been written off as a pretty face only, but (as with ‘Kalifornia’) he proves that he’s as good at acting as he is looking (and I sort of hate him for that, but still...).  He steals every scene he’s in as the hard-as-nails gypsy bare-knuckle boxer and has everything from the mannerisms to the accent down perfectly.

If you like gangster films of any nationality then you have to watch Snatch.  Yes, it may not be quite as original as Lock Stock, but it’s still worth a place in anyone’s DVD collection.

Pity about ‘Revolver’ though.  Don’t know what happened there.

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

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - The best (modern ) British gangster movie

Yes, we all know that Guy Richie married Madonna and, ever since then, many considered that the quality of his work somehow suffered.  However, long before the ‘Material Girl’ entered his life (and his films even had – unsubtle – hints towards her music) he made films like ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.’ And they were good.

Okay, so you’ll probably have to be okay with gangster films in general, not to mention plenty of foul language, unlikeable characters, excessive violence and probably some more bad language.  If you can overlook all of those then you’ll probably enjoy Lock Stock.

They say that the simple ideas are the best and normally they’re right.  However, Lock Stock is anything but simple.  Yes, the story is primarily about four lads who get in deep debt with a particularly unsavoury character, but that’s only a small portion of it.  There are numerous characters, each with their individual storylines.  It just so happens that all of these storylines are somehow relevant to the central story and they all come together perfectly (and possibly violently).  Along with the violence, language and nasties, you have to be prepared to concentrate.  If you don’t, you’re likely to miss something vital to the plot and lose track of what’s happening.

But, if you do, you’ll be rewarded by one of the most darkly comic, twisting tales of backstabbing and double-crossing.  And, like I said, it’s damn good.

I won’t go into the plot too much, simply because it’s pretty complicated, but mainly because I wouldn’t want to spoil it for anyone.   There’s so much to be enjoyed about this film, you really have to experience it for yourself. 

Not to mention it contains the first ever on-screen appearance of Jason ‘The Stath’ Statham.  What more could you want?  You want more?  What about the first ever appearance of ex-footballer Vinnie Jones in a role that was simply made for him?  It has that, too.  You really can’t ask for more (unless you want to see someone executed with a s*x toy, but then it has that, too).

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

Wind Chill - Good 'character horror'

If you're expecting a 'horror' movie involving tonnes of blood and guts flying around the screen, courtesy of an army of undead ghouls or a man in an ice hockey mask, then this is definitely going to be a let-down.  Yes, it is a horror film, due to the 'supernatural' threat element that our protagonists have to face, but it's definitely in the 'slow burner' category, utilising the two main leads' ability to build up tension and, possibly more importantly, character.

Emily Blunt wasn't quite as well known as she is today, but even when she was starting out in Hollywood she was definitely able to prove that she was leading lady material, as, even without the help of her male co-star (Ashton Holmes), she's capable of carrying the film on her own.  The pair play a couple of university students who share a car across country to drive home for the holidays.  Unfortunately, they fall foul to a car accident and are forced to survive in the wilderness, soon finding that they aren't as alone as they first thought they were.

As I mentioned in the title, it's a 'character piece.' Much of the film is dialogue between the two as we slowly learn more and more about them.  In the hands of lesser actors (or a lesser script-writer) the movie could have been quite dull, however, due to the excellent leads, all talking in nicely snappy and moves their development along nicely.

I won't go into what they have to face out in the icy snow, but it's definitely an experience that neither will forget and offers them both the chance to face more than just some supernatural fears, but also some of their inner demons.

It's a 'simple' film with - basically - a single location, i.e. the car's crash sight and the story is about the two people and whether they'll make it through the night.  I enjoyed it and it's definitely a horror film you can easily enjoy if you're in the mood for something a little slower and tension-filled, rather than gore-filled.  If there is a negative I could find about it, it's that the 'back-story' behind the threat they have to face seems a little crowbarred in.  It could probably have been left up to the audience's imagination and we could have come to the same conclusion without the need for flashbacks.  Otherwise, a nice solid film and definitely one for Emily Blunt fans.

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

Alien Raiders - Nice little B-movie

The only thing you need to ask yourself when deciding whether or not to watch a film called ‘Alien Raiders’ is… do I like the sound of a film called ‘Alien Raiders?’ If the answer is ‘Yes’ then you’ll probably get something out of it. However, if the answer is a, ‘No – that sounds like one of those cheap B-movies you see in baskets at petrol stations for £3,’ then you’re probably better off passing this one by.

It’s one of those films like ‘Snakes on a Plane’ where you basically know what you’re getting from the title. It’s about a group of aliens (who look human to save on special effects) who are tracking down a bad alien and take a group of humans hostage in a supermarket while they try and figure out who’s infected.

It starts off slow, but picks up pace about half way through. And then it becomes a reasonable little B-movie. So, for anyone with a taste for sci-fi who isn’t expecting ‘Avatar-like’ special effects, you may just get an hour and twenty minutes (cheap) amusement out of this.

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

Wake Wood - Pet Sematery: UK-style

Yeah, in almost every review of 'Wake Wood' there's a mention of Stephen King's 'Pet Sematery,' so I figured I'd get my reference out of the way early.  I guess there's a reason everyone compares the two as the basic premise is exactly the same, i.e. a couple lose a child in a horrific accident and go to supernatural lengths to bring their loved on back.

And, if that sort of slow-moving family horror appeals to you (and you haven't seen the Hollywood version!) then you'll probably like it.  However, if - like me and so many others - you've grown up with 'Pet Sematary,' this film just feels like it's - mainly - retreading old ground.  But it's not bad.

The performances are all fine.  The child at the centre of it all could be awful (based generally on child actors in horror movies!), but is perfectly fine, leaving the bulk of the acting to be carried on the adults around her.  For any of you 'Game of Thrones' fans out there, the leading man in none other than 'Littlefinger' from the TV series, Aiden Gillen.  I have to say I enjoyed his performance here (as well as his now more famous role) and his character goes through the most 'development' in 'Wake Wood' (although I won't mention how due to possible 'spoilers').  Timothy Spall is the 'acting heavyweight' on the cast list who adds a little more 'gravitas' to the film and, although his part is more of a 'back-up' character he's a solid addition.

If you're hoping for a gruesome horror than you'll be sorely disappointed.  There isn't much gore here, therefore there's never much need for high budget special effects.  The scenery deserves a mention as the countryside is indeed beautiful and adds to the film's overall bleak and cut-off feel.

It's a slow burner and, although nothing spectacular, anyone who hasn't seen 'Pet Sematary' should get a lot out of it.  For those of us more familiar with the Hollywood incarnation, we'll probably end up sticking with that, but there are still a couple of plot twists that even hardened horror buffs might not see coming.

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

Red State - Depressingly charmless (sorry Kevin)  

From the cheeky chappie who brought us such happy-go-lucky feel-good movies such as Clerks, Mallrats and Chasing Amy, Kevin Smith now brings us Red State - a horror about three geeky teenage boys who get abducted by a bible-bashing cult in middle America.

First of all it becomes clear that there's not going to be any humour in this one (and don't expect to see Jay and Silent Bob turning up to crack a couple of witticisms), but that's okay - I've seen my fair share of what I believe they call `torture p*rn' and I there is a market for it. That's how the first third of the movie sets itself up as - three guys about to be killed (ala Hostel) by a cult. I found that a fair premise and was happy to watch on. Then it all sort of fell apart and went all over the place.

The story doesn't seem to know who it wants to stay with - the hostages, their captors, or the incompetent police force sent to `rescue' them. John Goodman is decent enough as the leader of the police (or ATF to be precise), but he sort of takes over the last half. Also, baring in mind that Kevin Smith directed it, the direction is naturally good.

Red State will find a market - there are enough people to like this sort of film. It just didn't do anything for me. I've seen better and at least I managed to care something about the cast (as I found most of this lot pretty unlikeable). Plus there was a scene with the preacher in the first half that just went on too long - he was preaching a sermon and I ended up fast-forwarding it. Also (personal gripe) they upset a small child for no real reason near the end (or rather the child looked pretty upset - I'll give them the benefit of the doubt if they somehow managed to get the little toddler to act that upset).

Overall: had a few good points, but not for me.

(Kevin Smith still rocks though - come back Jay and Silent Bob!)

4/10 Dumb and Dumber could understand this film

Death Becomes Her – Still holds up

I don’t know why, but I never seem to hear much about 1992’s ‘Death Becomes Her’ when it comes to much talked about movies of yesteryear.  Maybe it was because it spanned many genres and was only a ‘modest hit’ at the Box Office.  However, I really enjoyed it when it was first released and every time I revisit it on DVD it seems as fresh, enjoyable and relevant as it was back then.

Meryl Streep steps out of her usual acting comfort zone and portrays an aging (and not particularly talented!) actress who is struggling to remain in the public eye and resorting to ever more plastic surgery to retain her youth.  And, as if she wasn’t already a particularly unsympathetic character, she also seems to take great delight in stealing every man her ‘best friend’ (Goldie Hawn) brings before her and even ends up marrying Goldie’s latest – a plastic surgeon (coincidentally!), played by an equally out-of-character Bruce Willis.

Don’t expect Mr Willis to be chucking any German terrorists out of high-rise buildings here.  It seems he wanted a brief stint away from dying (hard) in favour of a more humourous turn when the two women in his life start dabbling in the supernatural in order to live forever.  I mention him the most because he really does seem like he’s having real fun sending himself up and relishes in his exaggeratedly crazy performance.

First of all, I’d say it’s a comedy, but seeing as the supernatural is such an integral part of the plot, it sort of spans ‘horror’ and even ‘drama’ when it comes to which genre it fits into.  Obviously, with such a stellar trio of acting heavyweights in the lead, all three take their respective turns in the spotlight and play off each other perfectly.  You’ll love them and hate them whenever the story requires you to do so.

There are even a few special effects that are required.  These do seem to have not held up as well as the acting/comedy/drama and you can definitely make out a blue screen here and there.  But then seeing as the performances and laughs are so good, I’m sure most people will find it in themselves to be a little forgiving on this one.

I won’t go into the plot too much, as there are probably some elements in there that you might not see coming.  If you believe what you read about the production online, you’ll see that it went through a fair few rewrites and the final product does seem a little all over the place at times in terms of narrative structure.  This is only a minor criticism as it does add to the feeling of not known exactly how it will all turn out.

I remember when I first saw it, the only real gripe I had with it was the very end.  It does seem to suddenly just end rather abruptly, but – again – when everything else has been so good I can also forgive this one.

With today’s obsession with looks being magnified thanks to social media, you can only wonder what the characters would have been like if this film was made today.  Because of the overall themes of desperation to remain young and in the spotlight, the film seems as fresh today as it ever was.  Don’t let it be forgotten, it really is great fun and a forgotten classic.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Exam - And I thought GCSEs were hard!

The Exam is an interesting little beast: filmed entirely in one room, eight applicants for a mysterious and powerful company have to sit their final entry exam. Only one will be employed. It quickly becomes apparent that all is not what it seems and shocks and surprises quickly follow.

Okay, so The Exam is pretty low budget - any film set in the same, simply location is always going to be, plus you probably won't have heard of any of the actors (maybe Colin Salmon, but he's only `the invigilator'). It's `story-based' with us, the audience, being as in the dark as the applicants as to the company's true motives. It's mainly talking (and bickering!), but it's quite well done.

There are plenty of twists in the tale - some you may predict (I didn't, but there seem to be some on internet message boards who have) and others you won't. It kind of reminded me of `The Cube' with its simply setting and eight strangers trying to solve a puzzle of unknown origin.

It's not perfect; there are a few moments where coincidence plays a big part in moving the story along, but, on the whole, I found it pretty clever and entertaining. I won't go into too much detail as much of the enjoyment is from finding things out as you go along. However, this could also be a drawback as, although I enjoyed the film, I'm not sure whether I could watch it again, as I'd know all the twists and turns before they came.

If you like the sound of something a little more low budget and `talkie' over action, then you might like this.

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

Feast 3 - Yeah, kind of like Part II

If you like cheesy (and gory) horror then you’ll probably have seen the original ‘Feast’ film. It was nice and compact, with plenty of claret spewing all over the place, not to mention a few surprising moments which deliberately defied convention. Then came the second chapter, which did its best to ‘up the ante’ and be more outrageous and generally more violent. It succeeded, but somehow it lost all its charm.

‘Part III’ was made back to back with Part II and therefore feels exactly like the second half. Sadly, although it too contains extreme violence and black humour, it doesn’t compare to the original. Just like Part II, the characters are unlikeable, the monsters look like big men in rubber suits and the story sort of ambles from set-piece to set-piece.

When I’m the mood for a story like ‘Feast’ I’ll watch all three. Parts II and III have their moments, but the original was best and always will be. If you’re just a casual horror fan, stick with the first one and avoid the second pair.

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

Justice League - The Simpsons did it

Right now, the long awaited ‘Justice League’ is taking a bit of a hammering at the Box Office.  People are already claiming that it signals the (premature) end to comic giant DC’s ‘shared universe’ (which, in case you’re not up on the cut-throat world of comics and their filmic interpretations) was Warner Bros’ answer to the seemingly unstoppable juggernaut that is Disney’s ‘Marvel cinematic shared universe.’ And, they may be right, but sadly for possibly the wrong reasons.

The tragedy is that DC has – arguably – the most famous and beloved superheroes in its arsenal, i.e. Batman and Superman (whereas Marvel was forced to rely on (due to licensing issues) a rag-tag band of its lesser-known stars such as Iron Man and Thor).  Twenty years ago if you had told the cinema-going public that they were about to witness Bruce versus Clark slug it out on the big screen it would probably have been seen as the cinematic event of all time.  However, ‘Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice’ kind of whimpered its way through the public’s consciousness, leaving no one that excited (and die-hard DC fans more worried) about the film that was supposed to bring all their most beloved heroes together for their first major outing.

Critics have already slammed ‘Justice League’ for being a ‘directorial mess,’ citing a change of directors for the post-production phase and general studio interference.  Now, I’m not saying they don’t have a point.  Original director Zack Snyder wanted a film that was closer to three hours, yet the studio wanted as many showings per day as possible, therefore made the cinematic cut just under two hours.  So the finished product does feel decidedly unfinished.

Also, a few weeks before ‘Justice League’ came out, ‘Thor: Ragnarok’ sneaked out in cinemas.  And, despite it being about one of my afore-mentioned ‘lesser’ heroes and it was the third instalment in Thor’s personal film career, it was amazing.  It performed better than even Disney had hoped and forced ‘Justice League’ onto the back foot in the public’s and critics’ eyes alike.  There are plenty of other minor gripes like the 'forced' humour that secondary director Joss Whedon seemed to feel the need to add, JK Simmons being very underused as Commissioner Gordon, continuity issues, things that aren’t properly explained due to the harsh cutting to save runtime, the – slightly cheesy – CGI, especially in the film’s villain himself, Steppenwolf and that one terrible line poor Jeremy Irons is forced to utter during the final battle.  However, I felt the real problem lay in the fact that ‘Justice League’ was released too early.  Superman was only given one solo film, before sharing the stage with Batman (for a new caped crusader’s first outing after Christian Bale refused to reprise the role and link Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy into this new shared universe).  Aquaman was decent enough, but he would have benefitted from having his own stand-alone film shown BEFORE he was put into JL.  The Flash makes his first film appearance, despite DC giving him his own (highly-prised) TV show and then choosing to create a new version for the big screen.  And, as for Cyborg, personally I liked him, but no one besides die-hard fans of the kids’ cartoon ‘Teen Titans’ will know who he was.  Wonder Woman was about the film’s only real character people felt they connected with due to her having a hit film (or should I say the ONLY hit film) prior to this get together.  Therefore, whereas much of the audience this film was meant for has already seen this kind of ‘superhero shared universe’ played out by Marvel characters.  All of which had their own solo films to build up their characters and bring a sense of grandeur to the point in time when they finally come together as one unit.  Here, it just felt rushed for the sake of ‘playing catch-up.’

If you’re wondering what my ‘Simpsons-related’ title refers to, it’s about a little-known episode of ‘South Park’ which made fun of itself and ‘The Simpsons’ where the jokes come from the fact that the Simpsons has been on TV for so many years that they’ve done everything and there’s nothing that ‘South Park’ can do that feels original.  This was how I felt watching ‘Justice League.’ Every time something happened a little voice in my head said ‘Marvel did it, Marvel did it, Marvel did it’ and that was kind of disappointing.  Whether it was watching Aquaman fly and fight like Thor or the team chasing Infinity stone-like cubes to stop them  falling into Thanos’ hands (sorry, Steppenwolf), everything felt like I’d already seen it before – and, sadly, better.

I didn’t hate ‘Justice League,’ in fact I found it an okay movie and definitely not as bad as many of the online community is making out.  However, it is definitely a missed opportunity and could have been so much better if handled with just a little more care and forethought.

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

Goal of the Dead - A film of two halves (literally)

It’s always hard to take a film seriously when its whole premise is based – loosely – on playing off another film’s title.  It takes the ‘...of the Dead’ label and applies it to what’s supposed to be France’s answer to Shaun of the Dead.

It’s about a high-profile football team, travelling to a smaller club’s home ground in rural France, but – guess what – a zombie outbreak happens.  Cue everyone running for their life.

For a start it’s not as funny as Shaun of the Dead.  Although that’s not to say it’s totally dull.  There are some good gags here and there, but the film is stretched across nearly two hours and there’s not enough humour in there to really call it a ‘comedy.’

It has horror though.  It can get pretty gruesome here and there, almost as if France has fused Shaun of the Dead with a 28 Days Later type feel. 

And it’s set over ‘two halves’ – just like your football match.  The first half of the film is basically all ‘scene-setting.’ We get to know the characters etc.  Then, on the second half, all hell breaks loose (which is probably what you’re watching the film for in the first place!).  So, if you’re only after the gore, you could probably skip the entire first half and still understand the film and every character’s motivation perfectly.

So, if you’re looking for basically a French zombie film that’s high on gore then you could do worse than this.  I saw it more as a straight horror than a horror-comedy hybrid.  However, we’ve already had ‘La Horde’ which is also just a straight ‘infected’ style French zombie film which does the gore, the tension and the action a lot better.

Fans of football may like to see the ‘beautiful’ game included in a zombie movie, but otherwise this will probably be more remembered as a ‘one trick’ film that goes on a little too long.  It’s not bad, just doesn’t cover enough new ground to make it that good, either.  Plus I didn’t approve of the final ‘action’ scene and how it was played out.  It just didn’t work for me.

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

Pineapple Express - Sometimes you just don’t get it

 I’m writing this review after my second viewing if ‘Pineapple Express.’ I watched it a couple of years ago and seemed to completely forget what it was all about. The reason I’ve watched it again is because I’m a big fan of Seth Rogen (and Judd Apatow’s style of film-making in general), plus I’m not bothered by the fact that a film can be about losers/stoners. Therefore, I really thought I must have missed something on my first viewing.

Sadly, as far as I’m concerned, I wasn’t wrong. This film really isn’t very good. And, when I say ‘good,’ I basically mean funny. I laughed about once (out loud) throughout the whole hour and forty minutes (which us unusual when I watch a Rogen/Apatow collaboration). No matter how much I tried, I just couldn’t ‘get’ it. It’s about two pot-smoking stoners who end up getting chased by killers/drug dealers. However, the ‘chase’ largely involves Seth Rogen and James Franco screaming a lot and then running round in circles (occasionally slapping each other/someone else).

Again, my verdict is simply that it’s not funny. The two central characters are annoying and not that relatable to, therefore I don’t really care that much if the mob catches up with them and kills them, or they just get away.

So, that’s my verdict – Pineapple Express is an average ‘comedy’ at best. However, it’s worth noting that the majority of people must have seen something in it that I’ve missed, as it’s (currently) rated a pretty impressive 7.0 out of 10 on the Internet Movie Database. Guess I’m in the minority here on this one then.

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

The Woman - A horrible film, but not necessarily a bad one 

I have to admit to nearly turning this off more than once. I practically picked up the remote every ten minutes or so. However, after sticking with it, I was actually happy that I did. It's no classic and wasn't what I was expecting, but it was different enough to warrant ninety minutes of my life.

I became aware of this film through watching horror films and seeing that people who had watched the films I'd watched had also watched this. Therefore I thought it would be a horror about a feral woman running wild, creating havoc (and probably bodies). However, the feral woman in question gets captured about ten minutes into the film by a well-to-do middle class American family.

From then on, it becomes more of a Hostel-like `torture porn' film. We discover that this supposedly nice family is little better than the feral woman they've captured.  The family, led by the father who could probably do with a little more back story as to why he's quite such an evil sort, then proceed to try and 'civilise' the woman to their standards.  Naturally, it doesn't turn out too well for many involved.

I won't go into too much detail about what transpires as there are a few moments you might not see coming. However, my biggest gripe with the film was lack of any character I felt like I should be rooting for. At the end of the day, if you watch this you'll see people get killed. Will you care? Probably not.

If you're a fan of horror and aren't expecting too much, you may see enough originality in this to go along for the ride.  I'm sure it's trying to send a message, but I couldn't quite figure out what it was trying to say.  Perhaps it was trying to show 'toxic masculinity' way before that phrase really found its way into the mainstream?

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