2001 Maniacs - The South well and truly rises again

‘2001 Maniacs.’ You could sort of leave the review there.  If the title alone doesn’t tell you everything you’ll need to know about the film then nothing will.  It’s a film like ‘Snakes on the Plane’ where you should know whether you’ll like it or not before you even sit down.  Basically, it’s a pretty ludicrous premise – a handful of those annoyingly good-looking American teens end up in the wrong town at the wrong town where – guess what – they come a cropper up against 2001 complete nut-jobs.

The stars, i.e. those we’re supposed to root for, are pretty run-of-the-mill.  They’re basically there to be dismembered in as many gruesome ways possible.  The real stars are the people we hope we never have to meet (and yet still enjoy seeing on screen).  The town is filled by Americans from the ‘North versus South’ era of U.S. history and they’re not too pleased with the way the war turned out.  Therefore, now led by the ever excellent (and possibly insane) Robert Englund and Lin Shaye, they’re looking to reap revenge on those stuck-up ‘Northerners.’

It’s effectively a slasher film, only the town is basically one great home to slashers.  You don’t watch this sort of film for its character development or deep and meaningful story arcs.  You watch it because it’s daft and silly (and pretty damn gory – it does have some pretty inventive death scenes).  If you’re into your gore-fests then you’ll probably enjoy it simply on Englund and Shaye’s performances alone. 

Just put your brain on hold and appreciate it for being a very low-brow and completely twisted piece of entertainment.  But, whatever you do, don’t go near the sequel.  This is one film that’s best left on its own.

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

The Abyss - A worthy investment of your time

After the success of sci-fi blockbusters 'The Terminator' and 'Aliens,' writer/director brought us 'The Abyss' in 1989, which was marketed both on its special effects and - to a lesser degree - 'aliens underwater.' However, most people took this as meaning that there would be hordes of xenomorph-like creatures picking off hapless divers.  Yes, there are aliens contained within the movie, but, no, they're not the kind that want to burst out of your chest.  And, sadly, a lot of people felt let down by the film and it didn't quite live up to its two predecessors.

In the near future a mobile underwater drilling rig is hired by the military to rescue a crashed American nuclear submarine.  A small team of Navy Seals joins the rig's crew and they dive down to see what happened to the sub.  This was the - very - basic plot of the film and, if you told someone there were aliens in the movie, you'd kind of expect this to be the point where they make their entrance.  Again, not the case - 'The Abyss' is so much more.

I should point out that I own - and are therefore always referring to - the 'special edition' of the film.  It's longer and contains vastly more information regarding the plot of what's (really) happening.  The fact that so much was cut out in the original cinema cut was another reason it didn't really gel well with audiences.  It's a long film and if you choose to sit down and really watch it (i.e. no fiddling with your mobile phone!) you'll get some of the most breathtaking underwater scenes ever filmed (certainly at the time).  The special effects were cutting edge, utilising miniatures for the rigs and combining them with some of the best ever (again, for the time) computer-generated technology bring audiences of the day believable sights that they'd never seen before.

And, on top of a fantastic looking motion picture, you get a decent 'human interest' story to hold it all together.  Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio play the leads - a pair of estranged rig workers who get caught up in all this.  You could almost call this a bit of a 'love story' as it's about the two of them reestablishing a connection with each other in the fact of not only the weather raging above them, but also the unknown 'threat' of what lurks at the bottom of the ocean and an increasingly psychotic Navy Seal, perfectly played by (James Cameron favourite) Michiel Biehn.

If you're looking for some sort of sci-fi 'blast-a-thon' full of action and fight scenes, then you're probably better sticking with 'Aliens.' However, if you're in the mood for something a little slower-paced and deeper, but at the same time brilliantly acted and spectacular to look at, then definitely try to get into the special edition of 'The Abyss.'

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Hills Have Eyes (2006) - Actually quite good – by remakes’ standards

Yes, ‘The Hills Have Eyes’ is a good film.  Doesn’t that mean it’s a classic?  No, it’s a remake.  And, seeing as – seemingly – every film needs to remade/re-imagined or have Spock home back in time to create an alternate timeline, most of them fall nowhere near ‘okay.’ Therefore, remakes need to be judged through more lenient eyes, so it may not be a good film, but it’s a damn fine remake!

The plot from the 1977 original remains the same – a nice, happy family gets stranded in the middle of an American desert and is slowly picked off by the local mutants who generally want them dead for varying reasons.  Nice and simple.  The family must therefore fight to survive. 

And that’s all there is to it.  With a plot so simple, it could be great or it could fail.  Luckily, the cast of actors save it.  They work pretty well together and generally annoy each other (as most real families do).  They bicker, they moan and get at each other, but ultimately come together to overcome a greater threat.  Plus, most importantly, they don’t make too many ridiculous judgements meaning they’re the architects of their own demises.  There’s nothing worse than yelling at the TV screen to the protagonist because they’re making ridiculous calls which simply further the plot.  Here, the family do basically what we’d do in such a grisly situation.

And it is grisly.  First of all there is gore (and strong violence) aplenty.  Not only are the kills pretty extreme, but the make-up on the mutated locals is suitably gruesome. ‘The Hills Have Eyes’ certainly isn’t for everyone.  Its strong gore and adult content will certainly put some people off.  It’s not for the squeamish, but if you like your horror films brutal and violent then this one is for you.

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

Wild Things - So much more than you've (probably) heard

I'm not sure whether 'Wild Things' was a commercial hit when it was first released back in 1998 or not.  The critics seem to hate it, calling it 'trash' and 'soft p0rn.' Whereas it soon developed a cult audience - many going to see it because its marketing played heavily on nude scenes from (then hot property) Denise Richards and various lesbian love scenes (spoiler: there isn't that much lesbianism contained within).

So, many people said it made money because it was effectively soft p0rn (and remember, this film was released before the internet became mainstream - nowadays anything found in 'Wild Things' is absolutely tame compared to what shows up on Google!).  Perhaps that aspect helped sell the movie.  However, it's so much more than just idle schoolboys' fantasies.

I'll be deliberately vague about the film's plot, because anything too detailed will give away major spoilers for what's to come.  It's more of a thriller, with a healthy dose of murder/mystery and - of course - some sexual scenes thrown in there, but - again - I stress not as many as you may think, based on the film's reception back in the day.

There's so many twists in this film that you may actually have to pay attention to what's happening (even when the performers have their clothes on!).  And that's the film's true selling point - it's story.  It's one of those films where you can only ever watch it once and enjoy the fact that you don't know where it's going.  The four main actors (Kevin Bacon, Matt Dillon, Denise Richards and Neve Campbell) all shine in their respective roles as they fight for money, greed and (in some cases) love.

Yes, if you probably held every aspect of the plot up to extreme scrutiny then it may require some suspension of disbelief in some places, but doesn't every film these days?  It's fun.  It's sexy.  It's trashy, but overall it's a very cleverly-written story and the initial negative feedback it received shouldn't be what your opinion is based on.

Oh, and I forget to mention that even Bill Murray is in it.  It's only now 'Breaking Bad' has come and gone that I think Murray's character could well be a distant relative to 'Breaking Bad's' 'Saul' in terms of dodgy lawyers.  Murray's not one of the main quartet of characters, but he steals every scene he's in.

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

INSIDE, THE - Like being the only sober one at a party

If you had the opportunity to watch some home movie footage of someone else's party, would you watch it? I'm not talking about someone you know, but some complete strangers. Would you be interested in watching them jabber on about their lives? If you did, I doubt you'd stay with the `film' for long.

However, that is what passes as `character development' in The Inside. The first twenty minutes are basically a home movie of a handful of girls chatting in a warehouse for someone's party. Then, when the `threat' kicks in, we're expected to feel something for these people.

The whole film is `found footage' - a genre that is getting more and more overused in horror by the day. So, expect shaky camerawork and all the other clichés that accompany it. Here we have lots of shouting, lots of crying and some random horror elements that have been thrown in to supposedly scare us.

The result: a mess (and a particularly boring one at that).

If you like horror, or are a fan of the `found footage' genre, then you'll already have seen a dozen films better than this. My advice: don't bother. Or, if you want to see a film where nasty men abuse innocent young women, try Hostel Part II - at least it has a budget and proper actors, plus a story and characters you care about. Avoid this like the plague.

I have no idea why this film as so many 4 or 5/5 reviews on Amazon. They must have watched a very different film to me.

1/10 This might as well have been written, directed and produced by Uwe Boll

The Stuff - The stuff that nightmares are made out of

'The Stuff' is one of - many - eighties horror movies which did their best to gross out their audiences, however this one seems to have been forgotten due to being overshadowed by (arguably) some better (and more disgusting!) ones.  Although 'The Stuff' has since gathered its own cult audience, it's seldom mentioned along with the other horror greats of the decade.  And that's a shame, as it's definitely worth a watch, simply for the premise.

A bunch of construction workers dig up a foamy white substance which derives from the very centre of the Earth itself.  Fast forward a little while and they're marketing it to the rest of the world as a 'natural' yohurt/ice cream-type product.  Naturally, it's not the 'sweet treat' it's first thought to be and certain people start having pretty dire reactions to consuming too much of the addictive substance.  Cue a rag-tag bunch, consisting of an ex FBI agent, a video film-maker, Chocolate Chip Charlie (don't ask!) and a kid who uncover the 'Stuff's' secret and do their best to bring this information to the public.

I'm not going to say the film is a masterpiece, but it does have its charm - for what it is.  Naturally, any eighties horror film didn't have a massive budget, therefore the special/gory effects are all 'practical,' rather than computer-generated.  Yes, you can tell when actors get replaced by rubber masks etc, but - considering the budget-limitations - the effects are pretty well done and nicely gory in some places.  You also probably won't recognise many of the cast and they all do their best with the - slightly hoaky - script they have to work with.  But special props should go to our leading man due to him being anything but a straight-forward 'good guy.' He's actually pretty dark by today's heroes' standards and, when he first came on screen, I figured he was going to be one of the bad guys as opposed to who we were going to eventually root for.

I know that 'The Stuff' is about as far removed from George A Romero's seminal 'Dawn of the Dead,' but the reason I link the two together is because both take a swipe at the popular culture of the time.  Romero did a mini attack on consumerism via his zombie epic, while 'The Stuff' lampoons how products are marketed, putting profit over health.

If you like your horror films cheap, a little cheesy and on this rarest of occasions, with a subtle dose of social commentary then 'The Stuff' may be worth an hour and a half of your time.

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

Waxwork - It gets better

For the first half of this film I was contemplating turning it off. It was the acting that got me. I know you should never expect Oscar-worthy performances from slasher films, but this one was even worse than usual. Plus it seemed to be more like a clipshow from lots of horror films than a single story.

Guys, if you're ever wondering how to attract women then this film has the answer: wait until you're about fifty then stand in the street wearing the most garish clothes you have. Do your hair in a comb-over then when two teenage schoolgirls pass by, invite them to your midnight show at a waxwork museum that's located in your average suburban street. Don't worry, they won't call the police on you - amazingly, they'll show up (and even bring their friends!).

Again, that was another aspect I didn't like. The teens enter the wax museum and end up being picked off one by one in a different `horror setting.' But, bear with it, there is a story somewhere in there.

However, I stuck with it and I'm glad that I did. It's no classic, but it was silly and entertaining - which is all I ever expect from a horror movie. It wasn't that horrific, but it had plenty of rubber monsters being impaled on things (hey, it was made in the eighties after all - what do you expect!?) which is all most people want from their horror. So, if you can ignore the many plotholes in the first half, the second half is daft enough in a good way to be entertaining.

Plus at least it doesn't have Paris Hilton in it (unlike the remake)

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

The Simpsons Movie - A good extended episode

It's widely regarded that 'The Simpsons' TV show has been long past its prime of the early through late nineties.  Nowadays it's still watched, but it doesn't look like it will ever regain its prestige.  However, that didn't stop them trying to make a movie out of the long-running series in 2007 - roughly a decade after people thought it had peaked.

Perhaps one thing that's normally commonplace when a TV show makes the jump onto the big screen, is that everything is bigger and on more of a grander scale.  Yet, due to 'The Simpsons' being on the air for so long and because it's animated, therefore not bound by the limitations of special effects and budget etc, pretty much everything has already been seen and done (ala that episode of 'South Park' that made the same point!).  Therefore there's very little that's fresh to see by watching 'The Simpsons Movie.' I know there's a certain amount of 'meta' humour poking fun at the audience for going to the cinema to watch something they could view for free on the television, but it's a point that's kind of on the nose.

Although, saying all that (and speaking as a fan of 'The Simpson' - in their heyday) I have to say that the film is an enjoyable enough romp.  There's literally nothing here to distinguish it from an episode (well, a good one) besides its extended runtime.  All the characters are there, although most are only on screen for a few seconds to throw a line or two in there.  The film focuses in on the central family and recycles many old plots from various episodes to create something that appears new (if you don't look too closely).

If you like the show then you should definitely like this.  It's one of those movies that you probably shouldn't pay to see (especially at cinema prices), but if you get the chance to watch it for free then there are definitely worse ways to spend an hour and a half.  It's just a pity today's episodes can't even match the quality of the film.

Plus did any future episode ever say what happened to the stand-out star of this film, i.e. 'Spider-pig?' He definitely deserves his own spin-off series!

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

Daylight - Not as good as Cliffhanger

Sylvester Stallone’s career has had its fair share of ups and downs.  However, ‘Daylight’ is one of those films that sort of sits in the middle of them all.  He plays a... actually I never really figured out who Sly played.  He’s a New York taxi driver who just so happens to used to work for the local government, specialising in tunnels and how to escape them.  Actually, I may have sort of exaggerated that, but it’s not too far from the truth.  Either way, when a massive underground tunnel collapses, killing hundreds of civilians and trapping others, he’s the only guy to go in there and get them out.

I suppose the reason ‘Daylight’ is never rated as highly as Rocky, or Cliffhanger, or any of Sly’s other more successful films, is that it’s a ‘disaster movie’ rather than an action movie.  Normally we watch Stallone punch and shoot his way through hordes of bad guys.  Here, the ‘bad guy’ is the situation.  Nothing wrong with that and, in fact, Daylight is a pretty solid little disaster movie.  But it’s the type that you can go out and make a cup of tea in and you won’t really miss too much when you get back.

The supporting cast Sly’s down there to rescue are all pretty forgettable and, dare I say it, a bit like a bus-load of clichés.  There’s a love interest for Sly crowbarred in just for the sake of it and the obligatory ‘hard ass government worker’ up above who wants to put profit over people’s lives.

If you like ‘disaster movies’ you can certainly do worse than this one (although you could probably also do better as well!).  It’s a very middle-of-the-road affair – the sort of movie you may find on TV one night and just sit through because there’s nothing else on.  It’s no classic, but if you’re not expecting anything too amazing you should quite enjoy it.

It’s also about a million times better than ‘Volcano’ if that helps at all!

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

Aeon Flux - Probably not as bad as you've heard

'Aeon Flux is the worst movie ever made.' So said pretty much every critic back in 2005 when it was first released.  Therefore it bombed and was pretty much forgotten about.  Yes, it's hardly going to be mentioned in the same breath as 'The Godfather' and 'Empire Strikes Back,' but it's definitely not as bad as many made out and you can get some enjoyment out of it... if you're in the right mindset.

It was based on some sort of MTV show (I didn't watch it) about a futuristic society that has survived the apocalypse and is now living under a - borderline fascist - regime in the last city on Earth.  However, those nasties in charge are constantly being harassed by a band of resistance fighters, including Charlize Theron's 'Aeon Flux' - who is a lycra-clad assassin who may just win the war for the good guys.

There's the typical futuristic city setting, which isn't bad - even the computer-generated moments are just about passible.  Then you have the action and the shootouts etc that are associated with the genre.  So what went wrong?  Rumour has it the film was supposed to be much longer and was majorly trimmed down in the edit suite to a more fast-paced hour and thirty-one minutes.  Sadly, this appeared to take with it many of the slower moments which helped explain what was going on and the film's biggest criticism is that it's a bit of a mess for losing this extra footage.

Believe it or not, 'Aeon Flux' isn't just about getting Charlize Theron in lycra.  The movie does deal with a few interesting and weighty concepts.  However, they could probably have been fleshed-out far more than the enforced run-time has allowed.

If you're expecting Theron to turn in a performance that rivals her Oscar-winning turn in 'Monster' then you're way off.  Here, she just plays the typical tough girl who just so happens to be stunningly attractive.  She's functional in what she does as gives the best she can under the circumstances.  The rest of the cast can also be best described as 'functional.' However, despite its flaws, I still can't bring myself to hate it.  Yes, it's no masterpiece, but if you're in the mood to simply sit down and watch Charlize gun her way through plenty of henchmen in a futuristic setting and you don't want to think too deeply about the hows and whys of it all, then look no further.  Just don't ask me what's the deal with the 'merged' A and E of the title.  Is that even a letter?

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

The Mask - Still great after all this time

I haven’t watched ‘The Mask’ for years and I was actually wondering how well it would stand up after over twenty years.  Back in 1995 Jim Carrey was Hollywood’s (comedy) golden child.  Everything he touched was Box Office dynamite.  However, since then, his offerings have been a little more hit and miss (don’t get me started on ‘Dumb and Dumber To!’), but I’m pleased to say that The Mask still shows off his manic persona and comedy timings.

I have a feeling ‘The Mask’ was based on a comic book, but I haven’t read it!  Therefore, I can’t really say how well it’s transferred across to the big screen.  Although I can say that it works.  Carrey plays a – depressingly average – guy who’s too nice for his own good.  Everyone takes advantage of him and his life is pretty awful.  Naturally, when he finds a mysterious wooden mask that when worn transforms him into a green-faced superhero, he chooses to fight crime, protect the weak and generally stand up for justice.  Or rather he kind of considers all those options.  He mainly just uses his new powers to get back at all those people who have wronged him and do his best to woo the – then unknown – Cameron Diaz.

Yes, the story is hardly original and, if you’ve seen any of Marvel’s latest offerings, it’s pretty much identical to every other superhero film, i.e. man gets superpowers, man fights crime, defeats villain and gets girl.  But, don’t let any small lack of originality put you off.  It’s not there to be a great work of art with deep and meaningful prose and character arcs.  It’s there to entertain, utilising Carrey’s full repartee to the max.

The manic jokes come thick and fast.  Normally, the best films are ‘team efforts’ when the cast all play their parts.  Not here.  Here it’s just Carrey, Carrey, Carrey.  He steals every scene and created a thousand new catch phrases in the process.

It’s a fun film and it should be enjoyed by everyone.  It’s simple enough to be understood and enjoyed by children and it’s just dark enough to appeal to adults. 

100% prime Carrey (and Cameron Diaz is pretty good, too).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Battle of Britain - A great snapshot of a dark time

‘The Battle of Britain’ is, unsurprisingly, about the period during the Second World War before the Americans joined and Britain was generally under air siege from the Nazis.  I’ll say now that I thoroughly enjoyed the film and was surprised at some of the negativity towards it.  From what I can gather, people believe that the film isn’t ‘historically accurate,’ as it doesn’t give enough mention to all the other (primarily Commonwealth) countries’ pilots who also lost their lives in the fight.

To be fair, they may have a point.  Yes, the film *almost* makes it look like only British pilots fought (with the odd fleeting scene with a handful of Polish airmen).  But, in order to do every nation justice, the film would have to last weeks in order to give every airman enough screen time.

During the end credits, we’re treated to a poignant text reminded of the ‘official’ statistics, showing just how many other nationalities helped Britain out (and it’s probably more than you think!). However, if you really want to get the most out of this film, you’ll just have to accept that it’s the Brits who the story really focuses on.

And there are some pretty big names on the bill.  No one bigger than Michael  Caine, Robert Shaw and Edward Fox to name but a few.  Others are there largely to be cameos, but everyone plays their part.

It’s hard to built too much of a story around an event that actually happened.  If you start trying to focus on adding a ‘traditional’ narrative, you sometimes have to forgo telling things as they happened.  The ‘story’ has already happened.  The writers couldn’t really tell it any differently.  As with many war films, events have had to be ‘condensed’ in order to fit with the narrative they give it.

‘The Battle of Britain’ may have the odd narrative flaw or character that isn’t as developed as the audience feel s they should have been, but any film like this isn’t supposed to be ‘character-driven.’ It’s about a period of time where hundreds of innocent people were dying daily (and that’s not even counting the airmen who were doing their best to defend the civilian population).

When the aerial dogfights come, they’re pretty spectacular.  The film-makers restored many vintage planes and brought them back up to be air-worthy.  Just because there aren’t any computer-generated effects here, doesn’t mean that the special effects aren’t impressive.

 

If you’re looking for a story driven film, you may want to try somewhere else.  If you want a totally historically-accurate depiction of the era, then read a history book.  However, if you’re happy with a film which generally gives you an idea just how scary it was to fight (and often) die in the air defending your country, try this.  Those who fell don’t deserve to be forgotten, however they’re remembered.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Scavengers - Like Dr Who, but without the appeal

Oh, dear... where to begin. ‘Scavengers’ is a case of something trying to be more than it actually is. The special effects are pretty blatantly computer-generated which doesn’t help, but, if it had a decent story or something, I’ll wager that most science fiction fans could forgive it its shortcomings.

Basically, you have a good ship and a bad ship, both vying for the same salvage in deep space. How do we know which ship is good and which ship is bad? Because both a equally as close to the precise definition of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as you could get – making them both pretty clichéd. The ‘good’ ship has nice, attractive, kind people who live in a brightly-lit ship with white walls. The ‘bad’ spaceship is filled with creepy, gothic-looking people who only want to kill people (and the walls of their ship are black and dimly-lit).

The ‘story’ (for what it is) is just bouncing back from one ship to the other while they try to fight over the salvage (which is worth something... by the way). And it’s not just the effects that are a bit shoddy. The script is pretty tired and the actors don’t seem to have enough enthusiasm in them to lift the dialogue above its mediocre roots.

It has a real ‘made for TV’ feel to it. It’s not the worst movie ever made, but it’s far from being the best. If you like you sci-fi a little sparse on the sets and effects department, watch Dr Who – it also has a story and reasonable actors.

3/10 Jabba the Hutt wipes himself down with this film

Layer Cake - A middle class Guy Ritchie film

Yes, Britain is famous for its classic and gritty gangster films (but then it’s also got its fair share of pretty mundane and forgettable ones, too).  Guy Ritchie made his name showing us the exploits of his working class (anti) heroes and, for a while, it seemed like every film was about the ‘rougher’ element from London.  Then came Layer Cake.  And, briefly, Ritchie’s name was associated with it.  You can see why.  It does share certain traits of one of his films – gangsters, multiple plotlines and characters and, of course, the violence and double crossing. 

But, once you start watching it, you soon see that it’s not just a poor clone, but something all of its own entirely.  A pre-Bond Daniel Craig stars as the main character (of whom we deliberately never learn his name!) who is a class A drugs dealer, only not the type to hang round on dodgy street corners.  He just produces the stuff for others to supply and snort, therefore he can tell himself (and us, the audience) that he’s more of a respectable type of criminal.

And, he’s so respectable, that he’s basically thinking of quitting the whole business (now that he’s made his millions of course).  Sadly, a very large spanner is thrown in his works when the local kingpin decides to utilise his services to find the missing daughter of a colleague.  Now, this hardly fits in with Craig’s usual skillsets, but then that’s the point.  It’s all a bit too out of the blue to be above board.  And, what follows is a chain reaction that leads to the afore-mentioned violence and double crossing.

It’s one of those films that you can’t really have on in the background.  You’ll need to watch it.  There are numerous characters who you’ll need to keep track of so you can follow who’s working for who and therefore who’s about to stab who in the back.  If you like your ‘Richie-style’ films then you should love this.  Daniel Craig is excellent in the lead role (better than he is in Bond in my humble opinion) and the supporting cast all play their parts well.  You’ll only get the one chance to watch it through without knowing what’s going to happen and I advice you sit down and spend some time getting to grips with it.

Plus it’s got a great soundtrack and Sienna Miller in – arguably – her finest role to date (*rolls eyes*).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Reeker - An old story, reasonably well done

Nothing new in five American teenagers going on a road trip and falling foul of [insert you monster or redneck family of choice here]. However, every once in a while a film comes along that tells a tried and tested story, but with enough flair to make it just that little bit more memorable.

`Reeker' tells the story of five American teenagers going on a road trip and falling foul of... do you really need to know? If you watch the sort of film where these beautiful kids keep getting killed off by one monster/cannibal after the next, it doesn't matter who's doing the deed, only that it's entertaining. And Reeker is entertaining, just.

First of all, for a low budget flick, the gore is nicely done. There are also some vaguely humorous moments to lighten the mood. Secondly, the killer is nicely done and moves in a genuinely creepy way (possibly a distant cousin of the `Peeper' in Jeepers Creepers).

However, where Reeker falls down is that, although the film may be nice and well done, there's nothing particularly new here - not enough to really set it up as a classic. There's still the old `have sex and die' cliché, plus the "I'll be right back" (and die) cliché, followed by the attempted twist in the tale cliché. And, once the clichés start coming, what charm the film has starts to dwindle.

You'll probably have guessed which characters live and die within the first few minutes of meeting them - they're all pretty stereotypical, so there's not too much in the way of suspension.

Basically, if you like the sound of Reeker (and that type of movie in general), you could certainly do worse than this. I didn't feel like I wasted an hour and a half of my life watching it, but I'm not sure I could be bothered to sit through it again, simply because I have a dozen better versions of this movie in my DVD collection already.

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

The Avengers - The 90's mightiest heroes

I guess there are two ways of looking at 1998's 'The Avengers' film (and, yes, it has NOTHING to do with the Marvel brand that would dominate the Box Office a decade later).  You can either believe everything you've heard about it, or just keep an open mind and go with the flow.

It's a remake of a British 1960s spy show about a male and female secret agent, generally saving the world with gadgets and an assortment of witty quips.  The studio had high hopes for the big budget adaptation and cast two major stars (Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman) in the lead.  However, close to release it became clear (from 'critics,' anyway) that the movie wasn't that good and its release date got put forward while they did reshoots, or re-edits etc, trimming the run-time dramatically.  When it did hit theatres, basically everyone hated it, claiming it was a 'mess' and it now lives on only in top ten lists of movies that bombed hard.

Yet, saying all that, I quite enjoyed it.  I enjoyed it then and I enjoy watching it on DVD every so often.  No, I'm not saying it's perfect (or even that good!), but I'm saying there's enough there to keep me entertained for an hour and a half.

For a start there's Sean Connery as the bad guy, who's threatening to control the world's weather and force countries to 'purchase' their weather directly from him.  Therefore, Fiennes and Thurman must stop him.  Yes, it's kind of like a Bond film plot and you can expect the regular punch-ups and car chases that come with the genre.

What you also get are some truly surreal scenes which don't make a lot of sense.  Now, these could be written just to add to the film's 'kooky' feel, or it could be because the other scenes that explain them were left on the cutting room floor, therefore leaving these scenes' meaning up to our imagination.

People also remarked on 'how little chemistry' there was between Fiennes and Thurman.  I can see their point.  However, it's worth noting that they were supposed to be playing cold and unflappable characters lifted from yesteryear when this kind of acting/social interaction was more common.  It's a case where the film tried to copy the source material and succeeded - only a little too well for its own good.

Like I say, 'The Avengers' is just about as far from perfect as you'll ever get, but it's not the car crash you've probably heard it is.  And, if you're in the mood for a spy movie that's a little bit different and has a mute Eddie Izzard, a gun-totting Granny and a swarm of robot bees, then give this one a go.  And I didn't even mentioned the giant teddy bear costumes.

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