Planet of the Apes (2001 remake) - Good film. Bad ending.

Okay, if you don't know... the original Planet of the Apes movie was hailed as a classic. Despite being basically a B-movie with a load of men in rubber masks, it had a unique ending which will be remembered throughout cinema history (if you don't know what it is, then I won't spoil it by telling you). Therefore, now we have the remake (or `re-envisioning' as the film-makers like to call it), it had two choices: either copy the original ending and leave everyone saying they ripped off the first, or try to match it for shock value.

I don't think they would have won doing either. They tried `shock value' and failed.

However, if you ignore that, Planet of the Apes (the remake) isn't actually a bad movie. If you like sci-fi (and can forgive the blasphemy of remaking such a classic) you should at least enjoy the make-up - which is awesome for creating new and varied races of apes.

Not counting the ending, there are other negatives, too. There are more human characters, most of which don't get the screen time they deserve to be fully developed (and any fans of Kris Kristophen will feel short-changes as his addition is basically an extended cameo). Plus the action isn't that action-packed (but then Tim Burton is hardly an `action director').

However, despite the negatives, it's still not a bad movie. It'll never be the classic that the original was and it was a disappointment at the box office (meaning the ending will never get the explanation it deserved). Don't expect too much and enjoy the grisly performance of Tim Roth as the evil ape leader and not being able to recognise Helena Bonham Carter in her make-up.

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

Australiens – Let them take you


Most reviews of ‘Australiens’ seem to mention ‘Shaun of the Dead.’ So I thought I’d get the similarities out of the way straight away.  In ‘Shaun’ you have a group of losers fighting zombies. ‘Australiens’ is effectively a group of losers fighting Aliens (wait... wasn’t that the plot of ‘The World’s End?’).  And it’s set in Australia – in case the title didn’t tip you off.


I love a good B-movie.  If I’m in the mood for something silly and cheesy I really don’t care about special effects, great acting or reinventing the (movie) wheel.  However, after the opening 5-10 minutes of ‘Australiens’ I was actually on the brink of turning it off.  You see... the beginning focuses on the child incarnations of our (soon to be) heroes.  And the kids are super-annoying.  I don’t like to be mean to children, but the three of them can’t act.  And it’s quite painful to watch.


Fortunately, this only takes up the first 5-10 minutes of the film and we’re soon thrust into the present day where adults take over acting duties.  And, as I mentioned, an alien attack focuses on Australia and our bunch of drop-outs have to sort it out.  It was at this point where the film picks up.


The first thing I noticed was that I was starting to laugh.  Not all the time, but here and there.  Obviously, this film never takes itself seriously and a big part of it is humour.  However, in most ‘comedy’ films I watch the humour seems to be consistent – and when I say ‘consistent’ I mean all the gags are in turn with each other.  However, here it’s like there are about five or six different senses of humour on display here (like having five writers all taking it in turns to write a joke, then handing laugh-duties over to the next one).  Therefore, the humour on display is kind of random and I can only liken it to ‘Family Guy’ style.


The acting is bad.  Now, I don’t know any of the actors in the lead roles, but I’m guessing they were told to ‘ham it up.’ Normally bad acting is a negative, but somehow here it actually works.  As do the special effects.  Which aren’t that special.  Don’t expect anything amazing here.  They really are pretty cheap-looking which gives it a real ‘made-for-TV’ feel to it.


Yes, it’s a B-movie, but it knows it is.  If you’re expecting something truly epic and ground-breaking then you won’t find it here.  However, if you like total silliness and are particularly forgiving then give this one a go.  Just sit back, don’t think too much and let its totally random humour take you. ‘Shaun of the Dead’ it isn’t, but it isn’t bad either.


8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Alien Resurrection - So close (and yet so far)

 I doubt there are many people who are new to the Alien franchise, but, on the off chance you are, `Alien: Resurrection' is the forth instalment, charting the life of Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and her seemingly endless struggle to rid the universe of the monstrous aliens.

The first film, Alien, was heralded as a classic horror movie. Its sequel, Aliens, cranked up the action and is also regarded as one of the best sequels ever made. However, Alien 3 started a downward trend that fans were left wondering how this happened when there was so much rich source material to build on. Alien 3 was not up to the quality of its predecessors, but it had its moments and, if you look at it as a `stand-alone' piece, it's better still.

Therefore, Alien: Resurrection is the studio's attempt to make up for part 3. Do they? Well, sort of. For a start they realise that having only ONE alien and NO guns was a mistake in part 3. Now we have guns and about fourteen aliens. Unfortunately, this still means it's a step backwards from the planet full of aliens we saw in part 2.

Ripley is back and, seeing as she's now part alien herself, is enjoying playing her `duel role.' Plus the supporting cast are good. But, again, if you've seen Aliens, they you'll probably realise that they're all just there to make up for the characters (needlessly?) killed off in Aliens.

At least the direction is good (as per all its predecessors) and the film looks brilliantly dark and foreboding.

Alien: Resurrection is a good film, but, as keeping with part 3 rather than parts 1 and 2, it's better more as another `stand-alone' film. An Alien film shouldn't just be `good,' it should be absolutely amazing, setting the standards for adult sci-fi/horror to come. This one is a nice effort at the mistakes made in part 3, but it's still inferior to Aliens, sadly.

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

The Expatriate - I didn't know Jason Bourne even HAD a daughter!

Oh, no - Jason Bourne has only gone and been set up again. Now he finds himself and his teenage daughter pursued across Europe by one team of hit men after the next. Wait, that can't be right. Oh, yes, I remember - someone else Liam Neeson sort of know has been `taken' and now he and his teenage daughter find them chased by shadowy hitmen as they're chased across Europe.

Okay, maybe not, but that's not too far from the truth. What you have here is a basic Bourne/Taken clone with all the elements you'd expect, i.e. car chases, shootouts, hitmen, rogue CIA agents, government conspiracies and setting up of the innocent. If you feel you can sit through another one of those types of times, then give this one a go. For all its unoriginality, it's not that bad.

The Expatriate plays out exactly how you'd expect it. There are no hidden surprises here. Chase. Escape. Repeat. That's it. Only here you have Aaron Eckhart doing his best to pretend that what he's doing is somehow original and not just a straight-to-DVD rip-off of a more famous franchise.

Nothing bad here, but nothing original. Of course... if you have never seen a Bourne/Taken film, you might love this all the more!

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

Chronicle - Surprisingly awesome 

I hated this film. And then after about 15-20 minutes I absolutely loved it.

This is one of those `filmed from a video camera' movies (think Blair Witch and Cloverfield). This, on its own, bugged me, but not as much as the main character - who really annoyed me. That was until I realised he was actually meant to be pretty annoying. Then he becomes funny. He films his family at home. And gets beaten up for it. He also constantly films he fellow pupils at school. And gets beaten up for it. He goes to parties, films people there, and generally gets beaten up because of it. He's a complete idiot - not the sort of person you want to get super powers.

Unfortunately, he and two others then go on to get super powers. He's still an idiot, but, from being the poor, hard-done-by outsider, becomes something much darker and this is where the fun really starts.

I thought Chronicle was going to be some sort of `Heroes' clone all about teenagers. And, despite being about teenagers is much darker than its contemporaries.

It's one of those films that, if I was telling a friend about I, I'd only tell them that its great and worth-seeing. I'd try to avoid too many plot details as I'd want anyone who watches it to go into it not knowing too much about it.

A great watch. So glad I didn't turn it off after 15-20 minutes. A lesson for my attention span indeed.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Taken 2 - More of the same

If you've seen the first Taken film, then you've basically seen the second. Some may say that's a flaw (and I suppose in some ways it is), but when the first one was quite an enjoyable action romp, then if you enjoyed it, you'll probably like this one too.

In the first film, CIA superman, Liam Neeson's daughter sets foot outside the good ol' U.S. of A. and gets kidnapped (sorry... taken) by the first gang of non-American scumbags she ran into. You'd think with that sort of track record, his family may steer well clear of foreign travel. Of course that would make a pretty dull sequel. Instead, they take a relaxing CIA-orientated jaunt back to the hell-holes of Europe and this time Liam and Mrs Liam end up getting taken by an offshoot of the first gang of scumbags, this time wanting revenge.

So, Liam must do what he does best... which is basically the same as what he did the first time round. Have a few car chases, count things and basically murder everyone he comes across.

It's all very serious. I thought that it may stray into tongue-in-cheek, as it's so far-fetched, but it never does. Everything is played straight right up until the end.

If you liked the first, or are a fan of ultra serious Bourne-style action romps then you'll probably like this one too. I look forward to seeing who gets taken in the next film. My money's on his dog.

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

Hitchcock - Good film (even if we do know the ending)

I don't think I'd be spoiling this film for many people if I let it slip that Alfred Hitchcock's horror film `Psycho' WAS a success. However, that is basically the premise of this telling of the seminal director's life story, surrounding the making of Psycho, i.e. will it, or won't it be a hit?

But, don't let your own knowledge of cinema history stand in the way of what is an excellent piece of (borderline romantic?) drama. But then what did you expect from two of today's heavyweight actors: Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren. The film details their - slightly - complicated relationship and the relationship between Alfred `Hitch' Hitchcock and his various leading ladies.

Like I say, don't dwell too much on what you know is going to happen - just enjoy some excellent performances. The two leads are just the icing on the cake, as the film is pretty `star-studded' from start to finish.

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

Fight Club - Often parodied, seldom bettered

Chances are, if you’ve watched any popular movie over the last fifteen years or so, you’ve probably heard the line, ‘The first rule of *whatever* is do not talk about *whatever.*’ This is of course the most famous line from the Brad Pitt/Edward Norton 1999 classic, ‘Fight Club.’ In a nutshell, Fight Club is so good it’s spawned many parodies and rip-offs, none of which have even come close to emulating just how good it is.

I’ll give you a brief plot synopsis, but leave it there, as if I go into too much detail, I start running the risk of letting slip some major spoilers.  Edward Norton plays a bored and run-down salesman who spends his days flying across America selling his wares.  However, his dull life takes a turn for the interesting when he happens to bump into Tyler Durden (or rather Brad Pitt) on a plane.  The two of them form an unlikely bond and come up with a novel way of dealing with male stress in the modern age – they beat the hell out of each other for fun.  And, believe it or not, this idea soon spreads across the nation and ‘Fight Clubs’ start springing up everywhere.

It’s about now in the review where I list the good and bad points of the film.  However, I can’t actually think of anything negative to say about Fight Club and, if I listed all its plus points then I’d probably be here all day.  There’s very little wrong with this film in general – it has everything from great central performances from Pitt, Norton and Helena Bonham Carter (and even a sterling performance from Meat Loaf – who’d have thought!) to wry social commentary, snappy dialogue and those plot points I refuse to mention for fear of being hounded off the internet for spoiling movies.

As I’ve already eluded to, there’s definitely more to it than the synopsis, but anything more may ruin the surprises in store.  Whether you like dark, intelligent thrillers or just want to see Brad Pitt topless, you really should check this film out at some stage.  It’s already a classic and, even after all these years, holds up very well with its themes of fragile male ego, bonding and the establishment in general. 

When I watched it last I felt it had an almost ‘Hitchcock-vibe’ to it all, which would explain why it all feels so dark and timeless.  If you haven’t seen it, don’t ask people about it, as they may well give away bits of it that will stay with you forever.  Just watch it.  Then re-watch it again with a completely different view of it all when you know what it’s really about.

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

Black Sheep – Nice idea, just about gets a ‘pass’


I’ve watched ‘Black Sheep’ twice now and, although I didn’t begrudge it a second viewing, it did leave me with the feeling I had the first time round – namely that it was a fun little horror/comedy, but probably would have worked better if it was shorter.


The basic premise is - in dare I say typically cliched stereotypes - New Zealand sheep turn into zombies (or rather zombie-sheep, to be fair), complete with bites that, if bitten YOU also turn into a zombie-sheep.  The reason the sheep take on this murderous trait is pretty wafer-thin, you don't really need to know it.

The actors all play their parts well.  I've never seen any of them before in anything, leaving me to believe that they're probably more well-known for their TV work.  All do their job in terms of who's good and who's bad etc.  Also, there's nothing new in terms of story.  If you've seen one zombie movie then you'll know the structure this movie takes and nothing much will come as a surprise.

However, what brings this film to life - and is its main saving grace, are the special effects.  I'm not sure what percentage were practical, compared to how much was done with computers, but I'm guessing the film-makers had fun with more practical gore rather than do everything in post production.  There's some great monster transformations and delightfully over the top brutal deaths.

I like the film, but it's certainly not one I'd watch often.  I just feel like all the best (i.e. gory and funniest) scenes are those with the sheep going crazy and mutating and killing people.  These come every so often, so the film does have a fair few perks.  I can't help but think that the idea is better that - what is effectively - a full length feature film.  The idea would have probably been a little tighter if it was used for a 30-45 minute story, rather than trying to drag out for ninety minutes.  Still worth a watch if you like daft, gory, over-the-top comedy-horror films though.


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

Welcome To The Jungle - Arnie would have loved this

And by all accounts he did. Welcome to the Jungle would have been a perfect vehicle for Schwarzenegger (if he was a little younger maybe), as it has all the ingredients of an `old school' Arnie action film. Yes, there are plenty of beatings and shoot-outs, but they're all pretty tongue-in-cheek and precede a witty quip or a dodgy pun.

The Rock (or Dwayne Johnson if we're being technical) plays a bounty hunter, employed to bring Stiffler back from the jungle. Sean William Scott seems to be stuck in his `Stiffler' mode from American Pie, but it's no bad thing. He provides most of the bigger laughs next to his long-suffering captor, Dwayne Johnson.

Plus the bad guys are exceptionally wicked and deserve everything they get. And there's a seemingly infinite supply of them, just waiting to be beaten or shot to death by Johnson.

Expect cheesy action and explosions and our heroes never to sustain so much as a bruise, despite being hurled through the air, landing down cliffs and in trees.

And pay attention for Arnie's `handover' cameo in the opening few seconds.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Insidious 2 - By the number sequel

I didn't like this film. However, the main reason I wasn't impressed was due to how much I enjoyed the first `Insidious' film. I found it - amazingly - quite a refreshing (and above all scary) little horror film. Therefore I was hoping for more of the same from the sequel. And I sure got it.

Insidious 2 felt like the same film. Everything was the same (apart from a lack of so much Darth Maul towards the end). It just seemed like they photocopied the first film's script, added a couple of `flashback scenes' and turned it out as a new movie.

To be honest, there's nothing wrong with Insidious 2. It has scares, i.e. a few loud noises that make you jump and the ghostly effects are reasonably creepy. However, so was the first film, therefore I was hoping for a little more than simply a `rehash.'

No one can accuse the franchise of straying from the formula. That's `Chapter 2's' main problem - it's too similar. Now it just feels like a hundred other formulaic horror films that get offloaded straight to DVD.

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

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World - Looks great on Edgar Wright’s CV

The interestingly-titled ‘Scott Pilgrim vs the World’ is based on a comic book about a young man who has to fight his new girlfriend’s seven evil ex boyfriends.  No, seriously.  And, if the first question you’re asking is “Why?” then you’re probably like me.  First of all this is a movie (probably!) more for teenagers and youngsters (not bitter and cynical forty-somethings such as myself), therefore I’m guessing that most people will just go with it, rather than questioning every single plot point like I found myself doing.

I did enjoy the film – sort of.  Once you allow yourself to get past just how ludicrous the plot is, you’ll find that it is in fact quite funny.  The titular Scott Pllgrim, played by the totally typecast Michael Cera, falls in love with a new girl in his town, only to discover that, in order to win her heart, he has to beat and pummel all her ‘evil’ exes one after another.  And it’s quite fun to watch, possibly because it knows how daft it is and therefore plays on it, deciding to shoot the film almost like a computer game from yesteryear.  Expect ‘life gauges’ to appear on screen every time Scott picks a fight with someone new.  Plus plenty of visual comic-like clues as to the fact that it wants you to know that it’s based on a comic book, such as written text on the screen to emphasise sounds and feelings.

I’d probably forget the film quite quickly if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s co-written and directed by Edgar Wright, best known for working with Simon Pegg on various film collaborations. I think it’s fair to say that Wright has a visual style that really works with this type of film.  Every scene he emphasises silly little things in order to draw your attention to little details that most films overlook.  I found myself enjoying how the film looked even more than the actual film itself.  Sorry for the generalisation, but I do think that younger cinema audiences will enjoy the story aspect, however it was funny enough to keep me entertained and had a visual flair that is often missing from mainstream Hollywood.  Just a pity Edgar Wright never got to do his vision of Marvel’s ‘Antman!’

If nothing else, it’s worth watching Captain ‘Chris Evans’ America take the beating that even Iron Man himself couldn’t manage!

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

Masters Of The Universe - The second most wonderfully cheesy movie of all time

If it wasn't for the ultimate in sci-fi cheese-fest aka Flash Gordon in 1980, then Masters of the Universe would rightly hold the title. However, second place isn't bad. And nor is the film either.

If you're looking for Oscar-worthy performances, big-budget special effects and great character development then look elsewhere. This is NOT Avatar.

What this is is a tale loosely based on the classic eighties figures of He-man and co. On the planet of Eternia, the evil Skeletor is trying to take over the universe and it's up to He-man and his furry underwear to save the day. Of course this involves a trip to Earth to the only place in the world where no one takes any notice of large muscular men wielding swords in their Y-fronts.

It's very daft and you won't know whether to laugh or cry. But it's still enormous fun. It may not have the budget of the acting performances of Lord of the Rings, but with Lord of the Rings, you couldn't really cheer loudly for the characters as well as you can with Masters of the Universe.

This is fun for all the family (especially if you were either a young boy in the eighties - like me - or simply someone who can appreciate cheesy movies for what they are - also me). Don't take this too seriously - it was never meant to be that way. Just put your brain on hold and enjoy the silliness of the ride.

(Oh, and did I mention there's a very young Courtney Cox to see, long before the start of Friends!)

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Legend (2015) - Yes, it’s another ‘Kray film’ (but it does have Tom hardy in!)

‘The Krays’ are possibly one of the most ‘filmed’ real-life personalities Britain has ever produced.  It seems we can’t get enough of their antics as the twin brothers terrorised the London underworld scene all those years ago.  There has been countless films made about their dastardly exploits and now we have ‘Legend’ – another one.

Basically, it’s another ‘true’ story of their lives.  In other words it’s based on what people have said about them over the years and bits and pieces of fact mixed with a better and more concise way of telling their story.  The brothers’ tale has been put on film so many times it’s hard to get that excited any more.  However, this one has Tom Hard in.  And not just Tom Hardy, but Tom Hardy AND Tom Hardy (i.e. he plays both twins!).

And, in true Tom Hardy style, he brings a newfound excellence to the roles.  Just because the twins are (basically) identical, their personalities are definitely not.  One is – slightly – cooler and more calculating in his dodgy deals whereas the other one just wants to beat the hell out of anyone who opposes them.  Both Krays might as well be played by different actors as Hardy does each of them justice and you’ll never be confused as to which one is which.

If you already know about the loves and lives of the Kray twins, this film probably won’t tell you anything new.  However, it’s still worth a watch just to see Tom Hardy’s take on them (can you tell that I’m a fan?!).  Also, if you’re generally a fan of gangster films then this one should pretty much tick all the boxes you’re looking for.  There’s probably a reason as to why this is the second highest-grossing British 18 certificate (after Trainspotting) – and that’s because it really is a damn good biopic.  Okay, they’ll always be the questions asked as to how much is made up for the story and how much really happened, but, from what I know about the real life drama, a lot of the major plot points are covered and, whether it all happened exactly as portrayed here, it still makes for an entertaining ride in the gangster genre.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Repo Men - Entertaining, but probably divisive 

Repo Men (not to be confused by the eighties cult flick `Repo Man') is a new film, set in the near future, where people can buy replacement organs to either preserve or enhance their bodies (for health or vanity's sake). However, if you don't pay the full price on time, your organs are liable to be repossessed (in the most gruesome fashion) by a `Repo Man' such as Jude Law.

He's good at his job, but his wife wants him to quit. He's about to when - shock horror - something goes wrong and he's forced on the run by the very organisation he served.

So it's one of those on-the-run films where the protagonist is chased through a series of different venues by baddies and picks up a girl along the way. It's nothing special, but it's not that bad either. There's action, fighting and some cool `slow-mo' bits to keep the MTV generation entertained.

However, before I watched it, I made the mistake of reading some reviews and learned a little too much about the plot. Therefore, I went into the film expecting something. I'm not going to mention what it is, but let's just say there's an element of the film that seems to seriously be dividing audiences. Because of this, you'll either love the film, or hurl your popcorn at the TV.

Personally, I found the `surprise' acceptable. You may not. Be warned.

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