Fire In The Sky - A `real' X-file

How many times have you seen the words, `Based on a true story,' at the beginning of a Hollywood film? Normally, when that's written, what you see on screen is about as far away to what actually happened as you can possibly get. However, `Fire in the Sky' is almost quite close to what really happened (obviously, if you believe what the story is all about).

Travis Walton was a logging worker in 1975 who, while up in the mountains, was abducted by a flying saucer right before his co-workers' eyes. This is the account of what happened. One criticism is that it heavily favours the account of Walton and his co-workers, over those sceptical of their fantastical claim. However, when you think about it, Fire in the Sky would have been a pretty dull film if all that happened was Travis decided to hide in the woods for a few days while his mates made up crazy stories about what they've seen.

This is a great film - kind of like a `real life' episode of the X-files. And, you can enjoy it on two levels: if you're a `Mulder' and believe in aliens, UFOs etc, you can look at it as a documented account of what actually happened. However, if you're a `Scully' (i.e. a sceptic) then you should be able to enjoy it by simply seeing it as a good piece of dramatic science-fiction.

Either way, if you're into sci-fi or drama, you should quite enjoy it. It's also worth looking into further - the real Travis Walton wrote quite a comprehensive book on the subject matter and there's plenty of `evidence' to back up his claims if you do some research on the internet.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Cannibal Holocaust - The Blair Witch's grandfather

It's impossible to talk about Cannibal Holocaust without mentioning The Blair Witch Project.  Blair Witch is (wrongly) labelled as `inventing' the `found footage' genre, when, in fact it simply `rebooted' it.  Cannibal Holocaust did it almost twenty years previous.

We hear at the beginning how four young film-makers travelled deep into the jungle, only to never be heard from again.  A professor, curious as to their fate, retraces their path and finds their footage.  What you have here is two stories in one.  You have the more `traditional' Hollywood story-telling of the professor talking to TV executives about showing the found footage on network television and the footage which was retrieved from the jungles (first person, ala Blair Witch).

I only got to see the edited UK version of this film, but the footage, both from the professor who follows them and the film-makers themselves remains as shocking today as it was at the time.  Cannibal Holocaust was banned at the time of release and even had claims of being a `stuff' film (i.e. one where real people are killed on camera).  This maybe untrue, but viewers should be warned that, although the people who die are all just covered in fake blood and prosthetics, REAL animals were killed for the making of the film.  Those with strong views on this may wish to steer clear.

However, the animal cruelty is only fleeting.  What you have are pretty strong scenes of torture which make the Hostel franchise seem tame in comparison.  The footage, being shot in the eighties and on `non professional' cameras, gives the film a deliberately `raw' feel about it which even the Blair Witch Project can't even match.  Plus you have the music which is both creepy and tranquil at the same time.

As you have probably guessed, the film-makers (on film) meet a grisly end at the hands (and teeth, obviously) of the cannibals in the jungle.  Although, where we probably felt sorry for those behind the camera in Blair Witch and other such films, here the film-makers were pretty horrible.  Some may see that they got what they deserved.

It's hard to `enjoy' this film in a traditional viewing sense.  Yet it remains a deserved lynchpin in the horror genre's history.

Bottom line: for those with strong stomachs ONLY.

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

What We Do in the Shadows - Just like Twilight (only joking... thankfully)

A film about vampires.  My first thought – oh... another one – great.  Add the fact that it’s a ‘mockumentary’ i.e. a spoof documentary filmed in a ‘fly-on-the-wall’ kind of fashion.  My first thought – oh, another one – great.

Yes, there is truly nothing original about ‘What We Do in the Shadows’ – a spoof documentary, charting the lives of four ancient vampires, currently flat-sharing in modern day New Zealand.  Perhaps the generally lack of originality was what made me watch it with such low expectations.  In any case... I was more than pleasantly surprised.

It was actually really good.  In short... it was funny.  It takes a lot for a ‘comedy’ film to actually make me laugh and this one pulled it off.  Yes, there’s absolutely nothing ‘idea-wise’ that we haven’t seen before, but with a sharp, satirical script, that doesn’t matter.  It’s just such a daft, fun film that anyone who has a love of the horror/vampire genre will definitely enjoy it.  You do need to know a little bit in general about vampire films.  Naturally, there are more than a few jokes based on the general Dracula legend that might go over your head if you haven’t seen the film or read the book.

Yes, most of the vampires are pretty stereotypical (for undead blood-suckers) and you should recognise their ‘types’ among the genre.  But, as I say, it’s simply the comedy that saves this film from potentially being just mediocre.

If you enjoy your horror/vampire yarns, relax your brain and put this one.  It really is simply amusing.  Special credit to the wonderful scenes with the swearwolves... sorry WERE wolves.  Classic.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Screwed - Yes, it's very British 

Our homemade `Brit-flicks' do try to do their best to be labelled as `gritty.' Seeing as we haven't got the budget, the stars or the special effects of Hollywood, we have to try and be a bit more true to life in order to stand out. Screwed does its best to achieve this.

An ex serviceman takes on a job as a prison warden in order to make ends meet in civilian life. That's the basic plot. You probably know what to expect - prison beatings, dodgy dealings and plenty of back-stabbing. It might be as cheeky as a Guy Richie film or as deep and dark as the more recent `Tyrannosaur,' but to be fair, Screwed delivers on all of this.

Its gritty and grim and it does its best, however it does suffer from a few one-dimensional characters, spouting clichéd lines that you could probably write yourself.

Is it worth watching? Yes, if you like prison dramas. Its major plus point is the menacing Noel Clarke, playing a (yet nastier) version of his Kidulthood former character.

Give it a chance. It's not bad. But I do wonder how long Ronnie Barker and his Porridge inmates would have lasted here (and they thought Mr Mackay was bad!). 

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

Child's Play (2019) - A reboot done right

Has Hollywood completely run out of ideas?  The correct answer is 'Yes.' Reboots, remakes and reimaginings are all the rage right now - and none more so prominent than in the horror genre.  Therefore, it was only a matter of time before the nineteen eighties classic 'Child's Play' was given the same lazy treatment.  I didn't bother watching it in the cinema as I was all set to sneer at it as merely a shameless cash grab and a cheap, knock-off of the original.  How wrong I was.

Okay, so it is probably a bit of a 'cash grab,' but in the depressing history of horror remakes, this is actually a pretty good one.  For a start, they take the initial idea, i.e. child's toy doll that comes to life and starts killing people and change enough to make it recognisable as 'Child's Play,' while at the same time changing enough (mainly bringing it screaming into the modern era with our society's obsession with 'smart homes/devices') to make it different to the original.

If you're worried that the child actors will spoil the film (as they often do - and not just in horror films) then don't worry.  They're actually quite good and believable in their roles.  Obviously, the 'real' star of the film is the doll himself, or, in this case we have Mark Hamill stepping in for the original's Brad Dourif.  And, besides being known best for Luke Skywalker, he's actually really good at doing creepy voice work (as anyone who's seen his cartoon portrayal as 'the Joker' in the animated
'Batman' series can vouch for.

I'd probably say the original 'Child's Play' film was an outright horror (whereas its sequels fell into more a 'horror/comedy' feel) whereas this remake has definitely more than a few moments of black humour thrown in there, so prepare to have at least a little chuckle here and there.  Especially as the film's real high-point is actually its script.  All the way through it felt fresh and fun (in a dark and murderous kind of way, obviously!) and the characters interacted with each other in a way that felt natural.

Okay, so it may never have the originality of the original - by the very nature that it's a remake, but don't just dismiss it because it's a copy.  It may not be part of the existing 'Child's Play' 'lore,' but it's a smart and funny horror film that definitely deserves a watch (and I think Mark Hamill really sounded like he was enjoying himself singing the 'Buddi song').

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Life After Beth - There’s life in the old genre left

Yes, it’s another zombie film.  There are so many these day that they kind of all merge into one, therefore anything that actually stands out among the B-movies that have gone straight to DVD is actually quite rare. ‘Life After Beth’ is okay.  Nothing more.  However, when compared to its current crop of rivals, it’s actually not all that bad.

Zach’s girlfriend, Beth, dies and he’s naturally heartbroken.  Although, it’s not all bad as she comes back.  She’s welcomed back by her grieving parents who are quite happy to put aside the ‘hows and the whys’ of her resurrection, just so long as they’ve got their child back.  But, as you probably can guess, having a reanimated corpse as a close family member is a recipe for disaster.

Yes, she starts out okay to begin with – her slight loss of memory surrounding her untimely demise can easily be blagged.  But it doesn’t take too long before she’s pulling apart small buildings and getting hungrier and hungrier for... well, what do zombies normally eat?

If you’ve seemed ‘Warm Bodies’ then you probably know the sort of genre we’re talking about here.  It’s a kind of love story for teenagers, but with the undead thrown in.  Personally, I preferred ‘Warm Bodies’ as it was bigger budget and had more to it.  Life After Beth is like its poorer cousin.  Like I say, it’s not a bad film.  It has enough black comedy moments to amuse, but there aren’t really enough to make it a straight comedy.  Nor is there enough gore to class it as a horror.  You’ve basically got a teen romance story which borrows from a few other genres.

It doesn’t have to be watched by teens.  I think it’s adult enough to be watched by anyone who’s sort of into zombies/horror/black comedy.  Just don’t expect too much.  Everyone plays their part as well as can be expected.  Bottom line: if you enjoyed Warm Bodies and are happy to sit through – yet another – zombie film, you might like this.  If nothing else it’s quite short!

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

The Cottage - It’s fun at the Serkis

Andy Serkis.  If you know your films (mainly post 'Lord of the Rings') you’ll probably know him best for being the man behind the (completely computer-generated) 'Gollum' and then dozens other equally digital Hollywood creations, or possible directing the superhero film 'Venom.'  However, it’s rare that the man behind the effects gets to shine.  Granted (and no offense Mr Serkis if by some fluke he ever reads this!) he’s not exactly picture perfect leading man material, but he sure is fun to watch in the right setting.

Here, in this low budget British horror ‘The Cottage,’ he plays one half of a pair of inept brothers who are trying to get rich quick by kidnapping the (borderline indestructible Jennifer Ellison) teenage daughter of local kingpin ‘Arnie’ and holding up in the titular 'cottage.’ Now, bearing in mind that the brothers are hardly the Kray twins, this would be dangerous enough.  However, their plight isn’t exactly aided by Jennifer Ellison being possibly the most difficult victim ever tied to a bed and gagged.  Oh, and did I mention the locals aren’t too friendly either?

What you’re left with is a pretty low budget, but very gruesome ninety minutes of fun.  Yes, it’s not Oscar worthy and the special effects aren’t that special in places (I’m talking about possibly one of the most blatant ‘full face masks’ ever committed to the silver screen.  But that doesn’t matter.  Serkis carries the film alone, but that’s not to say that his (henpecked) brother, played by Reece Shearsmith doesn’t deserve a mention (especially due to his inexplainable fear of moths) and then you have Jennifer Ellison who is just wonderfully obtuse (and foul-mouthed) at every turn.

Don’t expect Shakespeare, just expect deliciously over-the-top fun (with severed body parts aplenty).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Return Of The Living Dead - So dark and yet so funny

Return of the Living Dead is considered, by some, to be the `unofficial sequel' to George A Romero's classic zombie shocker Night of the Living Dead. It isn't, but the writer owned the rights to the `living dead' part of the title (hence the reason all George's later offerings were simply `...of the Dead').

But, studio politics aside, RotLD takes the modern zombie genre that George is often credited for creating and refreshes it. In fact, it refreshes it so much that, to this day, it still hasn't been beaten.

It's about a group of punks who go partying in a graveyard one night, right next to a warehouse where a chemical leak resurrects the graveyard's sleeping occupants. There's nothing too original in the plot - in fact, it's pretty cheesy. However, it's the way the whole film is executed which sets it apart. There's so much right with it that what little bits that don't work are easily overlooked.

The characters are believable and, almost all the time, do logical, sensible things. Also, it's the `oldies' who steal the show. In a world where teenagers are normally the stars of horror films, it's the older, wiser characters that both get the better lines and come through as the heroes. It has some pretty interesting situations, where the zombies are `explained,' plus they're well and truly `pumped up' compared to George A Romero's `shufflers.' These guys don't die from a head shot and some of them can even solve puzzles.

Not only is the film littered with pokes at Night of the Living Dead, plus generally horror films, but there are also some genuinely humorous moments on their own. Not that this is just a strict comedy. The tone is overall very dark and depressing. The sheer strength and invulnerability of the zombies compared to the humans makes it an almost lost cause for our heroes to fight against.

There are so many zombie movies flooding the DVD racks these days, you may be forgiven for thinking that an obscure one from the mid eighties with no stars in it has much place in the horror genre. I think you'll find you're wrong. If half the modern zombie offerings had even a fraction of the class and originality of RotLD, they'd actually get out of the Bargain Basement bins in DVD stores.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Colour Out of Space - Tickle me purple

I don't know an awful lot about H.P. Lovecraft's written work, but 'Colour Out of Space' is based on one of his stories and I can't say how faithful it is, but it certainly is 'out there.'

Nicolas Cage plays the father of a family living in the middle of the woods whose lives are severely disrupted by a meteorite landing in their back garden.  Naturally, things don't go well as this lump of rock contains a lot more than they bargained for... namely a lot of 'purple.'

The film comes in at about one hour and forty minutes and don't expect too much in the way of horror or monsters in the first half.  It's all about building the characters (quite slowly!), but don't turn it off in disgust as it sure picks up in the last act.  It's a kind of psychedelic horror film with plenty of gross effects and excellent computer generated weirdness.  There seem to be a lot of 'practical' creature effects mixed with some great use of computer-generated graphics where the colour purple swirls around our human landscape.

Nicolas Cage is possible the film's major selling point when it comes to 'star power' and he does his best to 'dial back' his natural tendency to 'chew up' the scenery.  He plays quite a muted character (by his own acting standards) and only really hints at going 'full Cage' towards the end.

It's quite a slow film, but ultimately if you like your creature-features then you'll probably find it quite rewarding in the end.

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

Killer Joe - Will you like this? Did I?

I first found out about `Killer Joe' from UK film critic Mark Kermode who said that, after watching the film, he wasn't actually sure whether he liked it or not. I was intrigued. I wondered whether you automatically knew whether you liked something or not after experiencing it. However, after viewing Killer Joe, I am also wondering whether I liked it or not.

Killer Joe is about a trailer park family on the wrong side of the law in America. The son owes a lot of money to some local drug dealers and decides to have hitman Joe Cooper (or `Killer' as the title says) shoot her so that they can benefit from the insurance money. Definitely a film of an adult nature. For a start, it's very `gritty.' It has many brutal beatings, murders and acts of a s*xual nature (including torture). Yet it's also strangely comic (in the darkest, blackest sense possible). You certainly get a feel for the characters, even though none of them are in any way likeable.

It's kind of like a window into another world. A world full of car crashes that you have to watch, but don't necessarily want to experience firsthand.

Did I enjoy it? I certainly didn't turn it off. Would I want to watch it again? Maybe. In a while. Right now it's a bit too fresh in my head. I think it may warrant a second viewing, but only if I'm in the mood for something pretty dark and nasty. I can see quite a lot of people hating this for being just generally horrible. To be fair, they may have a point. This is one film that you'll either be able to stand or you won't.

Those of you into `light and fluffy' beware - you have been warned!

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

Boxing Helena - An interesting, if odd, watch

I've always been a fan of David Lynch's weird and wonderful films and TV shows, therefore I've also always had an interest in the output of his daughter, Jennifer Lynch. 'Boxing Helena' was one of her first films and, to put it mildly, it was an ordeal for everyone involved.  Besides the drama offscreen involving the trouble with casting and actors dropping out, the film wasn't particularly well received and is actually quite hard to find these days, leading to Jennifer Lynch not really dabbling in the big screen for quite some time.

It's about a rather troubled surgeon who becomes obsessed with the titular 'Helena' and - believe it or not - ends up amputating both her arms and legs in order to 'care for her.' Yeah, it's an odd sell, but if you know anything about either Lynch, you'll probably see it as 'normal!'

Now, based on that mini synopsis, you may be inclined to automatically see Helena as 'the victim' - which of course she is, but in most cinema victims' cases, you automatically feel sorry for them.  Maybe not her though.  Perhaps one of the film's (many?) flaws is its characters who are all pretty much fundamentally unlikable.  The main star is weird and his 'hostage' not an awful lot better on a personal level.  Yes, there is some 'character growth' over the course of the story, but it's certainly a hard watch.

I'm not sure whether I enjoyed it or not.  The whole production has this whole feel like it's a cross between a made-for-TV movie and a daytime soap.  The acting is a little odd, but I'm not sure whether that's deliberate or not as all the stars are certainly fine actors in their own right, but they seem to have been told to 'play up' to the whole melodrama feel.

I've seen 'Boxing Helena' twice now - once when it was first released in the cinema and now thirty years later.  Back then I thought it was more of a horror/love story.  Now I guess there are underlying themes my teenage self didn't pick up on, such as the power struggle/dynamic of a toxic relationship.  I don't know whether I'd recommend it or not.  Just expect something weird and be in a bit of a forgiving mood to overlook its flaws.  It didn't put me off either Lynch though and both have gone on to do even better (and weirder!) things.

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

Alice Through the Looking Glass - Surprised they ever made a sequel

Okay, I’m in the minority, but I quite liked Tim Burton’s take on Alice in Wonderland.  As he said at the time – the original Disney cartoon version was just a girl wandering from one random encounter with a wacky character to the next, i.e. no story.  Yeah, I liked the cartoon exploits as a kid, but I have to agree with that description, so I quite enjoyed watching Alice turn into a knight and slay a dragon-type creature while Johnny Depp looks on.

However, I sometimes think I was the only one who felt like that.  The 2010 live action Alice in Wonderland was largely slated on all fronts and accused of everything from an overuse in CGI (er, what blockbuster film doesn’t these days?!) to a lack of character development (um, again, what film doesn’t these days?!).  Anyway, because of the reception it received, I was pretty sure that would be the last time Johnny Depp ever plays a wild and wacky, exaggerated character (only joking, but I didn’t think he’d hung up his ‘mad’ hat for good).

So, we have the sequel – once again Alice is summoned to Wonderland, this time in order to stop the Mad Hatter from becoming mad (no, seriously).  To accomplish this, she needs to travel back in time to stop a cyborg from killing his mother.  Wait, that’s the plot to Terminator, but it was something like that – insert ‘dragon’ instead of cyborg and ‘family’ instead of mother.  And, if there’s one thing that every single time travel movie has taught us – it’s that messing with the timelines never ends well.  Or, in this case, makes for a bit of a hit and miss story.

Alice jumps from one time period to the next, never really staying in one for long.  Johnny Depp (again, fronting much of the promotional material) is left in the ‘present’ and only really stars for about twenty minutes of screen time, so Alice becomes an observer in one time period after another.  This kind of gives the ‘story’ a jumpy ‘sketch-feel’ to it.  Yes, Sacha Baron Cohen plays ‘Time’ (literally!) and is a pretty cool villain who we actually feel sorry for, as he’s just doing his job, but really the story is just one set piece after the next.

There are some ‘real’ elements set outside Wonderland that act as ‘bookends’ to the fantasy middle portion, but I’ll wager you’ll have forgotten the beginning once the Wonderland bits kick off.  They’re pretty much not needed as it’s all about the magical middle.

Personally, I preferred the original (granted I may be the only one).  I could happily watch it again whereas I don’t think that there was enough here to really warrant a second viewing.  There was so little plot and what was there was pretty predictable.  I doubt they’ll bother making a third as ‘Alice Through the Looking Glass’ is not currently performing too well at the Box Office, opening against the latest X-men movie and trying to bury Johnny Depp’s off-screen antics.

But, saying that, I took my Mum and daughter to see it and they both really, really liked it.  What do I know?  Maybe it’s simply more appealing to 72 and 11 year olds that 39 year old blokes who would have preferred to see Captain America: Civil War, but was severely overruled?

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

Death Wish 4: The Crackdown - Surprisingly good

Love it or hate it, the first 'Death Wish' film was a classic - yes, it had excessive violence, but people enjoyed seeing those responsible get what was coming to them and the movie kind of reinvented the 'revenge' tale for the era.  It then spawned two sequels, 'Part 2' being quite similar, whereas 'Part 3' upped the stakes to more of a straight out 'action' movie.  I think it's fair to say that 'Part 4: The Crackdown' is more of the same.

Originally, Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) lost his wife, then his daughter, then an old friend.  Now, his latest girlfriend's daughter dies of a drugs overdose, therefore Kersey must do what he does best and deliver his lethal brand of justice to those responsible.  Apparently, this was the first 'Death Wish' film to go straight to video, however if you're expecting that to be a measure of how well it was received, it actually went on to be a major hit on the small screen.  It certainly lacks any subtlety or nuance about the script.  It's just Kersey killing drug dealers.  Now, if you think that's a bad thing for a film series that once gave us a horrific insight into crime and the lengths we may go to if it happened to us to 'descend' into mindless action, I guess it's how much you enjoy your action movies.

There's nothing particularly special about 'Part 4,' but, for some reason, it's a damn enjoyable watch.  Perhaps if you excessive violence of the first two films made you a little uneasy, this one is more 'Hollywood' with good guys killing bad guys.  I know I could probably say that it loses points for giving Charles Bronson (another) love interest who's roughly half his age, but she's not in it much and it does seem to be a staple of the franchise!

Overall, 'Death Wish 4: The Crackdown' is nothing you haven't seen a hundred times before in eighties/nineties action films, but it's certainly not a bad movie for any of its clichés.  Just break open a bag of popcorn and don't dwell on the fact as to how a (slightly overweight) man in his sixties can take out one goon after the next with merely a slight tap to the back of the neck.  Out of the first four 'Death Wish' films, this was the one I remembered the least, however, upon watching it recently in over twenty years, I'm actually taken aback with how good/watchable it is.  And bonus points if you spot a young Danny Trejo or Mitch Pileggi among the henchmen!

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

Tape 407 - Not as bad as it's made out

I've read some pretty scathing reviews about Tape 407, so I naturally didn't have many hopes for it. Plus I'm getting as sick as most horror fans about the amount of `found footage' films that are being churned out. This is one of those `Blair Witch' movies filmed from a single camera all the way where you constantly shout at the screen "Why are you actually filming all this?" We know the `first person' gimmick is just a way of filming on the cheap, but, if you can get over that here, it's not quite as bad as people are making out. Not quite.

Perhaps one mistake was making the camera-person a sixteen-year-old American girl from L.A. She does tend to shriek quite a bit. However, her shrieking is soon drd out by everyone else. The plane she's on crashes in the middle of an American military testing base/desert and the survivors end up getting stalked by a load of monsters.

The film also leaves you a bit shaken due to the excessive shaky camerawork to go with the shrieking. All in all, it's a tough watch, but it's not all bad. Some of the characters are actually quite fun to watch - the air hostess is believable and passenger `Charlie' is wonderfully annoying, making you just want to strangle him.

However, and I hope this doesn't count as a spoiler, the opening test card to the film tells you that this footage is `found' therefore you don't have to be a genius to guess the ending. The ending. The ending has left a lot of people cheesed off. Anyone who was enjoying it up until the end feels like the film-makers used one too many clichés to be believable.

Yes, for all its - many - flaws, I did sit through it and feel I didn't entirely waste an hour of my life.

I can't bring myself to recommend it, as it's clear that the majority of people didn't. However, I think there will be a few people out there - like me - who at least saw SOME good in it.

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

I Spit on Your Grave - A hard watch

Sometimes there are films that you watch and you wonder why you did. 'I Spit on Your Grave' is one of those that could hardly be described as 'enjoyable' and yet I sat through it nonetheless.  If you haven't already heard of its infamous reputation, it's a 1978 horror film that was heavily edited due to its extreme subject matter, i.e. a young woman rents a cabin in the middle of rural America and ends up being tortured by a local gang of men (and by 'tortured' you'll have to read between the lines to get the 'full horror' of that definition).

In short... there is violence - LOTS of graphic torture/rape/violence.  I'm not sure why anyone would really want to watch it in such high doses, but it's certainly here (especially in the longer 'uncut' version).  However, it's more than just gratuitous violence - it's technically a 'revenge' movie.

I don't think it comes in 'spoiler territory' to say that the second half of the film changes tempo and is about what the woman does to 'get back' at those who have wronged her.  In similar films such as Charles Bronson's 'Death Wish' films, it's certainly cathartic to see the abusers get what's coming to them.

I know this film's reputation kind of guarantees it the sort of long-lasting cult status that some may say shouldn't be afforded to it, but - believe it or not - it's actually got more to it than just the unsettling violence.  It's quite well shot and some of the cinematography is really quite striking, plus the leading lady is certainly believable in all her character's arcs.

It's hard to say who this film will appeal to.  It's certainly got its fair shares of elements that will turn off many.  It's definitely hard to watch in places and you can be forgiven if you want to look away, but maybe it's one that should exist purely to be put up for debate as to whether it's degrading to women or empowering.

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

Eye in the Sky - A ‘war movie’ for modern times

Not so long ago, all ‘war movies’ consisted of armies of infantry storming one beach/desert/jungle (delete as applicable).  And, to be fair, there was little else that happened in a war.  However, in today’s high-tech times, ‘war’ can be fought from the ‘comfort’ of our own homes (okay, military bases, but how long before our soldiers are allowed to work from home?!).  The story here goes that Britain has finally got the intel on a handful of its most wanted terrorists who are amassing in a house in a suburban African district.  Should they just use an American-based ‘drone’ to wipe them out, or is the civilian casualty rate going to be too high?  Helen Mirren thinks the former.

The cast boasts Breaking Bad’s Aaron Paul on the cast list (and, of course the last performance of Alan Rickman), but it’s Mirren who steals the show.  She seems to revel in playing the British colonel who is willing to ‘take out’ the extremists at all costs.  Aaron Paul isn’t in it as much as some people may hope, but does well with what he’s given (which is basically spending the whole film sitting in a chair!).  Alan Rickman is as awesome as ever and it’s a shame we’ve lost him too early.  Plus we do see what’s happening ‘on the ground’ as it were and the film’s unsung hero is a Somalian operative who seems to give a performance filled with more heart and feeling without uttering a word of English than most English-speaking actors. 

If you’re hoping for an action-packed blast-a-thon of a movie then you’ll be very disappointed here.  Like I say, it’s a war movie of our time.  Some people may say that this is a fault, but basically the whole movie is people sitting around in offices debating the ethics of using technology in this way.  The film is basically an ‘ethics piece’ which debates both sides of the argument.  I have no problem with films like this, as long as they remain – reasonably – neutral and do their best to put both sides of the argument across.  This one does this pretty well, however it does tend to lean towards ‘nuking the site from obit’ (ala Ellen Ripley) simply because its bigger stars seems to share the same opinion.  However, there are plenty of moments where both sides of the argument make good points to support their opposing views.

This film won’t be for everyone.  Like I say, you have to be in the mood for something which is slow (but without being boring) and filled with messages (without being preachy).  It does show how ‘war’ has evolved to a PR machine as much as something that is simply fought using a bigger army than your opponent.  If you’re up for something a little more thought-provoking then definitely give this one a go.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Home Sweet Hell - Who Do I Root For?

'Home Sweet Hell' is the epitome of a film that will never be watched by the mainstream.  In fact, I'm surprised in these days of the dollar, this film ever got made in the first place.  That's not because it's bad, it's just because it's so 'non mainstream' that I'm surprised anyone ever thought it would make a profit.  However, I'm glad it was made regardless of how much it earned when it (no doubt!) went straight to DVD (or Netflix - wherever!). 

The reason I feel that it would never be considered 'mainstream' is that the central characters are fundamentally unlikable.  We're introduced to a professional couple (Patrick Wilson and Katherine Heigl) - he is a weak-willed, spineless excuse of a man who is desperate to have an affair with anything in a skirt.  She is a controlling, cold-hearted harpy of a woman.  And, as I mentioned, when he finally gets 'lucky' enough to have an affair with an attractive employee, you know it's never going to end well.  Let's just say that what follows is a twisted tale of blackmail, murder and double-crossing. 

Now, those are traits you may expect from the film's villains (of which there are also the 'traditional' type who come in the form of a pair of meth-heads).  However, the fact that those we're supposed to root for, i.e. Wilson and Heigl, also display those - ahem - 'admirable little traits, mean these are hardly your regular 'heroes.' Some may claim that they could be called 'anti-heroes,' however they do little to earn this label, as they're hardly fighting the forces of darkness for the good of mankind, merely to save their own skins (and reputations!).  I know Wilson comes across as slightly more sympathetic, as he really does find himself victimised by everyone and you can sort of see why he had an affair when you catch a glimpse of his homelife.  James Belushi is a nice guy in the story, but he’s just an additional character who we never really get to know.

Now, please don't think I'm coming across as 'harsh' on this film - I actually quite liked it!  In these days of selfless heroes (many of which in costumes swinging through cities and fighting hordes of alien bad-guys!) I quite enjoyed watching a pair of real nasty people being pitted against those equally distasteful - it made a pleasant change not to care who wins, only enjoying seeing as many people fail as possible.  Yes, they say that you need to 'relate' to characters in order to understand their plight and therefore invest in their journey.  I'm pleased to say I don't really relate to any of them and I still enjoyed the - darkly disturbing and sometimes comic- ride.  If you're in the mood for something distinctly UNheroic and dark, then this one should kill 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