Grabbers - Luck of the Irish

From a pretty average start `Grabbers' soon gets going and shows its true colours, i.e. it's not just a horror, but a pretty tongue-in-cheek comedy. And that's where its strength lies. It's at its best when it's being slightly cheeky. Yes, there's a reasonable amount of gore (but not that much). What little budget there is has been spent on the creatures themselves. And, for a mere (in Hollywood terms) £2 million the monsters are actually pretty well done. They're all computer-generated, but the CGI fits in seamlessly with the real actors all around them.

The film is about a sea-full of tentacled monsters who descend on an island off the coast of Ireland and start sucking the blood of the hapless locals. However, as luck would have it, these beastly parasites are allergic to the taste of alcohol. Therefore, all that needs doing to survive is getting out-of-your-face drunk. Of course, fighting back while plastered is actually quite hard!

Also, the film benefits from seeing the monsters (in the full) early on. In other similar monster-movies, you only get to see a tentacle here or there until the final scenes (normally to save on special effects), but here you see them `full frontal' from pretty early on.

Most of the characters are hardly developed, but if they're funny then we can forgive that.

If you're a fan of such cinema greats (!) as `Deep Rising' then this is in the same cheeky little league of its own.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Ma - 'Misery' with cellphones

Sometimes the most simple of films are actually the best ones.  Here, if you ignore there is a little similarity or two to the classic Stephen King adaptation of 'Misery,' you have a bunch of teens who befriend an older lady when she agrees to buy them alcohol.  However, they end up getting more than just a few bottles of underage grog for their troubles.

There may be nothing new with the way this film is put together, somehow everything just works.  For a start, the script is great.  The sort of tale where a girl moves to a new town could be riddles with all sorts of filmic cliches, yet this one doesn't go that way.  There's no love triange, no bitchy cool girl or meat-headed 'jock.' What you get is a group of friends who talks to each other as if they really were friends, therefore automatically letting us - the audience - root and relate with them.

Of course, I'm totally underplaying the excellent performance of Octavia Spencer as the titular 'Ma,' who offers to help these teens party with the purchase of alcohol.  She steals every scene, but, despite being the 'villain' of the film, her ability to make us understand where she's coming from and how she became the way she is just makes her character more than some sort of one-dimensional masked slasher we get in so many other horror films.

Despite the story not really going in too many novel directions, I'll keep the plot vague in case you don't guess where some of it is going.  However, if you want a 'horror' film that's probably more of a thriller than an outright blood-bath (although there are more than a few really grim moments that will make most men wince!) then definitely give it a go.  It's got excellent performances all round, some nice tweaks that you may not see coming, quite a few digs at the drawbacks of popular culture (mainly allowing so much of your own information to be viewed online by anyone) and just the one blatant nod to 'Misery' in the form of an ornamental cat.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Portal - DON'T enter the portal (you have been warned)  

Trust me, there's nothing in the portal you would ever want to see. Do you like horror films? Were you tempted by the mention of Michael Madsen in the cast list? That was how they got me to sit through this. Big mistake. The film looks like it was shot in the nineteen seventies with a budget that's been drummed up by a guy walking round collecting change in a slightly stained hat. Oh, and Michael Madsen is barely in it. He was better in Celebrity Big Brother.

The Portal has bad acting, awful computer generated special effects (were they rendered on a ZX Spectrum?), terrible dialogue, stupid camera angles and looks cheaper than something made for cable TV (bypassing even a straight-to-DVD release).

Some films are so bad they're good (Demons or Starcrash, for example). This one is just bad, bad, bad - seriously, save yourself an hour and a half and watch the shopping channel instead (the prices of those gold bracelets are a damn sight scarier than anything in the Portal).

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

Contagion - Life imitates art (nine years later)

A virus that starts off with bats in China, quickly spreads across the world causing mass death and destruction, not to mention 'social distancing.' No, that's not a brief history of 2020, but the plot of the film 'Contagion' made some nine years earlier.  Despite life imitating art quite scarily, luckily 2020 didn't have as many deaths as we can see on screen here - I guess we'll have to forgive Hollywood for upping the stakes a bit.

'Contagion' is quite a good little film, or at least it was at the time.  Now, it almost seems a little outdated as it shows us what COULD happen during a global pandemic, whereas today, we only really need to look out the window to see what the effects really are.  I guess it's main use now is to compare how the 'fictional' take on such a situation can be held up against real life.

On the plus side, it certainly has an A-list cast.  Ignore any promotional marketing regarding Gwyneth Paltrow - I don't really feel like it's a 'spoiler' to say that she's barely in it.  The main stars are Matt Damon, Laurence Fishburne, Kate Winslet and some actress I'd never seen before!  Anyway, it's a decent cast, but because the story skips from place to place across the planet, most of these cast are only given a certain amount of screen time for us to get to know them.  Some of their plights are more interesting than others, so you sort of may find you want to skip some of their tales in favour of getting to the better ones.

However, due to such an excellent cast, you can't really fault anyone's performance, but if a film is going to tackle a story of such grand scale, I couldn't help but think 'Contagion' would work more if it was a ten-part TV series instead, as it suffers from being a bit of a 'whistle-stop' tale of what would happen in these trying times.

It's not a bad film.  It's was definitely entertaining for its time and, in some ways, it's turned from being a simple and entertaining 'what if?' scenario to a scary prediction of things to come where we - with the benefit of hindsight - can see what the script-writers got right and what they got wrong.

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

Seed of Chucky - Could almost be considered a `reboot'

Okay, so `The Seed of Chucky' ISN'T a `reboot,' but it does radically shift from the previous three films' `formulas,' making it come across as a real change of direction. The first `Child's Play' film was a classic horror - a straight horror. Naturally (as with so many horror franchises), the sequels (parts 2 and 3) weren't received quite so well, also staying true to the original's horror vibe. Therefore, in this one (also the first `Chucky movie' to drop the `Child's Play' title) they decide to play it for laughs (or at least black comedy anyway).

The killer doll, Chucky, returns with his - equally psychotic - `wife' Tiffany and this time they're accompanied to Hollywood with their `gender-confused' child, Glen (or possibly Glenda).
And I thought the film was great. However, it's worth noting that there are plenty of people out there who disagree with me. I actually find the new `black comedy' take on the Chucky films just as good as the original horrific line. But a fair share of the audience obviously didn't appreciate the change of direction.

Full marks to Jennifer Tilly who not only voices Tiffany, but stars as herself and mercilessly sends herself up, portraying herself as an evil human, not an awful lot better than the evil dolls.
So, expect more killing and bloodshed, only this time played for laughs rather than scares. Unless of course you find Chucky's son/daughter doll more than a little creepy in his androgynous seventies David Bowie/Ziggy Stardust kind of way!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Death Wish V: The Face of Death - Kersey jumps the shark

I didn't even know 'Part 5' of the franchise existed until recently. 'Death Wish' 1 and 2 were regarded as the best of the series, but, seeing as I was a young (ish) boy at the time when I first discovered the saga, I always preferred 'Part III' in all its over-the-top glory.  Then the fourth installment came along and that was entertaining.  Yes, you had to suspend your disbelief to get into the mindset that - yet another - of one man's relatives has been violently murdered by the underworld, leading to him springing into equally-violent retribution (not to mention the fact that Charles Bronson's leading ladies seem to be getting successfully younger from film to film!).  Anyway, 'Part 4' was silly, entertaining fun that is definitely worth a watch.  My only hope for the final entry was to be more of the same.  It wasn't.

As much as I love (and take enjoyment) in all of its predecessors, I just couldn't really get into this one.  Whereas all the others seemed to at least try and 'one up' the previous entry, this one was just totally underwhelming.  If you thought Roger Moore was too old in those last few of his Bond films, Charles Bronson just looks laughable as the 'fearsome' vigilante, Paul Kersey.  If he wasn't quite so overweight it would be a start.  There's a random scene in the middle of the film where he has to run through a woods.  I say 'run,' but it's more like a 'breathless jog.' To make matters worse, one criminal even remarks [regarding Kersey] 'Damn, he's fast.' He really isn't.

Of course it wouldn't be a 'Death Wish' film without Kersey losing yet another person he holds dear.  You really wouldn't want to get into a relationship with him, as his latest lady-friend finds out.  Soon, she's dead (and that's hardly a spoiler when it comes to 'Death Wish' films!) and he has to take revenge on the organised mob.

Nothing too wrong with that premise (if a little unoriginal!), but, whereas he was out there blasting criminals from almost the off, here it takes him nearly half the movie to make his first kill.  And, for someone most famous for using guns, now he - mainly - uses elaborate traps and surprises to dispatch the guilty parties.

I wish I wasn't being so hard on these films.  I loved the first two.  The second two were great, mindless fun action films, but this one just shouldn't have been made.  It's a sad say when the remake starring Bruce Willis is actually a damn sight better than an entry in the original franchise.

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

Flash Gordon - The best film ever (end of discussion)

In millions of years time, when the Earth has been blasted to atoms (probably by a `freak' meteor storm, or something), aliens will come down to our charred and lifeless planet and collect a DVD of Flash Gordon (the movie), in order to preserve it for the benefit of the rest of the universe. It really is that good.

Okay, I'm kidding, but only kind of. It's actually a pretty terrible film. The acting is awful (especially the two leads) and the dialogue is even worse. Yet, it's still awesome. If there were Oscars for the best `So-bad-it's-good' movie then Flash Gordon would win year after year. The sets alone are awesome in their over-the-top colourfulness, plus the costumes are literally out-of-this-world. And you have Brain Blessed spouting some of the most memorable lines ever committed to film.

Did I mention they have lasers? Well, they do - LOTS of them - lasers blasting every which way you can see. And all to the soundtrack of one of the best rock bands ever - Queen.

In today's world of dark and serious cinema (I'm thinking Christopher Nolan's Batman saga and Daniel Craig's James Bond flicks) most people have forgotten just how much fun `camp and silly' films could be. Flash Gordon is just that - camp and silly. It never tries to be anything other than great, big, silly fun. And it succeeds.

It's worth noting that it's so enjoyable that it played a major part in Seth McFarlane's `Ted' movie (which I would recommend you check out if you have a `Family Guy' type humour).

Don't expect greatness when you sit down to watch Flash. Just expect great fun. And remember... he'll save every one of us!

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

The Wicker Tree - It takes quite a bit to make you pine for the Nicholas Cage version      

In short: why bother?

Yes, the original Wicker Man was a classic. Yes, the remake was completely pointless (and that's being kind). So... here we have a (semi) sequel to the original Wicker Man. And, if you look closely at the promotional material, you'll notice that it even has good ol' Christopher Lee in it. So, it must be good... right?

Wrong.

The first thing you should know is that Christopher Lee's `input' is literally less than a minute long. The film is almost a remake (in as much as there's nothing new in the story, so it's basically a retread of the old version). Two American Christians come to a small village on the Scotland/England border to help spread the word of God.

If you've seen either of the Wicker Man films you'll know what happens. If you haven't, you'll probably guess.

The acting is poor all round, some of it bordering on comedy. The `horror' is lacking. No gore here and the `traumatic' scenes from the original are not even nearly repeated here.

Simply don't bother with this. It adds nothing to the original except to cash in on its reputation. Even if you haven't seen the original, don't expect an interesting horror film here. Just don't bother. Did I mention it's not that good?

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

Horns - A little bit messy, but original and worth it

First of all let me say that I am not a fan of Daniel Radcliffe.  I was never into the Harry Potter films and, although he did well enough in ‘Woman in Black’ I didn’t like the film much.  Plus I saw him on a UK chat show a few years ago and found him generally obnoxious.  However, I do basically watch any old horror movie, so, even though he was in it, I thought I’d give it a go.  And – amazingly – I’m glad I did!

It’s actually a little longer than your average ninety minute horror yarn and it tells the tale of ‘Ig’ (or rather Daniel Radcliffe sporting quite a convincing American accent) – a young man whose girlfriend is murdered, leaving him the prime suspect in a small town.  Although there’s no hard evidence to link him to the crime, the general consensus is that he’s guilty.  As if that wasn’t bad enough for the young ex-wizard, he develops horns on his head that only certain people can see.  And these horns turn out to be more than just cosmetic enhancements – they start bestowing strange powers upon him.

Like I said, ‘Horns’ is a little longer than the normal horror film.  This means that it’s padded out with flashbacks from Ig’s childhood, showing what went on before (and, after you’ve watched the whole film, you’ll probably spot the clues as to what’s happened).  The bouncing back and forth in time does sometimes feel a little disjointed and you may just want to find out what’s happening next, rather than see what’s already gone.  But all the performances are good, making sure they’re all a quirky bunch and the bits where the horns lead Ig astray are darkly funny.

The best part of ‘Horns’ is that it’s actually quite original.  I haven’t really seen a film like it before.  So, even though it was a little messy (might have benefited from about 10-15 minutes being cut) I found it was actually worth it just for the novelty value.  Don’t expect all the questions to be answered.  The film relies on a certain amount of ‘religious knowledge’ to fill in some of the blanks.  You don’t have to believe in any religion to appreciate this film, but you have to accept that if you’re going to enjoy it then you’re going to have to be okay with religion for storytelling purposes.

I’m still not a fan of Radcliffe, but I did enjoy his performance and would continue to watch him again – in the right vehicle (like this one).

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

Dead in Tombstone - Quite good, yet somehow also quite average

`Dead in Tombstone' is about an outlaw, Danny Trejo, who gets doublecrossed by his gang and murdered, only to find himself out of the frying pan and into the fiery depths of hell himself. However, not wanting to spend the rest of eternity having his skin ripped off by the devil (aka Mickey Rourke), he makes a bargain to deliver the souls of the gang who murdered him. Not wanting to get into the reason why the devil agrees to this (baring in mind he's immortal and therefore could simply choose to wait until the gang dies before collecting their souls that way). But, anyway, the devil grants Trejo a day to shoot them all dead and deliver their souls.

If you've seen the advertising, you may notice that Mickey Rourke - naturally - second billing, suggesting he's in it equally as much as Danny Trejo. However, he is sadly very underused. Fans of his may need to know he's not in it as much as the advertising may suggest he is.

There's no shortage of action in the film, all of which is surprisingly stylishly directed. However, the uber-quick editing may annoy some people after the millionth cut. It's basically a revenge-western with a small helping of supernatural added into it when the plot requires as such. There may not be a `romance element' to the film, but that doesn't stop Dina Meyer getting herself kidnapped every chance she gets.

It's not a bad film. Everything is okay and yet never seems to spill over to either `really good' or `really bad.' It could well be the most `on the fence' movie ever made. If you like Danny Trejo, you should enjoy this, however, like I say, Mickey Rouke fans may be left-short-changed.

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

Life of Brian - Blessed is this film (and the cheese-makers)

The Monty Python boys have had their ups and downs – mainly within their ranks, while their output has remained pretty solid – from revolutionising TV comedy with their surreal and ‘anything can happen’ way of doing things to their big-screen epics (and by that I mean ‘The Holy Grail’ and, of course, ‘The Life of Brian’ (notice how I kind of forgot The Meaning of Life – which is basically a sketch show where some scenes work better than others).

I was pretty young when Brian hit the cinemas and I didn’t know anything about it – only that I wasn’t allowed to watch it (not just because I was about fifteen years too young) but because my local cinema refused to show it and you had to drive to the next town to see it.  Yes, it’s that (allegedly) controversial.  The reason being is because it makes fun of Jesus/Christianity. Only it doesn’t.  That’s basically what people who didn’t see it and didn’t want to like it said about it.  Yes, it is set during Jesus’ time (and Jesus himself is never ridiculed, shown only twice – once as an infant surrounded by angels the way you’d see in any nativity play and once on a hillside, preaching to his numerous followers).

No, Life of Brian – as you may have guessed by the title – is a film about Brian – just an average guy of the time who becomes hopelessly out of his depth when he’s accidentally mistaken for the messiah.  What follows is typical madcap Monty Python humour.  No, it never makes fun of Christianity, only the way things (in that time period) can be misinterpreted and distorted into what others want them to be.

If you like Monty Python – you’ll love this.  If you like comedy – you’ll like this.  If you haven’t seen it yet and have an appreciation for satire – you’ll also love this.  There are so many classic scenes and phrases that you’ve probably already heard and yet never known where they come from contained within.  There’s hard to pick a stand-alone performance from the cast – John Cleese’s height and general loudness puts him up there, but, seriously, it’s well and truly a team effort.

Life of Brian is one of those rarest of films – one that stands up to the tests of time and is still as relevant and funny today as it was when I wasn’t allowed to watch it.  Brian may not be the chosen one, but this film certainly should be.

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

Cleanskin - Hard hitting action-drama

A British film about suicide bombers in London is most likely to be too dark (and a little too much like real life) to be a mainstream success, so many people may be forgiven for never hearing about Cleanskin.

Sean Bean plays a Secret Service agent on the trail of a suicide bomber cell in Britain. What could be quite a clichéd film actually turns out pretty good. It's partly divided up into two separate stories - one detailing Sean's quest to track down the cell and the other showing the terrorists themselves. Perhaps the best part of the film even relates to the terrorists. While Sean is your typical no-nonsense tough guy (think Liam Neeson in the Taken films), the terrorists are actually pretty well thought out characters - no `True Lies' clichéd Arab terrorists here. It takes something pretty well written to make you have sympathy with a terrorist one minute, then be revolted by his actions the next, plus even weave in a convincing love story into the mix.

I won't go into too many details about the film's plot, as there are a few twists and turns you might not see coming. Just rest assured, if you're looking for a decent action/drama (with plenty of splendid shots of London from above!) then give Sean and co a go.

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

The Revenant - Zombies + vampires = a pretty good film (amazingly)

Okay, so zombies and vampires seem to have been done to death lately. We've had romantic vampires, comedy zombies and a hundred hybrids of the two. So, just when we think we've seen every different slant on the undead genre, comes The Revenant.

Here, they combine the two, i.e. sentient `zombies' who don't just groan around the place eating human flesh, but instead, only come to `life' at night and desire human blood, ala vampires.
Amazingly, it works.

The Revenant tells the story about an American soldier killed in Iraq. He's shipped back to the States, only to wake up in his coffin as a zombie-vampire (or Revenant, as per the title). After he's suitable freaked out his best friend by coming back from the dead, they set about one self-destructive adventure after the next, picking off local drug dealers to feed their nocturnal blood lust.

Although I found everything about the film really good - great acting, believable (and not totally dumb) characters, excellent zombie make-up and gore, I noticed the film is billed as a `horror comedy.' Well, I get the horror aspect, but didn't find that much to laugh at. Okay, there were a couple of bits that made me chuckle. But then a few lines in Terminator 2 were also there for humour's sake, but I doubt many people consider T2 a comedy.

Anyway, bottom line, if you haven't had your fill of the undead yet, try this little gem, it's actually pretty good (plus it's `cult' enough for you to impress all your friends with a zombie/vampire movie that they probably have never heard of!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Killing Season – How to nearly kill people

When I heard there was a film on DVD that starred both Robert DeNiro and John Travolta, I kind of wondered how I’d missed its theatrical release in the cinema.  Well, now I’ve watched it, I can sort of see why.

It’s not bad.  It’s just not that good.  It has all the feel of a B-movie that has somehow landed itself a couple of A-list actors to star in it.

It starts in the nineties where Robert DeNiro was a U.S. military commander in Eastern Europe.  During his service time he was responsible for the (illegal) deaths of a squad of war criminals.  Only he didn’t kill John Travolta enough and now, several years later, he’s tracked DeNiro down to his idyllic mountain cabin in the woods and is out for deadly revenge.

What follows is the ultimate ‘cat and mouse’ chase.  And it lasts for about an hour and a half.  However, the film’s major let-down is the fact that, once it becomes clear that each man wants and has to kill the other in order to survive, it leaves the viewer a little annoyed when they just don’t bother.  The balance of power shifts between the two so often that they take it in turns to have the upper hand, yet never bother actually killing the other.  Yes, I know the film would be over at about the twenty minute mark if one of them bothered to ‘off’ the other, but it just became a little frustrating after the eighth time one had the other at his mercy, but decided to talk instead of kill.

Plus DeNiro had Travolta’s accent to worry about – sometimes it sounded like he was being stalked by Sacha Baron Cohen’s ‘Borat’ character!

But it’s not all bad.  Accent or no accent, both actors are pretty good (as you’d expect with such A-list weight on board).  Plus there are some pretty sadistic moments of gore than really will leave you a little squeamish.

But, at the end of the day, it’s basically one on one and you only really have to skip to the final chapter of the DVD to find out who ultimately comes out on top.

One for fans of DeNiro/Travolta only, as they do turn in decent enough performances, only the story (or lack of) does tend to let it down a bit and reduce what could have been a classic film into a glorified B-movie.

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

Bereavement - Could have been so much better

I watched Bereavement due to it having Michael Biehn in. Despite never quite living up to his potential after the success of Terminator and Aliens, he normally puts in a solid supporting performance in whatever he's in.

Bereavement tells the story of a young boy who's kidnapped by a serial killer and forced to watch as the man executes one girl after another. Nice. After five years, a seventeen year old girl moves to down after her parents were tragically killed in a car crash. She starts to discover the `terrible secret.'
There's nothing too revolutionary about the whole `small town serial killer' premise, but it starts out with reasonable promise. I was quite enjoying it and wondering what all the negative reviews were talking about (and there are many if you care to look online). However, what starts off as possibly an enjoyable serial killer flick, descends into one daft plot hole after the next and soon I found I was actually laughing at how stupid everything turns out to be.

I know you have to suspend your disbelief to watch most horror films, but this one is too much. Here, if you're interested, are a few `spoilers:' the killer drives round the town slowly in the most beat-up distinctive van imaginable, abducts a child and drives off. No one notices this. There appear to be no police in the town who bother to investigate this possibility and look into the loner who's still living in an abandoned slaughter house. This killer then abducts local girls at an alarming rate. No one actually notices or seems to bother investigating. We are told at the very beginning of the film that a child who cannot feel pain due to an illness MUST be checked every hour on the hour for cuts etc that he is unable to notice. Yet, he can then go on to live for five years quite healthily with a serial killer in a grimy old warehouse with no medical attention whatsoever.

Sadly, these plot holes come thick and fast and just become annoying. About the only real thing Bereavement has going for it is the scenery, which is indeed well shot and atmospheric. Unfortunately, it's just too hard to believe to truly enjoy.
Probably best to avoid.

Oh, and if you do decide to give it a go - turn the volume down. Seriously, this film has more women screaming than any other film I think I've watched.

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

Alligator - Surprisingly enjoyable monster B-movie

Alligator is one of those films that people will either love or hate. I doubt it was supposed to be very `A-grade' when it was released back in 1980. Now, well over thirty years old, I was hesitant to see how well it's stood up to the test of time.
I was pleased to say the answer is: pretty well.

If you can excuse the seventies haircuts (in an eighties movie!) then you'll find quite a tight little monster-munching movie. Lake Placid may have better effects, but Alligator still has its own special charm - think `Jaws,' but with an alligator instead of a shark (oh, and in Chicago, rather than the sea, obviously).

Basically, what little plot there is revolves around a little girl having her per alligator flushed down the toilet when it was still young. Once in the sewers, over a period of twelve years, it mutates, getting much, much bigger and basically comes back for revenge. Yes, revenge. It seems to have a natural instinct as to whose fault it was, but, hey, just suspend your disbelief and enjoy it.

Alligator is played out on that fine line between `tongue in cheek' and `straight.' It has a foot in both camps and somehow it manages to pull both off.

If you're a fan of general animatronics monsters eating man, woman and child (yes, child - you wait and see!) then give Alligator a go. It's just a shame that with a solid movie like this, the alligator himself didn't move on to better things. He was certainly the star and I was hoping to find him in a nice indie flick or even a romantic comedy. Well... maybe.

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

Ted - Juvenile, infantile, puerile, stupid - I absolutely LOVED it!

There are some films that are so low brow they make you want to chew your own neck off ('Keith Lemon: The Movie,' I'm looking at you). Then there are others which are also pretty low brow, but actually work. I'm pleased to say that 'Ted' is one of them.  It's currently 2019 and I must have watched it at least five times now (yes, I own it) and I find myself laughing every time - not many comedies make me do that.

Ted is the tale of a young boy's magical wish to bring his cuddly teddy bear to life so that they can be best friends forever. He gets his wish and Ted stays with him until adulthood, which causes more than a few complications with his long-suffering girlfriend.  Mark Wahlberg plays 'John' the (now man) who still lives with his teddy bear who, it's worth noting, now indulges in casual sex and drug-taking since falling from fame on the celebrity circuit.  Now, normally Wahlberg plays the kind of 'tough guy' roles in his films (excluding the slightly misguided role in 'The Happening' as a science teacher!) so he's a bit out of his comfort zone in a wacky comedy.  However, I'm pleased to say that he does the job well as the long-suffering adult who's trying to break free of his childhood relationship.  Mila Kunis plays his love interest and, although she gives a perfectly functional performance with the lines she's given, all the best lines go to the guys/bears.

If you didn't know, Ted is Seth ('Family Guy/American Dad/The Cleveland Show') MacFarland's first big screen outing and the bottom line is that, if you've seen and enjoyed any of his shows, you'll probably enjoy 'Ted.' His writing is not meant to be subtle. Some of it can be shocking, other bits offensive. He (like 'Family Guy') has an `open insult' policy, where no one is beyond being made fun of. Despite the fact that he does cover some controversial topics, he mainly makes fun of eighties movies and TV, plus some healthy ribbing of B-list celebrities.  You may need to be up on your 'pop culture' to 'get' every single last one of the jokes (even I don't claim to understand every last reference in either 'Ted' or 'Family Guy!').

I think there should also be a mention for the special effects.  However they've managed it the people behind the cameras have done brilliantly at combining a computer-generated character (Ted) with the real world around him and the interactions are so seamless that you'll forget he's probably not really there most of the time (and props to the actors for being able to act opposite these limitations).

It's crude, but it's funny. As long as you set you mind at that level and know what you're getting, you should have more than a few laughs with a bear who swears and engages in recreational drug-taking (not to mention is quite a hit with the ladies - you'll have to watch the film to see that bit).
Enjoy a real life `swear bear!'

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Into The Dark - Could have done with being twenty minutes shorter

Mischa Barton plays a young woman whose parents both die. Aggrieved, she renounces God's existence and challenges him to prove there's something more to life than what we know and see. I guess he does. He seems to send legions of things that bump around her flat to haunt her. Then he gets these goolies to kidnap her new - unbelievable perfect - boyfriend. The moral: never mess with God.

So, poor newly-atheist Mischa must look for her stolen bloke in a haunted apartment block where she reckons he's been imprisoned. Now, most horror films like this are about ninety minutes. This one runs at nearly two hours. And here lies the first problem. Namely, that much of the film is either pretty establishing shots/montages, or Mischa walking slowly around one empty hallway or another - sometimes something jumps out at her, sometimes not.

This film is slow. And how you perceive it will depend on how much you like it. It's the very definition of a `slow burner.' If you're desperate for something to happen, it may well drive you mad and you'll find that absolutely nothing happens for long periods of the film. However, if you like your horror slow, creepy and tension-building, then you'll probably enjoy this.

Just don't go expecting a rollercoaster of a ride style horror film. Unfortunately, although I like to think I can appreciate a slow-burner or two, I found there was nothing new enough here to warrant watching it again. It falls into that `seen in all before' category.

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

Goon - Sean William Scott's softer side 

Sean William Scott - an actor famous for playing idiots (no offense, Sean). Here, in `Goon' he plays a bouncer called Doug Glatt - not your stereotypical `touchy-feely' type, so, true to form, he takes a job that basically requires hitting people (albeit while playing ice hockey) because it's just about the only thing he's any good at.

It would be so easy to class Doug Glatt as a thug - spending his days constantly attacking rival ice hockey teams. However, for some reason, he also comes across as quite a vulnerable character. He freely admits to not being a genius - fighting being the only thing he was ever good at. He constantly lives in the shadow of his - highly intelligent - brother and, as a result, is slightly looked down upon from his father. It's these qualities that allow us to feel some sympathy for a man who is always knocking other men's teeth out.

Don't expect one of Sean William Scott's typical wacky American Pie type comedies - it's more of a drama, but with the odd humorous moment courtesy of the predicaments Glatt finds himself in.

Worth a watch, even if Stiffler's `softer side' does involves punching people's lights out.

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

Mindhorn - A nice little chuckle

‘Mindhorn’ is one of those films that just do the job if you’re looking for something simple which will amuse for an hour and a half.  There aren’t that many ‘laugh out loud’ moments, but, if you’re into this kind of humour, then you should have a smile on your face for most of its runtime.
Julian Barratt (most famous from TV’s ‘The Mighty Boosh,’ but did better in the much maligned ‘Nathan Barley’ in my opinion!) is always good value for money and this is his first outing as a ‘lead.’ He plays the titular ‘Mindhorn’ – a TV detective from the eighties whose career has lasted about as long past 1989 as you might expect for someone from that era.  He spends his time making embarrassing TV commercials and being bitter about how his fame has descended into this.  However, when a real life police case on the Isle of Man needs his ‘expert’ attention, he thinks this may prove to be a way of getting back into the public’s awareness.

I guess what you need to know before you watch this is what sort of comedy this is, as the style will totally dictate whether you like the film or not.  Like I’ve already hinted at, it’s hardly a ‘laugh out loud’ affair.  Its humour derives more from unsubtly poking fun at the very niche genre of ‘80s detective TV shows.’ It has plenty of references and throw-backs to the genre and the laughs come more from watching an incapable, slightly self-obsessed, character succeed despite his own failings.
Julian Barratt is the star and he carries the film.  His character could have been too unlikeable to root for, but he plays it tragic enough (ala Boosh/Barley) for you to feel sorry for him at the same time as probably not wanting to hang out with this guy in real life.

If you get your laughs from subtly smiling at cringe-worthy humour like ‘The Office’ and ‘Peep Show’ then this should entertain you, plus Barrett’s fans will have been waiting a long time for him to shine on his own as a leading man – and he does it well here.  Probably more a 6 out of 10, but I’m feeling generous.

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

Pompeii - A history lesson in CGI

A little known fact is that, two thousand years ago, everything was computer generated.  In ancient Rome computer generated people lived in computer generated buildings in computer generated cities set against computer generated back-drops.  Or at least they did until computer generated disasters befell them.

Or at least it seemed that way if you’ve just watched Pompeii.  Wow, there’s a lot of CGI in that film.  But then that’s the least if it’s faults.  I could have lived with the amount of computer generated sets if it wasn’t for the fact that everything going on in front of it has been done to death a million times.

Someone else described it as ‘Titanic meets Gladiator.’ If only, but I can sort of see where they’re coming from.  It’s a completely factually inaccurate account of a British native (I call him ‘Jon Snow’ as I only know his ‘Game of Thrones’ character and he’s basically the same surly loner) whose parents are killed by the (typically horrible) Romans and he’s taken away to be trained as a gladiator for their savage amusement.  On his way he just so happens to meet the one rich princess who falls instantly in love with him within ten seconds of their encounter.  The only trouble is… she’s only bequeathed to the evil Roman senator responsible for poor ol’ Jon Snow’s family’s demise.

I found it quite hard to believe that, after all this time, that plot line is still being used.  It comes across like a Disney film with live actors (and much CGI scenery).  It’s not the actors’ fault – they’ve hardly been given an Oscar-worthy script to work with.  The plot is predictable and the dialogue just about passable.

But you’re probably not watching it for its deep and meaningful plotline – you just want to see things explode.  And they do.  But only really in the last twenty minutes.  As in all the old accounts, Pompeii gets sacked and everything gets blown up, albeit here computers do the job of the real volcano etc.  It’s not that inspiring.  If you’re really looking for destruction, watch the Avengers or any other big budget film where a city gets destroyed in a PG sort of setting, meaning you hardly see any real death and destruction.

However, despite Pompeii’s many flaws (and I haven’t even touched n Keifer Sutherland’s weird accent), it’s not that bad.  It’s a film to watch and remove your brain.  Just sit there and eat popcorn.  If you’re expecting something amazing then you’re always going to be let-down.  It’s an average film, but if you set your sights low enough then you’ll probably stay entertained for nearly two CGI hours.

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

Sleepaway Camp - So bad it's weirdly good

Ever since the 'Friday 13th' movies kind of set the benchmark for what a 'horror/slasher' movie should be back in the 1980s, even to today they haven't changed that much.  In 1983 'Sleepaway Camp' decided to capitalise on the genre by having a bunch of teens go to a summer camp (only not 'Crystal Camp' this time!) during school holidays and get picked off one by one.

So, it's you usual 'who-dun-it' where there are all manor of weird and bizarre characters - many of which with various anti-social personality disorders - who could have snapped and decided to hack up the rest of the cast.

Now, besides the fairly bog standard plot summary, I'm being rather vague about the film's story.  That's because at least one of its main selling points is the overall 'twist' (if you can call it that), or rather motivation/reveal of the killer.  You'll only get the one chance to watch this film without knowing anything other than it's a 'slasher' film and I recommend you don't read up on too many spoilers.  Personally, I managed to guess what was going on about three quarters of the way through, but the person I watched it with was suitably shocked by the outcome.

Anyway, for us seasoned horror fans, we normally want one thing from our 'Friday 13th' rip-offs - the gore.  And, for a low budget film, the kills are actually pretty gruesome.  That's one of the major plus points.  I guess however, what they spent on make-up they saved on acting talent.  I couldn't quite work out whether the actors were told to 'ham it up' in order to almost make this some sort of early 'parody' of the genre.  Either way, it really gives it a laughably-funny kind of overall feel, perforated with the gruesome murders.

There's not an awful lot you haven't seen here before (with the possibly exception of the final scene!) in a 'slasher' film, but, if you're into your old horror films, this one is definitely entertaining - you'll notice I use the word 'entertaining' rather than 'good.' If it is 'good' then it's definitely 'so-bad-it's-good.'

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

Fire With Fire - Strangely watchable revenge film

Okay, so ‘revenge films’ are nothing new.  Ever since Charles ‘Paul Kersey’ Bronson lost his family to muggers, normally peaceful citizens have been taken to the streets in films to dish out a helping of vigilante justice.  This is one of those films.

Here we have a firefighter who witnesses a gangland hit and has to go into the witness protection scheme.  Trouble is, the people he’s set to testify against find out where he’s hiding, therefore forcing him to ‘get them’ before they get him.

And it plays out as you might imagine (assuming you’ve seen any of the other hundred or so revenge movies).  You may notice I’m not going into great detail about the storyline.  That’s because there isn’t really much to give away in terms of plot.  It’s just a revenge film.  And it’s not that bad.  It’s the sort of film you rent over buying and probably shouldn’t pay too much attention to the minor plot holes here and there.

I didn’t mind it and certainly didn’t think I’d wasted an hour and a half watching it.  However, the thing I was hoping for was to see the firefighter using his firefighting skills to flambé his tormenters.  In fact... I thought that was the whole point of the film, i.e. he uses what he knows to start fires with which to exact his revenge.  As it turns out he just buys a gun and shoots them.

Oh, and Bruce Willis is in it, too.  But then it was never released in the cinema and Bruce seems to have a clause in his contract that states he must never appear in a film that’s actually given a theatrical release.

Anyway, as I say, rent this before you buy.  It’s not bad (especially for a straight-to-DVD movie), but could have been a little better.

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

Why him? – Just…. Why?

Okay, I’ll start by saying that – thanks to ‘Breaking Bad’ – I’m a huge fan of Bryan Cranston.  I reckon that I’m going to watch whatever I see he’s starring in forever, based on his ‘Walter White’ performance.  I never knew much about him before he put on that famous hat, but since then, I’ve heard he had achieved reasonable fame via playing someone’s Dad in some pretty successful comedy show (yes, I’ve researched this review thoroughly!).  Therefore, when I saw that he was going to be in a comedy along with James Franco, I certainly thought it would at least be entertaining.  I was wrong.  I hope Bryan Cranston got paid well for this, because he sure as hell deserves it. 

It’s about a young college girl who invites her parents (her father being Cranston) across country to spend the holiday period with her new boyfriend (Franco).  Yes, it sounds like a reasonably premise for a comedy (if you ignore the slight similarities to the ‘Meet the Parents’ franchise), but it just doesn’t work – and for one simple reason – James Franco’s character.  Don’t get me wrong… I think James Franco is a very talented actor and have enjoyed his performance on many an occasion.  However, here, he’s just too unbelievable.  I don’t think it’s too much of a spoiler to say that the parents don’t approve of their daughter’s new partner.  Okay, so he’s a millionaire (that’s not the issue), it’s just that he constantly swears in front of them, makes various s3xually inappropriate comments all the time and does unbelievably over the top gestures that are supposed to endear himself to his potential inlaws (and us the audience).

I know this film would be pretty boring if the family came round, they all got along perfectly and just lived happily ever after.  I understand there has to be some degree of conflict to move the plot along.  However, it’s just not realistic.  No one would act like James Franco’s character and it’s simply not believable.  Bryan Cranston does his best, but is effectively relegated to the ‘butt’ of Franco’s various antics and is only there to look disapproving and long suffering.

There’s not much else to say.  This one element totally overshadowed everything else for me and I just couldn’t get past it.  I can’t remember James Franco’s character’s actual name, but I swear I found him as annoying as Jar Jar Binks, Adam Sadler in ‘Jack and Jill’ and that DJ bloke from ‘The Fifth Element.’ Okay, so he might not be quite that bad, but he’s pretty bad – enough for me never to want to watch this film again.  This is just about as far away from ‘Breaking Bad’ as it’s possible to get.  Bryan Cranston, you’re worth so much more.

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

The Horde - Meanwhile... in France

If you've seen the British zombie film '28 Weeks Later' you'll probably know what I mean by the title. Basically, `The Horde' is Frances answer to Britain's 28 Days Later franchise. It's almost as if it's set in the same world (and possibly the same world where Germany's `Siege of the Dead' and America's 2004 remake of `Dawn of the Dead' is set).

If you've seen any of the above films, you'll probably know what to expect - running zombies (no `Romero shufflers' here!) and shaky camerawork, depicting a dark, violent and gritty take on zombie lore. Here we meet a quartet of Parisian police officers who are taking the law into their own hands by storming a run-down tower block in order to execute some drug dealers who murdered a colleague of theirs. Sadly, all does not go according to plan, as the night they pick to exact their retribution, the undead start their rise from the grave. We never find out the cause of the outbreak, only witness the effects, as the cops and `robbers' have to band together to survive.

It's a pretty claustrophobic atmosphere we have here. 99% of the entire film is set within the dilapidated tower block. It's violent, it's nasty and it's effectively 28 Weeks Later - the Aftermath.

If you haven't had your fill of zombie movies (and can put up with the French subtitles - also, I've watched it dubbed and that's not so bad either) then give this one a go - it's pretty good.

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

Season of the Witch – so bad it’s (almost) good

‘Season of the Witch’ – put simply – Lord of the Rings, it is not.  It is a (modern) Nicholas Cage film.  And, as any die-hard fan (and I’m including myself in that bracket) will know, his modern films don’t really rate as highly as those he made in his heyday.

Nicholas Cage plays... well, Nicholas Cage in a suit of armour.  His natural charm and screen presence do their best to shine through as this time out he and Ron Perlman are knights returning from hacking a few dozen hordes of computer-generated barbarians to death in the Crusades.  However, life in yesteryear was never destined to run smoothly and the Black Death only goes and kicks off, leaving thousands dead in whichever ‘England-like’ land this film is supposed to be set in.

Now, you may be forgiven for thinking that a plague of epic proportions has nothing to do with a couple of battle-hardened knights.  That’s until the king tells them that they’re charged with the task of escorting a witch across the land to be burned.  Apparently, it’s all her fault or something and she totally needs to be roasted in order to save the universe.  Or something.

Anyway, so begins the quest – the not-at-all-like-Lord-of-the-Rings quest.  Nic, Ron and a few meaningless codpiece-wearing extras all trudge wearily across one grassy hill after the next, all the while defending against one computer-generated threat after the next.  Um, and that’s about it.  It’s hardly ‘epic’ – it’s pretty much by the numbers.  In the scale of things it’s not that bad, but then it’s not that good either.  You can dip in and out of this film at your leisure and you won’t really miss a thing.

‘Season of the Witch’ is one of those films which has only one fault: its total and utter ‘averageness.’ You’ll have seen it all before and, despite Nic and Ron doing their very best to raise it above being just another B-movie, they really can’t do it with this script, plot or (not so) special effects.

If you really love Nic or Ron that much, you may get something out of it.  Otherwise, don’t really bother.  And don’t get me started on Nic’s haircut.

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

Dead Heads - Refreshing take on the recently-overused zombie genre

Like zombies? Tired of watching Mila what's-her-name kicking hordes of them out of her way in heels? Bored of George Romero pretending that he's still relevant? If the answer to any of these questions is `yes' then this could be the film for you.

Deadheads is about a zombie uprising, only two of those groaning shufflers just so happens to be intelligent. Yes, they're dead. Yes, they're decomposing and yes, bits of them are falling off (I'll leave it to your imagination to guess which bits). In fact, they're basically alive, apart from the fact that their fellow walkers don't want to eat them and the remaining humans all want to shoot them in the head. Add to this that one of the two unfortunate living zombies is still pining for his ex girlfriend and you have a road trip across America with two wisecracking zombies.

The two IQ-upped undead also take along a `conventional' zombie (who they call `Cheese' for some reason - I might have missed why) and treat him like a pet. Cheese, in turn repays them by stealing every scene even though he does little else but groan and look slightly confused.

There are plenty of pop culture references added into the mix and, before long, you may even forget you're watching what is, in effect, quite a low budget `student-like' film.

Ultimately, Deadheads is a fun film for all the family (assuming your family is `The Adams Family'). It has great characters with even greater facial hair and may even take the place of the hallowed Shaun of the Dead in the Zomromcom department.

Now, just remember never to ask a zombie what he keeps in his pocket.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one