Terminal Invasion - The dictionary definition of a B-movie 

Terminal Invasion is about an alien invasion, set in an airport terminal - the clue is in the title. The film has a cheap, daytime TV feel about it, with special effects to match. Probably the only reason it ever got green-lighted was due to having Bruce Campbell in it, who is, of course, the best part of the whole film.

As the cast try to figure out who is an alien and who's not, they spout off some reasonable dialogue, but the supporting cast don't always deliver it too well. Sooner or later one stereotype after the next gets bumped off - you know the unlikeable characters are always going to end up as alien-chow.

But, for all its faults, I couldn't help but get some small amount of satisfaction out of it. Yes, it's cheesy, yes the acting and SFX leave a lot to be desired and yes, they even went as far as to copy one of the scenes from Alien where Ripley is directing Dallas through the maze via headset.

 Ultimately, it's one of those films you'll either love or hate. If you like Bruce Campbell and his jaw, you'll probably not think you wasted an hour and a half of your life. But, be warned, Men In Black standard it is not.

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

Bad Milo - So low-brow... it somehow works

'Bad Milo' is about a monster that lives up a man's...er, most 'intimate' of holes.  If you think that type of film is right for you then it probably is.  However, if you think that idea sounds just about the most stupid and disgusting thing you've ever heard, it's probably best you skip this one and move on with your life.

I can't give much more of a detailed plot description that my opening line.  I reckon it sums it up pretty well.  And I have to confess getting a fair amount of enjoyment from this movie (what that says about me I'll leave up to a trained psychologist!).  It's a 'horror' film, only it's not.  It's too stupid a premise to be truly scary.  Yes, there are some gruesome scenes, a fair amount of blood and a creature that switches from being evil and full of hideous teeth, to cute and cuddle and something you'd like to snuggle up in bed with.  Yes, seriously.

There is so much more emphasis on the daftness of the film that it's way more of a silly comedy with some blood and guts thrown in.  The cast never take it seriously which means that we - the audience - don't have to either.  All the actors to a good job and are perfectly functional and about the only name I knew from the cast list was Patrick Warburton, thanks to his voicework from various irreverent cartoons.  But it's 'Milo' himself who steals the show.  I read online that the film-makers wanted to go for 'practical effects' over computer-generated ones.  So, with the exception of the monster's 'blinking motion' he's completely animated by puppeteers.  And this helps to add a level of realism to the interaction between human and, er, a$$ monster (and I can't believe I just used the phrase 'realism' while talking about this story!).

Overall, 'Bad Milo' is a great (bad) B-movie of a film.  If you set your brow low enough you can't help but fall in love with an evil little demon with razor-sharp teeth who lives up a man's...

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

The Iron Lady - Love her / hate her - you probably won't change your opinion here 

I should point out that I was about fourteen years old when Mrs Thatcher was forced out of office. Therefore, I spent my childhood with her as the Prime Minister. Now, several years later, I find myself watching the film `The Iron Lady' - the first major filmic portrayal of her life.
Was it any good? Well... sort of.

During my childhood, I took about as much interest in politics as the next fourteen-year-old, but, amazingly, I find myself in the position that I actually know more about Mrs Thatcher's life than is shown in the film. This is the movie's main failing. It takes a handful of her major successes/failings, pads them out for ten minutes each then it ends. The rest is Mrs Thatcher as she is now - suffering with dementia and talking to the `ghost' of her husband (okay, he's not technically a ghost - he's in her mind, but it's shot like he's sort of a ghost).

If I could rate this film on Meryl Streep's performance alone, then it would get 5/5. She captures Margaret Thatcher to a tee. However, that's all this film is. It's a showcase for Meryl Streep's excellent acting talent, but leaving out most of the important points of the woman she's supposed to be portraying.

If you don't know much about the life of Mrs Thatcher then this won't tell you much more than you probably already know. As an informative piece, it offers very little. As a story, it's a bit corny with the `dead husband' bit constantly driving the story forward. As a career highlight on Steep's already formidable CV, it can't be beat.

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

Killshot - Good little thriller, but who do you root for? 

Killshot is about a couple (Thomas Jane and Diane Lane) who are in the process of getting divorced. However, they witness an attempted armed robbery by partners in crime (Mickey Rourke and Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and subsequently hunted down by the pair in order to `silence' them - permanently.

What follows in an hour and a half of cat and mouse antics and the criminals use all their resources to track the couple down, in order to eliminate them. Not a bad premise, but the one thing I found was that I found myself rooting for the bad guys - not because I agreed with their motives, but because they were just so much more charismatic than the `heroes' (think how Brad Pitt's and Juliet Lewis' psychotic performances outshone David Duchovney and what's-her-name's in Kalifornia and you're in the right area).

Killshot isn't anything special, or anything that you haven't seen before. However, what makes it worth watching is the performance of the villains. Some people have commented how Joseph Gordon-Levitt doesn't pull off `the hard man' act very well. Yes, he was a little manic, but, either way, I found he stole every scene from Thomas Jane and Diane Lane, but was - naturally - outdone in the psychopathic stakes by Mickey Rourke.

There's definitely worst ways to spend an hour and a half.

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

The Green Hornet - Why all the hate?

There are some films you just watch without knowing an awful lot about them.  For me, ‘The Green Hornet’ was one.  Okay, so I generally like superhero movies and Seth Rogan’s brand of crude/adult humour always tickles the more immature side of me.  Plus I’ve never even read a Green Hornet comic (or did it originate on the radio?  See, I don’t even know that!) so I can’t really compare the film to the source material.  Anyway, in short, I really enjoyed it and went round recommending it to anyone I happened to stumble upon.  It was only after a few weeks of it being released did I realise that it was almost universally not liked.  Did I watch the same film?

I’ve had a look at a lot of the negative criticism and it seems that much of it revolves around Seth Rogan himself.  Yes, he’s normally that chubby bloke who smokes too much in all those comedy films that sort of roll into one.  Yes, I would agree that he’s not exactly the first leading man you’d think of when you were about to sit down to a superhero movie.  People seemed to only see Seth Rogan playing the same old Seth Rogan character he always does.  I guess that could be seen as a fair point.  However, I argue that ‘The Green Hornet’ isn’t your average superhero movie.  Our protagonist wasn’t bitten by a radioactive spider and therefore attained superpowers.  He’s just a rich guy.  And not particularly fit.  However, anyone – even a rich guy in a mask – can land a devastating blow to a thug if he whacks him hard enough with a piece of lead piping (this is basically what our ‘hero’ does).  Therefore, Rogan’s ineptitude is actually the whole point.  He knows nothing and isn’t physically intimidating.  So how come he’s a hero?  Enter ‘Kato.’

Kato is the guy who makes The Green Hornet’s cups of coffee in the morning.  However, making a swirly leaf pattern isn’t his only skill.  Arguably, he DOES have superpowers (not that they’re ever really explained).  Not just is he a wizard with a wrench and can knock up an armed vehicle to the standards of ‘The A-Team’ but he also sees dangerous situations practically in slow motion, meaning he can use his martial arts powers to defend his employer (and part-time buddy).  Not only does this lead to Kato saving The Green Hornet’s (not particularly toned) backside on numerous occasions, but also makes for quite an entertaining way of filming a fight scene in a genre saturated with simple whacking people and the occasional ‘bullet-time’ effect.

Other criticisms are levelled at the supporting cast, namely the (obligatory) baddie and love interest (Christoph Waltz and Cameron Diaz, respectively).  Yes, Chudnofski is the villain, but he’s actually poking fun at the usual bad guys you get in superhero-based movies.  He’s constantly striving to be one, but quite often getting the overall feel wrong, despite being more evil and violent than anything you find in your average Marvel movie.  I suppose that I can see how Cameron Diaz hardly has an awful lot of ‘character development’ put into her role.  She’s kind of only there for ‘star power.’ She’s well used to action and comedy and yet never really gets to do either here.  However, at least she never sinks so low as to just be the ‘damsel in distress’ that are so commonplace in the genre.

Basically, ‘The Green Hornet’s’ biggest weakness is that it is probably too many things to appeal to one mass audience.  It’s not just a superhero film, it’s also an action movie, a comedy and a satire that pokes fun of the conventions and clichés you’d normally find with the genre.  I guess if any sort of superhero film wants to evolve from a stand-alone film to a profitable franchise it needs to have plenty of merchandise to go with it.  This film is mainly aimed at adults (even though there’s not that much violent/drug use/profanity so it never got the obligatory computer game, McDonalds Happy Meal tie-in or action figures for the kids to play with.  However, if you’re generally a fan of Rogen’s work/sense of humour, plus you’re up for a little fun being made of all those ‘shared universes’ out there right now, then give this one a try.  It’s simple, but fun.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous - It just about works (just)

‘Miss Congeniality.’ The surprise hit.  Actually, I don’t know whether it was a surprise hit to the studio behind it or not, but, judging on the way the sequel was trotted out, I get the impression that it was a surprise to someone – most likely the writers who had the task of getting lightning to strike twice.  It didn’t.  It sort of missed its mark, but at least the results weren’t catastrophic.

The original film was about Sandra Bullock, basically playing Sandra Bullock (or Gracie Hart to be precise), only as a ‘fish-out-of-water’ FBI agent who got roped into going undercover at the Miss United States Beauty Contest, in order to find a potential killer.  It was hardly ‘high art’ but Bullock’s truly loveable persona made the film bounce by and it was a great popcorn flick.

This time round, the film suffers from a lack of direction.  They start off trying to progress the story.  Since Agent Hart became famous, she’s finding it hard to go undercover any more without being recognised, therefore rendering her pretty useless as a field agent.  So, instead of hunting bad guys, she agrees to be the ‘face of the FBI’ – a task that soon starts to change her.  I quite liked how the story showed how fame, fortune and generally having a team of hair and make-up artists at your beck and call can change you (for the worst).  And, before long, the once lovable Hart is a spoilt, demanding diva.

However, that doesn’t stop her friend (and Miss America) Cheryl getting kidnapped, hence Hart must go back into the field (this time Las Vegas) in order to rescue her.

What follows is a sort of retread of the original and a sort of new story, although one that feels a lot like the first, only less funny.  It’s not terrible – largely down to Sandra Bullock.  Even when she’s a diva she’s still pretty hard to dislike, therefore if you’re a fan, you should find it easy to root for her.
The film also suffers from a lack of some of the key figures from the first film.  Her former on-screen love interest, played by Benjamin Bratt, is totally gone (a few comments here and there explain his absence) and Michael Caine’s hilarious character is replaced by a sort of watered-down version of him, only not as funny.

Basically, if you haven’t seen ‘Part II’ watch Part I first.  If you like it and think you can handle more of the same, just less then give it a go.  Fans of Sandra will be okay to sit through it, just don’t expect as much as the original.

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

Powder Blue - Crash's distant cousin

The film `Crash' was a hit, as it used multiple characters' individual narratives to intertwine a story which all ties up together. Here, `Powder Blue' attempts to do the same - with mixed results.

First of all, I didn't like it. But it is quite a long film and I persevered. Now, looking back on it, I'm glad I did. It's not as good as Crash and it is kind of overloaded with sentimentality - every scene seems to be trying to get you to cry for each and every character. Perhaps it was nice to see some Hollywood characters feeling as down and miserable as the rest of us?

Either way, the performances are pretty good - naturally from Forest Whittaker and Ray Liotta, but also from Jessica Biel (who comes in for more than her fair share of acting criticism these days).

It is certainly a slow-burner. Not much happens during the beginning and it takes a while to get going. So, although it doesn't exactly reinvent the wheel in terms of film-making, it's not a bad little piece, but I feel it's one of those films that you have to be well in the mood for to really appreciate. It should probably come with a warning not to watch it if you don't want to be depressed or brought down by one tale of woe after the next.

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

The Video Dead - Actually better than I remember

Believe it or not, back in the late eighties, there was actually a lack of zombie movies (let alone good ones!).  I so enjoyed George A Romero's 'Day of the Dead' that I would then watch pretty much everything with a rotting corpse trying to eat people's brains.  Therefore, I found myself watching 'The Video Dead' way more than it probably deserved back then.  I happened to come across it over thirty years later and remembered that even when I watched it back then, deep down, I knew it wasn't very good.  Perhaps it was because I was in such a 'forgiving' mood that I found I actually enjoyed it more now than I think I did back then!

Apparently, according to what I read online, the film took about a year to make because it could only be shot at the weekends, due to the 'actors' having day-jobs and only being available then.  That should tell you that what you're going to get isn't of a high caliber, so - be warned!

You've probably seen zombies rise due to voodoo, enraged monkeys and toxic waste.  Here, they simply pop out of a cursed TV whenever they fancy a bite of human flesh.  In fact, the film should probably have been called 'The TV Dead,' as there isn't a VCR or cassette tape in sight!

So, a small gaggle of ghouls stalks and kills a street of people (none of which are really that well-trained in the ways of acting!), but who cares.  This is a cheap, straight to video (nasty) which definitely comes under the term 'so-bad-it's-good.' It will never be up to the likes of Romero's output and doesn't have the budget to come close to the 'Resident Evil' franchise.  But, what it does have is a slight sense of knowing its limits and doing its best to never try and be anything it isn't.

I know you've probably seen every type of zombie movie by now, so there's not an awful lot here that's particularly original, but it's nice to see the sort of gore that can be achieved on a real shoestring budget.  It's daft and cheesy and doesn't really take itself too seriously, so if you're in the mood for some real eighties horror-cheese, then definitely give this one a go.  I also read online about the proposed idea for a sequel - sounded pretty good - shame it never got made!

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

Seven Psychopaths - A slow burner, but worth the wait

I deliberately didn't watch any trailers for Seven Psychopaths. I wanted to see it fresh, choosing to watch it on `star-power' alone. I pretty much guessed that it was going to be a very black comedy, filled with more than one or two murders.

I have to say that when I came to watch it, I was quite disappointed. It wasn't as funny as I thought it would be and it wasn't as violent. The first half seemed to jump around from one character to the next with little to no direction. I have to confess that my attention waned more than once. However, I persevered and I was actually glad I did.

In the second half the story really seemed to come together. I won't go into too much detail as it does rather pride itself on deliberately not doing what some might call the `classic Hollywood narrative.'
Having finally got round to watching it, I would say that it wasn't the film that I thought it would be, but it's definitely one I'd watch again.

Colin Farrell may be the star, but I'm afraid it's Sam Rockwell who steals the show when it comes to the `psycho' element and Christopher Walken who is the `heart' of the movie.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Dark Water (2005) - Creepy and atmospheric

The Hollywood version of 'Dark Water' is based on a Japanese horror film, which I haven't seem, so I can't really compare the two.  However, whether on not it surpasses its source material, I have to say it's a pretty creepy little number.

A woman (Jennifer Connelly) is going through a divorce and custody battle for her daughter (Ariel Gade) and moves to a run-down apartment in New York until the proceedings are over.  It's hardly five-star housing and there are water leaks everywhere.  And, if that wasn't bad enough to bring up a child, the family is haunted by the presence of another young girl.

Since the success of the English version of 'The Ring' the 2000s saw quite a few horror films where a woman slowly uncovers something supernatural until she has to confront it head on in the final act. 'Dark Water' certainly fits into that genre, but it's definitely a cut above the rest.  For a start it has a stellar cast.  I've already mentioned Connolly, but there are also excellent performances from Tim Roth as a supportive (but flawed!) lawyer, Pete Postlethwaite as a useless building supervisor and John C Reilly as the superbly-slimy estate agent.  Dougray Scott is also good, but doesn't have quite as much to work with as the others and Ariel Gade is very good as the young girl, never really coming across as annoying as so many child actors in similar roles.

Another thing that works for the film is the atmosphere.  You really get the sense of a dark, depressing world that's ripe for haunting by unrested spirits.  It could be described as a bit of a 'slow burner' as the real 'meat' of the story doesn't really get going until the final act.  Prior to that is mainly character building and setting up the horror that's finally waiting for our protagonists.

I won't say too much about the story, as you only really get one chance to watch it and not know where it's going.  A couple of the plot points surprised me, so I won't spoil anything.  It may not be a blood-bath and it's probably got a few too many 'jump scares' for some people's liking in the opening two acts, but, overall, it's a very atmospheric, creepy little number that horror fans who like a slow build of terror should enjoy.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Flood - Land of hope and clichés

Oh dear, where to begin. There are times when I'm proud to be British - we gave the world all sorts of things: tea, cricket, the Spice Girls - all of which are better than Flood. Flood tries to be like those big-budget American disaster films... but fails.

In its favour, Flood can't complain about a lack of acting talent. Perhaps the strangest thing is how many decent actors can come together and do so little. Actually, the answer probably lies with the script. It's bad. Well, not bad, just full of clichés. It's like they're trying to be funny and self-parodying, only they're not - they're being serious.

The film tries to crank up the tension by quick cutting and shaky camera work, plus some incredibly dramatic music just to point out just how dire the situation is when the Thames overflows and drowns half of London. However, despite the fast-paced direction and dramatic score, you have the dialogue bringing it back down to the quality of a sixth form drama production (no offense to sixth formers - I'm sure they'd do better).

The special effects aren't that good, but they're not that bad either. Basically, they can be forgiven, but the dialogue can't. It's not just the dialogue, it's the set-up too. It confirms to every cliché going: it has the family coming together in face of a catastrophe, the budding romance, the token characters who you know are going to be washed away in the first splash of waves and, of course, the inept officials.

I'm sure you've probably heard people say "It's worth a watch if there's nothing else on." Well, they're probably right about this one. If there was absolutely nothing else on TV, then you might put this on for a bit of background atmosphere. Just don't waste any money on this.

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

Wolf Creek - Never break down in Australia

‘Wolf Creek’ has to have possibly the most overused plot ever... three (highly-attractive) youngsters break down in the middle of nowhere (the Outback this time) and fall foul to a psychopath.  If you’ve watched horror movies any time since the early seventies then you’ll have seen this story before.  However, that doesn’t make it that bad.  It’s actually quite watchable (assuming you like seeing highly-attractive youngsters getting stalked, tortured and murdered by an unstoppable nut-job.

As with all these ‘slasher’ movies, the first half is pretty slow.  It’s used to set the scene and introduce us to our three (hapless) heroes, showing them enjoying their backpacking tour of scenic Australia.  I don’t think it much of a spoiler to say that things don’t turn out too well for them when they break down in the middle of nowhere and encounter creepy stranger, played by John Jaratt.

Perhaps this is the (true) start to the film?  Because John Jaratt is clearly the star of the film.  He’s brilliant as the psycho-killer who’s hell-bent on making our three youngsters’ lives a living hell.  Apparently the actor spent quite a lot of time prior to filming getting the character’s sinister laugh just right, even staying in character between takes and not showering for a week before filming just to give himself a more ‘rugged’ look.

In fact, you almost want him to succeed.  There’s nothing wrong with the ‘goodies,’ but, at some points, the girls do suffer from that problem that befalls so many slasher films.  They suddenly come down with ‘stupid heroine’ syndrome.  Occasionally they get the chance to either kill him or blatantly escape.  And they don’t.  This leaves us to shout abuse at the TV screen.

But, despite their shortcomings, it’s still a fun film to watch (again, I say that if you’re into killing, murdering and torture).  It’s not original, but if you’re a fan of the genre, you should appreciate this.
Also, it says at the beginning that the film is ‘based on true events.’ I checked up on this on the internet.  It’s true, but in the loosest way possible.  I think I’ll stick to calling this film ‘fiction’ thank you very much.

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

Alienator - So bad it's... almost okay

Believe it or not, 'Alienator' was released in the same year as 'Total Recall' and only one year prior to 'Terminator 2.' I mention this only because 'Alienator' is a complete rip-off of the first 'Terminator' film (in case you hadn't kind of guessed from the title - although also seems to borrow the plot from one of the 'Critters' sequels, but that's another story).  I guess when they say that 'budget doesn't make a film' they weren't really comparing any of Arnie's output of the era to this pile of...

Now, I know 'Alienator' is hardly meant to be Shakespeare and there's always a market for 'so-bad-they're-good' films (me, for example - I always describe my DVD collection as 'entertaining' rather than 'good'), but this is a hard watch.

An intergalactic criminal escapes from a penal colony to Earth and a bounty hunter is sent to apprehend him (or disintegrate - whichever comes first!).  Now, you probably aren't expecting much from a film with such a deliberately cheesy title as 'Alienator,' but my advice is, if you're hoping to get anything out of this at all, is to set your sights real low.

There are a bunch of people on Earth who get stalked by the alien bounty hunter - they can't act.  There is an old soldier who comes into the film about half way through who is about the only character who you'll actually care about, maybe because he's a cut above the rest in terms of acting ability, or just because he's given about two lines of back story. 

The costumes look like something out of a seventies glam rock pop video.  The bounty hunter herself looks like a cross between - again - a glam rock star and someone who's bumped into a load of scrap metal that was left over from a seventies 'Dr Who' set.  She's not scary.  She's not sexy.  She's just laughable.

There's a - semi - sub-plot set back on the penal colony in space.  It's pretty forgettable and if you took it out you wouldn't lose any of the story.  There's little in the way of action and the special effects are anything but special.

Now, I wouldn't mind all these negative points.  As I said, I like a lot of 'so-bad-they're-good' films.  However, the main problem I had with this film was that everyone plays it straight.  There's never a sense of the film-makers knowing they're making something terrible and actually owning it.  It comes across as if they're trying to make something genuinely scary, or action-packed.

It is bad.  I did stick with it just to see how bad it got.  There are cheesy B-movie films that are like this which I can watch again and again.  This one I think I'll leave it there.

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

Horrid Henry: The Movie - Hey, Critics, leave this kids' (movie) alone! 

I seem to have found myself reading a lot of other reviews for Horrid Henry the Movie and the general consensus is that it's only an `okay' film at best.

Much of the criticism comes from the fact that (apparently) the child actors portraying the characters in the original Horrid Henry books/TV cartoons, don't look anything like the source material. My argument to that is - this is a film, with REAL people. If real children looked like the caricature-like drawings in the books and cartoons then I would be seriously worried about which freak show they were drafted in from!

Then much has been said about how (apparently) it doesn't stay true to the `spirit' of the original source material. My argument would be that this is a FILM. If you like the books - great - they're books. If you like the cartoons - great - they're cartoons. Keep on reading and watching them. A film cannot be like a book and, unless it's a cartoon-film, not much like the cartoon either. The film takes many of the ideas and inspirations from the book and cartoon and expands on it. It has to. How else would it be able to stretch it out to an hour and a half?

Also, people have said that the plot/story isn't up to scratch. I feel I have to spell it out - it's a KIDS' MOVIE. If you want plot twists and character development followed by shocks and surprises, watch the DaVinci Code. This film is aimed at children. Therefore, it has a story that they can understand.

Did I like it? No. But then I'm nearly thirty-five. However, my six year old daughter dragged me to the cinema twice to watch it (the second time I even fell asleep). Now Horrid Henry the Movie is on my television screen at home and my daughter is demanding it for her birthday. In short, let the kids be the judge of it.

Note: special kudos to Anjelica Huston for her great performance as Miss Battle-Axe.

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

Little Children - Wonderful movie

I can't believe I have only just watched this. And, to make matters worse, I very nearly turned it off after about a quarter of an hour. The film is about two couples, both trapped in their own loveless (but not bad/abusive - or any other cliche we normally see in Hollywood's definition of 'bad' relationships) marriages.

From the start we get some form of `narration' from a character never seen in the film. I found this kind of off-putting at first as it tells you what characters are thinking and I thought it was a lazy way at skipping through finding things out about characters as a viewer. However, this narration basically disappears more and more as the film progresses and, in my opinion, is the right thing to do (although it sort of returns as the film begins to wrap up, which almost made me forget that it had started out this way to begin with).

The film is long - just over two hours and it gets better and better. Everyone's performance is brilliant and there's little negative to say about it.  Patrick Wilson and Kate Winslet are the two main characters (and the pair destined to have an extra-marital relationship) and therefore get the most screen time and development.  However, there are plenty of other characters in the film who have far less screen time and yet feel completely real and not at all just a cliche (a rare feat for any film!).  Everyone seems to go on a journey and I won't go into the plot too deep as there are some areas you may not see coming.  Special mention to Jackie Earl Haley to is as awesome as ever, despite being in the film for possibly the least amount of time of all the stars.

There are, as the title implies, 'children' involved in the story.  However, I found there are two ways of looking at this.  There's the literal interpretation as both Wilson and Winslet have on-screen children from their existing marriages.  However, there's also an argument about how the 'children' are in fact the adults for 'playing' as much as their offspring.  That's one for the viewers to decide.  I will say that the (real) children in the film aren't in it that much, therefore the film never suffers from any kids' bad acting.  So, if you're into adult drama about relationships that are very bittersweet, then this one is for you.

Although, be warned, a happy-happy, feel-good movie this is not.  Too much like real life.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Beavis and Butthead Do America - I really liked this film when I was nineteen

I remember going to see ‘Beavis and Butthead Do America’ when it came out in the cinema back in 1996.  I was nineteen and had never bothered to watch the cartoon it was based on.  My expectations were low, but I found the whole film hilarious and couldn’t believe how I’d never watched the TV show before.

Now, as the decades have passed, I occasionally slip the DVD back into the machine, namely to try and recapture whatever I originally saw in it.  I’ve watched it about three times since the cinema.  Each time I can barely raise a smile.  In the TV series, the two titular characters spend much of their time on their sofa, watching the television.  Therefore, in order to give the film a little more scope, they’re set is quickly stolen, giving them an excuse to leave the confines of their house and go on a road trip across America.  Naturally, it isn’t just as easy as buying a new telly.  They also get caught up in a plot to assassinate someone and inadvertently transport a weapon of mass destruction across the country.

However, despite all the many different directions the film now goes in, I still don’t find it as funny as the first time I watched it.  The ATF agent charged with the task of hunting the two ‘fugitives’ down it still quite funny.  He has a ‘catchphrase’ still gets an audible chuckle out of me every time he uses it (if you haven’t already seen it, I won’t spoil it for you).  But, he’s about the high-point of the film – in my now adult opinion.  And, seeing as he’s only a peripheral character, I find I’m not getting as many laughs out of the central characters as I am a secondary one.

Maybe this film appeals to younger people.  Maybe I’ve outgrown its deliberately ‘low-brow’ humour.  Maybe it’s a sign I should never watch anything that ‘kids today’ enjoy?  I guess that Beavis and Butthead Do America spells the end of my illusion that I’m still part of that demographic.  I’ll still probably watch it again in a couple of years just in case my opinion has changed back again.

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

Ride Along -Sometimes fun, not always funny

‘Ride Along’ is the definition of a ‘popcorn film.’ It’s something to watch, but not something you’re likely to remember for too long.  It does the job.  Just.

It’s about a tough cop who takes his (completely UN-cop-like) future brother in law along on – you guessed it – a ride along, in order to prove that he has what it takes to romance his sister.  Of course things don’t go to plan when they’re forced to tangle with a major criminal gang.

It’s supposed to be a comedy., but is it funny?  Sort of.  In places.  And that’s about all you’ll need to know.  If you’re bored and want something to put on to rest your brain, you could do worse than this.  Ice Cube is the ‘tough cop’ and he’s not really known for his acting (let alone his comedic talents), but he just about does the job okay.  Kevin Hart plays his annoying soon-to-be relative.  Sometimes he gets it right, i.e. he’s funny.  Other times he plays it a little too over-the-top and becomes too annoying to be believable.  Laurence Fishburne turns up.  Doesn’t do much apart from progress the plot into clichéd territory.

So, like I say, if you’re bored and this one comes on the TV, then give it a watch.  You’ll probably enjoy it.  Whether you want to spend too much money seeking it out is another matter.

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

Dr. Who and the Daleks (1965) - A blast from the past

I grew up with 'Dr. Who' in the late seventies to early nineties, therefore I never quite 'got' how this film fitted in with the timeline.  I'm guessing the short answer is: it doesn't.  It's sort of a Hollywood-friendly interpretation of the overall 'Dr. Who mythos' which tells a science fiction story without the need to have watched any of the TV show.  And, for what it is, it's actually pretty good.

Of course it's even less like the 'Dr. Who' show of 2020 than it is of the 'Who' I remember from my childhood.  If seeing women in short skirts offends you then you may want to write this one off as a 'dinosaur' and stick with Jodie Whittikar's portrayal of the titular character.  It's also a kind of remake of one of the T.V. shows where the Doctor lands on the planet of the Daleks and has to help out the locals with their fight against those dastardly oversize pepperpots on  wheels.

Instead of sticking to the 'current' actor who portrayed the Doctor (William Hartnell, I believe), the main star has been replaced by someone the producers clearly thought would help self the film overseas, i.e. Peter Cushine - an actor mainly known for his numerous dabblings in the 'horror' genre.  Luckily, he's able to muster the required 'quirkiness' required for the role, without ever being annoying.  He's helped along the way by his 'companions.' And, when I say 'helped,' I basically mean they get captured the moment they set foot outside the T.A.R.D.I.S.  Another change from the TV series is that the Doctor now has a family he takes with him on his adventures, i.e. an adult and a child granddaughter.  And, if you're British you may know Roy Castle as the boyfriend of Dr. Who's elder granddaughter.

So, there may not be much that's revolutionary in terms of the plot, but this film is definitely worth a watch.  For a start, the producers succeed in making this story accessible for anyone and it's something all the family can watch as there's little in the way of real violence and definitely no bad language.  Plus it's such a delight on the eyes - literally.  It's filled with sixties camp, glam colours and it really is a rainbow-feast on the eyes.

I never quite got why some people (back in the day!) were so afraid of the Daleks themselves.  I never found them that threatening then and I doubt today's children will either.  However, they're such competently-bad baddies that they work perfectly in terms of sheer villainous intentions and you'll find yourself rooting the the good guys here with no problem.  About the most scary thing in this movie is the make-up the male aliens wear!  I kept thinking the Doctor had landed on a planet of Julian Clareys!

You don't have to be a die-hard 'Dr. Who' fan to appreciate this, just sit back an enjoy a colourful, campy science-fiction film from yesteryear.

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

The Cloverfield Paradox – Only just ‘Cloverfield’

It seemed that the majority of movie-goers enjoyed the first ‘Cloverfield’ film where an alien the size of Godzilla rampages its way through New York (even if most of us didn’t quite understand why the film was called ‘Cloverfield’ in the first place.  Then came it’s ‘sequel’ (notice the use of quote marks there?) which used the ‘Cloverfield’ name in its title and yet bore little similarities to the original.  Now, we have ‘The Cloverfield Paradox.’ I guess that at least this time I didn’t expect it to instantly tie in to either of the previous two – and I was kind of right.

‘Part III’ seems to be a pretty generic horror movie set in space with a couple of scenes thrown in there which sort of pull it into the ‘shared universe’ that’s apparently being created.  It feels a lot more like ‘Alien’ or ‘Event Horizon’ where the crew of a space station orbiting Earth suddenly find themselves teleported to the other side of the sun, wondering how they got there and what the mysterious happenings are on board.

It’s worth noting that this film has been released straight to Netflix, which is becoming the new way we used to say ‘straight to video/DVD.’ It’s budget is acceptable and the sets are reasonably space age, until you have things that happen involving severed limbs which can move on their own.  Then I started raising an eyebrow at the blatant use of CGI.  The ‘strange happenings’ on board soon start becoming fatal and our cast begin to drop one by one, leaving it feeling more like an old-school ‘slasher’ film set in space.  It does its best to try and make up for this by being a little more scientific than your average ‘monster movie in space’ and for that, it does succeed.

There are those films where you can easily check your phone or pop out for a cup of tea.  Probably not best to do that here, as it won’t just be a case as you’ve missed a crew-member’s demise, but the story has skipped settings (I won’t go into detail about what I mean by ‘settings’ as I don’t want to give away too much!) and you’ll actually miss a vital plot point.

Now, it may just be my love of the ‘IT Crowd,’ but – for me – the stand-out performance went to Chris O’Dowd, who possibly relied on his ability for humour to own every scene he was in.  The rest of the cast are also functional for what they’re used for, but you probably won’t really remember any of the characters; names (I even just referred to Chris O’Dowd’s engineer-character as ‘Roy!’).

If you have Netflix and are generally a fan of sci-fi and/or horror then this is a decent enough little film to while away an hour and a half.  However, don’t look at it as much to do with the first two films – see the ‘Cloverfield’ films as more of a sci-fi anthology than a continuous series.  This is one sequel where you really don’t need to have watched anything that came before it to really understand what’s going on (okay, maybe apart from the very last shot of the movie!).

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

Nowhere to Run - Such an awful-good film

Do you like cheesy, bad, action movies from the eighties?  If the answer is 'Yes' then you should find entertainment from 'Nowhere to Run' (even if it was made in 1993!).  Jean Claude Van Damme has made some great films.  And some equally bad ones. 'Nowhere to Run' lies so far in the 'bad' category that it transcends its terrible make-up and pushes through the negative to force its way back into the good category.

This time round Van Damme plays - yet another - slight variation of every other character he's ever played when he takes on the form of an escaped criminal who winds up helping a widow and her family protect their land against a bunch of cliched villains, lead by an 'uber cliched' British mastermind.

If you like action, then you won't find much of it here.  Yes, there are the obligatory punch-ups and car chases, but they're not filmed particularly well and therefore you'll be shaking your head at how someone actually thought they would satisfy adrenaline junkies.

If you had some sort of 'action movie bingo' card, I reckon you could tick off pretty much every trope associated with the genre.  And that's even before you mentioned the script.  It's awful.  In fact, there are some moments in the dialogue which just come so out-of-the-blue that you'll find yourself laughing at the sheer ludicrous randomness of the inclusion of such lines.

And yet for all its - many - faults, I found myself taking enormous entertainment from 'Nowhere to Run.' In some places I found myself laughing harder than many comedy films.  It's not a film you should take seriously.  If you stopped to over-analyse the plot for even a fraction of a second you'd find youself trying to make sense of something that just isn't meant to be logical.  If ever a film required you to put your brain 'on hold' then it was this one.  Sheer popcorn fodder.

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

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) - Actually better than I expected

Okay, so I didn’t love the remake of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but I was reasonably surprised.  I’m one of the original group of Turtle fans who enjoyed the cartoon in the eighties and the live action (fun!) film in 1990.  Therefore, when I heard that Michael Bay had his fingers in the remake, my hopes weren’t high (look what he did to the Transformers franchise!).

Yes, Bay’s fingerprints are visible here and there during the film, but, luckily, his input is relatively fleeting.  I guess I have to keep comparing the film to Transformers – both have been sold on having giant computer-generated characters as central to the story.  And, whereas Optimus Prime and co seem to blur into one, making action scenes almost impossible to watch, on the whole I was happy with the CGI turtles.  The fight scenes looked pretty realistic and there was only one (overly long) snowy chase scene in the final act which kind of looked a little too CGI for my liking.

However, as with Transformers, the film tries to balance the story between the titular heroes and the human characters.  It’s not until roughly the half hour mark do we really get to meet our four shelled green stars.  Many people already hate Megan Fox, so I was pretty surprised that she even got the part as the turtles’ friend April O’Neil.  I never hated her to begin with, but I’d describe her performance as ‘functional.’

The turtles themselves are fun to watch, but I was a little surprised at how miserable their (giant rat) mentor ‘Splinter’ seemed to be.  In the cartoon he was much more loving and paternal towards the turtles.  Here, he just seemed to have a go at them half the time (okay, he warms up, but still I thought he was overly harsh).

You may or may not know (I did!) that William Fichtner was originally cast as the turtles’ nemesis ‘Shredder.’ The fans went mental (yeah, I didn’t agree with the casting choice either) and a second actor was brought in as the ‘main’ villain and some parts of the film reshot to reflect this.  I guess because I knew this I was on the lookout for the bits that were blatantly ‘added in’ post production and I found them pretty easy to spot.

Ultimately, I can see this film being loved by the kids (mainly boys!) of today.  It’s just about passable as a homage to our childhood memories and, although it’s not a classic, Transformers it is not.

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

I, Robot - Aging just about okay

Just because Will Smith still looks only about a week older than he did in the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, it doesn’t mean that all his films do.  I remember watching ‘I Robot’ back in 2004 and being pretty impressed, so much so that I eventually bought it on DVD and have watched it a couple more times over the years.  Now, some twelve years later, I put it on my big-screen TV and have noticed that a few cracks are beginning to show.

No, not cracks on Will Smith’s face.  He still looks as (annoyingly!) young as ever, more cracks in the overall production – namely the CGI.  Yes, a futuristic world partially-populated by robots was always destined to require a fair amount of computer effects to bring it to life.  I guess I just didn’t realise quite how many at the time.  Now it’s kind of looking like a Star Wars prequel – you can almost spot every single ‘blue screen’ behind the principal actors.

Anyway, I’m just starting with my (new) gripe because I noticed it more this time around.  I should really be saying that – despite now obvious CGI – ‘I Robot’ is actually quite fun.  Will Smith doesn’t really stretch his acting abilities playing basically Will Smith in Men in Black, Will Smith in Independence Day and Will Smith in I am Legend, only this time he’s a cynical cop who dislikes robots (despite them never actually have been charged with committing a crime in this near future world we’re watching).  Anyway, when a robot is accused of murdering someone, Will Smith’s paranoia goes into overdrive and he goes on a witch-hunt to prove our alleged metal helpers have a darker agenda.

Basically, if you like Will Smith in general, you’ll love this.  If you like sci-fi and action combined (loosely) with a kind of conspiracy movie then you’ll also probably love this.  It’s good, harmless fun.  I did see on the internet people moaning that it wasn’t as ‘faithful’ to whatever source material that it was based on by Isaac Asimov, but since when did Hollywood ever follow the source material that faithfully?  What you have here is a fun little popcorn blockbuster movie.  It’s designed to appeal to as many people as possible and if you’re not expecting too much then you should be pleasantly surprised (just don’t expect lavishly-built sets – it’s all CGI!).

And it does leave you wanting your own robot to walk your dog, do your laundry and generally all those boring chores that get in the way of surfing the net, Playstation and all those really ‘important’ things we have to do!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Kill List - The ultimate `Marmite' film  

I've read a fair few reviews on the internet about Kill List and, the bottom line is, you'll either love or hate it.

So many reviews speak about it as it it's the film of the year, when others can't stand it.

I'm afraid I come down on the side of those who couldn't get into it.

This `review' is only based on the first half the film as I simply couldn't get into it and turned it off after fifty minutes.

I like gangster films and I like British gangster films. However, Lock Stock it ain't!

Even people who liked it described it as a `slow burner' - I just found it too slow. It was too all over the place for me and didn't seem to know where it was going. My main criticism was that it didn't seem to know what it wanted to be. It tried to be gangster, drama, gritty realism - genres that, in some cases, are easily merged, but not here - not in my opinion.

Like I say, so many people loved it. Timeout even said it might be the film of the year.

Each to their own. I'm off to put a Guy Richie film on now.

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

Gravity - An experience more than a film

Okay, `Gravity' is amazing. That makes it sound like a film that you have to watch, but, on reflection, I'm still not so sure. I sat through the whole ninety minutes of it and I'm still not sure whether I liked it or not.

I'm glad I saw it, but I'm not sure I'd ever want to watch it again. It's about two astronauts stranded in space when their shuttle gets struck by debris. First, the good: the two (and only) leads, George Clooney and Sandra Bullock, are both worthy of their A-list reputation and turn in excellent performances. You'll really feel for their plight and be rooting for them to get back to Earth. In fact, the only thing better than their acting is the special effects themselves. Sometimes it feels like you're really there with them as explosions and weightless tools float all about the place.

However, the only thing that lets this masterpiece down is the story (or lack of it). They get caught up in one explosion. Escape. Move on to the next explosion. Escape. Then rinse and repeat for an hour and a half. Having only two characters in the film kind of means that you know both won't die otherwise the movie will have to end.

`Gravity' is truly an epic movie in all aspects (apart from the story... possibly). It's definitely in the same league as `2001: A Space Odyssey' in terms of scale, drama and awe. However, what made it so good was also its drawback. Having long drawn-out shots and minimal cast never really felt like a `story-film' (if you know what I mean). Sometimes I felt like I was at the Epcot Centre in Disney World watching an exhibition on what space was like.

Yes, Gravity is breath-taking and will certain be hailed as a modern day classic by many. And, I'm definitely glad I saw it. Will I watch it again? No. Once is enough, thanks.

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

Miss Congeniality - Sandra shines

Sandra Bullock has been known to be a little ‘typecast’ sometimes – always playing the ‘loveable, but kooky’ leading lady.  Okay, so despite a few attempts to move away from that image, ‘loveable and kooky’ is what she does best.  And she does it very well here.

In ‘Miss Congeniality’ she plays an FBI agent who has to go undercover in the Miss America beauty contest in order to protect its participants from someone threatening the event.  I recently watched the X-files – another show centring on FBI agents.  I couldn’t help but laugh at the difference the ‘Bureau’ is portrayed in both shows.  In the X-files they’re all serious and professional, in ‘Miss Congeniality’ they kind of behave like frat boys at a college party.

But then that’s what Miss Congeniality is.  It’s not meant to be taken seriously, nor does it ever try.  It’s one of those perfect films that you can simply sit down and relax with.  You won’t need much brainpower to appreciate it.  Sandra Bullock is as lovable and endearing as she always is and you won’t care that the whole concept is kind of silly.  How anyone fails to notice that Sandra Bullock isn’t attractive, just because she wears glasses and doesn’t brush her hair is beyond me!

Although Bullock naturally carries the show as she’s transformed from ‘tom-boy FBI agent’ to glamorous beauty queen (a process that can apparently be achieved overnight – but, again, never mind, eh?), it’s worth noting that Michael Caine also has a role to play.  He comes close to stealing every scene as the uptight Englishman the FBI have employed to mould her into ‘Miss New Jersey.’

There are no surprises plot-wise.  You’ll probably guess who the bad guys – really – are and there’s the natural romantic sub-plot thrown in, just because.  But, as long as you’re only looking for pure entertainment, you probably won’t care.  This is a great movie to watch with other people.  Sit back, crack open the popcorn, put your brain on hold and enjoy.  Miss Congeniality is a classic in its own, laid back, easy-going league.  No, it'll never be remembered in the same breath as the true cinematic greats, such as the Godfather etc, but then it's not meant to be.  Just remember that while you're watching Sandra stumble into things and trip over on her heels.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Possession -Not really based on a true story (but never mind!)

The Possession is, as you have probably guessed, about a young girl who gets possessed by an evil spirit. Yes, the film is as original as that. However, despite a tired and overused premise, it does have one redeeming feature that makes it worth watching: the characters. They're nothing special, but I think that's the point. They're just an average (separated) family who don't overact or try and be too kooky. They're realistic and believable.

Then you have the children. Now, kids in movies are hit and miss at the best of times, let alone when a young actress is expected to act possessed and evil. Few can do it convincingly, but I think the girl in this has pulled it off.

The promotion claims that the film is `based on a true story.' It's not. That would be silly. It is however based on a box, somewhere in Eastern Europe that (supposedly) trapped a demon in it. That's how `based' it is, but never mind, just enjoy it for a decent supernatural horror flick.

Although, despite the characters, it's flaw lies in being little more than an updated Exorcist film. Any movie that deals with possession tends to follow a Three Step process. Step 1: Disbelief. When the surrounding characters wonder what's up with the possessed soul. Step 2: Research. Now, when the central character realised something is not right, they seek `professional help,' i.e. someone who deals with the supernatural. In most cases, a catholic priest (in this case some Jewish Rabbis). Step 3: Confrontation. The demon must be confronted. Expect plenty of head-twisting and foul language.
Ultimately, The Possession is probably worth a watch if you like supernatural/possession movies (or are just generally a fan of The Exorcist). The characters are well-played enough to elevate it above the numerous similar horror films. However, it is little more than a present day Exorcist film (but there are still a few good and creepy scares along the way).

Think `Gollum' from Lord of the Rings (if you watch the film all the way to the end, you'll know what I mean).

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

Death Wish II - A more 'commercial' sequel

The original 'Death Wish' film kind of set the bar when it came for 'revenge' movies of the era.  Ever since then the concept of someone being severely wronged and therefore taking the law into their own hands to even the score has sort of been done to death by now.  Some people say that 'lightning never strikes twice,' however, in the case of Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson) he's not so lucky.  In the first film his wife was murdered by a street gang.  This time round it's his daughter and housekeeper (and I won't go into detail regarding the various other people in his life who meet a grisly end - it's safe to say that you really shouldn't hang out with Mr Kersey if you value your life!).  So, Bronson picks up his old ways and goes out for vengeance, only this time in Los Angeles, rather than New York.

Even being the first sequel to the original, you could argue that this film brings little in terms of originality to the overall genre.  However, for some reason, this one seems a bit more 'well put together' than the first, or possibly more 'well-paced.'

Despite its lack of originality, I can't help but see it as an overall better film than its predecessor.  The initial outing was rough and ready whereas this one is overall more polished.  It's hard not to root for Kersey as he (lethally!) cleans up the streets of L.A. Then again, the bad-guys are just that - bad.  In fact, they're almost so bad they become caricatures of what cinema antagonists normally are.  They have nothing in the way of virtuous traits and are simply the personification of evil - so much so that they're almost cartoon-like in the dastardly ways they act.

Bronson's real-life wife Jill Ireland plays his love interest and she's only really there to offer a moral counter argument to Kersey's actions.  If there's a secondary character that's worth mentioning then it's the New York police officer who follows his suspect across the country in order to bring him to justice.  This is a nice touch for fans of the first film and it helps to create a sense that the sequel is definitely set in the same timeline.

Of course it wouldn't be a 'Death Wish' film without a fair bit of extreme violence.  Michael Winner returns to direct this entry and he - again - doesn't hold back when it comes to seeing the worst things humans can do to each other.  You'll need a strong stomach in places, but if you can get over that then you'll enjoy watching Kersey 'taking out the trash' so to speak.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

See No Evil - Nothing special, but not bad

I’m actually writing this review after my second viewing of ‘See No Evil.’ The reason being is because I like slasher films and I rented this again because I’d forgotten I’d seen it!  That kind of gives you a clue as to the impact the film originally had on me.

It’s about a bus-load of unusually-attractive young convicts (all girls look like models and all lads are rugged and good-looking) who are allowed out of the youth detention centre for a weekend in order to help clean an abandoned hotel.  Naturally, this location just happens to be inhabited by a complete nutter who likes to pluck youngsters’ eyes out and keep them in jars (guess it beats stamp collecting?).

With modern slasher films, it seems that most try to go either one of two ways: they either play it straight and everything’s really dark and serious.  Or they go for the over-the-top effect and it’s a bit tongue in cheek with blatantly-stupid gore etc.  See No Evil goes for the former.  It’s all dark and gloomy.  And, to be fair, the atmosphere is good.  It’s all very dark and claustrophobic and the sets are nicely foreboding.

However, the gore itself is nothing special.  There’s little more to mention than in your average (original) Friday 13th film.

The youngsters who run about the place screaming and generally dying are functional.  They do their job well.  The adults in the group are pretty much redundant and you’ll probably see the twist coming a mile off.

But, if you’re into slasher films, this one is definitely not down there with the worst of them, but, like I said, I watched it once, forgot I had done and then accidentally watched it again.  Not that I regret it, it’s just the sort of film that will get lost among the many slasher films any fan of the genre has seen.
Special mention to ‘Kane’ who plays the killer well.

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

Dead Mine – no zombies included

With so many horror B-movies with the word ‘dead’ in the title, you could be forgiven for thinking that ‘Dead Mine’ would contain hordes of cheaply-made up flesh-eating ghouls hunting down a cast list of annoyingly-attractive drama students.  It doesn’t though.  Instead it’s more one of those films where a group of surprisingly unattractive platoon of soldiers encounter a bunker of undead Nazis (with disastrous consequences).

And it’s always Nazis.  It seems you can’t tunnel more than two feet below Europe without unearthing a secret World War II experiment of some kind or another.  But not here.  Dead Mine is completely different.  Here we’re in an island off the coast of Japan and there isn’t a single psychotic World War II scientist to be found.  They’re Japanese instead.  Here, our hapless treasure hunters get trapped in (guess what?) a mine, only to be stalked by what can best be described as Samauri Golum gimps.

It’s like if ‘Decent’ and ‘Outpost’ had a child, then ‘Dead Mine’ would be their offspring.  Only it’s not really as good as either.  That’s not to say that it’s (that) bad.  It’s no classic (not even a cult classic), but, if you’re in the mood, it’s watchable enough.

Performances aren’t anything special.  You’ll pretty much guess who’s going to die and in which order from the beginning, as most people’s motives are pretty self explanatory.

There’s not as much gore as you might think, which will annoy some people.  The budget obviously didn’t allow for that much in the way of special effects.

The story is as you’d expect and starts off pretty well, however the final act gets a little weird and may leave you wondering what happened.

All in all, if you haven’t seen Outpost or Decent and you find this film on some movie streaming website and you don’t have to pay for it, then it might fill an hour and a half.  As I didn’t have to pay to watch it I’m being more lenient on it.  I wouldn’t say it was worth the price of a cinema admission though!

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

Flight of the Phoenix (2004) - Not bad for a remake

Then again, I’ve never seen the original, so there’s always going to be people out there who claim that the Dennis Quaid version doesn’t compare.  Maybe they’re right, but, seeing as I never saw it, I can only say that this modern version is a pretty fun action/adventure romp.

It’s about a plane that crashes in the desert and there’s no discernable help coming for them.  Therefore they’re left with the choices of just sitting there awaiting death, or rebuilding their stricken aircraft from scratch and flying out of there.  Guess what… they choose the latter.

However, it’s not an easy task.  Along with the natural lack of food and water, they have to contend with the elements, not to mention a tribe of gun-crazy nomads waiting to pick them off.

There’s a cast of about ten (including Dennis Quaid and Miranda Otto), so don’t expect every one of them to be really fully-fleshed.  A fair percentage are only there to find themselves lost in the desert or on the wrong end of a nomad’s bullet.  But, this isn’t about character.  Basically, the crew of ‘stereotypes’ are only there to fill a purpose, but so what – it’s still fun!

It’s slightly longer than your average film (about an hour and forty minutes), but it never seems to drag.  They crash pretty quickly and one disaster after the next moves the story along at a good pace.
Okay, so when the history books are written about great action/adventure films, the remake of ‘Flight of the Phoenix’ will probably never be mentioned.  However, that doesn’t mean it’s not a fun little ride if you’re in the mood.  Give it a go.  If you find it on telly, or streaming for free on an online site its value is even greater.

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

Adventures in Babysitting - Classic timeless eighties comedy

I know it's a cliche to say 'They don't make 'em like they used to,' but, in the case of 'Adventures in Babysitting,' I think it's pretty true.  It's one of those eighties film that seemed to get everything so right that the story didn't need to spend half of the film on 'back story' or giving the characters loads of screentime in order for us to get to know them.  Instead, it kicks off within the first ten minutes.

A seventeen-year-old girl, Chris Parker (a rather young Elizabeth Shue), gets her plans with her boyfriend cancelled and is forced to babysit a local girl, Sara (and her fifteen-year-old brother, Brad, who has a major crush on Chris).  However, if that wasn't bad enough, Chris' best friend, Brenda, gets stranded in the big city and Chris has to take the kids (and Brad's best friend, Daryl, who both figuratively and literally has a big mouth!).

Within the opening fifteen minutes all the major characters have been introduced.  We - the audience - will have sympathy for Chris and (hopefully!) won't find the kids annoying in any way, as they're all presented very well.  Naturally, Chris' 'rescue of Brenda doesn't go according to plan and they all get stranded on the freeway.  Between there and the end of the film they get into gang fights, car crime, hook-handed mechanics and hanging off skyscrapers.

There may be nothing too new about the story, but it's simply so much fun I think most people should be able to overlook any minor cliche and suspend their disbelief simply to get a decent amount of entertainment out of it.  All the performances are great and the main four characters play off each other so well that you can't help but remember them.

It's hard to put 'Adventures in Babysitting' into a genre.  It has elements of thriller, comedy, crime, romance, but is generally one of those eighties films which is so timeless that it can probably appeal to all the family.  Yes, there are a couple of 'f-bombs' thrown in there during one segment, but, apart from that, I reckon most people should be able to sit down and enjoy everything this has to offer.  It's not an overly-long film and no part feels drawn out or a waste of time.  I hope this film never gets a remake, but if it does - it has to at least have a cameo from Chris Hemsworth - if you've watched the film you'll know what I mean!

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Wings of the Apache (Firebirds) - A true car crash of a film.  I couldn’t look away

‘Wings of the Apache’ is a truly awful film.  I can find little good to say about it.  During the first five minutes I was ‘on the edge of my seat’ only in a bad, jaw-droppingly amazed kind of way.  I’ve watched many bad films over the year.  I normally turn them off.  However, I sat all the way through this one’s one hour and seventeen minute runtime.  I really couldn’t avert my eyes.

Most people describe ‘Wings of the Apache’ as ‘Top Gun with helicopters.’ Yeah, I think that’s a reasonable description, only Top Gun was watchable for different reasons.  The opening five minutes I spoke about is basically Nicholas Cage narrating over a bland action scene involving a helicopter dogfight over some mountains.  Now, I’m no expert, but I seem to remember the first rule of storytelling is ‘show, don’t tell.’ Yet Cage just tells us what’s happening in a monotone voice.  Apparently, the drugs cartels are now using helicopters to shoot down American helicopters.  Does this actually happen in real life?  Never mind, it does here.  And Nicholas Cage – being the only guy who’s seen the cartel’s helicopter in action – must lead the charge against the lone chopper.

He’s ably aided by Tommy Lee Jones – a great actor in his own right, now reduced to barking orders in the most stereotypical ‘drill instructor’ way possible.  Plus there’s a love interest.  Guess where that subplot goes?

So Nick, Tommy and the token woman must train to fight the baddie then fight the baddie then save the day.  Hardly inspiring, but I think the most unforgivable element of the film is the editing.  It’s just bad.  It’s like every shot has been filmed separately to every other one and then spliced together – badly.  There’s a slight pause between when someone answers the person original speaking, making conversations seem stilted (assuming the dialogue spoken was any good to begin with – and nine times out of ten it isn’t).

So, in case you haven’t got the drift of what I’ve been saying, ‘Wings of the Apache’ is just bad.  And I watched it all until the last credit rolled.  Now I’ve seen it, I wonder why I did and yet I’m also curious as to why I may – one day – even watch it again, just to remind myself how bad it was.  It’s bad, but bordering on that so-bad-it’s-good kind of way.  If you’re prepared for that, it will certainly keep your eyes fixed on the screen for exactly one hour and seventeen minutes.

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

Horrible Bosses 2 - Pretty reasonable sequel

We all know sequels are hit and miss at the best of times.  And, comedies are often the first to find it hard to repeat the magic of the original. ‘Horrible Bosses’ was fun, so ‘Horrible Bosses 2’ had a fair amount to live up to.  But, it managed it.  Just.  But, in ‘comedy film terms’ ‘just’ is actually better than the average.

The three men from the original return for the sequel.  Instead of wanting to murder their employers this time, they have set up their own business so they never have to work for anyone ghastly again.  Only things go a little wrong when a company director agrees to purchase their product, only to go back on the deal.  Once this happens, the trio start along another path of ‘dark thoughts.’

The first plus point is that it’s not just the three main stars who return.  All other surviving cast members come back, even if it’s just for a cameo here and there and it does help to have a decent cast, again including Jennifer Anniston and Kevin Spacey.

The new ‘horrible’ bosses are pretty vile and you could probably imagine them existing in the corporate works (although probably most of us haven’t worked for their kind before).  The plot is pretty much the same, i.e. revenge, but they do go about things a little differently this time (which is nice).  Special mention to Chris Pine, who is about as far away from James T Kirk as you can possibly get!

There are a decent amount of laughs thrown in there to warrant the ‘comedy’ tag, but two out of the three leading men do tend to grate on you after a little while, as they’re just acting a little too immature for the serious situation they’ve found themselves in.

If you liked the first, you should at least smile all the way through the second.  If you haven’t seen the first, it’s probably best to start there before dabbling with the sequel.  It’s adult in nature, so be prepared for some pretty ‘adult’ moments (Jennifer Anniston, I’m looking at you!).  Not great, but just about passable for a comedy sequel.

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

A Little Bit Zombie - a little bit funny

Yes, it’s another zombie movie.  However, fair play to the film-makers for at least TRYING to do something a little different (assuming that you haven’t seen ‘Deadheads’ which is a bit like ‘A Little Bit Zombie’).

I guess there are two types of zombie outbreak – the one that consumes the whole world at once and the other than only happens in a localised rural area.  In this case we have the latter.  While 99% of the world sleeps soundly in their beds, oblivious to the fact that hordes of flesh-eating ghouls are eating people alive in a small town, two couples go on a trip there to plan one of their weddings.  And one of them gets infected with the ‘zombie virus.’

I won’t go into how that happened, as, like I say, they do try to be a little different whenever they can.  But, as we all know, when you exchange blood with the undead, you begin to turn.  However, the man infected doesn’t just start tearing apart his party.  He’s a little more in control than that.  A little.  So, witnessing his inner turmoil, his friends set out trying to preserve his humanity while doing their best to quench his thirst for human brains.

Does it work?  Sort of.  A few of the acting performances leaves a little to be desired, but, on the whole, the cast are okay.  The gore, for those who like seeing heads explode at every possible turn, isn’t up to that much.  You get the odd ‘head shot,’ but that’s about it.  What saves the film from being totally forgotten is the dialogue.  The two couples don’t really get on well to begin with, let alone when one of their number starts threatening to eat the others alive.  Therefore there’s quite a lot of nice banter between the four of them which makes it quite humorous to watch.

It’s a short film, running at less than the standard one and a half hours, but it doesn’t really need to be much longer.  It’s no classic, but it’s not that bad either.  If you can really stand to sit through another zombie movie (or should I say another ‘zom-com’ movie?) then you might like it.  I read someone else’s review online which stated that ‘A Little Bit Zombie’ is like ‘National Lampoon’s Eighties Zombie Movie.’ That’s a pretty good appraisal of the film.

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