Lockout - It's sort of like Die Hard, but in space

In the near future, convicts aren't given ASBOs or community service involving smoking a cigarette at the side of the road with a half-filled sack of rubbish in the other. Instead, they're not only frozen for their sentence, but they're also incarcerated in a prison-space-station orbiting the Earth (as suggested in The Daily Mail since the end of World War 2).

But, just when the President's daughter takes a humanitarian trip to the prison, the convicts only break out and take over the installation (a surprisingly easy feat believe it or not, but I'll gloss over that).

It seemed that Bruce Willis and Keanu Reeves were both busy saving other Presidents' daughters, so the only man capable of flying up there, killing everyone with tattoos (and Scottish accents - in the future, major crime is apparently only committed by Glaswegians) is wise-cracking tough guy and wrongly-convicted superspy Guy `Mike-from-Neighbours' Pearce.

And that's about it. He goes up there, shoots a lot of people, bludgeons others and... well, you can watch the film to find out.

I may have been slightly glib, but I actually enjoyed this. Yes, it's predicable and yes, you've probably seen it before (albeit not on a prison space station, right?), so there's nothing really new here. But it's fun, daft and kills a couple of hours (and about a hundred felons).

The performances are nothing special, but the futuristic sets are nice and the action scenes are satisfying, so I think that's all most people will want from a film like this.

Popcorn fodder. Sit back, set brain on `stand-by' and just go with it. Don't think about how easy it is for one escaped convict to take over an entire space station and release absolutely everybody at once. Just don't.

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

Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers - Amusing and self-knowing horror sequel

The first 'Sleepaway Camp' was an entertaining, if low budget, little slasher/horror film which might not have been too memorable, had it not been for the ending (which was pretty different and shocking for the day).  So I was happy to sit down and watch the next installment, but this one took me a little while to get to grips with.

Because the first one was outright 'horror' I couldn't help but wonder whether the film-makers were trying to be all 'meta' and self aware with what they were doing here, or whether they genuinely thought they were being scary.  By the time the credits rolled (and, just in case, I checked online as to what the producers were thinking they made this) I was certain that this sequel was more of a horror black comedy than anything that should be taken seriously.

As the title of the franchise suggests, the story takes place at a children's/teenage summer camp where someone is out to 'off' the guests.  The first one - in typical slasher fashion - tried to make you guess who the killer was whereas in 'Part II' you're shown who it is in the opening scene, so this isn't a 'Scream-like' film when you're left wondering.

Just on the off-chance you haven't seen the first installment and don't know who the killer is, I wont ruin it for you.  But I will say that the killer here seems to relish the role they're playing and delights in offing as many people as they can with a well-constructed plan or two, followed by a post-homicidal quip.

Sadly, the black humour is in place of any gore and, although the kills are gruesome, they're more left up to our imagination, rather than shown in all their gory detail. 'Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers' is more like one of the 'Scary Movie' films than a scary film that will gross you out.  It descends into depths where you just have to laugh at how as soon as a camper gets killed their absence is merely chalked up to 'being sent home' and no one asks any questions.

I enjoyed the first film and do recommend it for its daring approach to the genre (of the time) and, if you prefer something with a few more ironic chuckles then this one should definitely entertain you, too.  Roll on 'Part III.'

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

Rise of the Planet of the Apes - How the monkeys control the zoo  

Rebooting movie franchises are one thing. Rebooting a movie franchise that is still comparatively new is another. Rise of the Planet of the Apes cunningly ignores Tim Burton's misfire of a remake and decides to become a sort of remake/prequel to Charlton Hestern's original classic sci-fi movie.

If you don't know or don't care where (chronologically) this movie comes in the series and look at it as a stand-alone work (although, it was a commercial success - not prizes for guessing they'll make a sequel or five), it's actually quite good.

The opening twenty minutes or so are a little slow and I was wondering what I was getting myself into here. However, once the central ape, aka Caesar the mentally genetically-enhanced chimpanzee starts growing up and showing signs of things to come, the story picks off. In fact, it kind of makes the human characters redundant as Caesar steals every scene with the help of a menacing look of bitter resentment towards his cruel human masters. Soon he leads the others apes to revolt against them and, if you can get over the fact that apes can take on gun-totting humans, you'll enjoy the action scene on the Golden Gate bridge (which I'm presuming has been recently rebuilt after Magneto destroyed it in X-men 3).

All in all it's not overly long and, if you like sci-fi and the premise of super-apes potentially taking over the world, give it a shot (of course we hope this film won't give any terrorist factions ideas - we don't want them bringing the world to its knees by releasing a couple of hundred angry monkeys into any major city and watching humanity crumble).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Wolf of Wall Street - He’ll Huff and he’ll puff (but he won’t win an Oscar)

Poor ol’ Leo, what does he have to do to get his Oscar?  Here he teams up (yet again) with Martin Scorsese to play the real life (well, Hollywood adapted) tale of Jordan Belfont – a New York stock broker of dubious morales – who lives life in the fast lane (and swears a lot).

If you like Leo and/or Scorsese then this is for you.  It’s an exercise in excess.  From its excessive foul language to its excessive nudity and even its excessive (three hour) run-time – everything here is over the top.  And it’s pretty good.

Scorsese does what he has been doing best lately, i.e. getting a good performance out of Leo and piles on his trademark monologues and tracking shots, while filming grown men behaving *very* badly.  Leo seems to be on overdrive and cranks up his acting to the max, screaming, shouting and generally working himself up into a manic frenzy.  Both of which are pretty fun to watch.

If you want to know what ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ is like, think the characters from America Psycho and put them in the setting of ‘Wall Street’ and add the foul language from Goodfellas then you’re sort of in the right area.

It’s pretty entertaining.  You may not like all the characters (in fact you probably won’t even like a single one), but you’ll probably enjoy watching them fall from grace with a bump.  Just as long as you can tolerate the shouting, the drug-taking and the nudity then you’ll get something out of this.
My only complaint was the length.  Yes, three hours was a little too long in my opinion (apparently it had been trimmed down from FOUR hours!); I felt a few of the scenes had been dragged out a little too long and a little more ruthless editing might have been in order.  But, I’d certainly watch it again (once I’ve stopped swearing like a trooper and thumping my chest while at work).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Shadow Walkers (aka '+1') - High concept.  Awkwardly executed

‘Shadow Walkers’ (or ‘+1’ as it’s also known) is an odd little number at the best of times.  It never really seems to know what it is.  I guess the one thing everyone can agree on is that it’s a ‘B-movie.’ Therefore, most likely everyone concerned with making it knew that it was never going to be a massively commercial box office smash.  At best it might achieve ’cult status’ on DVD.

Therefore, it doesn’t have a budget and no ‘known’ actors to speak of.  It’s about a meteor that crashes into a small town in America, creating weird phenomenon amidst a local college party.  Soon the guests find things are going a little crazy and they might not make it to morning alive.  It starts off like some sort of adult-humour piece like American Pie, then it progresses into a looping version of Groundhog Day.  There’s also a fair bit of ‘gratuitous’ nudity which (judging from what I’ve read online) seems to have put a lot of people off from taking the plot seriously.

When I read that synopsis I thought it was going to have something to do with aliens.  Yet, what you get is time travel.  It could work.  And it almost does.  Without giving too much away about the plot, it tries to be a little bit different (and succeed), but then it strays into that area where it starts to become too clever for its own good.  Any film concerning time travel is going to have some major plot holes.  Some of them are just so good (I’m thinking the Terminator series and Back to the Future) that you can forgive the odd lapse in plausibility and just enjoy the ride.  However, in Shadow Walkers the questions just keep mounting up.  It’s like the writers had one idea then changed their minds half way through.  And then again about twenty minutes later.

You’ll find yourself asking quite a few questions as to why people do things and what happens to someone which hasn’t really been properly explained.  I checked online as to find out the meaning behind much of the film.  There are some good theories explaining most of it, but no one seems to be able to explain everything.

If you were left with questions after watching Prometheus, then you’ll be able to write an encyclopaedia as to what wasn’t clear in Shadow Walkers.  I didn’t hate the film.  It tries to be different, which, in a marketplace of B-movies filled with ‘found footage’ and cheap zombie movies, made a change.  I just wish it had been a little more focused.  I don’t mind not having every little detail about a story explained to me.  Sometimes it’s fun to interpret it your own way.  It’s just here they took that concept a little too far.

For fans of sci-fi B-movies only.

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

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines -No matter what you say... it’s still better than Part IV

One of the main problems with ‘Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines’ was that it had to follow not only the original ‘Terminator’ movie, but its (arguably better) sequel, ‘T2: judgement Day,’ therefore whatever came next had not just one, but TWO tough acts to follow.  In short – it didn’t.

It does its best to follow the plot of the first two movies, i.e. bad cyborg sent back through time by the machine-rulers of the future to kill humanity’s last hope for survival versus protector (also from the future), however, it comes across as a Terminator-made-for-TV movie.  If it wasn’t for the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger stars as the titular cyborg, it has a real sense of being a lot less epic than its predecessors.

For a start, it’s shorter, secondly, the effects don’t seem to have improved much since the groundbreaking ‘liquid metal’ SFX from T2 and it never really makes us care much about the characters.  Linda Hamilton did not want to reprise her role as the iconic action heroine Sarah Connor, leaving Claire Danes to do her best to fill her shoes.  And, if you’ve been following Edward Furlong’s ‘career’ since he made his name as the young John Connor from T2, you’ll know that he wasn’t in much shape to reprise his role.  Instead, Nick Stahl tries his best to play humanity’s future leader and, although credit for making him look like his (on screen) father, Kyle Reece, is never really given much to do apart from look confused at the fact that the Terminator has returned.  In other words... T1/2 produced real characters who stuck with us through the ages whereas T3 rushes us from one chase scene to the next and it’s over before you know it.

Don’t get me wrong – I didn’t hate Part III.  I own it and watch it every few years (just not as much as the first two, obviously!).  It has its good parts – mainly Schwarzenegger.  He still holds his own, even playing – technically – a new cyborg from the last two instalments.  It’s also worth noting that Part 3 is a ‘12’ certificate, therefore don’t expect the overall dark tone from the other two.  There are more wisecracks here which lighten the mood.

But, even if you do hate it, it’s still pretty good fun watching two indestructible cyborgs go toe to toe and the ending is actually quite good.  Perhaps the worst thing about it was that it’s great ending leads us effortlessly into Part IV (aka Salvation) and we all know how that one turned out (sorry Christian Bale, but a Terminator is not a Terminator movie without Mr Schwarzenegger taking the lead role).

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

Before I Go To Sleep - Shades of Memento

‘Before I Go To Sleep’ is a short and sweet little thriller with shades of Christopher Nolan’s classic ‘Memento.’ The two share the same principal of a central protagonist who is suffering from memory loss and can’t remember what has gone on before them.  The beauty of this (when it works) is that you, as the viewer, is as much in the dark as the main character as to what’s going on.

Here, Nicole Kidman wakes every morning, unable to remember the last eighteen years of her life.  She’s married to Colin Firth, but can’t remember him and relies on photos and video diaries to chart her past.  Then, enter one doctor, Mark Strong, who thinks he can help her recall her past.  Naturally, memories surface which call into question everything she thinks she knows.

Is it as good as Memento?  No.  But then, despite sharing the same premise, it’s different enough not to be totally judged against Memento.  All three actors in Before I Go To Sleep play their parts well, however, it’s not a long film and there isn’t that much to it.  I pretty much worked out what was going on well before Nicole managed to.  There is more intrigue in the first half, but, once you have worked everything out, it sort of descends into your traditional ‘slasher’ film where the girl is being pursued by the killer (and if you’ve looked at the cast list, you’ll already know that you basically have a one in two chance of getting it right!).

Seeing as the cast is basically ‘A-list’ it’s probably worth seeing if you’re into thrillers.  However, once you’ve watched it, you probably won’t want to see it again (at least for many years).  Basically... rent or borrow before you buy.

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

Iron Man 3 - A new type of Iron Man movie

The third instalment of the highly-successful Iron Man franchise goes off in a different direction to its predecessors. I'll assume that `part 3' (not including the Avengers) won't be people's first helping of Iron Man lore and they'll probably have a shrewd idea of what to expect from the previous episodes.

However, the film-makers have decided to go in a slightly different direction with this one. I can see their point. It may have felt a bit `samey' to have yet another villain wearing a suit of armour to battle our sarcastic hero Tony Stark, so they decided to downplay the suits of armour for the better part of the movie. Instead they focused more on `the man' himself, utilising his deductive powers, rather than just blasting baddies with his lasers.

And, to be blunt, while some people loved it, others hated it. So if you're looking for yet another superhero movies with larger than life baddies and plenty of high-tech, suit-wearing, destructive action, you may feel a little cheated. There is plenty of action (and a suitably explosive climax), but a lot of it involves more hand to hand fighting from Stark.

Personally, I thought it was quite a refreshing turn for a superhero film. Tony Stark always has been and always will be, Iron Man. If I just want to see him in the suit itself, I have parts 1 and 2 to watch. Nice to see something different. Roll on part 4 (and the Avengers 2).

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

Gremloids (a.k.a. 'Hyperspace) - Possibly the worst film ever made (and I LOVE it!)

 So, I’ve already mentioned that this is possibly the greatest film ever made, so I really ought to do my best to justify exactly why I think a low budget ‘Star Wars’ parody is so good.  Even though I know deep down that it’s terrible.

First of all, I was seven when this film came out only a year after George Lucas had released Return of the Jedi.  Therefore me (and every other boy of the eighties) was heavily into our ‘holiest of trilogies.’ And, I believe this was before ‘Spaceballs’ came out, so ‘Gremloids’ (or ‘Hyperspace’ if you’re not from the UK) was just about the first time I’d ever seen Star Wars sent up (in anything other than brief TV sketches).

It’s about a Darth Vader wannabe ‘Lord Buckethead’ (who you’ll have to see to understand exactly why that name is so fitting!) who is in pursuit of the leader of the rebels (who just so happens to be a beautiful space princess) because she’s gone and nicked a bunch of top secret plans from him.  Now, I’m sure you’ll probably agree that this all sounds very familiar.  However, from then on it does veer off from what you might expect a Star Wars parody to be like.  For a start, our evil villain is not exactly hot on her trail.  Instead, he’s ended up on Earth in some small American town.  Therefore, the rest of the film is a case of mistaken (planetary) identity with Bucketbrains chasing around a hapless receptionist, rent-a-kill guy and their vacuum cleaner (Bucketbonse thinks the Hoover is a ‘droid!’).

Now, the best thing about ‘Gremloids’ is that it’s bad.  No, make that EXTREMELY bad.  The special effects are so bad that they’re actually referenced as such more than once during the movie.  Then there’s the acting.  I don’t think they hired any professional actors for the lead roles (I think I saw one guy in ‘Groundhog Day’ but that was about it!).  In fact, I think most student film-makers could make a more believable alien invasion movie than this.  And yet I still say it’s brilliant.  There’s just something weirdly amazing about the whole thing.  I almost can’t place why it’s so great.  I guess it’s because the film-makers knew that they weren’t exactly making a ‘real’ sci-fi epic, such as the source material that it’s based on and just played to the film’s strength, which is a script that is truly funny and a situation that is so daft it just works.

There are times when you see a film with great actors, a massive budget, a well-known writer and director behind the scenes... and the film turns out to be rubbish.  Everything SHOULD work and yet it doesn’t.  Here nothing should work and yet it does.  I would even go as far as to say that the speederbike... sorry SHOPPING TROLLEY chase could well be the worst special effects ever committed to film... and yet I still laugh every time I see it.  I’ve watched this movie so many times now I practically know the script off by heart.  I’d like nothing more than to recommend it, yet I know deep down that it has a very ‘limited’ appeal.  If, like me, you enjoy ‘so-bad-they’re-good’ films, plus love ‘Star Wars’ and cheesy eighties B-movies, then you may just get something out of this.  Otherwise, I can see many people watching the first ten minutes and claiming that this is the ‘worst film ever made’ (and I can see where they’re coming from in a strange sort of way!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Dead Rising - I love a good zombie movie...

...and luckily I also quite like a bad one, too.  Which is just as well, because ‘Dead Rising’ isn’t that good (but then it’s not that bad, either).  In case you didn’t know, it’s based on a computer game.  And, if you didn’t know that, you probably did know that movies that are based on computer games never really fair that well.

You have a city.  You have zombies.  You have survivors trying to get out.  If you’re expecting something with tension, heart and character development (and zombies, of course) then stick to the Walking Dead.  However, if you just want to see zombies sliced up by weird and wonderful (and very sharp) home-made weapons, then watch this.  Part of the enjoyment of the computer game was that you could ‘craft’ weapons by sticking a lawnmower on the end of a toaster (or something like that) and then mowing your way through the undead hordes.  Well, that’s basically what the film does, too.

The characters are a clichéd and the story uninspired, yet I can’t quite bring myself to dislike it.  It’s the sort of film that I’m pretty sure I’ll forget shortly and then remember in a few years time and watch again.  No, I won’t buy it, but I reckon that if I can find it for free on Netflix or whatever then I’ll happily sit through it again and chuckle here and there.

If I had to say one majorly negative thing about it, it would be that it never really seemed to know what it wanted to be.  One minute it’s quite ‘knowingly cheesy’ with its silly antics – the next it’s trying to be all dark and conspiracy orientated.

If you can stomach – yet another – zombie film that’s simple ‘popcorn fun’ then you could give this one a go (especially if you don’t have to pay for it!).

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

Fear in the Night – Please release a director’s cut that’s shorter

Boy, do I feel like I'm going to get into trouble for this review... Do you ever watch a film and don't enjoy it, only to go and see everyone else absolutely seemed to love it?  Well, it looks like 'Fear in the Night' is going to be one of those films for me.

First of all, let me say that I love Hammer horror films, plus I'm a huge fan of Peter Cushine.  Therefore, I was more than happy to invest my time into watching a film where a young woman gets attacked by a one-armed man the night before she moves to an old boys' boarding school in order to help her husband teach there.

That's the basic premise of the film.  The cast isn't huge.  You have the young couple (Ralph Bates and Judy Geeson), the headmaster of the school (the legendary Peter Cushine) and his young wife Joan Collins.  Therefore, you'll probably have a reasonable idea who the attacker is (although possibly not why things are happening the way they are).

The cast is great and the premise, although nothing that special, is fine for a horror movie.  However, what really got me was the amount of time spent simply wandering around from room to room in various buildings.  The film is about an hour and a half long and at least half of that is spent watching a character walk about quietly.  It's like the story should have only been about thirty minutes long and they had to find a way of padding it out to a full feature film's length.

In short, most of it was kind of dull.  It wasn't until the very last part of the final act did things pick up enough to peak my interest.  It's probably because of what happens when you find out what's really happening that the film has been given such a high score by many.  And, I will agree that the ending is pretty good/clever, but it's just a shame you have to wade through so much boring 'filler' to get there.

If you're happy to watch something that is probably the slowest 'slow-burner' ever made in order to get to the good stuff then this is definitely for you.  Now I know the outcome I really don't need to watch it again.

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

Jojo Rabbit – One of the greatest films of modern times

There are two ways of looking at the film 'Jojo Rabbit' - you can take a quick glance of the subject matter and see how a young boy in Second World War Germany has an imaginary friend who is none other than Adolf Hitler himself and say, 'That's no laughing matter' and therefore write the movie off as simply 'bad taste' and something that shouldn't be joked about.  Or you can actually watch it and digest the deeper meaning behind it all.  And, I think if you do, you'll find that it's one of the most original, deep and touching stories to come out of modern day Hollywood.

Yes, our young protagonist, Jojo, (brilliantly played by the young Roman Griffin Davis) is part of the 1944 'Hitler Youth' project in Nazi Germany and he dreams of growing up to be one of Hitler's personal guards and ridding the Fatherland of various 'undesirable' groups - I'm sure you know what I mean.  And, to 'help' him along the way, he has imagined how the Furher himself would be and has created a fictional version of Adolf Hitler (again, perfectly lampooned by the film's writer/director Taika Waititi).  Now, you may think this is hardly a protagonist you could root for.  However, the film goes to great lengths to point out how this youngster is merely the product of his brief lifetime of constant brainwashing by the ruling party.  In short, this film is more about the dangers of indoctrination rather than promoting any form of ideology.

Of course there are many moments that are played for laughs.  The movie goes to great lengths to point out how this imaginary Hitler is not the REAL Hitler and is merely how a young boy might interpret how his 'glorious' leader would be, i.e. quite a fun, playful character (who also just happens to want to murder lots of people).

Besides the two characters I've already mentioned, 'Jojo Rabbit' is littered by famous faces who all turn in excellent performances.  Scarlett Johansson is heavily promoted and, although good, I felt was overshadowed by Sam Rockwell and Stephen Merchant whenever they were on screen.  Besides these 'heavy hitters' Thomasin McKensie deserves a special mention for being another youngster that can definitely hold her own among the stars and hopefully has a bright acting future ahead of her.

Much of the humour seems to come in the first third of the film, but, as the story goes on, the film does start to descend into much darker territory where many horrors of war are depicted and there are certainly scenes which will leave you cold and stay with you forever.

Overall, this film has something for everyone (who doesn't take offense at the mere mention of the subject matter).  It could be considered essential viewing for anyone looking to see how the horrors of war effect those forced to live under such conditions and serve as a reminder that we shouldn't always trust those who lead us.

Plus, if nothing else convinces you to watch this, you also have excellent versions of The Beatles and David Bowie classic songs (albeit in German, which is definitely a novelty!).

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

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation - Which number is this in the franchise?

I’ve just watched ‘Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation.’ I notice that for a film in an ongoing franchise, it doesn’t actually have a number attached to the title.  I’m guessing this is generally because it doesn’t matter which one it is.  If you’ve seen any of the previous instalments (excluding the original which requires some sort of post doctorate in nuclear physics to understand the numerous double-crossing plot threads) then you’ll know what you’re getting.  The ‘MI’ franchise has certainly settled into a formula and, try as I might to hate it for basically doing the same thing over and over again, I have to confess that I thoroughly enjoyed it (after all, if Marvel can do it, why can’t Tom?!).

Tom Cruise plays… oh, does it matter?  He basically plays Tom Cruise playing a sort of James Bond role where his team of secret agents has to stop (yet another) super villainous organisation from overthrowing Britain.  As a Brit, I could probably take offense at us needing saving, but my fellow countryman Simon ‘Shaun of the Dead’ Pegg is helping him out, so I guess I’ll let that one slide.  He accomplishes this through numerous high-octane car chases, gun fights and stunts – none of which leaving so much as a scratch on our hero.

Oh, dear – three paragraphs in and I’m already running out of things to say about ‘Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation.’ I’m guessing that’s because there’s not much that can be said about it that you haven’t already seen written about the others.  In all the film franchises of recent times (including the reliably similar Marvel movies) this is just about as identical in structure as those that have come before it.  In a nutshell: if you like Tom Cruise then you’ll probably like this.  If you’ve liked any of the previous instalments (2-4) then you’ll also like this.  Of course if you haven’t seen any of them and you’re just a fan of action movies with a pinch of spy/doublecross involved, again you’ll get something out of it.  You don’t really need to know what’s come before.  You can join the franchise here or at any point after the first film.  Just put your brain in ‘neutral’ and enjoy the nicely-choreographed action scenes and Tom Cruise fighting wave after wave of useless henchmen.  Sheer popcorn fun.

Oh, and I’ve just checked online.  It appears that yet another ‘Mission Impossible’ film is penciled in for 2018.  Gee, I wonder what that one will be like?!  It’s fair to say that I’ll be watching it either way.  The only downside will be that when I come to review it I’ll probably have even less original observations to make about it than I did here!

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

Apt Pupil – Gandalf the Nazi

Is it just me or are the filmic adaptations of Stephen King's books better if there's no supernatural element to the story?  This one follows a short story of his pretty closely (according to those who have actually read the source  material - I must confess that I haven't!) of a straight A high school student (Brad Renfro) in the eighties who discovers that a former World War II Nazi (Sir Ian McKellan) is living in his community.  

Now, I would imagine most of us would simply inform the relevant authorities of such suspicions and let them do the rest.  However, this 'straight A' student isn't quite as 'clean cut' as we may first think.  He decides to play some sort of weird psychological game with the grown man and find out as much as he can about the man's activities during those infamous years in the 1930s/40s.

It's certainly a strange sort of story.  For a start, most people will hardly be rooting for a Nazi who freely admits to his 'participation' in Second World War gas chambers.  Yet the young boy isn't that much of your typical 'hero' either, seeing as he seems more obsessed with simply finding out all these 'juicy' details, rather than seeing (belated) justice be served.

But, just because there's no one we probably 'identify' with, doesn't make it any the less compelling to watch.  Of course, pretty much anything with Ian McKellan in is most likely worthy of our time and it's nice to see his 'darker' side be explored.

If there was one thing that lets it down, in my opinion, it's that a major part of the (latter) story comes in the form of a coincidence that seems a little too far-fetched to be anything other than a way of moving the plot forward.  However, the 'sparring' between the two leads makes it worth watching and possibly the thought that men who were involved in such atrocities evaded justice for so long is actually a greater 'horror' than many of King's various ghosts and monsters throughout his career.

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

Cockneys Vs Zombies - Shaun of the East End of London

A zombie film. Another one. Ever since Resident Evil they've been coming thick and fast - each one trying to add something different into the genre. Some work, most don't. Here we have a low budget British epic which does its best to steer away from comparisons with the classic Shaun of the Dead. However, it will always be doomed to fail on that front. For a start, it's British, it's a comedy, it has gore and is set in London, starring a load of `average Joes' who just so happen to get caught up in an undead uprising.

Although it's not bad. It has a few moments of humour and a decent amount of gore for such a low budget film. However, just as I can't really think of anything bad to say about it, I can't really think of anything good either. If you want zombies, gore and a dose of comedy, you really might as well just stick with Shaun of the Dead.

Cockneys vs Zombies doesn't take itself seriously and die hard fans of the genre should find plenty to appreciate about it. It just seems a case of `been there and done that.'

I have to say I was kind of hoping, seeing as the film was set in the East End of London, to watch hordes of rampant flesh-eating ghouls rampaging through Albert Square, ripping apart patrons of the Queen Vic in the process. Now that would be worth the price of any cinema admission!

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

Following - Memento's lesser-known and long lost sibling

Most people now know Christopher Nolan's name from his involvement with the Batman reboot. Others may remember him from Inception or Memento, where his scripts bent minds with their wonderful weirdness.

Following is his first ever effort at proper film-making. It features amateur actors who filmed their scenes while not at their day jobs, black and white footage and all filmed, written and directed by Christopher Nolan. In short, it comes across a bit like an `art house' flick when you put it like that. But is it any good?

Yes.

Considering its minimal budget and lack of film-making expertise, it's pretty damn amazing. If you can forgive the lack of Hollywood glitz and grainy, student-like footage, it's a very compelling story which exhibits many traits which Christopher Nolan has used again (and expanded on) in his upcoming features.

It's about a man who, needing inspiration for characters he's writing about, starts following random strangers around London in order to get some idea what `normal' people do. However, what he doesn't bank on is when a suave thief who he follows catches him in the act and confronts him about it. Together they form an uneasy alliance and things take more than one turn for the worse. I'll keep the plot vague as it's one of those films that you can only really watch once and enjoy not knowing where it's going. I'll leave the surprises a surprise.

If you can put up with a film that's very raw and rugged, devoid of anything vaguely Hollywood, plus you like a bit of a mind-bender which will have you guessing until the end, give this a go. Even if you completely hate it, it's pretty short, weighing in at just over an hour.

Also, note the coincidental Batman logo on a flat door - a prediction of things to come?

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Hostel: Part II - Kind of split audiences

The first ‘Hostel’ film seemed to be widely-regarded as at least worth a watch (mainly by horror buffs with slightly warped minds – I confess to being one such person).  However, the sequel (also written and directed by Eli Roth) was met with a little more disdain.

It must have been difficult to write as it was one of those situations where Roth was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.  If he tried to be original and created something that was completely different to the first one, he would most likely alienate those who enjoyed the original.  Then again, if he stuck to the original people would claim it’s just a rehash of the first.

It looks like he did the latter.  Whereas ‘Part I’ had three lads holidaying in Slovakia and falling foul to a rather sick and twisted game the locals play, we have three young women in their place.  And that’s where the first problem lies with many people.  It seems that cinema audiences are quite okay with watching men getting ripped open and tortured for fun, but, when it comes to women, it is a little more unsettling.  It certainly is harder to watch as the violence has naturally been cranked up in an attempt to ‘out-do’ the original (which was largely off-screen).

The plot may be – largely – the same, but there are a few reasonable little additions that have been thrown in there to try and ‘expand’ the Hostel universe.  Most notable is the inclusion of introducing two men who actually enjoy killing people enough to bid on the rights to kill the girls.

However, not matter how the same or different the film is, the bottom line is that it does kind of graphically show torture and violence to young women which did – unsurprisingly – turn off a lot of people.  I know it’s not real and it’s just a film, but this time round it is pretty strong stuff and you may wish you’d just stuck to the original.  For die-hards only.

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

Phantasm III: Lord of the Dead - The horror added the comedy

I know there's a section of fans of the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' horror franchise who far preferred when its villain, Freddy, was pure evil and didn't do all the 'one-liners.' I guess they're into the 'pure' horror, rather than the genre semi-lampooning itself by adding a few bits of self-knowing parody.  In 'Phantasm' I and II, it's fair to say that they were both 'pure' horror (with only a very minor dose of tongue-in-cheek humour, possibly more in the second installment.  However, 'Part III' really does amp up the black comedy, almost to 'Evil Dead' levels.

Personally, I actually enjoyed the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' series when it was horror and horror comedy, just like I enjoy both types of 'Phantasm' film. 'Part III' continues the tale of the sinister 'tall man' and his minions who are stealing corpses from our world and taking them into their own dimension.  Luckily, we have an overweight, balding ex ice cream vendor (played perfectly by Reggie Bannister) to save us - along with his new 'team.'

If you like your heroes slightly bumbling and, er, 'grabby (when it comes to women!) then Reggie is a delight to watch in this age of 'clean cut' leading men.  Now he's out to rescue the boy the tall man seems to be constantly after and he's helped by a child and a ninja-like woman - who Reggie is constantly coming on to!

Yeah, there's not much that's horrific in 'Part III,' but there is a lot here that's fun.  The tall man is as menacing as ever, but this film is all about entertainment over scares.  The 'horror' is played more for laughs and is completely over the top.  The flying balls are back and because this film is now made in an age where computer effects were beginning to take off, the special effects are well done overall.

If you like 'straight' horror, just watch the first two films, but if you don't mind the series start admitting that it's getting kind of silly and generally running with it, then this one is certainly a fun little addition to the franchise.

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

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - General popcorn viewing

Maybe I’m old, but I didn’t enjoy Spiderman 2 as much as I wanted to.  Don’t get me wrong… I didn’t hate it, nor did I regret watching it.  I just felt that there was an element of ‘seen it all before’ in there.

I’m not going to go into the plot of a Spiderman film.  If you can’t guess that our web-slinging superhero star comes up against another baddie then you really need to watch more movies!  I wasn’t expecting some deep and revolutionary film, filled with perfect character arcs and plot twists, but I did think it would be a little more original than it was.

It seemed to want to cater for the ‘tween’ generation, pushing Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey’s relationship to the forefront of the film, as if it was nothing more than a ‘teen drama.’ Yes, there’s the ‘fantasy’ element to the story of how being a superhero interferes with your ‘normal’ teenage romance, but when Peter and Gwen are doing their ‘make-up/break-up’ routine, it comes across as a ‘Twilight’ movie with more cobwebs.

The fact is that a Spiderman movie is at its best when we see Spiderman.  Andrew Garfield is much better (and much more interesting) as the superhero than when he’s wandering up and down the halls of his school moaning about Gwen.  The film-makers really should have learnt from ‘Iron Man 3’ about how the public feels about superhero movies where the hero doesn’t spend enough time ‘in costume.’

However, when the action starts it gets going.  You may have seen the advertising promoting ‘three’ villains.  Well, that is technically true, but the only one you’ll really get to know properly is Jamie Fox’s ‘Electro.’ He’s the main threat to Spiderman (and the best).  And when he starts kicking off then our web-slinging friend is in trouble.  Everything is better when things explode. Jamie Fox plays the tragic villain with sympathy at first, before slipping into full-blown menace.  The ‘Green Goblin’ is also in it, but he’s secondary at this stage to Electro.  And don’t even bother mentioning ‘Rhino’ – he’s barely got more than a cameo in the film.

It’s a long film, stretching over two hours and, although the action is exciting and when it’s good it’s good, there was still what felt like a lot of ‘filler’ in there that could have been trimmed out to make it a little less irrelevant.

Probably loved by kids and enjoyed by me on only some of the levels it was meant for.

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

Phantasm II - Great sequel (as far as sequels go)

As far as sequels go (and in particular horror sequels) they don't really have a reputation for living up to the original.  Now, I'm not saying (the imaginatively titled) 'Phantasm II' surpasses the original, but it does continue the story quite nicely and even utilises its bigger budget to reasonable effect.

In the first film a young boy discovers a sinister plot by the wonderfully creepy 'tall man' (played brilliantly by Angus Scrimm) who, with the help of his Jawa-like minions, are stealing local corpses for some dastardly scheme.  In 'Part II' the action picks up several years later when the boy comes out of a mental institution after not being believed, only for the tall man to come for him again.

Now, what follows is - mainly - pretty standard stuff, however, what elevated it for me was two three things:  I've already mentioned how creepy the tall man is and, as an antagonist, he really should be up there was horror greats like Freddy and Jason.  But, no villain would be anything without an equally great hero to match him.  Now, if you think I'm going to say that it's the young lad who steals the show then you'd be wrong.  It's actually a bald, overweight ex ice cream seller with an awful ponytail and more than a striking resemblance to 'Hank' from 'Breaking Bad' (seriously, once you see him as Dean Norris, you'll never un-see it!).  Somehow Reggie Bannister makes one of the most compelling and strange horror heroes since 'Ash' from the 'Evil Dead' franchise.  You really can't help but enjoy his performance and root for the tubby little anti-hero and his - awesome - four-barreled shotgun which looks like something Ripley would put together in order to gun down some xenomorphs.

The other thing that really makes the film stand out are the sets.  They're extremely creative in their use of lighting and design.  Now, if you start watching this film you may wonder what I'm referring to as most of the story takes place on the road in very standard locations.  However, these evil forces seem to come from their own dimension and, when the action finally switches to there and we catch a glimpse and where these creatures come from, the sets really so portray a sense of the 'other-worldlyness' of the enemy.

I'd definitely recommend the first 'Phantasm' film if you've never dipped your toe into the series, but if you enjoyed that one then this sequel certainly adds to the overall world created in the original.  Just don't go getting a haircut like Reggie!

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

Locke - Know what you’re getting yourself in for

I didn’t like ‘Locke,’ but I’m pretty sure that it’s my fault I didn’t.  First of all, I don’t watch films at the cinema, only on DVD.  Then, if a film has an actor/theme etc that I like, I’ll watch it without really finding out what it’s about.  I think this was a major mistake with Locke.

I’m a big fan of Tom Hardy and will watch him in pretty much anything since I first saw him in Star Trek 10 (yes, I was a fan even before he put his ‘Bane’ mask on).  And, if you check out the various quotes on the front of the poster for Locke, you’ll see things like ‘An outstanding thriller.’ Well, that was enough to get me to watch it without even bothering to find out what was contained within the film.

I expected a tense, thrill ride, jam-packed with action and car chases.  At least I got the car.
The film is actually about one man (yes, just a single man for an hour and twenty minutes).  Tom Hardy plays a man (called ‘Locke’ believe it or not) who is driving from his home in Wales to London to be with a woman (not his wife I should point out) who is about to give birth to his child.  The entire film therefore takes place in the car with him at the wheel, as he talks to various people over the phone, i.e. his wife (who is none too happy about this) and his business associates (who are equally unhappy about him abandoning them on the eve of a major contract).

And there you have it… nearly an hour and a half of a man talking on his car phone.  Now, I’m not saying that it’s not tense, nor badly-acted.  Tom Hardy is excellent (as always) and this is basically a one-man play which highlights just how good an actor he really is.  However, thrilling it isn’t.  I get what the film-makers are trying to do, i.e. slowly cranking up the tension as the journey continues, but it just didn’t work for me.

Maybe it was because I was expecting something completely different.  I know it’s my fault.  If you bother to check out other reviews/internet message boards (which I obviously didn’t!) you’ll find this quite clearly stated.

So, know what you’re getting in for with this film.  It’s probably quite good if you’re in the mood for a minimalistic little slow-burner.  I’ll probably watch it again sometime when I’m in the mood for something a little more subtle.  In the meantime, I’ll stick to watching Tom snapping Batman’s back like a twig

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

Rise Of The Footsoldier - Never going to be to everyone's taste (but I liked it)

Rise of the Footsoldier is an interesting box of tricks. Some people describe it as `Britain's attempt at Goodfellas.' However, I couldn't see that much in common with the American classic. Yes, Footsoldier is about gangsters, but, despite being a `firm' they never came across as that organised in the way the American `Mafia' seems to be portrayed on film.

The film is apparently based on a true story. This is slightly open to interpretation as, in real life, the `truth' is still being debated. In 1995, three gang members were gunned down in a Range Rover in Essex. Footsoldier attempts to explain the motivations behind the murders. It's about Carlton Leach, a small time football hooligan in the early eighties, who works his way up to doorman. Yes, that doesn't sound that much of a `rise' but he also gets involved in some drug operations which elevate his status as an `enforcer.'

However, the story (spanning nearly two) hours, sort of leaves Carlton at about the hour mark and goes off to tell the tale of the three gangsters who will later be killed. This seems to have split audiences. Granted Leach was an unlikeable character (in fact, you may find it hard to find ANYONE in this film who you actually like), but at least he was the `hero' (or antihero possibly). The change of direction is sort of jarring and it put me off a bit on my first watch (I'm reviewing it on my second viewing for the record).

Perhaps Footsoldier is best looked at as a film of two halves. The first half sets up the scene, depicting how the underworld works in and around London, then we see what *might* happen to the three gangsters.

Rise of the Footsoldier is certainly not for everyone. It is extremely violent and bloody. Plus there isn't even any real humour to speak of (ala Lock Stock and Snatch). Our `hero' regular beats up people, including his own wife, leaving little sympathy for his plight. However, I still found it an interesting watch. I don't know how much of it is real. Yes, it is BASED on real events, but I got the impression that a fair amount of artistic licence had been taken with the film.

If you have a strong stomach and you like British gangster films, you may like this. Special mention to Craig Fairbrass for portraying a particularly nasty villain - Joe Pesci, you have just met your British counterpart.

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

The Wolfman (2010) - Nice homage to old school horror

The Wolfman is a remake/re-envisaging/whatever they call it these days of those classic Hammer-type horror films of the fifties that were probably in black and white. You may catch them on late at night when you come across a bloke with bushy eyebrows howling at the moon and being chased by Peter Cushine. Anyway, Hollywood have updated that sort of film and thrown in some pretty A-list actors to boot (DelToro, Hopkins, Weaving).

The end result is a movie that looks like it's been filmed in the nineteen fifties, but with a better quality camera and nicer special effects. The story isn't so different - man gets bitten by werewolf, becomes one and goes on a rampage, but it's quite nice to see it getting updated.

However, recently, with the current fascination with vampires and werewolves, we're kind of grown accustomed to Hollywood creating huge beast-like wolves (Twilight, Dog Soldiers and even the `wargs' in Lord of the Rings). The Wolfman stays away from this a bit more by paying homage to the old school werewolf. What you have here is men with too much fur and longer claws. Does it work? If you like that sort of thing and can appreciate it's a homage to a distant genre, then yes. Although, if you're expecting Van Helsing-style wolves ripping each other apart, you may think the `special' effects are a bit on the cheap side.

But don't worry - there's still plenty of decapitations and flying body parts to keep the gore-hounds interested.

What we have in a deliberately old school horror film, designed to pay homage to the werewolf films of old. And, assuming that this is what the film-makers wanted, they have achieved it nicely.
Solid, gory, but probably not to everyone's taste.

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

Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone - Classic eighties sci-fi pulp

Ah, the eighties... when studios weren't afraid to use 'practical' special effects and costumes over slick-looking computer generated cities and aliens.  Despite the title 'Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone' not being half as snappy as the more succinct 'Star Wars,' it does have a similar charm.  No, the former will never be a good/popular as the latter, but I see 'Spacehunter' as if it's a different story set in that galaxy, far, far away.

Like many movies in the eighties, it doesn't waste that much time with backstory and gets going almost immediate.  I decent set-piece showing a passenger spaceship blowing up and three survivors getting stranded on a hostile planet causes the government of the galaxy (or something) to issue a generous bounty out on the safe return of the three stranded women.  Cue our heroic bounty hunter 'Wolf' setting his sights on the reward.

All the subsequent action takes place on the planet, where Wolf teams up with a feisty young scavenger (Molly Ringwald) in order to rescue the three damsels from a (wonderfully!) disgusting mutant-dictator (a barely recognisable Michael Ironside).  Along the way, expect plenty of run-ins with all sorts of weird (and sometimes grotesque) characters in order for them to reach their goal.

This is cheesy, old-school sci-fi action at its best.  Yes, it's not a classic and definitely not so mainstream as George Lucus' esteemed space opera, but at least it's earned a small, but deserved, 'cult following' among the sci-fi community and those - such as myself - who watched it as a child and still can appreciate the magic today.

If you like your movies cheesy, preferably non-CGI and full of intergalactic swashbuckling action then you should definitely set your brain on 'forgiving' and enjoy the ride.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Terminator 2: Judgement Day - Even my mum likes this film

Terminator 2: Judgement Day is possibly the perfect film – well, if you’re into science fiction seamlessly blended with the exact amount of action.  And, to be fair, most of us can quite appreciate that sort of genre if it’s done right.  And it’s done right here.  This list will be little more than a list of everything that’s perfect about this film.

In case you don’t know (and there must be one of you), T2 is a sequel, concerning some particularly nasty machines who have all but wiped us humans out in the near future and intend to make sure we stay well and truly exterminated by sending a unstoppable (human-looking) killer cyborg back through time to kill the only man capable of stopping them while he’s still a child.  Luckily, for us fleshbags, the last humans of our future have captured a (slightly less) unstoppable cyborg and have sent him back through time to protect our future leader, John Connor.

All four lead actors give pitch-perfect performances here, but perhaps the most forgotten actor is Robert Patrick who plays the bad cyborg, aka the T-1000.  He doesn’t have that many lines, but his creepiness is portrayed through his movements and sheer coldness.  Plus he’s overshadowed by his own special effects.  T2 set the bar pretty high in terms of special effects for its day.  The computer generated moments where the T-1000 morphs into various people (and objects!) is blended with the live actors around it.

Our heroine, Sarah Connor, starts off incarcerated in a mental institution for constantly raving about then end of the world when she’s not trying to blow computer factories up.  But don’t let that fool you into thinking that she’s merely a damsel in distress.  Linda Hamilton has become the ultimate in female action heroes (possibly only coming second to Aliens’ ‘Ripley’).  Not only can she handle any sort of firearm, but she’s as determined as the Terminator to protect her son, John.  He’s played by newcomer Edward furlong and, for someone who has never acted before, he plays his role brilliantly.  So many films centred around a child are hard to watch because you actually end up wanting the whinging/screaming brat to be skewered by a cyborg assassin.  Not here though.  The only thing negative about Edward Furlong was that he displayed so much talent and promise here that he never lived up to it (I’m sure if you Google him you’ll find out what I mean).

But, everyone is overshadowed by Schwarzenegger himself.  Out of all the films he’s done, this is Arnie’s most memorable.  Some say he can’t act, but I wouldn’t be that harsh.  The trick is giving him a part that suits him.  Sir Ian McKellen or Anthony Hopkins are great actors, but I doubt they could carry playing the T-800 himself.

Finally, Terminator 2 hast heart.  It’s not just a mindless action flick; it actually has quite nice morals to it and reminds us that hurting other people is wrong and, unless we intend to blow each other up in all out nuclear war, we better start remembering that.

If I had to say one negative thing about T2 (and I suppose I ought to, simply for balance) it’s that the plot is basically recycled from the first film.  Although this sequel is in the minority of sequels where it does surpass the original, it does copy exactly the same timeline of events.  Still, once you start watching two emotionless cyborgs throwing each other through walls, you probably won’t care!

T2 is for everyone.  If you like Arnie, you’ll love it.  If you like action or sci-fi, you’ll love it.  And, if you’re not into any of those, I dare you to watch it anyway.  It might not change your mind about the genre, but I think you’ll have a good time.

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

Brahms: The Boy II - What happened?

I remember the original 'Boy' movie.  I say down with absolutely no expectations and came out of it really surprised at how good it was with a small cast, creepy vibe and plot point that I didn't see coming.  Therefore, I was only too happy to give the second one a go.  I wish I hadn't.

This time another family end up 'looking after' the creepy doll of an old fashioned little boy and the young child of the family starts acting weirdly.  About the only person I knew in the film was Katie Holmes, who - sorry! - is looking very old these days.  Plus there's a guy in the UK version of 'The Office' who is normally very funny (but wasn't here).

If you've ever watched any sort of media that makes fun of the horror genre by pointing out every cliche and trope associated with such entertainment then you might as well be watching this film.  It's amazing that a story can be written (unironically) that thinks it can be taken seriously while conforming to every stereotype known to the genre.  The mother suspects something's wrong.  No one believes her.  Father blames the son.  Plot points are started and don't go anywhere.  The acting is substandard in places and there's a 'bully' who comes into the tale about half way through who is about the biggest cliche every known to film.  Seriously, he's so one-dimensional that you can't help but laugh - then you remember that this is supposed to be serious and then everything bursts.  Luckily, he's only in it for about five minutes, but his performance is so awful the film can do little after that to redeem itself.

'Brahams: The Boy II' isn't really a bad-bad film.  Put it this way... if it was the only horror film ever made it would be the greatest in its genre.  However, it's so mediocre that it's just not worth bothering with as it's one of those hundreds of horror films that end up being sold off cheap in bargain bucket bins in petrol stations.  Please no 'Boy III' movie.

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

Iron Man 2 - Solid sequel

Yes, the original ‘Iron Man’ movie was Marvel’s ‘surprise hit.’ They were probably going to do a sequel anyway, but I’ll bet they never thought they’d be pushing so heavily towards this side of the franchise.  Anyway, it’s fair to say that a sequel needs to give ‘the same and more’ and, to be fair, ‘Iron Man 2’ achieves this.

It’s bigger, louder, more special effects and more heroes/villains added into the mix.  Personally, as a casual comic book-movie fan, I quite enjoyed it.  I always thought most people did, until I read the online message boards, where it turned out that opinions were pretty divided on its merits.

So, just to let you know that there’s a sizable proportion of people out there who will disagree with me when I say that it’s a pretty fun romp.  No, it’s not Shakespeare and it doesn’t really try to be.  I guess it’s supposed to appeal to young fans (dare I say male fans?) who will buy the obligatory Iron Man T-shirts, Iron Man lunchboxes and Iron Man pyjamas.  No, I didn’t buy any of those, but I still enjoyed the film.

Unlike other superheroes (think Batman, Superman and Spiderman), the ‘secret’ identify of our Iron Man isn’t that secret, for at the end of the original film billionaire playboy Tony Stark decided to reveal to the world that he was the man in the iron mask – so to speak.  Therefore, in 'Iron Man 2,' he’s an even bigger celebrity than he was simply for being the owner of a multinational arms manufacturing firm.  It’s actually quite nice to see an ‘alter-ego’ who’s actually more ‘ego’ than anything else.  Yes, he’s a bit of an idiot.  You probably wouldn’t see Bruce Wayne getting drunk wearing the Batsuit at a party and using his Baterang to slice watermelons thrown from an adoring crowd.  You see Iron Man's equivalant of that here.

Perhaps that’s Iron Man’s appeal – he’s a bit of a plank and we can relate to his love of adoration?  He is definitely a flawed – if very lucky – individual and he makes a change from the usual brooding hermit that most superheroes are portrayed as.

Naturally, it’s Robert Downey Jr’s charm that carries the film through, but it’s fair to give his supporting cast a mention.  Naturally, seeing as the film’s not called ‘Iron Man and Friends’ they have a lot less to do and a lot less material to work with.  But they do okay to play off the star.  If it’s not a bit odd to say that Sam Rockwell’s villain came across as a bit too ‘comic-booky’ for my liking (yes, I know it’s a movie based on a comic book) – it just felt like he was trying a bit too hard. I guess that's why they cast Hollywood heavyweight tough-guy Mickey Rouke as 'Whiplash,' i.e. to add a bit of muscle to Rockwell's weedy arms dealer persona.  However, as eventually became a trend with Marvel movies, both villains are kind of 'under-developed' and perhaps it might have worked better to only have the one, rather than trying too hard with the pair of them.

I know ‘Iron Man 2’ has its critics and I guess it’s not perfect, but it is fun.  It’s nearly two hours and I always think one of the true tests of a movie is whether if feels like its runtime.  And, in my opinion, 'Iron Man 2' flies by like a man in a yellow and red metal suit.

Bust out the popcorn and enjoy.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Shock Waves - I really should like this more than I did

I always loved zombie movies - right from when they were a rarity in the eighties, right up until they release the odd good/original one these days among the numerous undead offerings.  Therefore, when I heard that classic horror stalwart Peter Cushine was sharing the stage with some zombie Nazis, I figured that I could hardly go wrong.  Especially seeing the high proportion of five star ratings.  But, for some reason, this just didn't work for me.

A group of young (well, some of them - some look almost middle-aged!) people take a boat trip into the ocean (does it matter why?), only to find they're marooned on an island.  If that wasn't bad enough, the only 'local' is an ex Nazi who's brought the dead back to life in order to win the Second World War.  Only they failed in that objective, so they're just, er, hanging out on the island.

Yeah, I know Nazi zombies (like much with the genre) have been done to death (no pun intended), but even though, I feel a good one can still be fun.  Sadly, I just couldn't really find much that this film had going for it.  Cushine isn't really in it much.  There's no gore (I'm guessing due to budgetery constraints) and the death scenes are pretty tame.  The characters we're supposed to root for are just as dumb as every horror cliche you've ever rolled your eyes at.  But the main problem is the zombies themselves.

They're not that scary.  They're just blonde-haired men wearing what looked like welders' glasses.  And, clearly the director thought he'd try and make them extra creepy by having them lie down in water, only to then make them slowly rise up out of the depth.  Yes, it might have been creepy the first time, but after the twentieth time a head slowly comes up out of the water, you'll certainly get a feeling of de ja vu.

I've got plenty of seventies films in my collection (many of then low budget!) and they're all very entertaining.  However, despite how many people seem to like it, it just wasn't for me.  Of course the leading lady looks great in a bikini, but that's hardly a reason to watch for an hour and a half.

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

Kindergarten Cop - It shouldn't work, but it does

Granted Kindergarten Cop stars Arnold Schwarzenegger, but, apart from that, I sometimes wonder how this film got made. It has a healthy dose of `typical Arnie butt-kicking,' plus a load of cute kids, a child abuse sub-plot, creepy child abductors, romantic comedy element and a kooky police partner (expertly played by Pamela Reed).

Big Arnie is a tough cop (no change there then) who has to go undercover in a class fill of five year olds in order to try and find out which child is being hunted by a mobster. All in all, it should be a mess. The film-makers have thrown in so many elements that it must turn out to be a stinker and yet somehow, it turns out to be a classic.

The film covers so many areas and succeeds in every one. It's hard to know who its target audience is, but I would probably say anyone from teenage upwards. Even though it's a film about children, it does tend to exclude the younger audiences from watching it, as some of the scenes might be a little upsetting for youngsters.

Apart from that, I'd say that most people over the age of about twelve should be able to get some sort of enjoyment from one of Arnie's slightly more surreal performances.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Green Room - I obviously didn’t get it :/

I’ve seen pretty much every type of horror movie, meaning I’ve seen every different type of monster (or mutant=-redneck) stalk pretty much every cliché of teenager across every different type of landscape.  It’s fair to say that after – roughly – fifty years since the (original) ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ popularised the ‘slasher’ genre, there isn’t really anything new to expect.  The best you can hope for is an enjoyable rehash of something you’ve already seen that brings a sliver of something new to the table.

I looked at the reviews for ‘Green Room’ and was pleasantly optimistic as it’s rated very highly on many websites.  I’ve always been a massive fan of Patrick Stewart and Ashton Yelchen usually turns in a decent performance (still say he was the best part of ‘Terminator: Salvation’) so, even if it wasn’t that original, I was expecting something pretty entertaining.  However, I’ve left it a couple of weeks to write this review and I’m finding it pretty hard to actually remember much of what happened – in short, I found it pretty forgettable!

It’s about a young, up and coming band who – as hard as it is to believe in this day and age – doesn’t use social media to promote themselves.  Therefore, they’re pretty much unknown, touring up and down America in pretty low-key venues.  But, they think their luck is about to change when a contact offers them a gig where they can headline (and earn a bit of decent money in the process).  Unfortunately, and this is a lesson to us all, the gig is in front of a group of white-supremacists who are hardly people you want to entertain.  But, they almost get away with it if it wasn’t for the fact that they witness a murder and their (not particularly adoring) crowd isn’t too happy to just let them walk away as witnesses.  Therefore, the band are forced to lock themselves backstage in (you may have guessed it) the green room and try and figure a way of escaping before they just get ‘disappeared’ long before they ever get the chance to win their first Grammy.

Basically, it’s a ‘siege movie’ (think ‘Assault on Precinct 13’ or something like that) with ‘band vs Nazis.’ It’s an acceptable enough premise, but it’s, as I’ve already mentioned, kind of forgettable.  The band are just not that likeable (or even memorable!).  Without wishing to spoil things too much, one dies and it took me a while to even notice!  I must have just blinked and they just vanished.  They really were pretty forgettable.  Obviously, the extreme ring-wingers were naturally nasty so you’d probably be a bit strange to root for them over the band, but it wasn’t as violent as some of the reviews had made out.  Yes, it is pretty dark and hardly a ‘feel good’ movie, but I was expecting even more heads to roll than were on offer!

It wasn’t’ a bad film.  It was just nothing I hadn’t already seen before.  Patrick Stewart is the head bad-guy and he’s – naturally – always worth a watch, but, in my opinion, this wasn’t the greatest swansong for poor old Ashton Yelchen.  If you haven’t seen that many siege movies, or are a major fan of any of the leads, you may find this quite good (or shocking!).  However, if you’re a grizzled veteran to the genre then there’s little here you haven’t seen before.  I’ve pretty much already forgotten most of it (but then again with my age I could just be getting senile!).

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

Deadpool - The greatest movie apology ever

Deadpool, if you casually dip in and out of the comic genre, is a superhero.  You may have heard the name somewhere on screen before, but probably forgotten.  However, if you know your comics then you probably salivated at the prospect of seeing the ‘merc with a mouth’ going toe to toe with Wolverine in the X-man’s ‘origins’ movie.  Then you watched it and uttered words that no self-respecting spell checker should let me type.

Basically, the makers of Wolverine: Origins completely messed up (putting it mildly) and the fans were not amused.  Yes, Ryan Reynolds was actually a pretty good choice for the gobby anti-hero, but then they pretty much cellotaped his mouth shut and completely reinvented his character in the worst way possible.  It actually makes a nice change to see a studio admit they totally got it wrong and do something about it (even if the decision is largely governed by money!).

And that could have been that.  However, luckily Mr Reynolds himself campaigned to bring a truer representation of the source material to the big screen.  And, amazingly, it happened.  And I’m so glad it did.

Deadpool, is a superhero movie.  You probably guessed that – you have the man in a mask who you pretty much know is going to go out there and beat the baddies and save the girl, yadder, yadder, yadder... However, what Deadpool also is, is a comedy.  That being said – it’s NOT a spoof.  It’s a tongue-in-cheek little number which has better action scenes than most action films and better comedy than most comedy films.

I’m almost tempted to say that it’s a film that anyone can enjoy.  I can certainly see both men and women having a good time watching it.  However, it definitely is a film for MEN and WOMEN.  Whereas Marvel’s current cinematic universe is kind of geared at kids (and us kids who never grew up) there is plenty in Deadpool that no parent will want to explain to their little darling.  Again, don’t let that fool you into thinking that it’s all toilet humour – let’s just call it ‘adult’ humour and leave it at that.

Basically, Deadpool is great.  Ryan Reynolds is mouthy, but never annoying and totally owns the role (as it should be when he plays the titular character).  The supporting cast all do their bit, but it’s Deadpool himself all the way.  Please let this be the start of a franchise.  It’s probably a little too much to expect to see him crossing studio picket lines and ending up in the Marvel universe where he – truly – belongs, but we can always hope.  If nothing else, I’m well up for a ‘Deadpool 2’ outing.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol - How many more `Impossible' missions are actually possible? 

Yes, Tom is back for a forth outing and saving the world from an assortment of baddies in the process. MI4 definitely follows on from parts 2-3, as it's more action orientated and has a plot that you can actually follow (I've seen the first one three times and I'm still confused at who was double-crossing who!).

Plus, Tom takes Brit actor Simon `Shaun of the Dead' Pegg along for the ride, which adds an acceptable dose of humour into the mix. There are stunts, shootouts, car chases - everything you'd expect from a MI film (or Bond movie) and it's all held together nicely.

It's a solid action film with enough gadgets to keep old-school Bond fans happy. If you liked parts 2 and 3, give it a go - it's good silly fun.

It looks like there will be plenty more `Impossible' missions for Tom to prove otherwise. No bad thing if they all end up like this one.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Club Dread - Very stupid. Very fun

The first thing you need to know about Club Dread is that it is not to be taken seriously. It's basically a comedy, but with horror thrown in. It doesn't so much as lampoon the genre, as adhere to it. Storywise, it's actually your average slasher film. An unknown killer stalks an island full of annoyingly-fit teenagers and knifes them to death. Nothing new there. Nothing new in the whole film really, but that doesn't mean it's not worth watching.

It's basically fun. It never tries to be serious and shouldn't be taken as such. If you like slasher films in general, you should like this. The only downside I found (or rather something I felt was a missed opportunity) were the death scenes. The whole film is surprisingly UNgory for a supposed (half) horror film. As the film-makers are also playing to a comedy audience, you'd think they'd be more creative with the (many) death scenes. There's certainly scope for it. However, every death is a simple stabbing or slice - hardly imaginative.

But, it's more comedy than horror, so perhaps I'm expecting too much. Basically, as many other reviewers have said, it's basically Froday 13th meets Porkies and I can't really add anything to that.

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