The Deaths of Ian Stone - Could have been worse

With so many low budget horror films around (most being made up of cheap zombie flicks or ‘found footage’ genre), it’s hard for any of them to really stand out.  However, ‘The Deaths of Ian Stone’ at least tries to be a little bit original.  It really does try.  I won’t go as far as to claim that it’s a ‘classic,’ but it is different enough to warrant an hour and a half of any horror fan’s time (providing he or she is reasonably forgiving of the B-movies they sit through).

We meet our protagonist – the titular ‘Ian Stone’ – hours before he gets killed horrible by dark forces.  As if that wasn’t bad enough, every time he dies, he wakes up again, only for it to happen again, only in a different place and in a different life.  So, can our doomed hero figure out why this is happening and, more importantly, how to stop it?

The film’s only an hour and a half.  And, for a change, it feels like it probably should be longer.  It’s a decent premise, but it does feel a little rushed.  There are a few different concepts that appear to only be skated over, as if this story might have worked better as a TV mini series.

It does have its other drawbacks – the special effects seem a little too computer-generated and the ‘monsters’ aren’t really that scary.  Plus, because of the different concepts being thrown around, it’s like the film-makers borrowed from about three different (more famous) sci-fi/horror films in the process.

The first half if more intriguing, but it kind of goes a little ‘all over the place’ when people change their costumes.  Basically, the ‘baddies’ wear blatantly ‘evil’ costumes.  It’s like they were picked up out of a school’s drama department (or s*x shop!).  They almost look a little too comic for the film’s serious tone.  The second half of the film feels a little more formulaic with some action thrown in as if to try and expand the ‘climax.’

Like I say, The Deaths of Ian Stone isn’t perfect, but, if you’re in a forgiving mood, you should get something out of it.  I watched it for the first time when it came out on DVD.  I liked it enough to buy it (cheap!) and have only just got round to watching it in 2014.  Basically, I’d forgotten most of it and it’s the sort of film where you probably won’t watch on a regular basis, but I’m glad I watched it again and will probably do so again in a few years time.

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

The Colditz Story (1955) - Classic Colditz capers 

The Colditz Story, as one might expect, tells the tale of arguable the most `famous' prisoner of war camps during the Second World War and those who tried to escape from it. Naturally, being a British film, it focuses on us `good ol' Tommies,' but never does it make out that WWII is only a British affair, as it always includes the Dutch, French and Polish.

If you're looking for either a prison movie, or a Second World War movie, you can't get much better than this. It's near perfect for what it is, combining the drudgery of life in a P.O.W. camp, with the highs, lows and bravery of those trying to get out, not to mention some `gallows' humour in there to lighten the mood when it's needed.

However, its only flaw - sadly - is how well it will be received in this day and age. Although I can see anyone interested in the history of the time period and conflict enjoying it, I can't see it picking up many new followers in today's youth.

If you're looking for some nostalgia and classic film-making, The Colditz Story is for you. If you're looking for 3D cinema, the latest computer generated special effects as directed by Michael Bay, you might just want to skip to whichever Spiderman reboot is taking place this week.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Big Eyes - A different side to Burton

I think most of us who follow Tim Burton, know him best for his dark and Gothic work, full of twisting, ghostly trees, Johnny Depp and Danny Elfman scores.  Well, not much of that in ‘Big Eyes’ (oh, apart from the Danny Elfman score!).  In fact, much of Burton’s trademark ‘darkness’ isn’t very visible at all.  Normally, if I turned on the TV and a film was midway through featuring Helena Bonham Carter in a dark castle and spine-chilling music, I’d probably say that Tim Burton directed it.  However, if I came across Big Eyes halfway through, I’d probably be surprised when I saw the end credits roll and find Tim’s name attached.

It’s basically a straight drama which is based on the true account of a man who – quite cynically – ‘stole’ his wife’s painting career in the fifties and sixties when it was less common for a woman to be known for her artwork.  And, for much of it, it’s quite a hard watch.  Christoph Waltz plays the husband, who is quite happy to take all the fame, credit and money (surprise!) from his wife, while she does all the work.  Naturally, with a character like that in one of the lead roles, not many of us will find us exactly rooting for him.  Amy Adams is his long-suffering wife and, at first, does come across as a little too wistful, allowing herself to be exploited by this man for his own financial gain.  However, that’s the story – we follow as she slowly turns one corner after the other in her quest to rid herself of this artistic leach.

The performances are good, but Waltz’s character does come across a little too ‘cartoonish’ at times, almost being comedic when you probably wouldn’t be.

It’s hardly fast-paced, but then many of Burton’s films are (in fact... many have criticised him for his lack of ability to live up the pace of a film, even when it was demanded).  Big Eyes is the kind of film you need to be in as subdued mood as the principal cast to really enjoy it.  Don’t expect anything other than a straight (biographical) drama with no real thrills, spills, or twists and turns.  I won’t say anything about how it unfolds, but I think most of us will guess how it ends pretty soon after watching it.  It’s enjoyable enough if you’re in the mood for something slow and happy to let it gradually uplift you.

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

American Pie: Reunion - The Pie is past it's sell by date (but only just)

Like many, I loved the first American Pie film. It was daft, silly, immature and totally funny. Its two sequels did their best to stay true to the original and, in my opinion, did a decent job.

Now comes the reunion. Set just over ten years after the guys graduated high school. The first thing I have to say is that it is great to see them all together again. They still have the endearing chemistry which made the previous films such a success (and on a side note, they barely seem to have aged a bit - for that I can only hate them). However, for all the nostalgic enjoyment I got from seeing the whole gang together again, I felt this one was the most strained.

In short: I didn't laugh as much as any of the previous entries in the franchise. Not saying that it wasn't funny - I laughed more times than with most comedy films. Plus it was hardly an Adam Sadler movie, it just didn't have as many laugh out loud moments as I'm used to with a `Pie' flick.

I didn't feel like I'd wasted my time, but it is nearly two hours and the jokes were starting to come few and far between. Instead, they were replaced with predictable sentiment which, although sweet, just wasn't much of a substitute for gross-out humour.

I would only rate this 6/10 as it was enjoyable, just not up to the standard already set before it. However, judging from the amount of 5/5 star reviews, there are plenty of people who disagreed with me.

The Woods - And Bruce Campbell

The front cover of The Woods reads `And Bruce Campbell,' so I watched this. Bruce `the chin' Campbell is a legend, providing one silly, tongue-in-cheek performance in horror films after another. However, it's worth noting he's barely in this and, when he is, he's not saying much.

The Woods is about Heather - a young girl who gets sent to a private school by her (seemingly naturally) evil mother and silent father (Bruce Campbell incidentally). There, she gets picked on by a clichéd bully and starts to wonder if her teachers have ulterior motives for the pupils.

The teachers mainly stand around in groups, facing the same direction and staring - always a sign that they're up to something. One occasionally twitches. This may be trying to add `character' to them, but if you can watch without laughing you're a more composed person than me.

The Woods is like a kind of remake of Italian horror classic `Suspira,' as it's about a girl starting a new school run by witches. Soon, Heather's classmates start disappearing (luckily their parents don't seem to ever bother much that their children have vanished without a trace and nor to the police). The film's pretty slow, but deliberately so, doing its best to built tension and get to know the characters.
There's nothing particularly wrong with The Woods, apart from the fact that it doesn't really offer anything new. If you've seen a reasonable amount of horror films, you've basically seen this. It's nicely directed, the sets are fitting and it picks up pace towards the end. I just felt it was too little too late.

Give me Evil Dead any day.

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

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003 remake) - Better than you’ll probably expect

Yes, the original ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ was a classic – or rather a classic if you enjoyed seeing innocent teens getting dismembered or eaten alive by sadistic inbred mutants.  But then, based on the success of the nineteen seventies slasher, a lot of people did enjoy watching that sort of thing.  So here comes the obligatory up-to-date Hollywood big budget remake.  And, believe it or not, it’s actually quite good.

No, seriously – don’t let Michael ‘Transformers’ Bay’s name on the publicity put you off.  He obviously didn’t have that much to do with it and was too busy destroying much loved eighties toy franchises to meddle in the Texas Chainsaw’s remake.  There’s none of his slow motion camerawork or explosions with those weirdly-pretty fireworks in it.

Instead, what you have is a reasonable version of the original source material.  You have the teens.  Yes, they’re hardly the most varied bunch in terms of likable characters, but they’re our heroes and they’re just about watchable enough for you to not really want them to be severed in two alive.  But no one really cares about them.  It’s the villains who steal the show.  Of course you have the hulking chainsaw-wielding psycho known only as ‘Leatherface’ who you certainly wouldn’t want to bump into in a dark alley (or small, out-of-the-way backwater American town), but it’s R. Lee Ermey who steals the show as the truly psychotic one (and he never even picks up a chainsaw!).

Yes, it’s not as ‘raw’ as the original.  It does a good job of capturing the general seventies vibe, but comes across as a much slicker production all together.  And that’s no bad thing.  It’s literally a retelling, taking most of the original’s bits and repackaging them in a slightly different way.  There’s more to the story as it’s more complex (but not really that much more complex – it’s still a guy in a skin-mask chasing kids around a field with a chainsaw).

If you like your slasher films and aren’t totally put off yet another Hollywood remake of a classic horror gem then give this one a go.  It’s a rare example of a remake that’s actually pretty good.  This and the 2004 version of Dawn of the Dead.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Shame - Didn't like it - apologies to the masses  

After watching Shame - a story about a man suffering from `sex addiction - I was about to write a scathing review, reflecting just how dull I thought the film was, when I saw the other reviews.

Apparently it's some sort of poignant masterpiece.

I guess I just didn't get it.

Maybe I'm too used to car chases and giant robots levelling cities, but whatever everyone else saw here just didn't reach me.

I guess I'm in the minority, so if you're thinking of watching Shame, all those saying how deep and meaningful it was can't really be wrong.

I just thought it was boring. It opens with an overhead shot of Michael Fassbender in bed and the camera just stays on him lying there for a whole minute. I had to check I hadn't accidentally paused the DVD by mistake. That's a taste of things to come. There's not as much dialogue as you'd expect from a film. Many scenes are just him looking at someone. Then they look back. Then they look away. Repeat for several minutes. Then there was the singing and the jogging scenes. I ended up fast forwarding them.

Anyway, I've slated this masterpiece for long enough.

Most people liked it. I didn't. I guess that means you should probably watch it and leave me to watch Resident Evil 8 or whatever rot I'm currently enjoying.

4/10 Dumb and Dumber could understand this film

Robocop (2014 remake) - Warning: this film does NOT contain scenes of graphic violence

Yes, they’ve gone and remade another classic.  Whether you loved or hated the original Robocop movie in the eighties (and, let’s face it... most of us loved it!), you’ll find it difficult to deny that it was popular.  And one of its major traits was how deliciously over-the-top violent it was.  It contained numerous scenes of graphic violence and interlinked them with (no so subtle) social commentary, making it a sheer delight to watch (assuming your cup of tea was watching an indestructible cyborg brutally wiping out scores of scum-bags).

Now, twenty-five years later, it gets rebooted (not including the pretty poor showings which made up Robocop’s sequels and TV spin-off show).  And, the first thing you need to know, is that it’s no longer an ‘adult’ movie.  Due to the film-makers wanting to claw back as much of its budget as they could, they’ve gone and made it a PG-13/12 certificate.  So, what we’re left with is the cyborg-action equivalent of World War Z (a mainstream big budget zombie film with no violence or gore).

This is the major ‘flaw’ in the film (which most people seem to dwell on).  It’s fair to say that this reboot hasn’t performed as well as the producers would have liked it to (I’ll bet they were hoping this would be the springboard to launch a lucrative franchise off of).  However, if you get over the die-hard fans and their shouts of disapproval because no one gets melted in a vat of toxic waste, you may actually enjoy it.

Yes, the action is greatly reduced, but what’s there is still pretty cool.  Plus the cast is excellent and what it lacks in fight scenes it makes up for in commentary on today’s modern way of life and how much computers (and in this case robots) intrude and may well intrude with our day to day existence.

If you ask me which Robocop is better (1987 vs 2014) I would say the original, but simply because it was just that – the original.  Plus I have never ending nostalgia for one of my favourite childhood movies.  However, if you can put any bias you have to the back of your mind and look at this one as a completely fresh tale which simply borrows major plot points and situations from its source material, then you may just find an enjoyable movie in there somewhere.

Thank you for your cooperation.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Premium Rush - The most corny popcorn movie ever made

Premium Rush is not a great movie. But, then again, it's certainly not a bad one either. It seems to sit perfectly on that middle ground between the two. It's about a cycle courier in New York who picks up a package to deliver, only to discover a sinister man also wants it and will do anything to get it. What transpires is a cat and mouse chase through the city.

The good guys are easily defined as good and the bad guys are suitably bad. It all plays out like a comic book adventure with plenty of action, chases and the odd bit of sentiment and romance thrown in to the bargain.

In many ways Premium Rush is the perfect film. It's easy to watch, not hard to understand and could probably double as a `date movie' as it would most likely enjoyed by couples (men for the action and woman as there seems to be plenty of topless men!).

If you want to rest your mind, get out a big bag of popcorn, pick `n mix or your snacks of choice, put your brain `on hold' and enjoy the daftness of the ride.

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

 Moneyball - Sort of The 'Dirty Dozen' in baseball  

Brad Pitt plays a buyer of players for an American baseball team. Only he hasn't got much money and employs a revolutionary approach to team selection. Instead of picking the most expensive players, he goes for the cheap ones with `history.' And when I say history, I mean `problems in their personal lives.'

Will they come good and go all the way? Or will they implode on themselves and crash down like a house of cards? Apparently this is based on a true story, so you may already know. If you don't, watch the film and find out!

It makes a change to see Brad in a slightly less glamorous or high profile role, but he does the job (anyone who's seen Kalifornia or Snatch knows there's more to his acting abilities than just his (annoyingly good) looks.

It's not fast-paced, but if you're looking for a sports drama and can stand watching a film without a single car chase or undead uprising, you may get something out of this.

A pleasing 6/10 for non sports fans like myself, 8/10 or higher for likers of the games.

20 Million Miles to Earth - The Chewits monster strikes back

Before special effects master, Ray Harryhausen, turned his talents to the more 'mythical' side of fantasy films, he was more known for creating monsters and mayhem in the more (straightforward?) science fiction genre, such as '20 Million Miles to Earth.' A spaceship crashes just off the coast of Italy and unleashes a monster on the population which continually grows in size until it's practically unstoppable.

Now, a team comprising of the astronauts who inadvertently brought it back from their mission to Venus, plus some local military men and scientists have to team up to stop it somehow. 

Because it was made in 1957, it's all a little 'cheesy' and - perhaps for some - hard to watch.  The men are manly and smoke, while the women swoon at their manliness.  However, for all it's old fashioned qualities (that may seem a little un-PC by today's standards!) it's still a great watch.  Naturally, with many of the films Harryhausen has worked on, the monsters are the stars.  Normally, you have to wait quite a while for one of his brilliant creations to show up on screen, whereas here the creature is practically the lead (and, if you've seen that 'Chewits' advert from the eighties, you'll have a rough idea of what it looks like).

Maybe it was because I saw many of Harryhausen's other work before this one, but I'm used to seeing more monsters, all of which are very distinctive from each other.  Here, we just have the one.  Yes, there is an animated elephant for the beastie to fight, but that's about it.

If you can still appreciate science fiction films from yesteryear and are happy to forgive what are - by today's standards - kind of 'obvious' special effects, or you just like Harryhausen's work, then definitely give this one a watch.  It's not a long film and it will certainly keep you entertained.  Personally, I prefer his 'mythological' films over this one, but I certainly don't think I wasted my time giving it a watch.

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

London Has Fallen - London ‘fell’ (and no one really noticed)

I remember watching ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ with absolutely no expectations whatsoever.  It was basically ‘Die Hard set in the White House’ – a brainless (but fun) kill-the-bad-guys type movie where you knew exactly what was going to happen, but enjoyed the ride anyway.  I’m guessing that a fair few other people must have also enjoyed it, hence here comes the sequel…

Here, the same fearless (and borderline indestructible) presidential security guard is in London for a funeral, only for dastardly terrorists to stage a coup involving impersonating – seemingly – the entire Metropolitan police force (no, seriously) and threatening to assassinate the President (if they can find him).  Luckily, Gerard Butler is on hand to keep him safe (and hidden, which, even in London, is apparently harder than it sounds!).

What we have here is a typical ‘action sequel’ where it thinks that ‘bigger’ is generally better.  Whereas the first film was tense and confined to the White House (arguably one of the most impenetrable buildings ever – and therefore hard to escape from) this one is set across an entire city.  Expect the mandatory shoot-outs and car chases, all of which are designed to outdo its predecessor.  However, what it has in increased explosions, it lacks in overall tension and feel.

From being quite a good, little action film (reminiscent of action films of old, ala Die Hard and Commando) this one just plays it by the numbers.  Despite some reasonable acting talent on offer here, everyone seems to be going through the motions.  There’s not an awful lot you can say about it.  It has bad-guys.  They’re trying to do bad things.  A goodie has to stop them.  Expect bloodshed along the way.  It isn’t bad, it’s just not as good as the original and therefore you’ll probably forget it the moment the credits rolled.  If this is the way that it’s heading I can’t see anywhere else ‘falling’ and Gerard Butler’s presidential bodyguard may find himself guarding shopping malls before long.

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

Knight & Day - Not as bad as you’ve probably heard

Okay, so ‘Knight and Day’ had some pretty big expectations on its shoulders – basically, anything carrying such star power as Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz is going to be a massive hit, right?  After all, look how well ‘The Tourist’ turned out for Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie!

Yes, Tom and Cameron are great actors who can both carry a movie.  Yes, they do have chemistry.  And, yes, they’re always going to attract the public.  But will the overall package attract enough of the public to make the film the serious money it needs?  The answer is: sort of.

Possibly the first problem the film runs into is that it’s hardly a new premise.  Jason Bourne has been doing those ‘innocent-spy-on-the-run’ movies for years, so the fat that Tom Cruise is a super-secret agent who’s wrongly accused of a crime he didn’t commit is nothing new.  Plus, wasn’t that the plot for at least two Mission Impossible films?!

Then you have the fact that the film doesn’t really know what it wants to be.  Tom Cruise provides the action, whereas as Cameron Diaz is more suited for quirky romantic-comedy movies.  Therefore you’re left with a weird blend between the two.

It’s an odd sort of film that doesn’t really know what it wants to be.  I found I sometimes didn’t know whether I was supposed to be laughing or getting pumped up at the amazing set-piece car chases and punch-ups.

However, it did make money.  As I’ve said before… both leads have legions of fans.  It is nice to see the two of them together and it’s their chemistry which does save the production.  It’s certainly no classic and if you’re into your serious spy movies then this one isn’t for you.  However, if you like one or both leading actors then you should wring enough charm out of the story to keep you happy for a couple of hours.  It’s one of those films where renting or streaming is certainly more rewarding that paying full price for the experience on Blu-ray!

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

I Spit On Your Grave 2 - Haven't we seen this somewhere before?

Girl gets horrifically abused and left for dead. She comes back to exact revenge on her tormentors. It's basically the same story as `I Spit On Your Grave' (1) and about a hundred other similar revenge movies.

The girl certainly gets badly abused. You won't find it hard to sympathise with her plight and be rooting for her when it comes to her taking her (gruesome) revenge. If you like seeing innocent people hurt then there's plenty of that. If you like seeing innocent people killing nasty people in horrible ways then it has that, too.

But then so did the first one. And, if you've seen that, then you've basically seen this.

`I Spit On Your Grave 2' is what it is and nothing else. It's violent and nasty, but then you probably know that already. If that's what you're looking for, then look no further. If you're looking for something original then this isn't it.

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

XX (2017) - Some of it almost works

'XX' is an odd film - it's an anthology of four unrelated horror stories which have been written and directed by female film-makers.  It only runs for an hour and twenty minutes therefore all four parts speed by pretty quickly.  Therefore, overall it's hard to give it a rating, as you really need to rate each part individually.

The first story starts out strong.  It's creepy, well-acted and really makes you want to know the answer to the question it poses.  Which is a shame, as you don't actually get a pay-off.  Maybe that's the idea.  I don't know.  Either way I would have liked a little more 'closure.'

According to what I read online the second was directed by a woman who didn't like horror films - which makes her a strange choice for her inclusion in a horror anthology.  Anyway, she decided to make her portion more of a 'black comedy' than a horror.  And she succeeds.  It's all a bit of a farce which, although is quirky and has a nice 'weird' sense of atmosphere, just seems a little over the top to work - definitely the weakest part.

Story three is more of a 'monster/slasher' film, only condensed down into the shortest segment.  And that's it.  It's every monster/slasher film you've ever seen, only squashed down.  The monster is good and nasty - as you'd want, but it just ends and leaves you thinking, 'Oh, well - that's that.'

The last story was my favourite.  I confess I did read online what the 'gimmick' was and I won't say it here as I don't want to spoil it for you.  It's well acted and quite oppressive in its horror.

Then you have some nicely animated shorts featuring everything from household objects to toys coming to life and merging together like a scene from the neighbour's house in 'Toy Story.' These are very well done and could be a story on their own.

Overall, you have some nice little tales, most of which could probably benefit from actually being expanded into full length stories.  It's not a bad little watch if you can find it on a streaming service, but could probably have been better.

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

House at the End of the Street - Official: Jennifer Lawrence can sell ANYTHING

In case you close your eyes every time Hollywood is mentioned, you might not know that Jennifer Lawrence was in The (hugely profitable) Hunger Games. She's currently Tinseltown's darling and, judging by this film, can sell anything.

The House at the End of the Street is about a teenage girl and her mother, who move into a house next to one where some murders were committed a while back. The teenage boy who witnessed said killings still lives there. Let the creepiness commence.

There is nothing `supernatural' about this film, it's a sort of horror/thriller with teenage leads. And that's the most important part. Whereas Twilight was a vampire story for teens and The Hunger Games was a Battle Royale/Running Man for teens. The House at the End of the Street is a horror/thriller for teens. I'm sure plenty of 15+ people will enjoy it too, but I'm going to stick my neck out and guess that its primary fanbase will be around the 15 years of age mark.

I've seen a lot of these times of horror/thrillers. Perhaps that's my problem. I know every scare and twist going (and can therefore predict them a mile off). However, if I hadn't watched many of these sorts of films, I'm sure I would enjoy it much, much more. Basically, to seasoned and cynical cinema-goers such as myself, this film offers nothing new. It conforms to every cliché going, yet it was pretty damn successful, proving that Jennifer Lawrence is one hell of a box office draw. Fair play to it for finding an audience - I just don't think many people will get much out of this is (a) they have seen plenty of these type of films before and (b) if they're not in the `Twilight generation.'

Oh, and don't get me started on the actual NAME of the film. Even fans of the film must admit that whatever Hollywood writer picked it was having a really slack and lazy day. Seriously...

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

Gruesome - Not actually that gruesome

Just cheap.  There’s something that just doesn’t work about ‘Gruesome’ and I think it’s the lack of budget.  The acting is okay and, despite being called ‘Gruesome’ there isn’t that much gore in it (but what there is isn’t too bad), so it has to be the general vibe.  The film comes across like it’s been filmed on a cameraphone and the lighting is practically non existent.  Every shot has a grey tint to it, like it’s been shot through the wrong filter.  I know that’s hardly a major thing, but it just adds to the overall feeling of cheapness.

‘Gruesome’ is about a waitress, who seems to be destined to be stalked (and then murdered!) by some local weirdo.  Then, just as the axe – literally – falls on her, she wakes up and has to go through it all over again, only with slight variants on the same theme each time.  It probably sounds like a ‘horror version of Groundhog Day’ but it’s probably more akin to (the less well known) ‘The Deaths of Ian Stone’ (although that had a budget!).

Maybe the reason the ‘grey tinge’ bugged me so much is because ‘grey’ is largely regarded as a dull colour.  And it just matches the overall feel.  I know the story tries to be a little deeper than your average torture p0rn/slasher film and it does try to add a few twists in there for good measure.  But nothing can really disguise the fact that this is a cheap offering that offers very little new in terms of horror or storytelling. 

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

 Force of Execution - Must have watched a different film

I’ve looked at a lot of reviews for ‘Force of Execution’ and they would have you believe that it’s an absolute classic. Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t expecting Shakespeare. I knew I’d be letting myself in for a B-movie with stars from yesteryear, however, all I got was a pretty sub-standard affair.

The story is all over the place with one scene after the next depicting one gangland hit after the next. Steven Segal phones in his performance and Ving Rhames just grunts all the way through it (and don’t get me started on his ‘fighting abilities’!).

In short, this story is a mess. The settings chop and change from one location to another, never really linking together the overall tale, let alone leaving any space for the audience to care about any of the one-dimensional characters.

Yes, I know it’s a B-movie, but I was hoping for it to be entertaining. Sadly, this one’s better left off everyone concerned’s C.V.

3/10 Jabba the Hutt wipes himself down with this film

The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad - So much old school fun

It may be a bit odd to say that a film made in 1958 can stand up against today's blockbusters, but I can't help feeling that if you showed 'The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad' to any modern youngster before they were indoctrinated with big budget computer-generated effects and superheroes flying round New York fighting aliens, then they're appreciate the magic in this timeless tale.

The one thing I always enjoy about films made before the nineties (roughly) was that they got on with things right away.  We're immediately introduced to the dashing hero, Sinbad, and his princess bride-to-be as they travel home to be married.  However, during a brief pit-stop on an uncharted island they pick up a creepy magician who's on the run from the giant cyclops locals.

Now, it's fair to say that the magician is the 'villain of the film' and most of the threats in the film come from him (when Sinbad and his crew aren't on the run from giant stop-motion monsters).  However, rather than have the villain only appear every now and again, or simply at the end of the film for a climactic duel, the magician actually accompanies Sinbad every step of the way on his quest to save the princess.  Personally, I really enjoyed this dynamic of the 'good' and the 'evil' being forced to coexist throughout the story and even have to work together when necessary.  I thought it brought something you really don't see very often in cinema.

Of course, no matter how good the human actors are (and they are very good!), many of us come for the monsters.  And they don't disappoint.  You have everything from dragons and cyclops to weird green dancing snake women and giant two-headed birds.  Yes, I know if you compare them to something like 'Avatar' the old special effects don't hold up and you can tell what's been overlaid post production with help of a blue screen.  But this film is such a delight for all the family I can't see man but the fiercest of cynics really holding these shortcomings against the enjoyment you can get from this film.

Films that are 'for all the family' are rare and this one should be appreciated as not only a product of its time, but also one that can stand the tests of time and the computer generated competition.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Dead Snow 2: Red vs Dead - A beautifully politically incorrect sequel

Despite being a zombie fan, it took me a couple of viewings to appreciate the original ‘Dead Snow.’ But it grew on me (and now I own it on DVD).  I was delighted when I heard a sequel was out and watched it straight away.  I have to say I didn’t like this one either at first, but, whereas the original took a couple of viewings to ‘get,’ I started to like its sequel at around the half hour mark.

The original Dead Snow was a ‘condensed little number.’ It was about a group of friends who took a skiing holiday to a remote cabin (hardly original, eh?) where they interrupt a load of Nazi zombies.  Naturally, blood and guts follow.  So, instead of retreading the original, the film-makers choose to expand the whole story on a bigger picture.  We’re given more information on the Nazis zombies.  Who’d have thought evil undead killers have such a rich and diverse back-story?!  But they do!  Plus we have a whole new cast of characters on hand to help out the lone survivor of the initial encounter.

And the characters are fun.  The police on the trail of the undead carnage is pretty inept and quite amusing.  Our leftover hero is nicely psychotic and damaged after his previous ordeal, but what makes the film is how the writers have added all sorts of nice new aspects to what could just be another zombie movie.  There are so many movies out there like this these days that anything that wants to stand out has to cover new ground.  And I’m glad to say this one does.  I won’t list too many of its original nice touches, but my favourite aspect was how the hero’s arm god severed and the hospital had to reattach it.  Only they messed up and accidentally stitched on the main zombie’s arm, hence unwittingly giving our hero a few new powers of his own.

You will need to have a pretty dark sense of humour to watch this.  There are so many politically incorrect moments that break conventions.  A black sense of humour is a must here.  Plus there’s a fair bit of action towards the end.  Off the top of my head I’d have to say that ‘Dead Snow2’ contains the longest ongoing climactic battle I’ve seen in a zombie film.

You should be aware that the film is shot in both Norwegian and English, so you’ll find you’re reading the subtitles one minute, only to realise you’re listening to English the next.

The only criticisms I have would be that it does feel a little ‘all over the place’ at times.  Sometimes there are so many ideas and characters that things get a little messy and you end up pining for the ‘condensed-ness’ of the original.  Also, the leader of the ‘zombie squad’ annoyed me a little bit.  He seemed to start off as an uber-geek and ended up being tougher than Rambo.  But those are just minor gripes.  I think Part 2 is a great little number that doesn’t detract from the original and has enough things in it that are new to warrant it standing out above many of the B-movie zombie films cluttering up bargain bins full of cheap DVDs you’ve never heard of.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Condorman - A fun-filled Bond-esque classic

I loved this film in the eighties.  I used to own it on Betamax, but since VHS and DVDs took over the world, I lost my copy of 'Condorman' somewhere along the way.  Michael Crawford (better known for his hapless TV character Frank Spencer), plays a comicbook writer who gets recruited by the CIA and uses his own designs for a hero's gadgets to help him smuggle a Russian double agent back to the USA.

As improbably as that sounds, you're best just glossing over it, as thinking too deeply about anything you see will spoil the film further.  It's effectively a parody of spy movies and, mainly, Roger Moore's take on the 'Bond' character.  However, there are those who said that Roger Moore took the franchise in too much of a silly direction, therefore making it a parody to begin with!

However, whereas Bond is serious - even Moore's version - 'Condorman' is just stupid, cheesy fun.  I loved it as a kid and therefore watch it now through the eyes of nostalgia.  However, now I will confess to being a little off put by Frank Spencer's... sorry, Woody Wilkins' faux American accent.  He is an odd choice for an action hero-lead as he certainly isn't physically intimidating, but I guess that's part of the joke.

The gadgets make the film and they're always cool to watch - especially when they're 'practical effect's and stunts.  The blue screen work is very easy to spot now and the film could do with remastering to clean up the obvious effects.  The direction itself is competent, but the soundtrack is a little repetitive, especially during the climactic chase.

Yes, I loved it as a kid and others who have such nostalgic memories of it will probably get something out of it, too.  However, it's unlikely to find a new audience nowadays.  If you have an eight-year-old boy, he might like it, but anyone over the age of eight will feel pretty bored by it all.  I'm glad it seems to have found a 'cult following' over the ages as it should definitely be appreciated by some.  I guess we'll never get to see the franchise that Disney were hoping for, despite leaving the film on a 'cliffhanger.'

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Beyond (1981) - Better on the second time around

I guess I must have been in a bad mood when I first watched this as I really didn't like it.  Now I've watched it again (simply because I'd forgotten I'd even watched it, I really enjoyed it - like I've done so with many (so-bad-they're-good) Italian horror films of the eighties.  It's about a hotel in Louisiana which is basically a 'hell-mouth' and, seeing as Buffy probably wasn't born when this was made, it's up to a woman who wants to refurbish it and a doctor who can only shoot a zombie in the head every three shots (I counted!).

It's a bit weird where there are some secondary characters who just wander around talking badly.  Yes, it's dubbed in many places - I noticed that severely when I first watched it and it's still as overly-dramatic now.  In typical Italian horror movie style, it's almost deliberately all over the place and the sharp edits which give the film a truly disconcerting atmosphere.  Plus there are some scenes which are almost funny while being bizarre - like when a woman seems to freak out because a beaker of water overturns in slow motion (and she then comes off worse, believe it or not).

And there's the gore - which was damn gool if you're into 'claret' and generally want to see a hundred and one different ways of inflicting pain on eyeballs.  Back in the eighties (before every ‘head-shot’ was computer generated) film-makers had to come up with new and interesting ways of doing gore on the cheap.  And, to be fair, that’s one area where The Beyond succeeded.  The gore wasn’t just gore, but also pretty inventive, providing me with more than a few moments of on-screen horror that I’ve never seen before.

I'm glad I've given this film another go as - this time - I found it really entertaining and it's an example that you clearly need to be in the right mood for the right film.

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

American Pie - There was this one time – at band camp – when we watched a really funny film

Okay, so I know that ‘teens behaving badly’ is hardly a revolutionary genre when it comes to film-making.  However, sometimes a film comes along that, while not really offering much that’s new, sort of revitalises the genre (and naturally spawns one hundred and one poorer imitations). ‘American Pie’ did just this.  Four horny teenage boys vow to lose their virginity before they graduate from high school and, as the old saying goes ‘with hilarious consequences.’ But, unlike all those times where that worn and weary phrase never really quite lives up to its boast, this time it does.

There are times when a film probably shouldn’t work, yet it does.  This is one of those times.  The story relies heavily on ‘gross-out’ humour.  You will need to have an appreciation for rather crude and toilet-based gags to fully enjoy this.  Plus, as ‘sex’ is a major component to the plot, you’ll need to be okay with quite a few dirty scenes.

Nearly fifteen years later, you will probably recognise many of the cast, but, back in 1999, they were largely unknowns, the only real recognisable face was Allison Hannigan who played ‘Willow’ in the Buffy the Vampire TV series.  However, despite being a load of non-stars, they all played their parts really well.  You’ll actually care about everyone here, no matter how dumb they are.

If you’re really looking for faults, you could say that it’s riddled with clichés.  The four main lead characters aren’t exactly ‘fleshed-out.’ They’re all walking/talking caricatures and pretty dumb (but then they’re teenage boys, so I guess the lack of I.Q. can be forgiven).  The females on the cast fair a little better.  They’re slightly more smart and sensitive, but at the same time are largely only there as potential candidates for the four boys’ adolescent lusts.

American Pie will never be ‘high brow entertainment’ yet it is enormous fun for anyone with an appreciation for silly (definitely low brow) humour.  Many other films were made after it trying to fit the same mould and recapture the magic.  Some were okay.  Others were good, but all fell short of this one.  Even the official sequels themselves slowly degraded and I didn’t even bother to finish all of the fourth instalment ‘American Wedding.’ I’ll stick to this one thanks.  And possibly part II.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Wonder Woman – DC finally finds its feet

In case you’re not aware of the ‘shared cinematic universe’ wars that are going on in the cinemas, I’ll try and put it simply.  One studio makes superhero films that everyone seems to love.  Another studio makes superhero films that you’d think the same audience would loves, but everyone seems to hate.  And there you have my brief history of ‘Marvel’ and ‘DC.’ Wonder Woman falls into the ‘DC bracket’ and fans have already expressed their disapproval with DC’s previous attempts at getting all their most famous heroes together on the big screen with the various Superman and Suicide Squad films, some even saying that DC’s ‘shared cinematic universe’ is already dead in the water.  However, just when it looked like this franchise was as dead as the new General Zod, along comes Gal Gadot as the titular Wonder Woman.  And, just as most people agreed that the other DC films don’t work, now most people seem to agree that Wonder Woman is awesome!  I have to say that I agree, but then maybe I’m easily pleased as I also really liked Batman versus Superman and Suicide Squad!

I’ve never read the comics, but I believe the film is a little different here and there.  Apparently, they’ve changed her origins and set the story in World War I as opposed to WWII.  Apparently, that did irk some people, but my lack of backstory knowledge of the source material meant that I never noticed!  Anyway, we meet Diana (aka Wonder Woman) on her Amazonian island as a child.  We see her obsess over becoming like the warrior women she idolises and yearns to join them in their eternal fight against the forces of darkness.  Don’t worry.  This doesn’t last for long.  It’s pretty tedious and definitely the low-point of the whole film.  In fact, it could quite easily have been cut and no one would have really noticed.  All it feels like is pointless exposition.  However, like I say, it doesn’t last long and Diana quickly grows up in time to rescue crashed Allied fighter pilot Captain Kirk from his stricken plane as it nose dives in the sea (or rather Chris Pine, anyway).  

And from then on it’s pretty non-stop.  You have everything you can want from a superhero movie.  Despite Gal Gadot’s inexperience with acting (I believe she’s primarily a model), she plays the character perfectly.  She’s one part fish out of water as she arrives in the ‘real’ world and interacts with people who weren’t raised without war on a paradise island.  But she’s never totally naïve.  You cannot help but root for her as she’s just so damn likeable without ever been a goody-two-shoes.  Then there’s the chemistry with Kirk – sorry, Pine – they bounce off each other brilliantly.  And the characters are seamlessly woven into expert direction when it comes to the fight scenes – after all, Wonder Woman is literally going to war and the scene where she charges an entire German trench sends goosebumps down your arms – it’s that good.

If there is a negative it’s the beginning, plus an annoying comedy relief character (you’ll spot her straight away), but thankfully both bad elements are brief.  This is normally the point where I say that fans of superhero movies will love this.  And, although I believe that to be true, I reckon that Wonder Woman is the kind of film where pretty much anyone who enjoys good cinema should enjoy it, plus – special shout-out to the weird grinding soundtrack that seems to come on every time Diana fights (it’s weird and definitely as memorable to the action as other classic tunes such as the Bond and Indiana Jones themes).

After a shaky start DC are finally off and running.  And this can only be good to give Marvel a bit of competition at the Box Office.  Bring on Wonder Woman 2 (or was that technically Batman versus Superman?!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Shallow Grave - A likeable film about unlikeable people

First of all, I'll address what seems to be the primary criticism about `Shallow Grave,' i.e. the three main characters are as shallow as the graves they dig for their victims. Even the usually charming Ewan McGregor is as nasty and spiteful as his two flatmates, played by Christopher Ecleston and Kerry Fox.

So, if you're looking for a film where you can truly identify with a bunch of nice, loyal, brave heroes, then Danny Boyle's first film probably isn't for you.

But, if you can put up with the deliberately dark tones of the film, you should enjoy it. The three stuck-up friends come into possession of a suitcase-load of money (courtesy of a forth flatmate - now deceased). They - naturally - think they're entitled to it and set about having a jolly good time.

If the film really did contain such unlikeable characters as some people seem to hate it for, then I doubt it would ever have been considered the classic that it is. I think we tolerate these selfish individuals because we know that, once they've decided not to turn the money over to the proper authorities, then retribution is never far from their door.

It's not as stylish as Trainspotting, as Hollywood as A Life Less Ordinary, as action-packed as 28 Days Later, or deep and aspiring as Slumdog Millionaire, but it is a great and raw flick from undoubtedly one of Britain's finest modern film-makers. Definitely worth a watch.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Robocop - One day ALL films will be made like this

There’s no other way of saying it, but Robocop is an absolute classic. Ignore the ‘so-so’ 2014 remake and concentrate on the original. It’s all you need. It was possibly too good and couldn’t even be matched by its sequels.

Yes, it’s hyper-violent and totally adult in nature, but it also has a wonderfully subtle layer of satire underneath all the gore and bloodshed.

In case you don’t know, a policeman is gunned down in futuristic Detroit, only to be resurrected with no memory of his former life as an indestructible cyborg lawman. Of course his memories soon start to trickle back and he begins to want to track down those who ‘killed’ him for more than just a slap on the wrist.

It’s packed full of memorable scenes and catchphrases and the only people who probably won’t appreciate this film are those with a real distaste for violence.

It really is the perfect little film for what it is. It never tries to be deep and meaningful, only loud, proud and entertaining. And it succeeds of ever one of those levels.

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

The Ritual – Netflix filler-horror

Do you like horror films?  Have you seen loads of them?  If the answer to BOTH of those questions is ‘Yes’ then you’re probably going to find ‘The Ritual’ a little hard going.  Don’t get me wrong… there’s nothing particularly bad about the film, but there’s not enough that’s new to make it really stand out among the countless other horror films that have come, gone and subsequently been forgotten.

Four friends get lost in the woods.  You’re probably already thinking of a dozen other similar horror films.  Okay, so this time it’s some woods in Sweden, but a tree’s a tree, right?  Anyway, I won’t dwell on why they find themselves there as it’s all just exposition to get them to a remote, out-of-the-way location to end up at the wrong end of something nasty.  The first couple of thirds of the movie (and it’s actually a little bit longer than your average ninety minute horror flick) have a real ‘Blair Witch’ feel about them.  Okay, so there’s no handheld shaky-cam ‘found footage’ aspect to the story, but it still hits all the same beats as our hapless heroes slowly find themselves being first messed with by whatever is out there, before finally being picked off one by one.

The final third tries to offer something different, but only really succeeds in feeling like a different film to what’s gone before it.  There are a few horror clichés here and you finally get a reasonable view of what’s been hunting them all this time (something the ‘Blair Witch Project’ deliberately left out).  And then it’s over.  And then, unless you’re really new to the genre, you instantly begin to forget everything you’ve spent the last couple of hours watching.

I know I’m sounding overly-negative about ‘The Ritual’ and I probably shouldn’t.  Despite my bored tone, it’s not that bad; it’s just nothing I haven’t seen before.  If you really want to watch – yet another – horror film and you have Netflix, you might as well put this on – you might like it.

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

Terminator Genesys - A product of the times

First of all let me say that I’m one of the biggest fans of the Terminator series.  I loved parts 1 and 2, enjoyed 3 and, like most, did my best to forget part 4.  Therefore, I was pretty damn excited to hear that Arnie himself was returning to ‘reboot’ the franchise.  If you’ve followed the series then you’ll probably be aware of the story – a computer becomes self aware and launches a nuclear attack of humanity, then when the last humans fight back, the machines send a cyborg (aka Terminator) back through time to assassinate the mother of the one man who can stop them.  Most of you probably know that, so when ‘Terminator: Genesys’ (not a typo!  You’ll find out why it’s called that) recaps the plot, you can kind of switch off.  However, the franchise has been going for so long, it now needs to appeal to a new audience.  Therefore, if you haven’t seen a Terminator movie before, don’t worry – everything is explained to you as it goes along.

Now, if you’ve seen the Star Trek reboot, you’ll know about ‘alternate timelines.’ Terminator Genesys (pretty shamelessly) borrows from this and uses time travel as a way of explaining changing the original story and starting again (without alienating the numerous die-hard fans of the original – like me).  Now, the Terminator films have always been pretty dark and violent.  But, ‘dark and violent’ is a niche market these days and the studio obviously didn’t want to prevent many cinema-goers from watching.  Therefore, this Terminator film is 12A (in the UK), allowing kids to see it (I only counted the one ‘F-bomb’). 

What we have now is basically a teen love story.  The characters Kyle Reece and Sarah Connor are now much younger (and therefore sexier) and you get the impression the film-makers are trying for a ‘will they/won’t they’ kind of tale (think Twilight and others like it).  Game of Thones Emilia Clarke takes over the Sarah Connor role and does her best with it.  Although I found her a bit physically too small to come across as ‘bad-ass’ as Linda Hamilton played her.  Then we have Jai Courtney, taking over from Michael Biehn as Kyle Reece.  Here we encounter the film’s first major problem.  He’s just wooden.  In Terminator Salvation (part 4), Reece was already recast as Ashton Yelchin – who did a damn sight better job with the role.  Jai Courtney really is the film’s ‘weak link.’

So, while Emilia and Jai are there for the ‘teen market,’ us old boys are waiting for Arnie to show up.  And he does.  Mostly.  He sort of turns up here and there to kick some metal ass and then goes away again.  He’s – obviously – the film’s star and yet he feels like he’s a side character in a film called Terminator.  In short – there’s not enough Terminator in Terminator Genesys.

Also, there are a couple of sub plots which really could have been got rid of.  Yes, it was nice to have a nod to Danny/Myles Dyson from T2, but everything about him and some cop who remembers the time travellers through the years could have been cut for a tighter run-time.

Then there’s the spoiler.  I try not to add spoilers to my reviews, but, if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ll already know it. My advice would be to steer clear of the trailer and do your best to see if you don’t see it coming.

All in all, Terminator Genesys is fun.  I enjoyed it and see it as a decent addition to the saga.  However, I’m aware that it wasn’t really made for me.  It was made for the primary cinema-going age group – teens – and therefore had to pander to them first.  If you’re a die-hard fan like me, be aware of this and don’t expect too much that’s like T1/2.  It’s better than part 3 and a million times better than part 4.

Welcome back Arnie, but I still can’t quite get used to calling you ‘Pops.’

And, if you’ve got really good eyesight – try and spot the one second cameo from the former T-1000 Robert Patrick.  Blink and you’ll miss him!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Beneath The Planet Of The Apes - Not bad (for a sequel)

The original Planet of the Apes film was not just a classic, but - more importantly - a SUPRISE hit. Probably no one expected a sequel to be made, let alone so soon. And, as far as sequels go, it's quite good, even if it is a mixed bag.

It takes places literally straight after the events of the first film and we see the original film's hero (Charlton Heston's `Taylor') riding off with his new girlfriend, only to run into some - unseen - trouble. But, hot on his heels, is another astronaut who has been sent to rescue him. This is where the story gets a bit odd. It's hard to put your finger on it, but you're given your original hero, only to have him taken away from you minutes into the film and replaced with someone who looks and acts a lot like him, but isn't him.

So we follow `Taylor Mk II' as he too journeys into the kingdom of the apes (and all the trouble that comes with it). Then, it sort of glides from a sequel (i.e. new story) into a kind of rehash of the last one. `New Taylor' meets up with the same apes and gets chased again then imprisoned (as Charlton did previously). However, the second half picks up. And, when I say `picks up' I mean takes on an `original flavour' while at the same time completely going in a different direction which doesn't feel like an `apes' movie and more.

In case you haven't already seen it, I won't go into detail about what Taylor and his mate find `below' the planet, but, even though it is a little weird sometimes, it is quite fun. It was certainly inventive for the time.

All in all, Beneath the Planet of the Apes is an enjoyable ride that falls victim of being a little uneven sometimes. Plus it would never entirely live up to the original due to being unable to match its predecessor's shock ending. Part 2 ends, in some people's opinions, unsatisfactory. I just thought it was different. But then the better part of the film was quite different, too.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

I Saw the Devil – I got this… eventually

I’ll admit it that it took me a little while to fully ‘get’ ‘I Saw the Devil.’ Perhaps I’ve been watching too many ‘classic Hollywood’ films lately and forgot that other countries do things differently.  

It’s no easy ride and you’re going to need a strong stomach to watch it all the way through.  A serial killer, already wanted by the South Korean authorities, abducts and murders a young pregnant woman.  However, this time he’s gone one step too far, as the woman in question is related to South Korea’s top secret agent.  Okay, it was about here when I wondered how much I was going to enjoy this film.  But, I overlooked the sheer convenience of this plot point and simply went with it.

It doesn’t take long before our South Korean James Bond has located his man, but he doesn’t just kill him – too easy.  He decides it would be much more fun to generally torment and torture him in a series of dangerous ‘cat and mouse’ games.

Again, I did wonder why the secret agent didn’t just kill the killer.  Of course this would shave about 80% of the film’s runtime off its total length!  But, again, I overlooked that and went with it.  And, I’m glad I did.  Yes, it is a horrible film and full of very nasty moments, but it is certainly atmospheric and the serial killer is certainly someone you’ll be dying to get his comeuppance.  There’s even a few moments of social commentary thrown in there to show that it’s not just a mindless revenge flick.

Naturally, it has subtitles, so you’ll have to be okay with that if you’re going to watch it.  But, if you’re in the mood for something dark, sadistic and violent, stick with it.  It’s a bit longer than most similar films, but you may just find it’s worth it.

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

Wind River – Like wading through heavy snow

I know I probably shouldn’t have just watched ‘Wind River’ on the basis that it’s – sort of – ‘Hawkeye’ and ‘Scarlett Witch’ from the Marvel universe starring together and expect something along the lines of a full-scale alien invasion of New York.  However, there was a gun on the front cover, so I did expect a bit more in the way of ‘action.’ I was wrong.

A young Native American woman in murdered on a reservation and a local hunter (Jeremy Renner) teams up with an FBI agent (Elizabeth Olsen) to solve it.  If – like me – you’re expecting gun-play, car chases and a non-stop thrill-ride, then you’re going to be sorely disappointed.

What follows is effectively the cast trudging their way around the scenic, snow-covered locations, occasionally talking to people.  I know the direction is good.  The scenery definitely deserves a mention and you really do get the sense of isolation in the wilderness.

However, you may be thinking that if it’s not a fast-paced, action-packed movie, then it’s going to be a ‘cat and mouse’ tale of a murderer trying to stay out of the clutches of the law.  But it’s not – really – that either.  It – kind of – gets explained about three quarters of the way through where we get a jarring lump of backstory/flashback to tell us what we’re now supposed to know.

Personally, I was finding it quite a hard watch – until the final act.  There was a majorly-tense scene near the end which was definitely well done and I just wish the rest of the film was like that.

However, it’s probably worth noting that I’m clearly in the minority here.  I’ve checked out the rest of the reviews and everyone else seems to love this film.  Pity.  I guess it just wasn’t for me, so I guess you should take the majority’s word over mine?

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

American Mary - There's something twisted about Mary

I'm not sure how best to describe `American Mary.' The easy option would be to call it a `horror,' but that doesn't seem to do it justice on its own. It's more of a dark, horrific drama, charting a young medical student's disillusionment with her studies and pursuing the `easy option' instead. This takes her into the path of some particularly weird and unscrupulous people.

I read online someone describing the film as having a great beginning and middle, but lacking in the end. I'd tend to agree with that. The ending does seem a little sudden, like the film-makers kind of didn't know how best to end it in a way that would appeal to everyone. Your view of the ending will depend largely on how you view the characters.

And the characters all play their parts well. Special kudos to Katherine Isabelle, who plays the title role. The film depends on making her role work and I think she succeeds.

I don't know who I'd recommend this film to: it's one part `torture porn,' one part horror, one part revenge movie and some general bloodthirstyness thrown into the mix. I suppose if you dabble in any of those sorts of genres, you should get something out of it. For some reason, I found the overall feel and `story structure' most similar to the similarly titled American Psycho.

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

Groundhog Day – Still as good today as it will be today.  And today…

If you’ve somehow found yourself watching the 2016 version of ‘Ghostbusters’ you may or may not have noticed some bloke popping up in the middle of the film, only to disappear as quickly.  I barely spotted him.  In fact, it took me until practically the end of the movie to realise it was Bill Murray, now reduced to a cameo in the film that – arguably – made him a household name.  Whatever you think about the ‘Ghostbusters’ remake, after the original he was riding high and one of his follow-up roles (and possibly ‘best’) was as Phil Conners in ‘Groundhog Day.’ If you haven’t watched it then, by now, you’ve probably seen a film that’s – technically – based on it.  The formula is a simple, if pretty basic one: a man is literally trapped in a day.  No matter what he does, where he goes or who he meets, he simply wakes up the following morning in today.  Since ‘Groundhog Day’ I’ve watched this format played out in all sorts of other films or TV programmes – everything from the ‘X-files’ did it, to variants of the genre such as incorporating horror and sci-fi to the mix.  However, no matter how fun they were, none have really come close to watching a grown man kidnap a small rodent and take it for a joy ride through a quarry pit in small-town America.

Bill Murray plays a weatherman who hates his assignment covering a – in his mind- low-brown and pointless celebration in a small American town which has a tradition involving a groundhog (also called ‘Phil!’) supposedly predicting the weather for the next few months.  Murray’s done it for years and is totally sick of it, however, when the day ends, a freak snowstrom strands him not just in the town, but also in the day.  What follows is quite an accurate account of what might occur should this happen.  At first you have confusion and disbelief, followed by the freedom to know everything that’s going to happen in the future (or at least for the next twenty-four hours) and finally depression at the realisation that you’re never going to live any other life that what’s on offer for this day.

Rumour has it that Murray disagreed with the film-makers as to what sort of film this should be.  He wanted it as a deep and emotional study of the human condition when presented with such a situation, whereas the director wanted more of a fluffy family (romantic) comedy.  From what I can tell both parties seemed to get their way.  Yes, this film could be classed as ‘fun for all the family.’ There’s something for everyone to enjoy.  It’s great fun without ever getting too dark to be difficult to explain to younger viewers.  However, it does also grant Murray his wish to a degree as, despite its absurd premise, you could argue that it plays out almost exactly how it would if a human was faced with this ‘capture in time.’

I watched ‘Groundhog Day’ when it first came out in the cinema and I’m pleased to say that it’s as good today as it ever was.  There are plenty of good supporting cast members, my favourite was Murray’s long-suffering camera man, but this is Murray’s baby.  The film sits firmly on his shoulders and he carries it perfectly.  Enjoy its numerous imitations, but this will always be the original and best.  If only the same could be said about the 2016 ‘Ghostbusters!’ (meow!)

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