Annihilation – Interesting, high-concept sci-fi

‘Annihilation’ is certainly an interesting film.  Not just because it’s a sci-fi flick that does more than just pit humans against monsters (or some other tired and unoriginal premise), but because it also takes a snapshot of the film industry today.  Apparently, the film was released in America and didn’t do too well at the Box Office.  Therefore, it’s now been released on Netflix and suddenly it’s a hit.  This is great news for Netflix (and I guess the film company who made it?) that their film is gathering such unexpected momentum, but it does ask the question whether many companies will bother releasing films to the cinema when they do so well on the (new) small screen?

Anyway, another reason why the Netflix audience got so excited at ‘Annihilation’s arrival on their platform was that it stars Hollywood heavyweights Natalie Portman and Oscar Isaacs (and, no offense to Will Smith, but I’m guessing you could say that they’re the – current – ‘biggest’ names to ever go (almost) straight to that platform).  So why did the film end up there?

As I said, it’s science-fiction, so that already makes it a ‘niche’ genre which doesn’t always guarantee that the film will be bankable (‘Star Wars’ franchise excluded!) and it’s not all out action.  A large bubble of weirdness (known in the film as ‘the shimmer’) appears in America, swallowing up the land mass it’s landed on.  No one knows what it is, where it’s come from and every attempt to send a team in has produced no returns.  Therefore, when biologist Natalie Portman’s soldier husband (Oscar Isaacs) becomes the first and only man to return from this place, only as a shadow of his former self, she decides to become part of an all-woman team to find out what happened in there.

Now, don’t get me wrong, just because this has a few more ‘higher sci-fi concepts’ than your average action flick, doesn’t mean there aren’t the odd shoot-out or monster, so don’t worry, it’s not constant talking all the way through.  The five ladies have to use their machine guns as well as their minds in order to navigate what waits for them inside the shimmer.  That’s all I’ll say about the plot, as there are plenty of interesting moments that you may not see coming.  I’ve seen some criticism online about how it’s ‘too hard to understand.’ It’s not.  It’s actually pretty straightforward, however the ending is a little ‘interpretational’ and I couldn’t help but think of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ when looking for a comparison.

It’s written by Alex garland, who’s most famous for his other ‘thinking’ sci-fi film ‘Ex Machina.’ I think if you enjoyed that you should appreciate this (even if they’re not much alike!).  The special effects are reasonable.  Obviously with sci-fi if you’re looking to create a world truly unlike our own, you’re going to have to employ the use of CGI.  Mostly it worked, some times it looked a little too ‘Phantom Menace’ if you know what I mean.  If you’ve seen either Natalie Portman or Oscar Isaacs in anything latterly, you’ll know their acting is top notch, so it’s always worth watching for them.  Don’t expect an action epic, but, if you’re a fan of slightly slower, more deeper science fiction then you should definitely give this one a watch – especially as now you don’t even have to queue at the multiplex to see it!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Wrath Of The Titans - Land of beards and accents

If you watched the remake of Clash of the Titans then you should know what to expect. I.e. your expectations of its sequel, Wrath of the Titans, should be suitable lowered. And, baring that in mind, you may just enjoy it... may.

After the events in Clash, Perseus has finally succumbed the fashion of the day and let his hair grow out. Sadly his wife has died and he's left to bring up his son alone. However, when your dad is the most powerful God in all Olympus, then adventure is never far away. Zeus, played by Liam Neeson, despite being all powerful... gets taken. Instead of going on a killing spree around Europe he finds himself being chained up in the underworld by his evil (other) son and his evil brother so that they may bring back his evil father to power (Zeus has a lot of evil relatives). Therefore Perseus, being the only man in Greece without facial hair, must rescue his dad before he's turned into Father Christmas (see the make-up on Zeus near the end).

It's nothing new, but it ticks along okay. Every fifteen minutes or so we're treated to another big monster for Perseus to fight. Every character plays their part well enough (and with a different accent - who'd have thought there were so many different accents in ancient Greece? Special mention to Bill Nighy who has the thickest Yorkshire accent in all times past). Perseus is naturally helped out by a tough, hard-as-nails fighting woman (Rosamund Pike) and a cheery comic relief-type character who is the long lost son of Poseidon.

After watching Wrath, I found it hard to actually hate anything about it. It ticks all the boxes. It has action, monsters, a bit of love interest and that's that. However, it just felt like an `action film by the numbers.' Just like I couldn't think of anything bad to say about it, I couldn't really find anything good to say about it either. It simply exists as a film. When it ended I didn't really feel any emotion at all.

Not a waste of ninety-five minutes, but hardly the best use of my time. Bring back clockwork owls and stop-motion monsters any day!

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

Thaw - There are worse horror films around 

`Thaw' is basically a warning against global warming where, because if the polar ice caps melting, a woolly mammoth's body is discovered an unfrozen. Bugs are unleashed from its corpse which then set about infecting and killing your average bunch of American teenagers who always seem to end up in these sorts of situations.

Thaw seemed like a bit of a remake of `Cabin Fever' due to it having a group of dopey teens in a secluded setting, turning on each other as they don't know who's definitely infected and who's not. However, where as Cabin Fever had a fair share of humour to its gore, Thaw plays it straight.

That's not to say that Thaw's a bad film. It has its plus points - the bugs are well animated (as far as inch-long beasties can be) and there are some nice moments of gore to keep those with a strong stomach happy. The film goes along as you'd expect. Sure, if this happened in real life, we'd probably do something different, but, luckily for the plot (and bugs in many ways) the group of teenagers contains a prize chump who seems to choose the wrong decision at every turn (which results in another death or amputation).

Thaw is no classic (it has Val Kilmer in it after all), but there are worse horror films out there (like most of the studio `After Dark's' output). Don't expect too much and you may enjoy it.

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

The Slumber Party Massacre - How low can it go?

If you've ever watched a 'slasher' film in the nineties and beyond, then you'll probably know the cliches and tropes that are associated with the genre.  In fact, many films (post 'Scream' era) have gone out of their way to point out such cliches and made fun of them in their own films.  If you've ever wondered, 'But where did all these tropes originate from?' then 'The Slumber Party Massacre' may just answer your question.

You all know what a 'slasher' film is: a killer stalks and murders a selection of people in various gruesome ways.  Here, a teenage girl decides to have - you guessed it - a slumber party with her friends while her parents are away.  Unfortunately, a nutter with a drill arrives to gatecrash it.  There's nothing particularly original about the plot, but that's not why people watch these sorts of films.  If they're halfway entertaining then the audience will normally give the story a pass.  However, there are so many bizarre decisions here that by about the halfway mark I was seriously wondering whether I was watching an early form of parody of the genre.

Where do I begin?  The film has numerous pointless shots of female nudity, the camera panning down the actresses' bodies in order to highlight their, er, 'physique.' If you're expecting a script which leaves you guessing as to who the killer is then think again.  The killer is revealed in about the opening ten minutes.  Normally, the antagonist has some sort of gimmick, i.e. a face made out of his victims' skin, an ice hockey mask, a ghost-face mask etc.  Not here.  Here we have a killer who basically looks like an average man and wears 'double denim.'

The characters.  Um, well, they're young women - mainly brunettes.  In fact, most are so interchangeable that you'll be confused as to which one has just been drilled to death.  Naturally, they're all roughly in their thirties while playing teenagers, which is odd to say the least.

The gore: there's not that much.  I know the film was made on a shoestring, but I've seen plenty of low budget films that make the most out of what they have and can pull off some pretty impressive practical effects.  Not here.  You get a few bl00dy stab wounds, but nothing you haven't seen before.

I have to say that I was hoping for something more from this film.  It's just the film that was the basis for all the slasher parodies which followed.  The characters make absolutely random decisions which will leave you shaking your head.  It's watchable, but only because you'll be curious as to just how bad it gets.  Oh, and it's short, so you don't really feel like you've wasted too much of your time on this.  Probably shocking for its day, but now just one of so many similar films in the genre.

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

Rock of Ages - Like High School Musical, but with more rock music

Let me start by saying that I probably shouldn't be reviewing this, as I'm biased against it from the start. You see... I have a daughter who has made me sit through the entire High School Musical trilogy about a hundred times. That sort of trauma taints anyone's perception of musicals.

Basically Rock of Ages (is based on a theatre musical, but I haven't seen that) tells the story of a small town American girl who moves to L.A. in pursuit of her dream of becoming a singer. When she gets there she falls in love with the first annoyingly handsome young man she meets and they sing a lot.

Every scene had me thinking of High School Musical. Granted, having `rock and roll' as the subject matter meant there are certain `adult themes' associated with rock and roll which were never included in HSM, but it is basically a love story with clichéd characters set around rock music.

Okay, so with me expecting Troy and Gabriella to pop up at any moment, I was never truly going to enjoy this film. But the rock music is certainly good (if you're a fan of rock music, which I am) and Tom Cruise puts in a surprisingly good performance as a rock superstar.

All in all this probably isn't for everyone. Musical lovers will enjoy it the most. Fans of rock might get something out of it. And anyone who grew up in the eighties will get a nice kick out of the detailed nostalgia they have for the time period. Personally, I'm so sick of musicals I was destined not to appreciate this as much as I should have done for the start. Damn you Ryan and Sharpay.

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

Project X - X marks the spot 

I didn't actually get why this film was called `Project X' - I must have popped out the room to make a cup of tea of something, but, no matter, I think I understood the rest of the film pretty well.

Every few months a story comes on the news about a party that was `accidentally' posted on some social networking site or other then spiralled out of control. Well, Project X is basically telling that story.

It does it from a `first person perspective' (think Blair Witch just with even more bodily fluids and a proper ending) where all footage is either filmed on handheld camera, or someone's cameraphone. It follows the exploits of three high school boys who try and bump up their popularity by throwing a `wild' party. And they do just that. The two thousand guests who attend end up being the least of their problems compared to flamethrowers and riot police - you'll have to watch it to find out.

I found it worth a watch. Yes, you have to put up with plenty of annoying teenagers and some people have said that it's `pro-drug taking' so you can probably guess some of the things they get up to.
Apparently the people who made it had something to do with The Hangover. Well, I didn't find it half as funny as The Hangover, but I didn't really think it was supposed to be a straight out comedy. It's more a warning of the dangers of social networking (not to mention trusting your teenage kids with your house when you go away from the weekend).

Project X will probably play best with teenagers who can relate to it, but if you're into those cringeworthy `jackass' type shows, you may enjoy it too.

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

The Monuments Men - Hard to pigeonhole this movie

‘The Monuments Men.’ Maybe I should have found out more about this film before I watched it.  I thought I had a round idea... we’re told from the promotional material that a group of ‘misfits’ hunts important pieces of art during the end of the Second World War and prevents them from falling into Nazi hands.

And, to be fair, that is what it’s about.  However, I don’t know what I was expecting, but it never seemed to fit into any particular genre.  It’s not really a war film.  Yes, it’s set in the middle of a war and – almost – every scene depicts a war-torn Europe.  However, there’s hardly a shot fired throughout the entire film.  The ‘misfits’ label makes it sound like some sort of ‘Dirty Dozen’ film where a bunch of screwballs triumph over adversity (falling down quite a few times along the way).  Again, the characters are a bunch of misfits, yet they’re certainly not funny enough to be particularly entertaining.  Yes, I know this is a serious subject (i.e. Nazis stealing – and sometimes destroying – precious art during the war), so I wasn’t expecting the central characters to behave like clowns, but I thought their interactions may be a little more enjoyable.

Unfortunately, none of the characters are really fleshed-out enough for us to care that much about them.  Despite the cast being full of excellent talent, all seem to be a little underused.  The story is simply the main characters sitting in one war-ravaged location after the next, discussing where they’re going to look next for a painting, or sculpture.

There was some attempt to interject a ‘baddie’ element.  Early on in the film we meet a Nazi who’s also hunting all the priceless pieces of artwork.  However, that story is kind of snubbed out halfway through and feels a little disappointing.

What we’re left with is an important story (as it is based on true events) that find themselves told in the blandest way possible.  The cast do their best, but the script just isn’t that enjoyable.  Maybe the film-makers were trying to accurately capture the ‘depressing’ feel of the era.  If that was their intention then they succeeded.  I felt gloomy waiting for it to end, too.

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

The Look Of Love - A generous take on a slightly dark industry

`The Look of Love' tells the story of the first `porn baron' of London, Paul Raymond - arguably the richest man in England - especially the one who made his money in such an industry.

The first thing you need to know is that the casting of Steve Coogan is a sheer masterpiece. He's every bit believable as the sleazy, low-life kid from Liverpool who made his fortune in London 'Soho' district. It's his film and he carries it well. There are quite a few famous faces popping up here and there and they all play their parts well, too. However, I thought the best co-star was (The Thick of It-famed) Chris Addison, playing yet another slimebag to perfection.  Although Imogen Poots is also more than just a pretty face as Paul Raymond's daughter.  Her character is ultimately the one who shows Raymond's humanity (and double standards, as he refuses to allow her to pose nude for anything!).

If you're even vaguely offended by (female) nudity, or drug usage, then you probably shouldn't watch this. Both vices are frequently portrayed from the opening act to the end.  

Ultimately, the film charts the highs and the lows of Paul Raymond's career, although, if you investigate the man himself, you may feel that Coogan's portrayal of him and his industry is quite watered down. Sex, drugs and pornography are shown as the norm, rarely damaging anyone's life (other than a couple of the protagonists'). But that could be down to the film's running time being quite a condensed ninety minutes. Therefore, we're probably left to put two and two together to realise that such vices can sometimes carry far darker consequences.  I read another online review that said that this film is 'all facts' and no character development.  I'm not sure I agree with that.  I also looked up a brief online history of Paul Raymond and, from what I can see, 'The Look of Love' stuck quite closely to real life events.  I guess when a film is telling a life story where the characters don't do that much in the way of 'growing' then that's all it can do and I don't see this as a weak point.

If you're expecting `Alan Partridge' Coogan then you may be disappointed. 'The Look of Love' is not that funny, but then it's not really meant to be. It's a (generous) life story of a very interesting man who was certainly not a saint. If you're a fan of Coogan, or just curious to know what goes on behind those alluring neon lights in Soho then give this one a go.

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

House of Flying Daggers - Top notch martial arts action

I read a few criticisms of the House of Flying Daggers that it's all `style over substance.' Well, it's certainly stylish, but I found there to be a fair amount of substance in essentially a kick-kicky type film.

Yes, it's dubbed into English. Some will appreciate that, other puritans may long to see it in its native tongue. Either way, I don't think it will affect too many people's perception of the film. It's about a subversive organisation, known as the `Flying Daggers' who are working to bring down the corrupt Chinese government of times past. The chief of police gets one of his best men to befriend a female member of the Daggers, in the hope that she'll lead the authorities to the Daggers' leader, in order to destroy them at the highest level.

Nothing too new there and I won't give any more away on the story, as there may be a few twists and turns that you don't see coming.

It is beautifully shot. Obviously too much for some, who cry style over substance. I don't see how people can't be taken with the scenery and costumes. Plus the fight scenes (of which there are certainly many!) are amazingly choreographed. The film runs for nearly two hours, but I'm pleased to say that it doesn't seem that long.

There's enough drama and character development intertwined with the obligatory martial arts then mixed with a love story to give you something pretty interesting.
I doubt the House of Flaying Daggers will ever become too mainstream. Ultimately, most of its audience will be those at least with a passing interest in martial arts films, but if you've watched any of them, or simply enjoyed Bruce Lee's work, then give it a go. It's good fun.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Guilt Trip - Better when there are no jokes

A film with Seth Rogen and Barbara Streisand. How could it possibly fail? Well, it sort of does. If you've watched the trailers, you may be under the impression that you're going to be in for a laugh-a-minute ride of silliness which will leave you giggling your gloves off.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Warning: this is a `joke free' film. And, it's major problem, is that it seems to think that it's funny.
You may snigger once or twice, but that's about it.

However, it's not all bad. Rogen and Streisand are both excellent actors in their own right and they do have some chemistry, but it only really comes out when they're not trying to be funny. They play mother and son who go on a road trip across America. All the way they're bickering with each other and this is supposed to be funny. It isn't - it's mainly stereotypical Jewish references. Yet, when they fall out (and they do, fortunately) and start arguing, that's when the movie really picks up.

I don't regret watching it. I just wished I wasn't expecting a hilarious comedy. Just make sure you're in the mood for more of a `laugh-free' affair before you sit down to watch it and you should get more out of it.

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

Four Lions - It shouldn’t really work... but it does

Okay, so the makers of this film must have known that what they were doing would court controversy, but they did it anyway. ‘Four Lions’ tells the tale of a ‘cell’ of British Muslims who are plotting various – lethal – terrorist attacks on Britain.  That wouldn’t be that controversial in itself if the film was a drama, but it isn’t – it’s a comedy – a pretty black one definitely.

Therefore, you will always get a certain percentage of the audience who claims that this sort of area should be ‘off limits’ and not something to be made fun of.  Those people will hate it no matter what and vote it one star (probably either before it was release, or without ever actually watching it).

Yes, it covers a taboo issue, but, although it chooses to mock certain people, it goes to great lengths never to make any sweeping statements about such as how ‘all Muslims are terrorists,’ or something equally as crass.  The central protagonists may wish to cause loss of life through their actions, but you can see that they’re the minority of the minority.  They’re misguided and truly believe that what they’re doing is for the greater good.

You may also think that it would therefore be pretty hard to ever find much to like about this crowd of terrorists.  Yet, you may even find yourself actually liking them, even if you totally disagree with what they do/stand for.

You definitely need a broad/black sense of humour to fully appreciate this.  There are plenty of laughs to find in there, just don’t try and pre-judge it on what some people’s ‘knee-jerk’ reactions to the subject matter were.

If nothing else... you’ll learn the difference between a Wookie, a bear and the Honey Monster.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Debug - 2001 meets Event Horizon, meets a film student’s first college assignment

Oh dear.  Just... oh dear.  I like science fiction and I always enjoy seeing a good ‘spaceship’ type set.  Just about the only two big budget ‘spaceship set-type’ movies of recent years were the Star Trek reboots and Prometheus.  Therefore, I always try to give a space movie a chance.  I shouldn’t have bothered here.  If you see this film out on DVD in the shops, you may notice its quite flashy box.  Don’t be deceived.  The cover art is about the most expensive part of this whole film.

Basically, it’s cheap.  That’s really all you need to know.  During the opening scene, you’ll get a sort of establishing shot of the outside of a giant spaceship.  Only it looks like it was designed on a ZX Spectrum.  I probably should have turned the film off there and saved myself an hour and a half.  What follows is six kids (okay, teens – but they acted like kids in my opinion) trying to get rid of an (evil) artificial intelligence from the spaceship’s computer.  The kids wear cheap orange uniforms and I wonder which genius actually entrusted them to this critical mission?  Surely the crew of the Red Dwarf would be more organised than this crowd?  The spaceship is nothing new – white clean-looking corridors and... well, that’s about it.  Nothing new and certainly nothing expensive.

You won’t give a damn about a single character.  They’re all equally bland.  I guess I should be grateful they’re not that annoying.  Anyway, in this cheap 2001: A Space Odyssey set, you get a vague Event Horizon plot where the kids have to face their fears (or something – I was kind of tuning out by this stage).  But, whereas Event Horizon had a cool Gothic feel for its decent, well-known actors to get lost in, this one is just cheap white corridors for its unknown cast to find – apparently – scary stuff in.

Yes, it’s fair to say that I didn’t like it.  Granted I didn’t really hate it, it’s just there’s nothing new here and nothing I have seen, only much better.  If you like your ‘spaceship movies’ (like I do), just watch anything from Star Trek to Event Horizon (or Pandorum – I liked that, but no one else seemed to).  Just forget this and ignore the enticing cover art on its DVD box.

Okay, it had one positive: the ‘HUDs’ (heads up displays) were kind of neat and I’d never seen that special effect before.  But that alone wasn’t worth an hour and a half of my time.

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

Comedown - Why did I enjoy this?

I watch a lot of horror/slasher films and most of them I get about half way through before I turn off. Comedown had absolutely nothing new to add to the genre and the characters were pretty unlikeable, yet I found I managed to sit through the whole thing without actually turning it off.

A bunch of pretty horrible teenagers break into a condemned London tower block in order to set up a pirate radio station. However, there's the obligatory psycho happens to already be living there. And, unsurprisingly, he doesn't take too kindly to their intrusion. What follows is the typical `hunt `em and kill `em' scenario.

Although the killer looks like he's already starred in I Know What You Did Last Summer, he's played by Geoff Bell, an actor who always puts in a good performance (even if he does only just squeak in this case!). The rest of the cast are basically `killer-fodder.' You won't find yourself shedding too many tears when they start getting hacked to death. One girl is pregnant and her boyfriend is a reformed convict, so I think we're supposed to root for them. Jessica Barden, who plays a particularly `chavvy' young lady, actually puts in a pretty good performance.

There's nothing new here and what little budget the film had seems to have been wasted on using computers to add extra blood in. Personally, I'd rather they'd have simply squirted a couple of bottles of tomato ketchup here and there, as the computer effects look a little bit too fake.

Like I say, nothing too new here, but strangely watchable and quite good fun in its genre.

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

Big Trouble in Little China - Almost too much fun to handle

‘Big Trouble in Little China’ was not a box office success.  So says both its star (Kurt Russell) and its director (horror legend John Carpenter).  They blame its poor performance in cinemas on the fact that the studio behind it (20th Century Fox) ‘didn’t know how to market it.’ And, to be fair, they may have a point.

If you look at the promotional posters advertising the film, they read (something like), ‘A mystical, action, adventure, kung-fu, comedy horror film.’ That, by its own admission, is ‘splitting genres’ to the extreme.  Therefore, it was kind of hard to know who to market the film at.

My opinion: guys (mainly!) and generally anyone who likes a good old fashioned adventure movie that doesn’t take itself too seriously.  It’s one of those typical adventure movies that the eighties churned out.  I would almost be tempted to say that it was a ‘family’ movie for all to enjoy.  However, there is one use of the ‘f-word’ so I guess you have to be a bit careful showing it to the little ones!  I always put Big Trouble in Little China in roughly the same bracket as Indiana Jones (although the Indy die-hard fans will probably hate me for comparing the two so favourably!). 

Big Trouble is pretty cheesy.  If you like your adventure dark and straight-laced then you may not appreciate the humour and general tongue in cheek moments.  Plus it does like to break the odd cinema convention here and there.  It’s ‘hero’ (Kurt Russell), despite being obviously the leading man, is often little more than a sidekick when compared to those around him – who the film-makers take delight in pointing out at every turn!

There are too many hilariously-cool moments to list, but my favourite is always going to be monster who’s made up solely of eyes (he gets what’s coming to him), but a close second would be a man getting so emotional and upset that he explodes.

If those sorts of things sound appealing to you, then you will definitely enjoy Big Trouble in Little China and see that it’s a forgotten gem of a B-movie that can be watched and re-watched and enjoyed every time.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather (in terms of B-movies!)

The Angriest Man in Brooklyn - Tragically poignant in retrospect

There’s no doubt that Robin Williams was one of the great actors of the last twenty to thirty or so years.  His films were wide and varied, therefore most casual fans, while accepting his brilliance, probably didn’t like them all, but most would have a favourite.  Now he’s gone we’re just left with his back catalogue to remember him by.  As I’ve said, many of them are classics and worth their place in cinema history, sadly ‘The Angriest Man in Brooklyn’ will probably really only be remembered as one of Williams’ last movies.

He plays the titular ‘angriest man’ who is pretty much fed up with the world around him.  One particularly bad day he ends up in hospital where an equally disenfranchised-with-life doctor (played by Mila Kunis) ends up breaking down and informing him that he’s only got ninety minutes to live.  This hardly improves his mood, but it does give the film its story, i.e. what will the ‘angriest man in the city’ do with his final moments.

Unfortunately, the answer isn’t as much as we’d probably like.  It’s fair to say that Williams isn’t at his best.  Perhaps, given light of his emotional state in real life, his heart and soul weren’t really into acting this time round, especially as a guy who’s not really into life and given only moments to live.

The film’s flaw is that it doesn’t really know what it is.  I guess it’s supposed to be a comedy, but it’s not really that funny (especially given what then happened to Robin Williams).  Maybe it should have tried to stick at being a dark drama, but that’s all academic now.  It is what it is.  And it is a sad story, not because it’s that well-written or particularly good, but because you can’t help but relate it to what happened in real life.  

If you’re a fan of Robin Williams, you’ll probably enjoy it.  Or not.  I’m a fan, but I found it rather sad really.  I won’t watch it again.  Not because it’s that bad, but because there are countless other Robin Williams films that he should be remembered by.

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

World War Z - A mainstream `gore-free' zombie epic

World War Z is based on a book from back in the dark ages where every horror film wasn't about zombies. Since roughly the millennium, we've seen every type of zombie movie - romantic ones, humorous ones, ones from the zombies' perspective. Once upon a time a movie would be a sure-fire success just for having zombies in it. Now the public are getting a little sick of the undead. So... is WWZ too late to be of any importance?

No, it's actually pretty good.

The closest film to liken it to would be 28 Days/Weeks Later in style and content. Only here we have a much bigger budget, played out not just in England, but all over the world. The zombies (and yes, they ARE zombies - there's no going to great lengths to NOT call them that here) can run, ala `the infected' and you won't find a `shuffler' in sight (oh, apart from when they're not chasing people - then they seem to happily go on `shuffler-mode').

I was struck by how little gore there was here. A staple of zombie movies is blood and `head shots,' yet, despite numerous battles between soldiers and zombies, you barely catch a glimpse of the red stuff. Plus, any close-range zombie kills are skilfully edited to avoid seeing any physical damage to the corpse. I can only assume this was to assure the 15 certificate rating which would put more bums on seats in the cinema. There's also barely any bad language (I didn't count a single profanity). So... what is there?

WWZ wins out on sheer scale. Its scenes specialise in terror and mass destruction, presenting `what if' scenarios of what the population would do amidst such an unexpected ordeal. The film follows (former UN health inspector) Brad Pitt as he travels the globe in search of a cure to the zombie virus. Brad Pitt can act (Kalifornia and Snatch being proof of that) yet there's little for him to do here. He's not a ninja, or Superman, so he spends his time running away from zombies most of the time. If I was being harsh I could say that any actor could have played his role, but the film-makers needed a big name to carry the film.

If you like zombie movies then definitely give this one a go. If nothing else it's the biggest and most epic zombie movie to date. If you want straight horror, you may come away feeling a little short-changed. I would almost call this a `thriller' over a horror, due to the lack of gore being replaced by tension and terror.

Slight gripe: I watched this in the cinema and there was a fair few people who found the zombies quite funny when they were up close. For some reason zombies `chatter/clack' their teeth together when they're sniffing the air. It is rather odd and probably more funny than scary.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Thanatomorphose - Nice make-up (shame about the story)

The marketing would have you believe that `Thanatomorphose' somehow resembled a David Cronenberg movie, based on how it's a `horror' film about the human body (and the disgusting ways it can be mutilated). However, that is where the similarity ends. Cronenberg's films also had a story and engaging characters. This has neither.

The two main characters spend so much time wandering round their apartment naked, you may be forgiven for thinking they're nudists. In fact... it gets a bit annoying in the end as there's clearly no reason for it all the time (like cleaning the flat in the nude etc). The story is about a woman whose body starts to slowly decay. Here's where the good make-up comes in, as it is pretty disgusting (about the film's only plus point). You may feel some sympathy for her if she was a bit more sensible. I imagine that if such a horrifying affliction descended on any one of us, the first thing we'd do is seek medical attention. She doesn't. Even when a friend comes calling and sees she's clearly unwell, she refuses to go to the hospital with him. Therefore we start to lose sympathy for her plight if she's clearly that stupid. Her boyfriend is not so daft - merely horrible. He's violent and a user - hardly hero material.

If you're looking for various gross scenes, you'll find them here. However, if you want talking, decent characters and a story, move along...

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

Sharkanado 2: The Second One - A ‘one-joke’ film turned into two movies

Okay, the original ‘Sharkanado’ was bad, but it was bad in a (if not good) then quite watchable kind of way.  It was daft and it knew it.  That was one of its strong points.  At least the sequel (the imaginatively-titled ‘Sharkanado 2: The Second One’) also knows that it’s never going to win any credible awards, so also plays to its strengths... namely being pretty daft, too.

However, once you’ve seen one ‘flying’ shark come hurtling through the air, conveniently landing on someone’s head and devouring them without caring too much about the whole physics of the situation, then you’ve pretty much seen all the best bits of this film.

The plot... is there one?  Do you even care?  Another storm.  Another city.  More sharks.  You can probably fill in the blanks yourself.  This time, based on the popularity of the first outing, there are a number of cameos from celebrities (or at least B-list celebrities – oddly enough people like Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt decided not to put this one on their C.V.) who turn up just to end up with a shark on their heads.

The special effects... well, they’re about as special as the first one.  Maybe less so in fact.  You would probably have to be blind not to tell that every flying shark is computer-generated.  I guess that’s part of the film’s charm though.

The acting... pretty ropey.  But, again, I don’t think high-calibre acting would really fit the tone of this film.

It’s kind of the B-movies of B-movies.  It knows it’s bad and plays on that.  This isn’t a bad thing.  In a cinematic world filled with ‘dead serious’ epics like the Bourne, Batman and (modern) Bond franchises, it’s nice to see there’s still a gap in the marketplace for silliness.  However, despite all the CGI blood and guts it still boils down to the fact that there’s still only the one selling point in the film: flying sharks.  And, as I’ve already said, once you’ve laughed at one killing a B-list celebrity, then there’s not that many places the film can go.

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

Galaxy Quest - Perfect 'Trek'

There's probably two ways of thinking after you've sat down to watch 1999's 'Galaxy Quest.' And that depends on how much you know (and love!) 'Star Trek.' I can imagine if you've never watched the original sixties sci-fi TV series, you may well be left thinking, 'Well... what was all that about?' For 'Galaxy Quest' would be little more than a tame, campy space adventure that seems like it should have been made for kids.  However, if - like me - you grew up on the brightly-coloured adventures of James T Kirk and his crew, you'd feel more like 'Galaxy Quest' is a feature length love letter to all that is great about 'classic' Trek.

I've watched 'Star Trek's more 'modern' incarnations and I know that it's left the fan base divided due to its lack of optimism regarding the future.  This isn't a problem in 'Galaxy Quest.' It celebrates all the principals from Gene Roddenbery's original TV show and even asks a few new questions of its own.

The film depicts an old science fiction TV show from yesteryear known as 'Galaxy Quest' (the most shameless rip-off of 'Star Trek' ever!).  Back in its day it was a hit.  Now the cast (mainly Tim Allen, Sigourney Weaver and Alan Rickman) make their living attending Comic-cons and signing autographs for nerdy fans - and not getting along half as well as their on screen personas.  However, what they were never aware of was that their old TV show had been beamed across the universe and picked up by  a peaceful race of aliens who took the drama literally and based their way of living on a show with cardboard walls and miniature spaceships.  This would have all been well had it not been for this race of delightful little aliens being attacked by an evil warlord.  Now, they decide to enlist the help of their 'real life' heroes to fight their battles for them.

There really isn't a bad performance in the film.  You have Tim Allen as the Kirk rip-off, Alan Rickman as substitute 'Spock' and Sigourney Weaver in a sort of Urhura role which generally spoofs how little the female cast had to do in old science fiction (also nicely ironic when you consider Weaver's other starring role where she has to deal with xenomorphs!).  The banter between the three is as spot on as you would imagine and its mixed with wonderful pathos from the good aliens as they worship us humans for our 'advanced' way of living together (perhaps in 2020 it's even more ironic when you consider how divided we all are - perhaps we could learn a few lessons from 'Star Trek' about overcoming our differences and getting along?).

The special effects are not that special, but then you're not watching this for the effects.  Everything you could want comes from the script and the idea behind it.  There's more character development in the primary cast members than there is in many of today's films and the story never goes out of its way to insult the 'Trek' fan base by portraying them negatively.

Everything here is a celebration of what 'Trek' should be.  It's fun, optimistic, well-acted and, in this case, funny.  I guess it was always destined to be a 'cult classic' due to the general public needing to know about 'Star Trek' cliches and conventions in order to fully appreciate just how great this film is.  In my opinion, it's more 'Star Trek' than today's Trek.  It came, it was great, it never outstayed its welcome.  No sequel necessary.  It's brilliant as it is.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Rocknrolla - That other Guy Ritchie film

We all know ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ as the film that practically reinvented the modern day British crime thriller (not to mention launch a certain Mr Ritchie’s career) and then ‘Snatch’ as the sort-of follow up starring Brad Pitt which was a kind of compendium piece to Lock, Stock.  Then Guy Ritchie’s name got attached to a singer and things didn’t go so well for a while.  Then came ‘Rocknrolla’ – which everyone (especially Guy Ritchie) made clear was not just a return to form, but a return to his gangster roots.

It’s about yet another gang of mockney London scoundrels who fall foul to yet another London kingpin gangster and have to come up with yet another crafty plan to come up with the cash and save their own skins in the process.  Yes, it’s basically the same plot as Lock, Stock and Snatch.  That should be a drawback, but it’s still fun.

I think if you compare Rocknrolla to Lock, Stock and Snatch you may be a little disappointed, as it’s not quite as uber-cool as either of them.  However, if you compare it to the plethora of other imitation Guy Ritchie British gangster films, you’ll realise it’s actually pretty good.  Or at least definitely watchable if you’re a fan of the genre.

I would say that Gerard Butler is the star, but he doesn’t seem to be in it enough to be classed as the ‘definite’ star.  I know Ritchie’s films are famous for their use of multiple characters and storylines all crossing over and finally coming together, but Rocknrolla seems to have one or two too many stars in it.  The cast is indeed impressive and almost every ‘hood’ is recognisable, but that just means that not all of them are fully developed as characters – Idris Elba, Geoff Bell and Thandie Newton in particular.  In fact, it’s really Mark Strong (who is basically doing a ‘Vinnie Jones’ kind of role, only slightly more expanded) who holds it all together and steals every scene he’s in.

But, don’t let that minor gripe put you off.  If you like your gangster films, or enjoy Ritchie’s (gangster) work, you should find this pretty pleasing.  I hear that it was meant to be the first film in the start of a trilogy (eight years on and we’re still waiting for part 2!).  Perhaps that’s why there were so many characters in it?  Maybe those who didn’t get enough screen time here would have had more to do in the subsequent sequels?  No matter I guess – still a fun little ensemble piece.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Project Almanac - Mainly for the teens (and possibly me)

‘Project Almanac’ is about time travel.  No, that shouldn’t be what I open this review with.  I’ll start again... ‘Project Almanac’ is a ‘found footage’ movie.  As if Hollywood wasn’t filled with films which consist entirely of someone annoying (unseen) character constantly filming every single aspect of people’s lives with a shaky camera then we have one more here.

Normally, ‘found footage’ films tend to be linked with the ‘horror’ genre, thus making the very idea that someone would be stupid enough to keep filming while being chased by vampires/witches/werewolves (delete as applicable) pretty hard to swallow.  However, ‘The Almanac Project’ fits more into the ‘teen sci-fi’ bracket.  You may have to suspend your disbelief when the story shows how a gang of teenagers invent a time machine from some old plans found in an attic using a broken Xbox and a car battery (no, seriously), but, once you get over that, it’s not that bad.

Like I said, it’s probably mainly aimed at teenagers as a primary viewing audience, as there is the inevitable love story ‘sub-plot’ thrown in there.  However, as a fully-grown adult who’s grown out of schoolgirls falling in love with sparkling vampires, I enjoyed it because it did address a few sci-fi principals which are often overlooked when dealing with the prospect of time travel

All the kids play their parts well (or as well as you’d expect – largely – unknown teenagers to do so) and do their best to appear natural in front of a camera.  However, the main let down is that when things start to go wrong (don’t they always with time travel?) some of the kids will go off on their own to do (no spoilers here) all sorts of naughty things and still feel the need to document their misdemeanours on film at all times (hardly the actions of master criminals!).

It’s not a long film and doesn’t outlive its runtime.  I can see most teenagers enjoying it because it’s largely about them, plus if you have a soft spot for sci-fi in general you may like also like it (don’t worry – it’s not as ‘wet’ as most teenage love stories that are mixed with the supernatural/horror/sci-fi).

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

Monty Python and the Holy Grail -The Holy Grail of comedy

If you’re a fan of ‘Python’ you’ll love this (in fact… you’ll probably already have watched and enjoyed it).  If you don’t like Python, but consider yourself to be a generally humorous person then you should watch it, too.  Only people with absolutely no sense of humour should steer clear of this.

It (loosely) follows Graham Chapman as King Arthur as he’s charged (by none other than God himself) with his holy task of locating the Holy Grail.  To help him he’s aided in typical style by the rest of the Pythons, cunningly disguised as various Knights (not to mention practically everyone else they meet).

And it’s funny.  That’s the bottom line.  I know it does look a little on the cheap side (the film was partially-funded by the band Pink Floyd if you’re interested).  But don’t let the cheapness of the production put you off.  I find that it’s part of its charm.  In fact, seeing blatantly false limbs severed in ridiculous amounts of fake blood.  

Yes, it’s kind of ‘off-the-wall’ humour that you should already know comes with the Pythons.  If you haven’t seen it and like comedy, do give it a watch.  It’s probably also good to watch with friends.  Seriously… they don’t make ‘em like they used to.  Awesome.  Ni.

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

American Ninja - An Officer and a Ninja

There are some films which you know are bad while you're watching them... and you just don't care. 'American Ninja' is one of those.  Back in the eighties, films seemed to get going a lot quicker than they do these days.  Therefore we're soon introduced to 'Joe' - a loner soldier who's recently joined a military company - who singlehandedly saves a convoy of army equipment from an attack by - you guessed it - ninjas.  We don't know why this young man is so gifted in hand-to-hand combat... and we don't care.  By now the film is so ludicrously over the top we're just along for the ride.

Michael Dudikoff is the lead and, for some reason, despite his strong and silent manner, he really does seem to work as the star.  Apparently, if you read up on the Internet, he didn't have a martial arts background before starring, but that doesn't seem to matter.  He's like a James Dean kind of loner who's the 'strong and silent' type, but occasionally kicks the hell out of anyone who crosses him.

Naturally any strong and silent hero has to have a 'love interest.' I guess back in the eighties women were generally there just to be rescued, so don't expect too much in the way of 'character development' when it comes to Judie Aronson's performance, but that's hardly the actress' fault.  They may not have 100% chemistry, but - luckily - we have Steve James as 'the best friend' to give our quiet hero someone to 'play off.'

If you're expecting 'wall to wall action' then you may be a little disappointed around the middle segment of the film where it all - sort of - felt like 'An Officer and a Gentleman' to me, but, after the high-octane start, everything goes back into 'overdrive' for the final segment.  There's tons of fighting in the climax - all done in that 'eighties way' where one man takes on a whole army of bad guys (all of which have 'Stormtrooper aim!').

If you like eighties action movies then this one is definitely for you.  It certainly falls into the 'so-bad-it's-good' category.  If you value 'entertainment' in your films over more traditional elements such as 'logic, reason' and 'common sense' then you really need to give this one a watch.  Let's just throw in some 'ninja magic' towards the end.  Why the hell not?!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Longest Day - Possibly the greatest ensemble war movie ever made

There’s not much that hasn’t been written about ‘The Longest Day.’ It’s arguable one of the best World War II movies out there.  It charts – predominantly – the 8th June (or ‘D-Day’ to most of us) when the Allies finally stormed their forces into France to liberate it from German rule, but the first part (of the film’s near three-hour runtime) tells the story of the events leading up to the fateful day itself.

The film is generally an ‘ensemble’ with multiple actors appearing for – in some cases – quite brief periods of time.  However, due to the general talent of the actors, that never really feels like a problem.  Yes, I’m sure that any of them could have had an entire film made just about them, telling their individual story, but we have to make do with their minor performances.  It’s hard to pick a ‘stand-out’ performance as they’re all so good.

Apparently, according to some who have lived through the day itself, the film isn’t always factually accurate (and even a former President of America apparently left a showing due to technical inaccuracies).  However, even if some creative liberties have been taken, it still gives a no-nonsense feel of what the troops had to go through when entering the French beaches and countryside for the first time.

Due to the film’s length, there’s even time to fit in some scenes with the Germans themselves.  It’s important to see what was happening on the ‘other side’ as it relates specifically to how the Allies managed to pull of the (overall) victory.

Of course it is black and white, so for those who find it unable to watch anything that isn’t designed for 3D and/or IMAX will find it hard to take!  

The Longest Day may seem a little dated by today’s standard, but, if you’re a fan of war films, or are even just interested in what went on during World War II, then you should definitely check this one out.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Krull - Part of the eighties’ backbone of cheese

I’ll start off my saying that 'Krull' isn’t a particularly great movie.  Secondly, I’ll also add that I love it.  I think part of its charm is its cheapness and the fact that it tries so hard to be 'Star Wars' (but with swords).  I saw it when I was a boy in the eighties and I think it’s the perfect film for any boy, largely because they won’t have seen too many films and will only marvel at the special effects (which, by today’s standards, aren’t that special) and enjoy the ride.

It’s about a princess who’s captured by a beast (or ‘The Beast’ to be precise) and taken off to his castle where she must marry him.  That is, of course, unless the handsome prince doesn’t rescue her and save the kingdom.  So, nothing too original there.  It's effectively a fairytale set in space.

It’s hard to say why Krull is so good.  You just have to appreciate it for what it is.  The lines are pretty corny, but they are delivered with such gusto that you can forgive their failings.  Also, don’t expect too much logic.  The baddies (or ‘Slayers’) use laser guns which only really shoot about two shots before they decide to just use them to bludgeon people with them.  Why?  Who knows, just go with it.  But, while we're on the subject of weapons, if there's one thing that 'Krull' does right is have a cool weapon for our dashing, bearded hero, i.e. the 'Glade.' Seriously, this five-pointed frisbee is right up there with light sabres and Pulse rifles in terms of cool on-screen weapons of mass destruction.

Then you have the thumping soundtrack from James Horner.  Eagle-eared viewers will notice that the soundtrack (no matter how good it is) is pretty much ripped off from 'Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan' (with a hint of 'Aliens' thrown in!), but it’s so good, there’s no harm in hearing it again.

So, in summary... dialogue = bad.  Special effects = not special at all.  Originality = non existent.  Characters = a little annoying (Ergo, I’m thinking of you).  But, despite all that, I still love it.  It’s a classic ‘so-bad-it’s-good’ type film.  If you’ve seen (and loved) any or all of: 'Flash Gordon, Masters of the Universe, Star Crash or Hawk the Slayer,' then this is in their league (and, for the record, I own all of them – classics!).

It’s worth it alone for the fact that you get to watch one of the greatest fantasy weapons ever seen on screen, but throw in the cracking soundtrack, the sheer effort everyone puts in and the early appearances of such future giants as Liam Neeson and Robbie Coltrane and you have a true classic good time. 

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

House of 1000 Corpses - A gritty, gory mess

If there’s one thing modern cinema is criticised for, it’s that it’s made by executives and corporations rather than by fans of the genre itself.  However, that cannot be said for the delightfully-titled ‘House of 1000 Corpses.’ It’s made by the (equally delightfully-named) Rob Zombie, who, despite being better known at the time as a musician, is definitely a fan of the horror genre.

But, without even going into who made it, perhaps it’s the title that should give you all the information you need to know as to whether or not you’ll like this film.  If you’re expecting anything deep and meaningful then you’re going to turn it off within minutes.  What you have is a pretty standard ‘slasher’ flick (okay, so it probably bears more in common with ‘Texas Chainsaw’ types films than ‘Scream,’ but there are definitely ‘slasher’ elements thrown in there), but presented with a sense of art.  Or, if you’re feeling a little harsher, you could replace the word ‘art’ with ‘bits-thrown-in-that-look-like-they’re-taken-right-out-of-an-MTV-music-video.’

Rob Zombie tries to do something different with the way the film is shot.  It’s got a lot of cutaway films and stylishly-filmed segments which break up the narrative.  Some may find those interesting and different, others may find that they distract from the narrative – it’s really a question of taste, but you can see his music video influence shining through.

But, you probably don’t watch a film called ‘House of 1000 Corpses’ for its artistic integrity – you want the gore.  And it doesn’t disappoint on that one.  It’s packed full of disgusting characters and imagery – from grotesque mutants to gorgeous babes (who are equally grotesque when it comes to their tendency to murder people at the drop of a hat – Sheri Moon Zombie, I’m looking at you!).

Overall, ‘House of 1000 Corpses’ isn’t an original story, but it’s done differently enough and with the required levels of gore that will satisfy anyone who wants to watch a film entitled so.  It does feel a little ‘raw’ here and there.  Sometimes I felt that was almost intentional, other times I wondered whether Rob Zombie was letting his visions get a little too convoluted.  However, he definitely proves that he can do more than sing (assuming you agree with that in the first place!) and, seeing as he’s a fan of the genre, hopefully this will be a good stepping stone to launch what might be a promising horror career.

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

Guest House Paradiso – It just didn’t work (for me)

'Guest House Paradiso,’ or, as was added later on the video box, ‘The Bottom Movie.’ I’ve been a fan of ‘Bottom’ (and before that ‘The Young Ones’) ever since it first crawled onto our televisions screens.  So, like many, I was happy that the hideous Richie and Eddie had made it onto the big screen.  I remember back in 1999 when it came out that it only received a luke-warm reception, but I saw it anyway.  My reaction – it just left me a bit cold.

It’s not a ‘Bottom’ movie.  The characters, although basically identical to the Richie and Eddie that we know and love, have different surnames.  It would be a bit simplistic to say that the movie failed on account of that one minor point, but, for some reason, I can’t really think of anything else.

Guest House Paradiso was not a commercial or critical success at the Box Office.  I decided to watch it again because I enjoyed re-watching the series recently.  I was surprised when I saw online how well-received it actually was.  However, even from a second viewing over fifteen years later, I still didn’t ‘get it.’

And I don’t know why.  Guest House Paradiso has everything that bottom has: the characters, the gross-out humour, the slap-stick violence and the overall feel of Bottom.  Yet it still didn’t do it for me.  Perhaps I enjoyed seeing Bottom in ‘smaller doses.’ The half hour runtime of an average TV episode seemed just right.  Maybe I found that stretching the concept out for an hour and a half was too much?

Yes, there are funny bits and I did smile.  It’s stupidly dumb, but it never tries to be anything else.  Despite my love for the Young Ones and Bottom, I have yet to warm to this big screen version.  But, if you’re thinking of watching it, based on what I’ve seen I am now in the minority.  It seems that Guest House Paradiso has found its market at last and time has been more forgiving than the critics at the time and me now.  I’ll always have a special fondness for the antics of Richie and Eddie, just not here.  Sorry, boys.

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

Fortress - Ahh, nineties sci-fi

There’s something very comforting for me about watching Christopher Lambert in the nineties sci-fi/action movie ‘Fortress.’ It’s like revisiting an old friend in a comfortable environment.  Yes, it’s fair to say that anyone who was basically in their early teenage years of watching films would find this film particularly deep and thought provoking (like I did at the time).  Now, over twenty years (and several thousand) films later, my cynical and jaded eyes see it for what it is – a load of nonsense (but kind of good fun nonsense if you’re in the mood).

Sometime in the near future pregnancies are controlled and anyone having a child without government approval (or something) is imprisoned in the most hellish of judicial facilities imaginable.  The opening scene shows us Christopher Lambert and his pregnant wife attempting to flee the country, but getting caught in the process.  Guess where they end up?  The titular ‘Fortress’ is a prison (tower) buried under the ground in the desert where escape is ‘impossible’ (yeah, in the same way that ‘no one’ had ever won ‘The Running Man’ until Arnie had a go).

Once imprisoned, Lambert is subjected to all the usual prison movie tropes, including clichéd cellmates, aggressive bully-type alpha-male prisoners and – of course – the fascist warden in charge, this time played by Kurtwood Smith (or that-baddie-in-Robocop to most of us).  Whereas most of the film is pretty run-of-the-mill, Kurtwood does his best to turn in a pretty sinister and menacing performance.  Of course there are some pretty big stretches in the plot which are designed to further the story rather than be realistic.  These are things like the warden just so happening to fall in love with Lambert’s wife (like our hero needed any extra excuses for hating the man in charge of the barbaric facility).

The sets are pretty bland.  In fact, the sets are sets – pure and simple.  Grey walls with people wandering around in orange jumpsuits.  The special effects aren’t that special and the dialogue is a bit corny here and there.  All in all, it’s probably not the greatest of films and it’s no wonder that it’s been pretty much forgotten compared to the classic action films of the decade.  And yet, I stand by my original statement. Watching ‘Fortress’ takes me back to my childhood, so, yes, a lot of my appreciation of this film stems from my nostalgia of the era.  It’s a simple film from a simpler time.  

I doubt it would hold up today against the current crop of action movies.  It wasn’t much more than a ‘straight-to-video’ affair back in its day, but, like I say, if you’re looking for a slightly dated, more simple action movie then this one is worth a watch if you feel like wasting an hour and a half.  The deeper meaning I may have once seen has long since been painted over by clichés and cheesy nonsense, but I like that sort of thing.

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

Deepstar Six - A poor man's 'Leviathan'

I don't know whether I should have done this or not, but I watched 'Leviathan' and then 'Deepstar Six' pretty much back to back.  I'd never seen either of them before, but I'd heard they're quite similar in themes and even made in the same year (1989).  Yes, it's fair to say they're effectively the same film, only told with different actors and sets etc.

Both take place on board underwater rigs in the near future where the crews encounter a large monster who ends up hunting them down one by one.  Yes, they're both - reasonably - low budget B-movies with nothing amazing to say about either.  However, whereas 'Leviathan' was actually quite good fun with memorable characters, well-designed creature effects and fast paced, 'Deepstar Six' slogs along like it's wading through the very depths of the ocean it's set in.

There's little to say about 'Deepstar Six' other than it's an example of a film that's almost identical to another, yet totally different in terms of enjoyment factor.  For a start it's longer - and it feels it.  However, perhaps the hardest aspect to get over in a 'monster movie' is the fact that the creature itself doesn't actually show itself until well over the hour mark.  And, when it does, it's hardly memorable.  I suppose at least when the nasty beastie shows up it gives us something to think about, i.e. the crew now have to survive.  In fact, once the monster arrives I actually couldn't really think of a single plot event that took place in the first hour!

If there's one high point it's Miguel Ferrer.  I know I'm a fan of his since 'Robocop' and 'Twin Peaks,' but he's by far the most interesting and watchable character among the cast.  The rest are totally forgettable.

If you like your 'creature features' and appreciate practical effects and low budget horror, then 'Leviathan' is the one for you.  Or at least watch 'Deepstar Six' first so that you get it out the way before you really get to the good one of the two.

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

Death Wish 3 - Why all the hate? 

The first Death Wish was an instant hit - showing mild-mannered liberal, Paul Kersey, dishing out his own brand of justice to muggers all over New York. Part 2 capitalised on the success and is seen as a good film too (although how often are sequels ever revered as being better than the first?). Then came part 3 and everyone suddenly hated it.

I suppose Death Wish 3 is to parts 1 and 2 like Aliens is to Alien. DW1 and 2 were slow and creepy, building up tension before each of the (surprisingly few) kills. Part 3 just has Kersey mowing down muggers with a machine gun.

Okay, so it's kind of lost its social commentary aspect, but it's still a great action film. So what if some of the creeps are kind of stereotypical and a bit dumb. Since when was a street hood a criminal mastermind?

Death Wish 3 is probably the most far-fetched of the series (so far - I won't get on to parts 4 and 5), but if you're tired of soft justice for criminals, then you'll be nodding your head to the sound of Kersey's `Wilby' Magnum going off.

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

Colossal – Strangely addictive

The term ‘car-crash’ normally means something that’s really bad and yet you can’t bring yourself to look away.  I think it would be a little unfair to refer to ‘Colossal’ as a ‘car-crash’ of a film, because it’s not bad at all, in fact, it’s rather touching and uplifting, but I certainly couldn’t stop myself from watching, even though I have to confess I’m not entirely sure of the point.

Thinking about it, I do wonder how commercially successful it was because I can’t really think of the target audience it was supposed to be aimed at.  If you’ve seen any of the marketing material surrounding it, you may well have spotted the prominent monsters crashing through major world cities.  In the light of the ‘Pacific Rim’ movies you may well be expecting an action blockbuster, but you would be well off the mark with that one.  Also, prominently featured in the film’s posters is its star Anne Hathaway smiling and looking a little bit kookie.  This almost makes the film come across as a happy-go-lucky comedy, maybe with a romantic element contained within?  Again, well wrong.

In fact, it’s almost hard to explain about the film’s plot without giving too much away.  Anne Hathaway plays a struggling alcoholic who gets caught up in a much larger matter (pun intended) regarding giant monsters crashing through a city on the other side of the world.  How are these two situations connected?  Well, you’ll have to watch the film to find out.

I will say that the film doesn’t give a clear and cut explanation to everything it’s presented the audience with, but it gives you enough to allow you to fill in the blanks yourself with (film) logic.  What you get is actually a drama about an alcoholic struggling with her demons and those around her that wish to either help or hinder her.  Yes, there are also giant monsters in there, too.

As long as you expect drama first and sci-fi second, you should enjoy it.  There’s not much here in the way of humour or action, so certainly don’t hold out for anything that remotely resembles ‘Pacific Rim.’ As I said, I don’t know who the target audience for this is, only that I enjoyed it and found that I was definitely rooting for Anne Hathaway’s character and found her a flawed, yet endearing hero.

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

Biggles - Viewed through nostalgia’s eyes

Put simply: I watched Biggles when I was a young boy in the cinema in the eighties.  Therefore, I loved it.  Of course, now, through adult’s eyes, I can spot all its – numerous – failings, but I still love it nonetheless.

First of all, for those of you still under the misapprehension that Biggles was simply a series of books about a fictional First World War pilot, you may find that he’s changed slightly on the big screen.  Yes, he’s still a loop-the-looping daredevil of the skies, but he also travels through time.  Or rather a rather down-on-this-luck marketing executive in nineteen-eighties New York keeps slipping through a hole in time to help out Biggles whenever he gets into a jam.  And here we learn about ‘time twins’ – two people from different eras who inexplicably appear next to each other whenever the other is in danger.

If you can forgive the minor straying from the source material, it’s actually quite good fun – if you’re in the mood for eighties cheese.  And it is very eighties.  The music is electro, completely over the top and doesn’t fit the mood in the slightest (okay, it may be okay for the scenes set in the eighties, but watching a World War One battle to prog-new romantic whatever music is a little off-putting).  It was like the film-makers were trying to recapture the style (or should that be ‘style?’) of Flash Gordon with its Queen soundtrack.  

Plus you have the rather unfortunate choice in leading man.  No, not Biggles, even though he should technically BE the leading man.  Instead, and cynically some might say in order to sell it to our American cousins, the story is more about Jim – our overworked marketing exec from the Big Apple.  The problem is he’s just pretty wooden really.  He’s being dragged this way and that through time and his expression never really changes.  Biggles would have been a better – but possibly less bankable – star in his own right.

But, even if you detest some of the casting choices, you still have the awesome dogfights between bi-planes.  Biggles was made well before the advent of CGI and the use of real planes is pretty breathtaking (even to the sound of eighties electro!).  And of course you have Peter Cushine – he’s still got it, even though he looks a little tired now and it’s no surprise to learn that this was his last on-screen role.

If you saw (and loved!) Biggles in the eighties, everything you loved about it will still be there.  If you’re coming to it fresh then you may wonder what you’ve let yourself in for.  Fans of a severe overdose of eighties cheese only.  If you liked Flash Gordon or Masters of the Universe, you may want to also put this one on your radar.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

And Soon the Darkness (2010) - Not a great advert for Argentina 

Once again Hollywood reminds us that if we act `naughty' (you know what I mean, right?) and don't *ahem* play safe with strangers, we deserve a grisly end.

Straight-laced Stephanie (Amber Heard) and her best friend, drunken harlot Ellie (Odette Annable) are holidaying in Agentina in a small town where the locals frequently give each other random glances of morbid knowingness. There they meet a couple of creepy guys and Karl Urban (who, for some reason, seems to act like he's embarrassed to be in this film). Sadly, Ellie is a wild-child and plays the price when she disappears mysteriously.

The cops are no help (when are they ever in these filmic cases?!) so Amber has to go it alone to find her.

And that's about it. You've probably seen it before. It's average and there are not too many surprises, only plenty of moments where you shout, "Hit him again!" at the screen when one of the girls smacks the bad guy over the head with a blunt object ONCE then just runs away, leaving him to get straight back up and come after her.

Oh, and for the guys - Amber Heard strips down to a bikini (as she seems to in most her movies - is she contractually obliged, or something?) at about the half hour mark. You may want to turn it off after that.

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

The World's End - Good fun (but not classic Pegg/Frost)

‘The World’s End’ marks the last (?) in the ‘blood and cornettos’ trilogy (aka Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and now this), but it has been the least well-received of the three.  Instead of horror or action, now the team behind the films parody science fiction.  It’s about five forty-something men who decide to attempt a ‘legendary’ pub crawl which they failed at during their youth.  However, this – unfortunately – coincides with a most sinister alien presence that’s started to take over their town.

The first thing I found was that it wasn’t as funny as the previous two.  Therefore, I was in the process of NOT enjoying it that much, until about half way through when the ‘character-building’ part of the tale ended and the action really kicked off.  About halfway through when the evil reveals itself, the film changes gear and moves away from (attempted?) humour to action and science fiction.

I kind of felt it worked a lot better as sci-fi rather than comedy.  Plus, whereas we’re used to seeing the film’s star – Simon Pegg – as a usual bumbling but lovable character, here he breaks form and comes across as a bit of an insufferable berk.  He’s actually pretty annoying for most of the first half, but luckily tones it down for the second leg.

Basically, if you’re hoping for something equally humorous as ‘Shaun’ and ‘Fuzz’ then you probably won’t find it here.  However, if you’re a fan of action and sci-fi then the second half will probably save it for you and tick all your boxes.

It’s also worth noting that a lot of people disapproved of the ending.  I certainly thought it was bold if nothing else!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Texas Chainsaw (2013) - It reminds me of that old Star Wars quote...

"Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"

That's how I feel. I wonder who's more to blame - the film-makers, for making this awful movie, or me for being stupid enough to expect it to be okay.

Now, anyone who chooses to watch a film with words like `chainsaw' and `massacre' is its title should, hopefully, know what they're getting. We know it's never going to be high-art with deep, high-brow, Oscar-worthy performances. However, what we do hope is that it will at least be an entertaining entry into the `slasher' genre. The Texas Chainsaw 3D isn't.

First of all, actually quite liked Michael Bay's 2003 remake and even found something strangely enjoyable about the prequel `The Beginning' so my hopes were reasonably high for this. It's worth noting that it totally disregards both recent outings and goes straight back to the beginning, i.e. it's a direct sequel to the 1973 original. We see the aftermath of the first film, where angry locals destroy the cannibals' house, all but a young girl, who's saved. Now, this is where it gets confusing... the story picks up 20-odd years later when the girl is (clearly) in her early twenties, which, by my calculations, sets the film in about 1995. Yet the exact year (and we know this by the gravestones) is 2012, complete with iphones etc to prove it. Anyway, glossing over that plot inconsistency, we're treated to more of the same... only worse.

Considering this is based on the movie that some might argue `spawned' the entire slasher genre, it plays into every single cliché going. Seriously... in this day and age, where the premise of a couple having sex then dying horribly has been so widely lampooned, i.e. Scream and Cabin in the Woods, why are film-makers still using it?

Again, the clichés could be forgiven if you cared for the characters. You won't. But there could be some decent gore for us to enjoy? There isn't. The `gore' looks totally fake and completely CGI (you'll find better special effects on a made-for-TV movie). What about the story, does it add anything to the genre? Yes and No. It tries. However, everything `new' it comes up with is completely unbelievable and stupid. I won't spoil it for you as there are some things you may not expect to find in a movie like this. Sadly, they're all too far-fetched to be believable.

What could have been a decent attempt to make a sequel to a classic has fallen well short, due to bad special effects, no likeably characters and a completely idiotic story.

As they say in Scream 4 "Never mess with the original."

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