Deep Rising - One of the best films ever made (for a B-movie)

Okay, I’m giving ‘Deep Rising’ top marks.  Why?  You ask.  Does that mean that I’m saying that Deep Rising (a film about a monster attacking a cruise liner) is as good as such cinematic greats such as ‘The Godfather’ and ‘The Empire Strikes Back?’  No, I’m not.  However, Deep Rising shouldn’t be viewed along films like that.  It deserves its own league – possibly one filled with B-movies.
And there it is truly a prince among men.

Like I say... a monster attacks a cruise liner.  It kills people.  There’s not an awful lot more I can say about the plot.  It’s hardly original and has been done a thousand times in a thousand different settings with only slight variations on the overall premise.  The beauty of Deep Rising is that everything just – somehow – works.  Yes, most of the characters are stereotypes and have little depth, let alone character development, yet they’re still different from each other enough for us to root for and be just a little sad when they’re finally gobbled up and reduced to bloody skeletons.

Deep Rising is never dark and serious.  It seems like it knows it’s stupid, but the in the good kind of way.  I know the monster looks a little ‘CGI’ after all those years, but it’s still pretty impressive, even now.

So, if you like your ‘monster-munching’ movies a little one the tongue-in-cheek side and loaded with cheese, then you should definitely like this.  It’s the ultimate popcorn movie where you don’t need to use any brainpower to understand it.  Just sit back and enjoy the ride (and don’t ask why, no matter how wet Famke Janssen’s top gets, it never becomes see-through).

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

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind - It’s entertainment either way

‘Confessions of a Dangerous Mind’ is an ‘autobiographical’ (and notice I put ‘autobiographical’ in quotes!) account of Chuck Barris – the American entertainment guru of his day (and possibly a distant grandfather of our own Simon Cowell, in my opinion), best known for such televisual greats as ‘The Gong Show’ and the ‘Newlyweds Show.’ The reason this film’s authenticity is called into question is because it’s based on Chuck Barris’ own autobiography – and his account of things is sometimes a little open to interpretation.

The film definitely tells some true aspects of his life.  It shows how he became the brains behind (and sometimes in front of) various primetime gameshows of yesteryear.  However, his private life was apparently even crazier than his public life.  He was also a hitman for the CIA.  Possibly.  Anyway, however unlikely this little sideline was it still makes for a damn entertaining film.

George Clooney is the director (and extended cameo throughout the film) who brings this wild tale to life.  And, if this is an example of his style behind the camera, I think he should do more.  The film is deliciously artistic and almost every shot is lovely crafted, utilising some decent little camera tricks to propel the story.  Sometimes it may try a little too hard, but, in all, it’s a very impressive piece.

As mentioned, Clooney himself appears in front of the cameras well here and there, but it’s Sam Rockwell who carries the film as Barris himself.  Rockwell throws himself into every scene, doing everything he can to bring the complicated character to life.  You may not like the character he portrays, but, even if the whole ‘hired killer’ side of the story his fake (in real life, as it’s played as very real on screen) Barris must have been one hell of an interesting character to know, let alone try and get inside his head.

With Rockwell stealing every scene, it’s sometimes difficult to notice all the other characters trying to catch up with him, but the main exception is Drew Barrymore.  You could look at her as ‘just the love interest’ but, in her own way, she’s almost as damaged as Barris himself.  There’s probably a film that could be made out of her life story too, but she’s a tragic figure in her own right – it’s just a shame they don’t give us more explanations as to her motivation.

Whereas some of Barris’ tales we’ll probably never know the validity for (the CIA does totally deny ever contacting him about anything!) some of the ‘facts’ are blatant lies – check Wikipedia for examples of this!  However, whether the whole story or just part of it is true, nearly true or completely false, it really doesn’t matter.  It’s got fantastic performances, amazing direction and it’s a deeply dark and enjoyable tale either way.  

Also, it’s not just Clooney himself who makes an appearance – watch out for some of his mates silently popping up here and there ;o)

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Black Mass - Wigs won’t cut it

I know there’s a fair school of through that says Johnny Depp’s star has waned over recent years, but I was surprised that I’d never heard of ‘Black Mass’ until it was on sale on DVD.  It sounded pretty good – a true life tale of how a gangster turned Government informer, plus it had a stellar cast including Benedict Cumberbatch, Kevin Bacon and that creepy guy out of ‘Breaking Bad’ who looks a bit like Matt Damon.  However, when I started watching it, I soon realised why it never really set the Box Office alight.

It’s dull.  That’s it.  This is going to be a pretty short review.  There’s really not that much I can say about it.  It’s just boring.  I suppose I’ve watched a lot of these gritty true-life gangster/snitch films in my time, therefore I couldn’t see anything new here.  However, I really do think that anyone fresh to the genre would find this a little slow and hard going.  It may have a decent cast, but that almost becomes a problem.  The film bounces around from actor to actor and from present to past and feels completely disjointed, like each scene doesn’t really relate to the one that’s gone before.  Then, because every scene doesn’t feel like it should follow the one before, the whole film comes across like one big series of mini stories where the actors are never allowed to show their considerable talents because none of them are ever allowed the time to do so.

Whatever the public mood is towards Johnny Depp right now, he’s always been one of my favourite actors and I’m certain he has plenty of good roles ahead of him.  Just like I know he loves to immerse himself into whatever part he’s playing and is more than happy to do whatever it takes to ‘look the part.’ As with ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’ he’s almost unrecognisable as the main character, sporting a balding hair piece and more than a few added wrinkles.  However, it takes more than a good set of prosthetics to make a movie and, unfortunately, his passion for his craft doesn’t save the film.

It’s not terrible, but for the cast that’s been assembled for this production you’d be expecting something along the lines of ‘Goodfellas.’ Sadly, the only two words that come to mind here are ‘boring’ and ‘forgettable’ (sorry, Johnny).

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

Apartment 1303 - If the Hallmark Chanel did horror films...

Okay, about five minutes in I knew I was in trouble. The sets for a start - there was only two of them. It was like I was watching a theatre play that had been transferred to the big screen. There are only three primary actresses (not counting the man who looks like George Michael without a wrecked car around him) and they mainly just bicker.

The youngest daughter of the family moves into an apartment. It's blatantly haunted. So, instead of running for the hills at the first opportunity (like 99.9% of us would), she just wanders around talking to herself, getting more and more freaked out.

This might not be so bad if there were some decent scares, but everything is predictable and there are no special effects (or at least not ones that weren't completely laughable). The ghost feels like it was last spotted in The Ring and the whole thing is just a mess.

Rebecca De Mornay does her best to save the picture, but one half-decent performance can't make up for the rest of the dull, woeful attempt at a film. It's based on (yet another) Japanese horror film. I can only hope the original is better than Hollywood's version.

Its only real plus: it's quite short. Avoid.

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

X-Files - I Want To Believe - A good film (but not a successful one)

`The X-files: I Want to Believe' was the second big screen tie-in to be spawned from the excellent TV series. However, if failed to set the box office alight and also was met with a lukewarm reaction from the fans (of which I am one). I loved all nine series of the sci-fi drama, tuning in each week to watch the two FBI agents, Mulder and Scully, as they tracked down one supernatural mystery after the next.

As I mentioned, the X-files went on for a colossal nine series, covering everything from alien abduction, to pyrokinesis and artificial intelligence. Therefore, it was fair to say that it had a rich (supernatural) background from which to build on. Fans naturally expected it to somehow continue from the end of the ninth series (concentrating on the conspiracy between sinister alien forces and a splinter-cell of the American government to take over the world). However, it didn't.

The second X-files movie is a very condensed little piece which, although uses the main characters, doesn't really feel much like part of the series. It's a stand-alone affair which, amazingly (and in some people's opinion - unforgivably), doesn't really have that much to do with the paranormal. Yes, there's a priest who has psychic powers, but that element feels pretty underutilised during the whole story.

What you have here, rather than a film which is very much sci-fi/conspiracy (keeping in tone with the series), is one which is - almost - a standard FBI vs Serial killer movie. You could almost have removed the small psychic element and simply had Scully and Mulder hunt down someone harvesting body parts.

I'm tempted to say that, if you like the series, you'll like this, but most people didn't. I didn't either the first time I watched it. I expected something big and loud and filled with aliens and double-crossing. What I got was something smaller and more subtle. Now I've seen it a second time, I like it a little more. But, as many said about Star Trek 9: Insurrection, it felt more like an extended TV episode rather than a cinematic vehicle to re-launch the X-files onto a new generation. So, if you like cops tracking down serial killer type movies then you'll probably like this. It's not bad, it's just not what I and many other die-hard X-files fans were expecting (I'd still be first in line if they ever announced an `X-files 3' movie though!).

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

The Thing (2011) - A prequel or a remake? You decide 

Okay, it's The Thing (2012) is actually a prequel. Definitely. If you've seen the 1981 film of the same name, then this one is set directly before it and clears up a lot of the backstory. It's about the Norwegian team of scientists in Antarctica who dig up an alien spaceship and unleash a hideous shapeshifting monster upon themselves.

So, it's a prequel. However - and this is a big however - if you've seen the first film, this one basically copies ever scene and just changes the setting and cast to the Norwegian arctic base (as opposed to the American on in the original). Seriously, if you watch the 1981 film then watch the 2011 version, you might as well have watched the same film twice.

Is this a bad thing? Kind of. It would have been nice to see the prequel try to be a little more original. However, the film is actually quite good (even though it's basically a copy/remake). I've seen a lot of people criticise the special effects. The 1981 version had no computer-generated monsters - it was famously made with latex and rubber for the monster. Now they've beefed up the budget they can afford bigger monsters via computer trickery. Some people said they preferred the original type. I also found this change okay.

Bottom line: if you haven't seen the original and you like monster-munching movies, then you should enjoy this. Although, if you have seen the original then there's little to entice you to watch it all over again, but with a different crew.

But, ultimately, John Carpenter's 1981 version was a classic, so, even if you hate this new version, just be glad they didn't remake the original. These two can live side by side after all.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - Not bad... for a sequel  

One of the easiest ways to sum up 'Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows' would be to say, 'If you liked the first one then you'll love this one, too.' It's basically more of the same, but if what was done the first time was a winning formula, then who really care? (after all... it worked for 'Terminator' parts 1 through 3!).

Robert Downey Jr charms his way through the role, oozing a kind of 'British Tony Stark' about his performance, infused with plenty of witticisms as he effortlessly plays off of the long-suffering Jude law as Watson. There are some secondary characters along the way, most of which don't stand out that much, but a special mention should go to Stephen Fry as Holmes' equally eloquent brother, 'Mycroft Holmes' and Noomi Rapace as, er, the generic love interest (no, I'm joking - she's actually pretty fun to watch and a good 'equal' for Holmes).

The initial 'Sherlock Holmes' film did come under fire for not having - arguably - Holmes' most famous of villains, i.e. Moriarty. This is now rectified here as Jared Harris takes up the mantle and poses quite a threat for the titular detective as someone who is more than capable of not just out-thinking our hero, but even out-boxing him!

And, if you're a fan of Guy Ritchie's uber-cool style of direction then you'll spot his fingerprints all over the film (and you don't have to be a detective of Holmes' calibre to detect Ritchie's work!).

You could call it all a re-tread of the first film, but in different locations, but that would probably be overly cynical. It's a new story in itself and, while certain purists complain that it's not completely faithful to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original books, it's got its own charms. It may not be a hundred per cent accurate or believable, but it's basically Hollywood's take on what Sherlock Holmes was and - in my opinion - it's a pretty exciting take. Bring on Holmes III!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Romancing the Stone – Big hair and bigger snakes

Someone told me that ‘Romancing the Stone’ was actually a romantic comedy, rather than an action movie.  Yeah, I guess there’s an element of ‘romance’ in as much as the two lead characters are male and female, therefore if you even know what a ‘film’ is you’ll realise there’s going to be an element of two people getting together in the midst of an outlandish adventure.  However, I still always see this film as an ‘action’ movie, rather than luvvy-duvvy stuff!

A writer (Kathleen Turner) finds her sister has been kidnapped in a South American country and sets off to rescue her (or rather just pay the desired ransom).  Once in the jungle territory she finds herself woefully out of her depth, but luckily she seems to bump into the only other American in the continent (Michael Douglas) who is skilled in the ways of jungle survival.  I can’t quite recall which came first – this, or ‘Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.  Either way, they seem to co-exist in the same universe when it comes to tones (although Temple of Doom strays into the supernatural, as opposed to a drugs cartel, but for the early part of the film they’re near identical in terms of tone).

Not just do our bickering heroes have each other and the terrain they’re stranded in, they also have Danny DeVito’s slimy little character hot on their heels, not to mention a tonne of drug lords and, of course, the kidnappers.  So there’s plenty of time for conflict to come into play here.  Personally, I think the film has stood up to the tests of time in terms of action and entertainment.  There’s clearly plenty of chemistry between the two leads and the film’s a lot of fun.  However, you can tell it was filmed in the eighties (not just by Douglas’ ‘mullet’) due to how the woman is basically portrayed as a ‘damsel in distress’ type character and the man is clearly in charge at all times.  Then you also have the stereotypical South American characters who are all shady (at best!) or simply drug dealers.  If you can get over the fact that this was just how films were made thirty years ago then you should find this a fun film to watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon (and make sure you see the ‘full’ version rather than the one that’s been ‘cut for TV’ as it contains a lot more ‘croc action!’).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Pumpkinhead - Parenting 101...

...don't leave your only child to mind a shop in the middle of nowhere while a load of selfish rich teenagers speed around on motorbikes outside.

However, if you happen to ignore this pretty simply advice, you may just find that you fall foul to `Pumpkinhead.'

And who is Pumpkinhead you ask. Well, he's kind of like the alien's Earth-dwelling cousin, who you can summon to reap vengeance on anyone who you think deserves it (for example: a load of selfish rich teenagers who just crushed your only child with a motorbike). And now we have our movie.

The big nasty monster (with his not-particularly scary-sounding name) now stalks and eliminates the teens, one by one. This is one of those film which you will either love or hate, due to it having as much going for it, as it does downsides. First, the positive... Lance Henrikson as leading man - an actor that doesn't often get top billing, but always turns in a decent performance no matter what the film. Plus the movie is directed by Stan Winston (better know for his special effects). Although there's nothing special in the direction, the creature itself is damn good and it's nice to see a monster on screen that's not computer-generated.

The downside is largely the teens. They're pretty dumb and you probably won't care much about even the nicest of them. Plus whoever wrote the dialogue for them can't write for young people - they tend to spout a load of clichés and banal sentences like they're reading from an autocue.

All in all, Pumpkinhead is pretty fun. It probably won't find much of an audience by today's standards, but if you have an appreciation for classic horror and general `monster-munching' movies, then you might enjoy this one. It's not overly long and the creature just about justifies a watch on its own.

A generous 7/10, based on the fact that I'm nostalgic about when I saw it back in the eighties. Probably more of a 6/10 though for everyone else.

Mortdecai - What did I just watch here?

I’ve just sat through ‘Mortdecai’ and I’m now sitting here wondering what exactly I just saw and whether or not I even liked it or not!  It’s one of those films that’s actually quite hard to explain.  First of all I wasn’t expecting much.  The overall critics’ reviews were pretty scathing towards it and, in some cases, I can see their points of view.  However, it did make me chuckle here and there.

Johnny Depp has made a career out of playing over-the-top, whacky characters and here he plays the English nobleman ‘Mortdecai’ – an art dealer who’s fallen on hard times.  Then, through a series of further misfortunes, he’s forced to track down a priceless painting who everyone from MI5 to the Russian mafia is after.

It’s sort of a spy movie, but with huge lashings of outlandish comedy thrown in.  I was okay with the spy movie element, it was just the ‘comedy’ part that threw me.  Johnny Depp’s character is just too damn annoying to be a leading man.  Sometimes he found himself captured and taking a beating.  However, for every punch he took, he just shrugged it off as if it was nothing and then proceeded to make a witty quip.  I know this film is hardly trying to be ‘realism,’ but I found it a little too hard to swallow, as it’s not like he’s playing an ‘action man’ or tough, grizzled soldier who’s used to torture and taking blow after blow.  Plus he was actually very annoying to watch.  Okay, so not quite as bad as – let’s say – Jar Jar Binks, but if you can imagine someone really annoying being the star of a film and having to ‘support’ them throughout, you’ll imagine what it’s like watching Johnny Depp in ‘Mortdecai.’ I know it’s intentional, as even one of the other characters remarks on his constant ‘messing around.’

However, even though Depp did annoy me considerably, there are moments of genuine fun and I did laugh out loud a few times.  I didn’t hate the film, I just found it difficult to watch as it leapt from one genre to another.  One moment we were engaging in car chases across London, the next we were indulging in conspiracies like something in a Dan Brown novel.

The critics have been harsh.  It seems that ‘Depp-bashing’ is in fashion right now and seemingly there’s little he can do right these days.  It’s not as bad as some are making out.  It’s just a bit all over the place.  But, at the end of the day, it’s only a bit of harmless fun and it knows it.  As long as you remember that, you shouldn’t feel too aggrieved for sitting through it.  I sort of enjoyed it, however I don’t know whether I’ll ever watch it again.  Depp’s done better in the past and I’m sure he’ll do better in the future when he’s not being so heavily scrutinised by the critics.

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

The Lost Boys – One of the seminal films of the eighties

If you only see one eighties movie about vampires… then watch (the original) ‘Fright Night.’ However, if you’re well into either or both movie history, or our blood-sucking fiends of the night, then you should probably watch the original ‘Fright Night’ AND ‘The Lost Boys.’ There are some films you just have to see and The Lost Boys is one.  Maybe I was being too flippant when I said that you should watch it after ‘Fright Night?’ Let’s face it… Fright Night got an updated remake whereas The Lost Boys is yet to be redone by modern (CGI) hands.

There’s nothing amazing about The Lost Boys’ plot, i.e. a family relocate to a new town where they discover it has a dark secret.  Even in the eighties this was getting a little stale.  However, it’s the film’s blend of horror and a real self of ‘self-knowing’ without ever descending into straight up comedy.  The two central characters/brothers play off each other well, giving a natural feel of sibling rivalry while at the same time having each other’s back when push comes to shove.  Of course, this relationship is really put to the test when the elder brother only goes and gets mixed up in the wrong crowd – a crowd of vampires to be precise!  And, to prove the old warning true about never accepting drinks from strangers, he only goes and has a swig from a bottle of blood turning him into one of their reflection-less ranks.

As good as the brothers are, a really great film also has a wide variety of supporting characters for them to interact with.  The Lost Boys doesn’t depart in that department.  For a start we have the pair lads who seem to live in the local comic shop and ‘swot up’ on how best to defeat the local undead via the pages of graphic novels.  If there is a real ‘comic element’ to the film it lies with them, but, seeing as they’re never used in excess, they never become annoying.  Of course special mention must be given to Kiefer Sutherland.  Before Jack Bauer was saving the world, Kiefer was ripping people’s throats out with his evil yellow eyes and 18 certificate Buffy the Vampire make-up.  He’s by far the stand out performance.  You may not want to root for him, but you sure won’t sleep easy after watching his sheer glee at terrorising any of us mere mortals.

Yes, as with any horror film you have to suspend your disbelief at times.  Sometimes plot points are a little hard to swallow, but this film is just too much fun to really care and the massive amounts of good so outweigh the negative moments it’s just not worth mentioning.  

You should definitely watch ‘The Lost Boys.’ Whether you’re a fan of great characters, horror, vampire, teen movies and general fun flicks from the eighties, it basically has it all.  And that’s before I mentioned the musical score.  Seriously… that chant is damn haunting and will stick in your head long after the cool (and completely out of the blue!) last line of the film!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) - 100% inaccurate 

 I saw the original Human Centipede (please don't ask me why). It was okay, for a slightly weird and depraved horror movie. So I guess I felt compelled to watch the sequel.

It's a sequel in the same way the Blair Witch Project 2 is a sequel to the first. The Human Centipede 2 starts off showing that the first part was a film and focuses on the creepiest man in London, aka Martin, obsessing about it and wanting to re-enact it.

The film's first half is like a London-based version of David Lynch's Eraserhead - full of weird (and horrible) characters all shot in black and white (I don't know why the film is shot in black and white, but it is). The second half gives you what you came for - assuming you came for the gore and general distaste.

Now, I'm well aware that horror is meant to scare/disgust/disturb etc, so I don't normally mention the acting ability, but, during those rare moments of dialogue (and there aren't many - it could practically be a silent film) the actors really are pretty bad. Perhaps it's best that they spend most of their time screaming?

What's it like? It's hard to say. If you want to be disturbed, the film succeeds. However, if you want a story - forget it. The third act is pretty hard to watch and I found myself looking away a couple of times (but then I did have a knee operation myself - you'll have to watch the film to understand).
Fair play to the filmmakers for finding the creepiest leading man in the world and putting him in the sickest film, but don't expect much of a plot. There are numerous plot holes that don't make much sense or aren't too realistic. I hear the censors made the filmmakers make 32 cuts - perhaps that would explain why a few things don't add up?

I'm not off to watch something nice and cuddly like a Disney movie to remind me there's more to life than slicing people apart and stapling them to each other.

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

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991) - Sorry, but isn’t that title a ‘spoiler?’

Okay, when you choose to watch a film entitled ‘Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare’ then you can’t really complain that ‘Freddy’ may just not make it out of this one alive.  Then again... if you’ve watched any of the other Freddy/Nightmare on Elm Street films, then you’re probably used to seeing Freddy get bumped off at the end of the ninety minutes then come back again.

So, this film in the ‘Nightmare’ series is the last.  Or at least it is in the same way that 1984’s ‘Friday 13^th: The Final Chapter’ was the ‘final’ Friday 13^th film (there were approximately eight future installments including remakes and spin-offs).

Here Freddy takes top billing once again, as he looks for pastures new to continue his evil killing spree, after wiping out every single child in Springwood.  The ‘Nightmare on Elm Street’ series has divided fans.  Those who like the franchise serious and dark (and, dare I say it, Freddy at his scariest?) like parts I-III.  However, after that, Freddy tended to drop his sinister undertones and become more of an ‘evil clown,’ spouting comic one-liners after each kill. ‘Freddy’s Dead’ can be put squarely in the latter’s bracket.

If you don’t mind Freddy’s ‘humour’ then you should enjoy this one, as it’s not that scary.  However, it does tend to recycle a few of the franchise’s old plotlines, plus copies one of the later ideas from the Friday 13^th series (regarding a relation of the central killer).  The film-makers also tried a new trick (now the ‘norm’) of introducing a 3D element near the end of the film, although you probably will hardly notice if you’re watching it at home on DVD or Blu-ray.

I enjoyed it, but I was always okay with the ‘Freddy-light’ portrayal of the demon killer in the later movies.

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

The Descent 2 - Not as bad as most people make it out to be  

The Descent was a well-received horror, so, no surprise when it spawned a sequel. If you read other reviews on Part 2, you'll see that most of the negative criticism stems from the beginning of the film and the end. I won't talk about the end so there's a `treat' in store for you, but the gripes with the beginning relate to how this one has been tacked on to the original. Personally, I had no problem with the `link' and the way it was done.

Part 2 isn't written by writer/director of the original Neil Marshall, but he is an executive producer on the second. New writers tell the story of a second team of cave explorers, heading down to see what happened to the first lot - and of course running into those pesky (not to mention hungry) `Crawlers.'

No, there's not much character development among the new cast and yes, the film does rely on some cheesy `jump scares;' not to mention how the makers of the film think that by adding a LOT more blood to each kill will somehow make it scarier than its predecessor. However, all this doesn't make it a bad film. It was just that so many people loved the first one, that anything that came next would be a let-down. No, it's far from perfect and not as good as the first, but still a damn sight better than 90% of modern horror offerings.

Maybe turn it off after one hour and twenty-five minutes if you're afraid you won't like the ending (it's only an hour and a half long).  

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

The Condemned - Nothing original, but pretty good fun

Some movies never were meant to be good, but that doesn't mean that they're not enjoyable. If you like your action flicks bl**dy and daft then this is the one for you.

The Condemned is about a new type of reality TV show, broadcast on the internet which takes ten convicted killers and makes them fight to the death on an island - all for the public's entertainment. There are shades here and there of other similar movies such as Battle Royale and The Tournament (but not The Hunger Games, which is primarily aimed at kids), which lowers its originality factor, but that doesn't really matter if you're just in the mood for some mindless action.

In the eighties The Condemned might even have been a vehicle for Stallone or Schwarzenegger. As it's made today, we're given a new hard-man to root for: `Stone Cold' Steve Austin. Now, anyone who's seen wrestlers act will be prepared to lower their expectations of what they're about to see. And they'd be right, but only just. Steve Austin actually puts in quite a believable performance. Yes, he doesn't have that many emotionally challenging scenes, but he plays the tough ex-special forces agent pretty well (in the same way that Arnie played a cold-blooded cyborg to perfection). Then add Vinnie - ex footballer - Jones into the mix, again someone hardly noted for his Oscar-winning acting abilities. However, even the former Wimbledon hardman puts in a fine performance (as a complete psycho, so some cynics may say he didn't have to stretch his range too far).

The Condemned is far from perfect. There are enough plot holes to talk about if you really hate it and want to pick it apart. However, if you're in the mood for some `old school' action and decent - if brutal - fight scenes, then give this a go.

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

Allan Quartermain and the Lost City of Gold - Indiana Jones and the straight-to-video-clone

Like many young boys in the eighties, I loved the 'Indiana Jones' movies - and therefore, could happily sit through and enjoy many of the various copies Hollywood churned out while trying to cash in on the genre. 'King Solomon's Mines' was great fun and, believe it or not, I didn't even know they released a sequel until I stumbled across it in 2020.  Maybe that was the major problem - I've waited too late to watch it and therefore can only really see the flaws as opposed to viewing it through a child's nostalgic eyes.

The main cast from 'King Solomon's Mines' return (i.e. Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone) to head off on another adventure into the jungle to rescue someone lost there and, of course, stumble on the 'Lost City of Gold.' There's nothing too original in the plot, but then you could probably say that about most of the - far superior - 'Indiana Jones' films.  It's just not that good, even compared to its own predecessor.

The cast is decent enough.  The two leads obviously have a degree of on-screen chemistry left over the the original and they're joined by the - always watchable - James Earl Jones and a few others that you probably won't really have heard of.  The locations are nice and, if you can forgive the blatant green-screen special effects then you can appreciate how hard they've tried.

However, despite the cast and overall look of the film appearing nice, what lets it down is simply the pacing.  The characters just sort of wander from one - vaguely dangerous - encounter after another.  They sort of amble through each one while various extras and 'non-essential' players are killed off until they finally reach their destination.  Part of me expected it to end there and then, but it sort of wanders aimlessly on adding yet more and more seemingly random scenes as if trying desperately to come across as 'epic' whereas it's just filling time with 'action' because it doesn't really have much of a story.

I've seen that this film is actually quite highly regarded by many others, so I'm guessing most of them watched this film when they were young and have fond memories of it.  I reckon that if I did too I would agree. Sadly, I just found it strained and boring; even the music seemed to annoy me after a while as it didn't really fit the scenes it was scoring.  Stick to 'Indiana Jones' or the original 'King Solomon's Mines.'

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

The Black Hole - Cute and dark at the same time

What was Disney's reaction to the Star Wars phenomenon in 1977? The answer: make the Black Hole. The outcome? Not a phenomenon. Sadly. However, the film is actually pretty good, even though it never really set the box office on fire at the time.

It tells of a story of a space ship's crew who discover a giant ship, holding orbit just out of reach of a menacing black hole. When they investigate this `ghost ship' they find it's populated by sinister robots 
and a mad scientist.

Perhaps one reason it never found its audience was because it is both `ultra cute' and `pretty dark' all at the same time. The good robots are designed to appeal to children (despite never being as annoying as you think they might be), but the overall tone of the piece is pretty foreboding and bleak. I won't give too much away, but it's not a happy-go-lucky affair, plus it has an ending which the younger audiences might not get (I didn't, until I grew up and confirmed it on the internet!).

Also, whereas Star Wars was timeless (showing few signs of being made in the seventies), The Black Hole looks a little like `old science fiction' with the uniforms and robots. Then you have the budget... I couldn't work out whether it had a big budget or a shoestring one. The set for the derelict spaceship is truly awesome, showing vast expanses and giving off a greater sense of space than either the Nostromo (Alien) or even the Death Star (Star Wars). Plus there are a few scenes near the end (i.e. the crashing meteorite) which are truly breathtaking. Maybe they spent all their money on the sets and didn't have enough money left over for stunt men? The bad robots are similar to Star Wars Stormtroopers, yet they are blatantly models - when they're knocked over, you can see there's no one in them and they just topple over stiff as a board. This kind of shows the film up as a lesser budget and is one example of a few which highlight a lack of budget.

I'm not sure how many new fans The Black Hole will pick up nowadays. It's a product of its time. I think young boys (under 10?) will still like the robots and sense of good vs evil, plus people who grew up with it (such as myself) will always regard it fondly. Or, maybe it you're just looking for some nostalgic sci-fi, then this will certainly tick all boxes.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Ant-Man - Iron Man is an awesome film

No, you read the title correctly – this isn’t a review of Robert Downey Jr’s first outing as the 'man IN steel.' This is a review of Paul Rudd’s turn as the titular ‘Ant-Man’ – yet another entry in the seemingly never ending ‘Marvel Cinematic Universe.’ Basically, Marvel has a formula where you have (a) (the conflicted) hero (b) an incident that gives him superpowers (c) a nemesis who happens to be a bad version of the hero.  Now, before any MCU fans jump down my throat and point out that NUMEROUS superhero films follow this template, not just Marvel – I know this.  DC and various independent efforts have all done exactly the same thing, right back from their comic origins.  However, no other franchise is this prominent and turns out one film so quickly after the next, making it hard to forget what’s come only just a year or so before.

‘Ant-Man’ follows Paul Rudd’s character who’s a down on his luck ex thief, freshly-released from prison, who gets more than he bargained for when he steals a top secret suit which allows him to shrink down to the size of an ant, along with all the benefits of super speed and strength which goes with it.  Now, first of all many people wondered whether Rudd would pull this off.  Typically, he’s been known for his romantic comedies, rather than his action films (let alone 'leading man' status).  I’m pleased to say he did well.  He brings  a lot of humour to the role without making it an outright comedy, often poking fun at the genre, not to mention the general ludicrousness of being known as ‘Ant-Man.’

The film does suffer from the same typically-forgettable villain that many Marvel films seem to be known for (whenever Loki’s not trying to take over the universe); this time we have a bald businessman in a yellow version of the 'Ant suit.' However, also on the cast list we have Michael Douglas as the Obi-wan/mentor role to Rudd’s fledgling superhero.  I was delighted to see him back on the screen again as it seems like a long time since he’s been at the forefront of the industry and he brings the charm he used to exhibit back in the nineties to the proceedings.  Yes, there’s a love interest in there, too and some ‘comic relief’ characters who you won’t be able to remember their names once the credits have rolled - they were some pretty bad stereotypes if ever I saw them!

Then, once the cast is assembled, they proceed to go on what is effectively Marvel’s take on a ‘heist movie,’ i.e. think ‘Ocean’s Eleven’ but with more insects.  Did I mention Ant-Man can also control ants?  Well, he can.  This leads to – in my opinion – one of the film’s only real let-downs – the special effects.  Now, for ninety per cent of the film the effects are up there with what you’d come to expect from a big budget film. It’s just sometimes the insects do look a little ‘drawn on’ after the footage had been filmed.  I guess I should just forgive this on account of how unfeasible it would be to train an army of bugs to put in a convincing performance (although, saying that – didn’t Disney do that in ‘A Bug’s Life?').

So, ‘Ant-Man’ hardly reinvents the wheel in terms of cinema or its genre. However, its biggest flaw is also its strongpoint.  It goes with the ‘winning formula’ of hero/powers/baddie and it certainly feels like a modern Marvel movie and, when you hold it up closely to others like ‘Iron Man’ and ‘The Hulk,’ you’ll see that it copies them practically beat for beat.  Normally, this would feel like a let-down, but when it copies something so good and just so happens to be such great fun in the process, I really can’t bring myself to hate this film as much as I might have wanted to.  Ant-Man will never be as big as Iron Man or Captain America, but this film’s existence (and success!) proves that there is scope for the lesser-known heroes to also shine.  Don’t think too hard about this film, just break out the popcorn and enjoy.  Oh, and apparently Ant-Man WILL return!  And I hope his 'pet' ant known as 'Anthony' goes on to bigger and better things!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Wrong Turn 3 - Left Fof Dead - A bit `So What?'

One of the major problems with `Alien 3' was that 90% of the cast were murderers and thieves. Therefore, when they got eaten, no one cared. `Wrong Turn 3' suffers from the same `unlikability factor.' A busload of prison inmates crashes in the wilderness. They take the guards hostage and have to cross through the woods, while being constantly picked off by the typically malformed redneck cannibals.

Only there's only one cannibal now. The others must have stayed at home for this one. And he does his best to pick off the cast, only you won't really care because none have been developed and they're evil druglords anyway. The film-makers throw in a token nice girl for the nice prison guard to spark up some sort of romantic interest with, but it's so forced it's unbelievable.

The Wrong Turn 3 does really relate much to the two previous one, only in the (single) cannibal redneck. It's the sort of film that if you really don't have anything else to watch and are really bored, then you may just be able to sit through it. Otherwise, you might just want to give this one a miss (or stick to the infinitely more superior Wrong Turn (1). At least it didn't have a near all-British cast trying to sound American while running through a Bulgarian forest.

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

The Thing - A film that's so good, it survived being remade!

Most people will already know about `The Thing,' but, if you don't, it's about a monstrous shape-shifting alien running riot among an American base in the arctic.

And it's fantastic. That's all you need to know. However, instead of listing all its many plus points (of which there are probably too many to mention), I will simply point out that, as it was popular, it probably wasn't long before some Hollywood money-man decided to cash in on its success and remake it.

It never happened (well, it sort of did, but it didn't). Even Hollywood was at a loss as to whether they could attempt to `better' such a work of horror genius. So they didn't. They left it as it is and it's all the better for it. They did make a `prequel' which you can take or leave, depending on your taste. The original is obviously far better, so, if you choose to only watch one, definitely go for John Carpenter's 1982 original.

Bottom line: if you like horror, if you like sci-fi, if you love bizarre and monstrous creatures and spine-tingling tension, then this is for you. It may have been made over thirty years ago, but it's still as fresh and chilling as when it first came out. For the few people who haven't seen it, I won't mention its best parts, but the special effects - for their time - were truly breath-taking (and hideous).

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

Shaun of the Dead - The ‘Cornetto Trilogy’ Part I

Many a film – and in particular zombie film – seems to be based on a pun (‘Flight of the Living Dead’ I’m looking at you).  However, few actually exhibit enough originality to be worthy of the film they’re based on. ‘Shaun’ changes all that.  In 2004 zombies were still relatively uncommon on the cinema screen.  You had the ‘Resident Evil’ films and that was about it.  Therefore, being dumped by one’s girlfriend on the same day the dead come back to life and start eating the living, was definitely something a bit different back then.

It’s fair to say that ‘Shaun of the Dead’ is a classic.  Since its release it’s been imitated plenty of times and none of them have really done as well.  The fact is that ‘Shaun’ is just damn funny, while at the same time being pretty horrific when it tries and even touching and sentimental when the mood takes it.  Therefore, despite largely being lumped into the ‘horror’ genre, its appeal actually stretches much further to those looking for a good comedy, or even a ‘date movie’ to share with someone.

Simon Pegg plays not exactly a loser, but certainly an underachiever.  His titular character, Shaun, is generally coasting through life, never really applying himself.  All he wants to do is hang out at the local pub with his mate, Ed (who definitely IS a loser!).  It’s no wonder his girlfriend, Liz, is getting more than a little sick of his lack of drive.  However, that all changes when the dead rise from the grave and he hatches a plan to save those he loves (and even a few of those he doesn’t – Liz’s flatmate to be precise). 

What follows is a jaunt across a zombie-infested London as they desperately try to get to safety.  And, in Shaun’s mind ‘safety’ equals the local pub where he spends pretty much all his life.  What works best about the film is the way the characters play off each other.  They’re pretty much all friends in real life (check out some of the other films and TV they’ve been in), therefore they’re all used to working with each other and, more importantly, playing off each other.  You really get the impression that they really are a bunch of friends, caught up in a life or death situation.

Bottom line, if you like horror, you’ll like this.  If you like comedy, you’ll still like it.  And, in case you’re wondering what the ‘cornetto’ reference is in the title – this happens to be the first film in the fabled ‘cornetto trilogy.’ Simon Pegg wrote the film with his friend (and director) Edgar Wright.  Together they wrote a further two films, all subtly working in a nice ice cream into the mix.  If you like Shaun of the Dead, try ‘Hot Fuzz’ (comedy and action) and ‘The World’s End’ (comedy and sci-fi), all the time watching out for the cornetto reference.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Rogue River - Nothing new, but not that bad either

Okay, so the premise is as old as the hills in horror movie history - girl-on-her-own gets lost in unknown territory and ends up being either hunted and/or captured by the locals.

And there is nothing new here in Rogue River. However, I actually found I enjoyed (most) of it - which is more than I normally enjoy of this type of clichéd horror film.

First of all, when you watch these movies, you normally ask yourself the question: What would I do in this situation? If you see the heroine running away from the killer when she could have just put a bullet in his head then you begin to lose interest and start to hate it due to its obvious lack of realism. At least in Rogue River, the heroine isn't completely stupid. She does make logical decisions and does her best to escape. Therefore I found it watchable and wasn't shouting instructions at my TV screen.

All in all, it's worth a watch if you feel you can sit through another film like this.

It's only real drawback was the ending. I won't say too much about it for fear of spoiling it, but, in my opinion, there were `questionable' decisions made by the writers which I felt wouldn't have happened in real life. But, despite that, I did enjoy most of the film which, as I've said, is more than I normally do of films with such `been-there/done-that' plots.

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

Public Enemies - Okay, but not what it could have been

Johnny Depp and Christian Bale are probably two of the best-known actors around at this time.  Between them they have clocked up a wide range of varied characters and have proven their acting might on more than one occasion.  Therefore, the temptation by studio bosses to get the pair of them in the two leading roles must have proved too much to resist.

Therefore, we have Johnny Depp portraying real life gangster John Dillinger, with Christian Bale as the FBI agent hell-bent on bringing him to justice.  Naturally, as the film’s about Dillinger himself, Depp gets the lion’s share of screen time.  In fact, fans of Bale may feel a little cheated regarding how much they get to see the man behind (arguably) Batman’s most successful incarnation.  He’s little more than a figure who turns up every now and again to narrowly miss Dillinger.  We never really get to see what makes him tick – he’s just a particularly driven lawman, who has to catch his man.  I don’t recall ever seeing anything that shows us if he has any real life outside his work.

Depp too feels more than a little underused.  Dillinger’s not a particularly nice guy.  Okay, he doesn’t rob ‘regular’ people, only banks.  But he’s prone to acts of extreme violence and doesn’t think twice about killing if it suits his needs.  So the audience might find it hard to relate to him, let alone support him in his side of the story.  Depp’s better at playing larger than life characters.  Dillinger is pretty one dimensional.  He steals and he hits people and has little else to his personality.

I haven’t read Dillinger’s life story, so I can’t comment on how close the film is to portraying the real man, or how accurate is, but there were a couple of scenes which didn’t seem to fit – namely when Dillinger finds it easy to walk among entire departments of the very police officers charged with bringing him in and yet they don’t actually recognise him.

But, despite the film not really utilising its two trump cards, i.e. Bale and Depp, it’s not a bad watch.  I’m sure it’s a reasonable account of Dillinger’s life and, even if it isn’t, it’s a decent enough crime drama.

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

Moonstruck - I probably shouldn’t review this film

How much hate would I get if I said that ‘Moonstruck’ was a ‘chick flick’ or one that would most likely only be enjoyed by women?  Probably quite a lot.  I’m sure there are plenty of guys out there who also liked it.  Trouble is… I’m just not one of them.

I’ll start by saying that, if I had my way, I’d probably rate this the lowest score possible.  However, that’s probably a little unfair of me based on how many people regard this as a classic – like my girlfriend – who made me sit through it with her and would undoubtedly rate it the highest score possible.  Let me explain – we’re both massive fans of Nicholas Cage (even going so far as to watch his more recent output which does tend to leave a lot to be desired).  Therefore, I succumbed to sitting through this romantic comedy where Cher agrees to marry one brother, only to fall in love with the other one.  I think it’s safe to say that I prefer Nicholas Cage’s films where he’s either got his head on fire or stabbing himself in the heart with a needle while waving flares off the coast of San Francisco.

They call this a ‘romantic comedy.’ Yes, I could see the romance in there.  Even though it was painfully obvious to me what the outcome of the film would be.  However, I didn’t really see any comedy in there.  I seem to recall laughing out loud about once at about three quarters of the way through the film.  I would say that meant the story was completely unfunny if it wasn’t for the fact that my girlfriend was cracking up next to me pretty much the whole way through it.

She also enjoyed the way – her words – they ‘play on the Italian-American stereotype.’ If that means that the characters are complete clichés then I suppose that’s true.  Everyone (or rather mainly Nicholas Cage) turned their performance up to eleven and was so-over-the-top it was laughable (and that’s laughable in not a good way).  Everyone just spends the whole movie shouting noisily and making a drama over nothing. 

Like I said, if you’ve seen one romantic comedy then you’ve probably seen this one.  There’s nothing new here, just louder.  However, just because I hated it, doesn’t mean that it’s not good.  I believe there were even Oscars thrown at the film for Cher’s (I think!) performance.  If you’re into this type of film then you’ll probably love it.  However, if you prefer your leading man running in slow motion away from exploding barrels then as opposed to dressing up in a suit and asking a woman to the opera, then you should probably stick to ‘Face Off’ (at least now it’s my turn to pick the film we watch (most likely something with a title that ends ‘…of the Living Dead’).

I’ll give ‘Moonstruck’ a ‘mid-range’ final score, simply because I should never have watched it to begin with and feel bad for rating something that so clearly has an audience so low (plus my girlfriend will not approve!).

5/10 a hard trek, a bit like unicycling to Mordor and back (especially for a guy!)

The Losers - A poor man's A-Team

The Losers is about a team of elite soldiers, double-crossed and left for dead on foreign soil. Don't you just hate it when that happens? Therefore, they must hunt down and blow up everything. Well, the probably refine it to those responsible for their situation, but they pretty much blow up everything in their path.

The plot is certainly not original. Everything in the big-budget version of the A-team does it better. However, that's not to say that The Losers doesn't have its merits.

Yes, it's a B-movie, but it has enough decent actors to give it just that little bit more appeal than your average `filler' movie. None of the cast are given enough screen time to really develop their characters, as the movie is quite short, but if you're in the mood for plenty of explosions, shoot-outs and punch-ups - all of which are filmed in a very cool `slow-mo' way, then give this a go.

Trust me, there are plenty of worse action B-movies out there!

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

The Human Centipede [First Sequence] - Can a `concept' carry a movie?

Sadly, no. Although The Human Centipede does try. If you don't know, it's about a mad scientist in Germany who decides to sew three people together (I'll spare you the gory details) in order to create the titular `insect.'

If that idea appeals to you, then give it a go. If - like so many - you think that sounds like the worst idea imaginable, then you should steer well clear of it.

So, if you do choose to go ahead and spend an hour and a half watching this nightmare, you may be expecting a fair amount of gore. Oddly enough, it doesn't have that much. There's not a lot of the red stuff, even in the operation scenes. This film is about `concept.' The `horror' of it all comes from the sheer sick mind that you're taking a look into here.

And, the film is pretty disturbing. That's its strong point. However, it falls down by adhering to pretty much all the general horror clichés and you'll find yourself shouting at the characters on screen for their damn silly choices.

Basically, know what you're getting: a disturbingly sick film, which probably could have been better written, but, if you're into this sort of thing, the lead performance from the mad scientist should be worth a watch on its own.

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

Franklyn - Probably not as clever as it wants to be, but not bad anyway

I've watched `Franklyn' twice now. The first time I really liked it. The second time, I'm not so impressed. I think it was down to me knowing what was happening even earlier than I had originally.

It's an odd piece about two stories running parallel to each other. Nothing that original you might say, but one story is set in a clearly futuristic, dystopian world while the other is simply present day London. You may wonder how exactly these two worlds are connected. Then you kind of figure it out yourself (probably about midway) and the film then continues as if you're still in the dark.

Some bits of it are very good - Ryan Phillipe is about the best actor by far who does his best to life what - sometimes - is a bit of a flat script. If you like weird and dark futuristic worlds, you'll like his story best. However, his parts are almost like an action film, whereas the London bits are more like your basic melodrama, leaving the viewer feeling a little off balance.

There is definitely an interesting story here (and made more interesting the way it's told). However, I understand that it was originally a SHORT story. That explains a lot. It does feel like it's been dragged out a bit. I can see Franklyn definitely finding an audience. You have to be into lesser-known movies that deliberately try something different. However, I can also see as many people finding it boring, incomprehensible and worthless. Research it carefully before you invest your hour and a half in this film.

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

The Killer Inside Me - Interesting and violent thriller

'The Killer Inside Me' is an odd little film to try and describe.  It has a story which twists, turns, doesn't really go anywhere that predictable and yet does keep you engaged with the characters and want to know what's going to happen.

Casey Affleck plays a small town Sheriff deputy who's respected by the community and yet, like so many shady film protagonists, has more than a few dark secrets.  For a start, he's having an affair with a prostitute who he's supposed to be 'running out of town' behind his girlfriend's back.  And that's not going into his ability to hurt and even kill people who get in his way.

Because Affleck is clearly not a nice person, you don't necessarily have to 'root' for him or identify with him.  However, like other 'anti-heroes' you probably will want to see if and how he's going to get away with his deeds.

It's not a film you can go into too much detail regarding the plot, as I don't want to give away any 'spoilers.' It's an interesting little film as it can be anything from thriller, serial killer murder mystery, drama to vaguely sado-masochistic 'adult' film.  Everyone plays their parts well, but you may need a strong stomach to sit through some of the more violent scenes.

Probably not for everyone and definitely not a film you want to watch with your mother.

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

Deep Blue Sea - Nothing that original... and yet so much fun

Deep Blue Sea is a classic. No, not in the `Godfather' or `Empire Strikes Back' sense, but it's a classic in its own way. It's one of those movies that just invites you to suspend all your disbelief and go with it on a silly, shark-infested ride.

It's about a trio of genetically-modified sharks who escape their aquatic compound and start hunting down all the scientists (and generally anyone without fins and large teeth) who have been experimenting on them.

So, expect plenty of swimming and screaming before body parts start drifting away in the blood-soaked water. It's right up there with other monster-munching movies like `Deep Rising' and, more recently, `Grabbers' - just a daft, silly, gory film where helpless humans end up being stalked by something much larger (and hungrier).

Don't take it seriously - it's not made for serious thought (and I think Samuel L Jackson knew this when he signed on).

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

Con Air - This and ‘The Rock’ – hell yeah!

There are great films that will stand the test of time and then there are great – FUN – films. ‘Con Air’ is the latter.  It may never be committed to the world’s film archive as an example of classic Hollywood storytelling, but it deserves its place the annals of nineties action movies.  For, if you’re looking for one great action film that summed up the decade, then it’s ‘The Rock’ (or possibly ‘Speed’).  But if you’re looking for two or three, then Con Air should definitely be in there.

Where do I start?  Oh, yes, the star of the show.  And, when I say ‘star’ I don’t mean Nicholas Cage, but the explosions!  Everything (and very nearly everyone!) explodes around here.  Years before Michael Bay bored us to death with those pretty explosions Con Air did it first (and better!).  However, apart from the fireworks, it does boast a really impressive cast to blow things up.  Yes, Nick Cage is at the forefront of the carnage and he plays what is actually a bit of a tongue in cheek role straight as they come.  He’s ably assisted by John Cusack and – perhaps more importantly – John Malkovich, as he’s almost as important as the explosions.  The fact is, he’s possibly one of the greatest (and possibly under-rated) villains ever to grace the silver screen.  He’s absolutely fantastically bad, only slightly over the top, but never playing it so much that he becomes unbelievable or a cartoon of himself.  Now, it’s easy to give all the acting credit to Malkovich, but this ‘rogues gallery’ of an aeroplane is also packed full of colourful (and completely evil) other prisoners and a special mention to Steve Buscemi who isn’t in it for as long as some might wish, but is also fun to watch as a – not particularly subtle – Hannibal Lecter clone.

Anyway, the plot… our Nicholas Cage plays a U.S. ranger who returns from active duty to his pregnant wife, only to immediately he embroiled in a bar fight where he ends up killing his assailant.  Now mercy is spared here and he ends up being sent to prison for years.  Then, and all this is hardly a spoiler as it all happens in practically the first five minutes, when he does get released he only ends up on a prison plane flying across America that gets hijacked by the convicts.  Some guys just don’t get a break.

I think the reason I find Con Air so watchable is because it’s serious, but not dark – if that makes sense.  It kind of knows that it’s being a bit overblown and has some nice moments of humour thrown in there, but it’s part of that generation of action film that came because ‘uber-serious’ action films were forced upon us (‘Bourne’ franchise and Daniel Craig’s Bond – I’m looking at you).
I find it hard to believe that there are people out there who won’t find some enjoyment from this film.  Even if you’re not a massive fan of any of the stars or action movies in general, this is just such a daft, silly ride then surely you can’t help yourself from climbing aboard the plane and going along for a – very explosive – ride.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Just Friends - Strangely watchable

I'm a guy.  Therefore the amount of 'romantic comedies' in my DVD collection is few and far between.  However, 'Just Friends' is one of those 'lucky few' which I do dig out and enjoy every few years.  Yes, it's no classic and there's nothing new in the overall plot that you haven't seen before in a 'rom-com' type of flick.  But, it's funny.  And that's all I really ask in anything that's supposed to be a 'comedy.'

It starts off during the high school years of Ryan Reynolds, who is almost unrecognisable in a 'fat suit' while he spends his days dreaming of dating his crush, played by Amy Smart.  After he confesses his love - and is promptly rejected - the action skips forwards ten years and we find Reynolds looking more like we know him - a successful music executive - and what happens when he returns to his home town and the two 'friends' meet up again.

Like I say, no prizes for guessing every plot point that occurs throughout the story, but Ryan Reynolds is just so damn good that if you're in the mood for something 'fluffy' then this is certainly it.  However, the success of 'Just Friends' can't really be given solely to Reynolds.  He's ably aided by his leading ladies, Amy Smart and Anna Farris - the former who provides the heart and emotion of the tale, while the latter steals every scene and gets all the laughs.

There's not too much else to say about the film.  Technically, it's as generic as it comes and, if you've seen one romantic comedy then you'll guess how this one plays out.  However, like I say, it is funny enough to raise more than a few chuckles (mainly due to Farris' memorable performance!) and, even if you only have it on in the background, you'll still appreciate all that's good about it and be able to put out of your mind just how 'samey' the plot really is.

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

Bitch Slap - Grindhouse gore

Do you like great dialogue, awesome acting and no use of digital effects?  You do?  Then you probably ought to avoid ‘B*tch Slap,’ for it has none of those.  It’s probably best described as ‘grindhouse,’ i.e. a type of violent, low-budget B-movie filled with second rate actors who probably look better than they act.  That pretty much sums up this.  It’s certainly not for everyone, but, if you like your grindhouse and are more than a little forgiving, you may get something out of it (failing that… if you just want to look at hot women for an hour and a half and your internet connection has gone down, then look no further!).

It’s about three (naturally gorgeous) women who steal a load of diamonds and go to a rendezvous point in the desert to divvy up the loot.  Obviously, things don’t go according to plan, as those who they stole from get more than a little upset about the theft and come looking for them.  Throw in there a police officer with a nose for trouble and the normal ‘in-gang’ squabbling’ and you have a recipe for disaster (and I’m only talking about the plot when I use the term ‘disaster’).

First of all the acting.  There are no recognisable faces here.  And for a good reason.  I had a theory that the three main lead women were all sourced from (how should I put this?) the ‘adult entertainment’ industry, therefore ‘acting’ was not part of what they were used to.  Basically, they rely on their looks to get them through.

Then there’s the dialogue.  Even if it was well written the actors would probably struggle to deliver the lines with any great feeling.  It all comes across as little more than the script to an afore-mentioned adult entertainment film (and that goes for the criminals and other cast in the film, not just the three leads).

Then there’s the special effects.  Besides the main setting of a desert camp (high budget, huh?) all flashback scenes of any other location is basically filmed against a blue screen.  And it shows.  It’s possible they did this on purpose to emphasise the cheesiness of the whole outing.

So, overall, you have a pretty dire film.  Unfortunately, it’s just so damn entertaining I found it very difficult to hate, despite its numerous (and very obvious) flaws.  Yes, it’s daft, but then it never really tries to be anything else.  It even gives you a major clue in the title.  From the title ‘B*tch Slap’ if you’re expecting anything else other than three girls wrestling and shooting machine guns at each other, then you really don’t know how films work.

Yes, it’s rubbish, but it knows it.  Therefore, if you’re in the mood for rubbish – which I say we all need sometime – then this is for you.  Leave brain at door.  Enjoy for what it blatantly is.

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

Antiviral - Cronenberg: the next generation

Back in the eighties, writer/director David Cronenberg delighted (and disgusted!) audiences with his weird and horrific visions of technology merging with human flesh. Now, some years later, his son, Brandon Cronenberg, is doing much the same thing.

Antiviral is about a world where (believe it or not) the population can buy illnesses that have once infected the celebrity of their choosing, so they can be ill like their idol!

It's certainly a different type of film when you compare it to those other `horror' movies of today, however, it's probably more at home with Cronenberg Senior's work back in the eighties. At first it took me a while to get into. I, a horror fan, didn't realise quite how much I'm used to `horror' simply being a man in a mask slicing up overly-attractive teenagers. Therefore, I found this a little slow at first. However, I'm glad I persisted.

It certainly won't be everyone's cup of tea. It's very slow-moving and the characters do tend to mumble a lot (I have to admit I was turning the volume up on many an occasion). Yet it has its own sick charm, helped in the most part by the lead character. He's certainly not your average hero. In fact, he's horrible and you won't have that much sympathy for him at the best of times as he steals and infects himself with celebrities' viruses. The lead actor is truly creepy in himself. Once you've seen him walk through a door, you'll know what I mean. He just has a way of doing it that spells out `weirdo.'

There are a few - not many, but a few - horrific moments that are not for the squeamish, but Antiviral's strong-points are not its gore, but its atmosphere. It is truly a dystopian world we're witnessing and there's more than a few social digs at our culture's obsession with celebrities.
I find it hard to recommend to people in general. I would only say that if you've seen David Cronenberg's work and enjoyed it, then you should like this. However, I can see plenty of people finding this slow and boring (I did find it slow in parts).

A good film...if you know what you're getting.

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

The Wrestler - Tragic and poignant - is that really Mickey Rourke?

Mickey Rourke may be an unusual choice for a leading man these days, but, upon watching The Wrestler, it was hard to imagine the film with anyone else.

He plays a `burned out' wrestler whose glory days have long since passed him by. He lives in a trailer, works part-time at a local supermarket and barely sees his daughter. We watch as he tries desperately to form relationships and regain his career. Like people said that The Man Who Fell to Earth was basically about David Bowie playing a - slightly warped - version of himself, The Wrestler is effectively Mickey Rourke. He's seen his best - acting - days and is trying to climb back up the ladder - the hard way.

If you're not a fan of `professional' wrestling, don't worry. The actual `ring time' makes up about 12 minutes of a 1 hour 40 minutes film. And, what grappling there is, only proves the point that it's all fake and one big show for the people.

There's little to laugh at here. It's a sad tale of someone who has had a taste of the big life and lost it. Now he'll do anything to get it back. It's definitely not a feel-good movie. If you want something tragically poignant, where you root and feel sorry for the `hero' all at the same time, try this. Mickey Rourke is more than just muscles.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

They Live - Nobody kicks a$$ (and chews bubblegum) better

‘They Live’ is a masterpiece. No, not a masterpiece of acting, nor storytelling or even originality. It’s basically a masterpiece of a B-movie. In B-movie terms... this is the ‘Godfather’ Parts 1, 2 and 3.
We join a vagrant (played by a wrestler no less!) who stumbles onto an alien plot to take over the world. He decides that ain’t gonna’ happen! And he does it in style.

I could mention the numerous classic (yet completely cheesy) lines. I could also mention the truly ridiculous fight scene that transpires about half way through the film (and was so brilliantly parodied in ‘South Park’). And I could mention that They Live was directed by the master of horror in the seventies/eighties John Carpenter. However, you don’t need to know any of that. All you need to have in order to enjoy this film is an appreciation for the slightly dumb, the slightly daft, the slightly over-the-top and the ability to suspend your disbelief for an hour and a half so that you can really cheer the good guys on in their quest to rid the world of this corporate alien menace.

No brain cells required. Just sit back, crack open the popcorn (chewing bubblegum is optional) and watch the aliens get their collective a$$ kicked by ‘Rowdy’ Roddy Piper!

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

Shark Night - Well... what are you expecting? 

After watching Shark Night, I was totally disgusted - NO character development, NO story, NO deep and meaningful inner message designed to enrich the soul and really make you think.

Only kidding.

If you haven't already figured it out, Shark Night is about sharks - sharks that eat people. And, if that's all you're looking for, you shouldn't feel too short-changed.

Shark Night starts off with a couple of carefree, randy American teenagers, frolicking around in a salt water lake - guess what happens to them?

Anyway, cut to the local collage where a group of seven insanely good-looking teens, all armed with quick wits and iphones, go to the same salt water lake to chill out.

Then, when bikini meets shark teeth, there can only be one winner. Okay, so the sharks are all (surprise surprise) water-based, but don't worry, our human heroes find every excuse possible to end up in the water.

So, there you have it. If you like your B-movies bloodthirsty and don't take things too seriously, you'll enjoy this (think Piranha 3D or Cabin Fever). Some other reviews have said the special effects looked cheap and there wasn't enough of the sharks. I found the FX okay and the sharks were hardly given any real dialogue to learn, so give them a break, okay?

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