X-Men: Days of Future Past - You may need an ‘X-men refresher’ course first

I’ve already seen (and even own a few) of the X-men movies (and they various spin-offs/reboots).  However, maybe I should have watched a few of them before I sat down to see ‘X-men: Days of Future Past.’ I will admit to getting a little confused with the plot, but, eventually, I settled into the film.

I never could really work out whether the previous film ‘First Class’ was a reboot, or a prequel.  Now I find it was just a prequel, as ‘Days of Future Past’ now cements the two universes together with that modern lynchpin of science-fiction, time travel.

Star Trek got a lot of praise for merging the old and the new cast together (or at least the majority of the fanboys didn’t kick off as much as the possible could).  So, it seems that every sci-fi franchise feels okay using the ‘time travel to create an alternate universe’ scenario to gloss over any glitches merging the two films may throw up (Terminator: Genisys, I have my eye on you).

We start in the future when giant robots (Sentinels) are mercilessly hunting both mutants and humans alike, cue a trip for our favourite cigar-chomping hero, Wolverine, to take a trip back in time to the seventies in order to make sure this future never sees the light of day.  Therefore, the film-makers can crowbar in both the old cast (Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen and all) with the new lot (James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender and so on).  And, yes, it works – if you’re okay with that sort of ‘plot device.’

It all feels well at home with the other X-men movies, not to mention distinctly different from Marvel’s ‘cinematic universe’ of Iron Man, the Avengers and co.  It’s generally darker in tone and more serious, with less one-liners and colourful action.  Not that the action isn’t colourful (and even spectacular towards the climactic scenes), it just feels pretty computer generated.  You get the CGI fiery person, the CGI icy person and the CGI sort of discount T-1000-type person as they battle their way through various CGI robots.

But, if you can live with a CGI that probably should be a little better for the budget involved (not to mention (future) Halle Berry and Hugh Jackman’s bad haircuts) then you should be able to appreciate this movie.  Like I say, I got a little confused by the timelines and what everyone was doing.  However, that would probably have been cleared up by watching what came before a little more recently.  There’s plenty of action, explosions and twists and turns in the plot.  Plus – perhaps best of all – is that there’s plenty of (fan favourite) Wolverine.  Many had criticised his two stand-alone movies, whereas here he seems like the natural star who the film is basically all about.  But, it’s not just about him – there are plenty of other recognisable faces to entertain – just make sure you know your ‘X-men lore’ before you spend two hours watching this lot.

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

Thor - By the might of Asgard!

Who'd have thought the - not particularly well-known - Marvel comic book hero, Thor, would have transferred so well to the big screen? Most people are pretty familiar with Superman, Batman etc, but it takes a little more digging to know about the `God of Thunder.'

He's the son of king Odin and, on the day he is destined to ascend to the throne himself, sets off a chain of events which sees him banished to - guess where - Earth! There, he must learn to not act like quite such an insufferable oaf and sort his head out.

And, watching him do so is damn good fun. The film's main brilliance is Thor (or Christ Hemsworth) himself. He plays someone who is way too big for his God-like boots. However, despite being a bit of a puffed-up idiot, he remains likeable at all times. You'll root for him whether he's wiping out Frost Giants, or getting in touch with his sensitive side while wooing the unfeasibly-attractive scientist he meets on Earth (hello, Natalie Portman).

If you like action, if you like adventure, or if you just want a brilliantly silly film to rest your mind to, this one is it. If you have a sense of fun, whether you know about the `Marvel Universe' or not, you really should find something you like here.

Also, kudos to director Kenneth Brannah for getting involved with this - he's clearly more than just a thespian actor in tights!

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Side Effects - A depressing, yet enjoyable ride

Sometimes there are films where you don't know much about before you watch them. And, in this case, it's a good thing. I won't dwell too much on the plot as it's probably something you don't want/need to know about. The best part of the film is the fact that (hopefully) you won't know what's coming next.

I had to admit that I didn't like the film for the first half. I found it too depressing. It starts out with a woman who's down on her luck, but is hanging on to wait for her husband to be released from prison after being convicted of insider trading. She's depressed, naturally. And, for the purpose of the film, plays it convincingly, i.e. she makes anyone watching it feel pretty depressed, too.

In an attempt to treat this depression, she sees a psychiatrist (Jude Law) who prescribes her various prescription drugs to help her. However, there are some - unfortunate - side effects to this course of action.

And that's all I'll say about the plot. What you do need to know is that the film's tone sort of changes from `generally depressing' to a much sharper thriller with plenty of plot twists to keep you entertained.

Jude Law puts in an excellent performance (and I'm not normally a fan) and plays his part perfectly for what's required.

If you choose to watch this, just make sure you're in the right frame of mind before you do. If you're expecting anything vaguely light-hearted and frothy then don't watch this (right now). Be prepared for something much darker and bleaker and you'll definitely enjoy the ride.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Rubber - I liked this (for "No Reason")

Before you consider watching this movie, you should know two things:

 First, it is about a killer tyre.

 Secondly, I didn't make that up.

 If you can suspend your disbelief long enough to get over that, you may just get something out of the film.

 It opens with a scene where a police car drives towards the camera, knocking over a multitude of chairs in the road as it goes. When it gets close enough an officer gets out and talks directly to us, the viewers. He explains that some things in films happen for, "No reason." This is the whole basis of the film.

 It's weird.

 Things happen for no reason.

 It's very weird. And, sometimes weird is good, other times weird doesn't work. In this case, I'll go with the former.

 If you want a quirky film that doesn't conform to mainstream narratives and conventions, watch Rubber. It's silly. It's surreal. It's fun. It's sort of what David Lynch might do if he'd have thought of the `killer tyre' idea.

 One drawback, a few of the scenes go on for a little long - it has the feeling of being a bit `student film studies made,' but it soon picks up in its daftness.

 I stayed with it to the end - no reason.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Punisher (2004) - Loosely based on some comic book or other

Whereas everyone knows Superman and Batman, some may be unfamiliar with the (slightly more violent) comic books of the seventies, The Punisher. The titular character is Frank Castle, an FBI agent whose family is murdered by the mob and so he seeks to reek vengeance on all wrong doers.
The Punisher was made into a movie in the eighties (starring Dolph Lundgren) which was met with mixed reactions. It wasn't much like the comics, but it was a fun ride. Now, in 2004, they tried again. This time setting a darker tone (in line with Batman Begins) and casting Thomas Jane as The Punisher.

Again, the film was met with mixed reactions. Personally, I don't think it's that bad, but then it does have its faults. First of all Thomas Jane - fine actor he may be, he just seems too small and weedy to be this unstoppable killing machine. Fair play to him for beefing up for the role (he is annoyingly buff!), but still he's too small. If you know the punisher from the comic books, you'll know he's about 6'2 with a Schwarzenegger-like body, plus a craggy, gritty, lived-in face. Thomas Jane is just too much of a pretty boy! However, he does his best (at least he has the voice for it somehow!). Incidentally, Thomas Jane was not in the (semi) sequel `The Punisher: Warzone.' Instead, Ray Stevenson was cast as the main man. He too was too small (body-wise), but his face - literally - suited the part more as he was uglier (sorry, Ray!).

So Thomas Jane goes on a violent killing spree, despatching all those who wrong his late family, right? Wrong. Actually, there's not all that much `punishment' in the film and it comes across as more of a `How Frank Castle Became The Punisher' movie, almost like it's actually a prequel to Dolph Lundgren's eighties outing. This lack of constant action may well irritate the fan-boys, denying the film a warmer reception. Perhaps this lack of action may be down to the budget? Normally, `Marvel' superhero films get a really big budget to play with (think Iron Man, Thor, Avenger etc), but this one is pretty scaled down. It attempts to show the Punisher's `human side.' We see him having dinner with neighbours, dressing in casual clothes etc. Somehow it `humanises' a character that is supposed to be colder than your average human (more like the Terminator).

But The Punisher did have reasonable success on DVD sales, meaning it wasn't all bad. This could be because it may not have been the most faithful interpretation of the comic, but it was pretty mainstream, i.e. appealing to as many people as possible.

I found its main faults were, for one, The Punisher's `comic relief' neighbours. I hated them. I wanted to see them `punished' more than the villains. And, secondly, there are a few plot points which left me rolling my eyes. The Punisher is a wanted man, known in the media for illegally slaying people (bad people, but still people). However, he simply lives in a block of flats, spends his days out front tinkering with cars and wandering round the streets, yet no one seems to ever find him. Even the bad guys seem to know where he lives, yet only come for him at home after he's done away with most of them.

Anyway, I digress... parts of it annoyed me, but, ultimately, what you have here is a pretty solid `revenge movie.' You don't have to know or like the comic to enjoy this. If you want some gritty, revenge-based violence, 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

The Mummy - Fun, fun, fun

Okay, before I begin the review proper, I must warn you that I’m probably going to be using the word ‘fun’ a lot to describe ‘The Mummy.’ Because that’s all it is – fun.  A lot of people liken it to the Indiana Jones movies and I can see where they’re coming from.  Then again, an equally high proportion of the audience detests how the two movies are likened to each other.  No, I’m certainly not saying that The Mummy is anywhere near as good as the Jones trilogy (notice how I’m leaving out the Crystal Skull out of that statement!), but it is similar.

The Mummy is one of those ‘family fun’ kind of movies – an adventure which should most likely be screened on a Saturday afternoon for everyone to cheer along to.  Brendan Fraser takes the lead and is at his best when he’s acting big and dumb, but, in doing so, he’s also completely lovable and easy to root for.  Rachel Weisz is his ‘love interest’ and, apart from being able to read/speak the ancient texts, doesn’t do that much for the portrayal of women in cinema, as she spends much of her time in need of rescue (you’ll have to watch the sequel if you want to see her kicking some a$$!).  John Hannah is her on-screen brother and he’s the main ‘comic relief’ of the film – a part which sometimes goes horribly wrong if it’s handled incorrectly.  However, fortunately, despite being the coward of the bunch, he’s funny enough not to be annoying (and even fires a gun or two near the end if you watch closely).

So, our blundering trio of heroes only go and wake up an ancient mummy when they’re raiding a tomb in Egypt.  And he’s not happy.  Not only does he want to ‘borrow’ the bodily parts of those who woke him up, but he also wants to take over the world – typical, huh?  The creature itself is actually CGI for the most part.  I guess they couldn’t get an actor who was decomposing to play the part.  However, when he’s fully formed, he’s played by Arnold Vosloo, who does the job to act menacing (even when he doesn’t say a word of English).

So, expect gun fights, undead creatures chasing our heroes, the odd car chase and pretty much everything else you’d come to find in a PG action/adventure movie.  Yes, nothing here is that new, but when something’s handled correctly that doesn’t matter.  It’s still a fun a film that should please everyone.  Basically, there are two ways of watching The Mummy – you can either nitpick the whole thing and pull it apart, or you can simply gloss over any of the plotholes and simply enjoy it from what it is – the filmic equivalent of Brendan Fraser himself – big, dumb, silly fun, fun, fun.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Lovelace - Good girls and bad boys

`Lovelace' is about the `first' scripted pornography film, aka `Deep Throat,' which was made in 1972 and follows the story of the star Linda `Lovelace.' It's actually more based on her book, `Ordeal,' the title of which tells you more what this movie is about.

If you watched `Boogie Nights' and enjoyed the light-hearted look at the `adult entertainment' industry and are hoping for something similar, then you may be in for a shock.

Linda falls for a charming guy who, at first, is her knight in shining armour. However, it isn't long before he reveals his true colours and leads her down a path of everything sleazy.

Amanda Seyfried is cast in the titular role and pretty much is tasked with carrying the film by herself, which, I'm pleased to say, she does pretty well. A lot of the scenes are fairly uncomfortable to watch, so you may need a strong stomach for this. Also, Amanda is surrounded by a decent cast of supporting actors who all add to the film's flavour.

What you end up with is a very decent biopic picture of one of recent history's partially tragic characters. I thought it told the story well, although I'm not too sure how much I'd want to watch this film again - the sort of film that gives you more for your money if you rent it, rather than buy.

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

Hummingbird - `Statham lite'

If you know your Jason Statham films, you'll know that he generally runs round either shooting or punching a seemingly never-ending stream of baddies for the entire ninety minutes.

Here, however, he goes for a different approach. `Hummingbird' is the `diet' version of his films. Instead of the whole ninety minutes being taken up with him whacking people, the violence only lasts for a few (well dispersed) minutes throughout the whole film. For the rest of it, it does his best at acting.

And, whether he succeeds or not will largely depend on how much you like him in the first place. He's not going to win any Oscars, but he does his best to portray a bad man who's doing the only thing he knows while, at the same time, trying to make amends. If you like him, you'll probably like this. If you don't like him, this won't go far to win you over to his way of film-making.

Also, know what you're getting. Like I say, the action isn't really there, so, if you're a fan of his action movies and are expecting something like Crank or the Transporter here, you'll leave disappointed.

However, as a fan of `The Stath' I thought he was pretty good in this. He plays a gangster who falls in love with a nun (yes, seriously) and I found their relationship pretty compelling (and their relationship is basically what this whole film is about). So, I was left happy at the end of the movie.
So, know what you're getting - no electrocuting tongue or wiping out hordes of bad guys, just a film about redemption (which I believe is the movie's other title in America).

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

Psycho II - Suspend your disbelief and enjoy

Everyone knows the original 'Psycho' film and how it impacted on both film and the horror genre tremendously.  It was certainly a benchmark for other similar movies to aspire to during its day, but it does seem a little bit dated when viewed today.  I guess because nearly two decades had elapsed between 'Psycho' and the first sequel, 'Psycho II,' horror had evolved into something less subtle and more gory - namely the 'teen slasher.'

Therefore, 'Psycho II' seems to feel the need to compete with films like 'Friday 13th' and 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,' meaning it doesn't really feel like a film set in the same series, despite using all the same characters, locations and plenty of references back to the original.

I could live with that.  I'm a fan of enough mindless slasher flicks to get some small enjoyment out of most of them.  However, every time I tried to really get into 'Psycho II' something completely unbelievable happened and totally dragged me out of it.  Even if I was to give the brief plot synopsis by saying that after only serving 22 years for numerous murders, Norman Bates is declared 'no longer insane' and allowed to return to his old life working in a motel.  Right at the beginning I was kind of finding it hard to believe that someone who had murdered so many people would just be allowed to resume his old life with few changes.  Plus he was just able to walk right into running his old motel as means of work.

This may only be one of many plot holes which were to follow.  Anthony Perkins is decent enough as Bates and is just about capable of shouldering the whole film.  However, it's his co-star/female lead who seems to just not be up to the task.  I know that horror films are hardly well known for their Oscar winning performances, but Meg Tilly really did seem to come across like she was simply reading her lines.

Naturally, there are kills and the film does its best to try and make you wonder who's doing them.  I found this a bit of an odd approach when it's technically a sequel about a serial killer.  But then I suppose, if you wait until the end, you'll see where it's going and will understand why all the kills are shrouded in mystery.

'Psycho II' isn't a bad film, but it certainly lacks the creepy foreboding and originality of Alfred Hitchcock's boundary-breaking classic, while at the same time, if you're looking for a slasher film then there are plenty more that have done it better.  It just comes across as a typically forgettable horror sequel to an infinitely more memorable piece of work.

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

Friday The 13th: Part 4 - How do they keep it so fresh?

Basically... if you’re thinking of watching ‘Friday 13th: The Final Chapter’ (which you probably already know ISN’T the final chapter by a long shot) the only thing you need to know is that it’s pretty much the same as the three before it. So, if you liked them, then you’ll probably like this one, too.

Part 4 of any franchise is probably not a great place to start. Although, you probably won’t need to know much back story to ‘get’ what’s going on. As with the previous three instalments... a group of over-sexed teens go into the woods, only to be slaughtered by a masked killer.

Yes, Part 4 introduces a ‘child’ into the mix, but that’s about as different as we get here.
In summary, if you’re new to the franchise, start with Part 1 and, if you like that, carry on. Part 4 is the same thing.

Although... it may be worth giving this film an extra star (taking it up to four) based on Crispen Glover’s dance moves – seriously... it has to be seen to be believed.

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

The Demented - You've seen it all before... just better

`The Demented.' The latest in a seemingly never-ending line of zombie films. Only the monsters aren't zombies - they're more the `infected' that we've seen before in 28 Days/Weeks Later or the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead. Both films were great successes, but, just because you have `running zombies,' doesn't guarantee you an automatic hit.

Perhaps the main problem here are the characters. Okay, this is a horror film and no one's expecting deep and meaningful character developments with watertight arcs etc, but, both Dawn of the Deads, 28 Days/Weeks Later and others like them, proved that just because your heroes are getting chased by zombies, doesn't mean you can't give them some decent traits to make the audience relate to them.
In The Demented we have six friends. Let's call them, `Attractive Blonde Female, Attractive Brunette Female, Attractive Mixed-race Female, Attractive Dark-haired Male, Attractive Blond-haired Male and Attractive African-American Male.' For that's all they are - we never really learn anything about them, so we don't really care when they start getting chewed up one by one.

And there isn't really that much gore. I know this is a cheap film, but a bit of entertaining mayhem might have given it a bit more of an edge. So our six generic protagonists get caught up in a zombie outbreak. How does it happen? Does it matter? Do you care? They just do. So they're chased continually, in between sneaking here and there while the zombies are `sleeping standing up.' Whatever.

If you've never seen a zombie movie before (there must be one of you) then you may actually enjoy this. Or if this was made all those years ago before Night of the Living Dead, it may even have been called `groundbreaking' and `a classic.' However, it wasn't. And there's absolutely nothing here that you haven't seen before. If you like zombie films (or running zombie films in particular), stick with Dawn of the Dead 2004 or either 28 Days Later film. Both have budgets, gore, suspense, action and decent characterisation in them. The Demented has none of those, sadly.

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

Coraline - Brilliantly creepy

First of all I will start by saying that I absolutely loved ‘Coraline.’ It has a fantastic look and feel to it and, despite being (amazingly crafted) ‘stop motion’ puppets, contains more depth and storytelling than many ‘live action’ films.  And, if you’re in the UK at least, you’ll see that it has a PG (parental guidance) certificate.  That translates to most people that it’s suitable for kids.  Or is it?

The answer is of course ‘yes,’ otherwise it wouldn’t have got that rating.  However, it’s worth noting that the general ‘themes’ are pretty dark in this movie, meaning that parents who have children who aren’t really into anything too heavy may want to research this film a little deeper before deciding on whether their children should watch it or not.

Many people have – pretty rightly – said that it’s like something directed by (typically Gothic) Tim Burton and seeing as Coraline also utilises puppets compares it to ‘A Nightmare Before Christmas.’ The two certainly do share a lot of similar traits, namely the dark creepy atmosphere and pretty frightening overall feel.

In Coraline, the titular character is a young eleven year old girl who moves to an old (spooky!) house in the middle of nowhere with her parents.  Now, although her mum and dad aren’t the worst people in the world, they’re pretty busy with their jobs (aren’t we all?) and don’t always have as much time for their daughter as they would probably like.  This, in turn, leaves Coraline to her own devices.  And, while exploring her new home, she comes across a door to another world – one where everything is the same, only better.  She has a perfect house, populated by different (i.e. perfect) versions of her parents who love and dote on her.  Or do they?

Naturally, as the story progresses Coraline discovers the old saying ‘Better the devil you know,’ because things in this ‘other world’ are certainly not all they seem (and I’m not just talking about the fact that everyone there has buttons for their eyes!).

I won’t do into too much detail regarding the plot, as I wouldn’t want to spoil it.  I will only say that the look and feel of the film is perfect, as is the acting and storytelling, making it pretty much as perfect as it can get.  Also, just because the film is rated a PG, don’t think that adults won’t enjoy it.  I often wonder whether if you were to remake Coraline with real actors as opposed to puppets, it might actually get a 15 or 18 rating, as the story would end up being something more like ‘The Ring, The Grudge,’ or ‘Dark Water’ in its theme and tone.

So, if you like your horror films, don’t write this one off as just another ‘kids’ movie’ – it’s so much more.  But, as I said to begin with, if you’re thinking of watching it with very little children, check what’s in store for them before you let them watch it.  This may be stop motion, but it’s nothing like anything the much-loved Aardman studios have ever done!

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Blackwood - Have you ever seen a ghost/supernatural film?

If the answer is ‘yes’ then you might as well not read this review and not bother watching ‘Blackwood.’ Don’t get me wrong – it’s not bad.  It’s one and only problem is that it’s so unoriginal that if you’ve even seen one previous supernatural/ghost story then you’ve basically seen this story (and quite possibly done better).

A teacher moves his family into an old creepy house, largely against their wishes.  Once there, spooky things start to happen.  Every quarter of an hour you’ll catch sight of a reflection that wasn’t there, or a shadow in night which disappears upon investigation.  If that sounds scary to you, maybe you will get something out of it.  Personally, I grew out of thinking that was in any way spooky when I was about ten.

The acting is nothing to write home about.  That’s not a criticism of the actors.  They’re good enough, as I’ve seen them in other things.  However, they just go through the motions and you can see every vague sub-plot coming a mile off.

It’s a British film and, in typical British style, it’s low budget.  I know it’s a bit unfair to expect a Brit-funded film to compete with Hollywood blockbusters when it comes to special effects, so I can’t be too harsh on ‘Blackwood’ for not even trying.  Don’t expect hordes of monsters or vast action sequences interspersed with the story.

It’s a ‘slow burner.’ Possibly too slow for its own good.  Basically, if you think that a door shutting on its own is scary, then you might like this.  Otherwise, just watch one of your many other horror/ghost story DVDs that you probably already own.  It’s better.

Now move along... nothing to see here.

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

Arbitrage - Solid, if not particularly original thriller

I wasn't expecting too much from `Abitrage,' but I was pleasantly surprised, based on the cast. If it wasn't for the performance of (mainly) Richard Gere, this would have been a very formulaic thriller. At some parts, it still feels a little like an extended TV episode.

As I said, Richard Gere carries this entire movie, playing a - partly - despicable character, who at the same time, we find we can root for. He doesn't make the right choices throughout the movie but that's what keeps his character interesting and helps to let the movie move along, even during its slower moments. It's the sort of thriller where everything starts to go from bad to worse for its main character, when his lies and actions only get him in more and deeper problems and drags those close to him down, along with him.

However, not all the characters are as good as Gere's - the story really under uses Susan Sarandon, who could had given the movie a whole other dimension and more depth. She does the best with what's given to her, but there could have been so much more for her to do. As is Tim Roth, who just plays a stereotypical New York detective. When he shows up you think he is going to play a big and important role for this movie but in fact there are large portions of the movie in which his character plays no role at all.

I still really enjoyed this thriller and at times was even loving it. It's definitely a better than average genre attempt, despite still having a very standard and familiar type of premise and story in it. So in essence, nothing surprising but it's all still very well made and acted out by its impressive cast, which already is worth the price alone.

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

X-Men: First Class - Yeah, pretty good actually

I'm not the biggest X-men fan. I never read the comics, so my knowledge of the story only comes from the films. If you look online you'll see plenty of fanboys crying because some of the dates in this prequel don't add up in the original trilogy.

That's probably true, but I didn't notice. I thought, for a prequel - which, let's face it, is just an excuse to milk a few extra quid out of the franchise's audience - it was actually okay. It did a good job of showing us a backstory that we didn't know, i.e. how Professor X and Magneto went from friends to enemies (George Lucas could take note as to how to write prequels!). Everything seemed to fit together well and tie up all the loose ends. Plus there wasn't too much pointless action and the special effects seemed just right (although I just watched Transformers 3, so I'm all CGIed out right now!). It felt more like a spy film with super powers.

All in all, good fun. And just be thankful they did cast Kevin Bacon as the villain as opposed to Colin Firth (seriously, he just would have killed the film).  

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

This Means War - Dumb, silly and strangely enjoyable  

This Means War is the oldest tale: two men fight for the attention of a beautiful woman. However, this time, the two men in question happen to be the new Captain Kirk and the new Bane from Batman and they're vying for the affections of that chick from Legally Blonde. Unfortunately, neither man use phasers, photon torpedoes or terrorist plots to sack an entire city, but they do make for an interesting pair of combatants - namely because they're both best friends who happen to work for the CIA (incidentally, everyone in the CIA looks like a supermodel - you probably didn't know that).

This means that there are gadgets and underhand techniques aplenty in their mission to generally do each other down and stab each other in the back.

This all takes place in a strange world filled with primary colours where everything looks like the inside of a Barbie doll's house (plus in this world a girl who looks like Reece Witherspoon can't actually get a date). There are some brief battles and even a minor car chase to keep the action junkies in their zone, but, primarily, this is a love (triangle) story and, if I'm honest, it's not a bad one.

This Means War is stupid, predictable, dumb, but strangely quite endearing and I found myself even laughing out loud in some places.

I think the film could be described as a `date movie' as it's a good one to watch with a lady. And, if I ever stop sitting on the sofa watching DVDs and take a girl out, I may just show her this film.
And, just as a side note, why do both leading men look like they're wearing lipstick? Is it just me who thought that?

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

The Shrine -Yeah, not so bad  

If you've seen more than two horror films since the nineteen seventies, you've probably seen a car load of good looking Americans going somewhere they shouldn't and running into something they wished they hadn't.

Sometimes it's rednecks, other times monsters and occasionally plants and flesh-eating diseases. The Shrine is just another one to be added to the genre.

Three journalists travel to Poland (as far as I know not known for its rednecks, monsters or flesh-eating bacteria) in search of a missing boy. They find... well, let's just say they should probably have stayed in a Starbucks restaurant in New York.

I've seen dozens of films like this and what makes them either good or bad is, in my opinion, whether the characters are likeable and whether or not they behave in a way we can relate to. Of course, like in any horror film, many won't make the final reel, but at least in The Shrine you can tick both counts. The characters are decent enough to relate to (okay, so no major character development, but it has gore, so that's a good substitute, right?) and, if you can ignore them going to an out-of-the-way Polish village in the first place, they don't spend the rest of the movie running headlong into obviously dangerous situations.

Obviously, there's better out there and this one never borrows elements from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Hostel and even the Exorcist, but still it should keep you entertained for an hour and a half.

Note: if you ever go to Poland... don't look at their statues

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

RPG - It could have been so good

Okay, so the whole ‘Hunger Games’ scenario is very popular right now – the one where a group of people are stuck in some sort of situation that involves them having to kill each other so that one ultimately survives.  Here, with ‘RPG’ Portugal throws its hat into the ring.

In a not too distant future (where everyone drives slightly more space-age cars than now), a handful of rich people want to live forever, so they go to a place which makes them go into a ‘virtual reality’ world (think ‘The Matrix’)where they’re portrayed as younger versions of themselves (to get a feel for what it’s like to be young again).  However, once there, they have to kill each other – only one can apparently be reincarnated.  Why?  I don’t know.  I don’t think I picked up on that.

So, there you have it.  Oh, and this is probably a good time to point out that, if you saw Rutger Hauer’s name on the poster, you may need to know that he’s not in it that much.  He’s one of the oldies who quickly gets replaced by a younger version of himself (and hence actor).

I can take the lack of originality in the plot and the slightly ‘made-for-TV’ feel of it all.  It was the acting that got me.  I’ve sat through countless badly-acted horror films and never let the acting annoy me.  However, here, everyone seemed to be reading their lines.  At first I thought it was because many of the cast didn’t speak English as their first language.  However, when I saw they had a British girl among the cast who also seemed to have trouble speaking English, I realised they had just had to scrape the bottom of the barrel for acting talent.

The Hunger Games may be popular, but this is copying it in ‘scenario only.’ It’s nothing like it.  Therefore, if you’re a fan of the Hunger Games, don’t watch this expecting anything similar.  Also, if you’re generally a fan of people having to kill each other for sport (think Battle Royale or the Running Man), RPG isn’t half as good as either of them.

Just forget this film all together.  I’m sure Portugal can do better.

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

The Punisher (1989) - The definition of a `comic book movie'

The Punisher is based on the - particularly violent - Marvel comic book of the same name from the seventies, where a former FBI agent has his family murdered and goes out for revenge his own way.
Whereas today, Marvel movies are given huge budgets ala The Avengers, Thor and Iron Man, this one was handed out to a little-known Australian company to make. The results being that The Avengers, Thor and Iron man it is not.

Every character is pretty stereotypical and one-dimensional. The dialogue is a bit forced. The budget is slim and the story hardly inspired. All in all, it has all the hallmarks of a disaster in the making. Yet it's actually pretty cool... if you know what you're getting.

It's a blatant B-movie. It's like actually watching a live action comic book. You wouldn't expect Oscar-worthy dialogue and acting from a comic book, would you? Hopefully not. So don't expect it here. It's a movie designed to munch popcorn to. It has plenty of explosions, killing of badguys and cheeky one-liners from our strong and silent hero, The Punisher.

They ever remade it (twice), but, despite having bigger budgets, better acting and more bankable stars, neither seemed to quite capture the raw comicbook style which the 1989 version managed.
If you're a fan of cheesy eighties action (think Commando, Rambo and almost any Jean Claude Van Damme film) then give this one a go. It's short and to the point, but mainly great mindless fun.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Mulholland Drive: Special Edition - A mind-bending film which makes you work

`Mulholland Drive' is a classic, but that doesn't mean it'll be enjoyed by everyone. If you like your stories easy to follow and getting from point A to point B in a straight line, then you probably have never watched anything by David Lynch. He specialises in creating teasing, disconcerting vibes and films based on feeling and mood, rather than linier storytelling.

Mulholland Drive is a dark mystery about a young girl who arrives in Hollywood to pursue her dream of being an actress, only to get caught up with another young woman who has lost her memory and has a murky past which slowly gets unravelled.

If you're familiar with Lynch's work, you may have seen his previous film `Lost Highway.' It wasn't as well received as this one. It was - although visually stunning and darkly odd - not easy to follow. David Lynch creates films that are, to a certain degree, about what you feel, rather than just telling a story. He freely admits that Lost Highway was about a 50/50 split of feelings and storytelling. This made it a lot harder to follow as a narrative. However, Mulholland Drive is a little easier - it's about 85% story and 15% feeling, making 1 hour and 52 minutes of it pretty easy to watch.

Then you have `the big change.' The last 20 minutes are the film's `pay-off' and you will either love it for showing you what you've spent nearly two hours watching, or hate it for `cheating' you.

If you're thinking of watching some of David Lynch's work, Mulholland Drive is a reasonable place to start. It's a basic mystery story which is - relatively - easy to follow. If you like it, try Lost Highway, or even Inland Empire (which is the hardest of all his films to try and decode, based on it being about 80% feeling and only 20% story). Just be warned, all of Lynch's work is pretty dark, often violent and pretty sexually explicit.

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

Love Is All You Need - Not bad (if you can take the subtitles)

Yes, a lot of the more negative reviews are based on the subtitles. And, yes, the whole film is basically subtitled. Although, maybe that wouldn't be so bad if it really was the whole film. In reality, only HALF is subtitled (as Pierce Brosnan only says one line not in his native tongue).

It's basically a romantic comedy, so I won't spoil the plot, but if you have ever seen a romantic comedy, you won't be too surprised by the outcome. And, it's all good - in as much as the acting is all excellent and everyone plays their parts well. However, my major gripe was that (besides seeing one of the `plot twists' coming a mile off) it was a little too long. Maintaining the pace for about two hours is a lot harder than keeping the happy-go-lucky storyline jogging along for just the ninety minutes.

If you're into your rom-coms then this should satisfy you well enough. It's just a pity it couldn't be a little more trimmed down (and maybe all in English - if I'm being cynical!).

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

The Human Race - Watch this film is you like to see heads exploding

Have you seen ‘Scanners?’ Did you like the bit when the head explodes?  If you answered ‘Yes’ to that then you should definitely watch ‘The Human Race.’ It’s a film primarily about people’s heads exploding (occasionally interspersed with the odd pick-axe through someone’s neck).  However, what little ‘story’ there is when brains aren’t flying towards the camera, concerns a seemingly random group of people who get spirited away from their everyday lives, only to find themselves part of a twisted and lethal game where they have to race each other... or their heads explode.

Think ‘Battle Royale’ or ‘The Cube.’ It’s kind of like that (only with more exploding heads).
And, believe it or not, it’s actually quite good.  Yes, there isn’t much of a budget; what little money went into making this film was primarily spent on blood flying from holes in people’s necks.  Naturally, they couldn’t afford and big names either, but it’s still quite a fun little sci-fi/survival-horror film to watch.  Any negative criticism that it seems to have attracted centres around a ‘lack of story.’ Yes, there’s not much of a story, but there was there much of a story in Battle Royale?  There’s only so much of a story you can build around eighty people who have to force each other’s head to explode in order to survive.

If you like your films short, sweet and filled with decapitated bodies, then give this one a go.

And remember... keep off the grass.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Friday The 13th Part III - How do the writers keep it so fresh, time after time?

In the original Friday 13th, you had a bunch of horny teenagers in the woods being stalked and killed. Whereas in the second part, you had a bunch of horny teenagers in the woods being stalked and killed. Now (and wait for it) you have part III, where a bunch of horny teenagers are in the woods being stalked and killed. I can’t wait to see what part IV has to offer!

So, is it any good? Well... if you liked the first two it is, as it’s basically the same movie (again). However, if you didn’t like the first couple then this one won’t win over any new fans. It’s not violent enough to compete with today’s slasher offerings, so it might seem a little tame to today’s youth.

At least Jason finally dons his infamous hockey mask, making him look more like the killer we’re eventually going to love (well, recognise anyway).

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

Delta Force 2 - More of the same, just less

The original Delta Force was a classic. There was no surprise when its sequel was greenlit. However, if the rumours on the internet are to be believed, it suffered from numerous rewrites and had plenty of people with different ideas as to how it should play out. Not only that, but actor, Lee Marvin, died during parts 1 and 2, therefore taking him out of the entire sequel, obviously.

So, we're left with the square-jawed baddie-killer, Chuck Norris, all by himself, packed and ready to take on the next wave of faceless henchmen and thugs.

And he does okay. It's hard to put your finger on exactly what's missing from the second Delta Force. On the surface everything appears to be there: Chuck, action, fight scenes, outrageous stunts, explosions, evil bad guys - it's all there. But, despite it all, there still feels like there's something missing.

This time, instead of Middle Eastern terrorists, we have Columbian drug lords (who follow every stereotype of South American cultures ever) who have kidnapped a load of DEA agents and, not only that, but they've only gone and murdered Chuck's best friend and his family. Hence Chuck better dust his beard down and kill absolutely everyone he meets. Which he does.

It's all good harmless fun (if your definition of `harmless fun' is `killing thousands of people in gruesome and fiery ways), but, for some reason, definitely feels lesser to its predecessor. If you enjoyed the first, you'll probably enjoy the second, too. But, if you're new to the franchise, I'd advise checking out the first one before you sit down to this.

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

The Corridor - Never judge a DVD by its cover

Otherwise you might start watching The Corridor. The front cover looks genuinely well-made, with a real creepy atmosphere. How wrong it can be. Despite the intriguing visual art, the film is pretty dull.

It plays out like Stephen King's `Dreamcatcher,' only not as good (and Dreamcatcher was pretty maligned!). Four (or was if five?) friends go to a mountain cabin to bond (or something, it doesn't really matter). There, one of them starts finding a wibbly-wobbly area of the surrounding woods that looks nothing like a corridor, yet that's what they call it. This wibbly-wobbly bit gives them all nosebleeds. Carnage follows.

However, what little carnage there is (and one particularly impressive gore scene) comes woefully too late. The characters are simply too dull to care about, which is a shame, as the actors do a decent job of portraying them (if you can excuse the worst `bald' man's head ever to hit the screen).

The acting is not the problem, it's just the flow. The first two thirds are basically the guys sitting around discussing their problems. Most people will have already condemned the film before it kicks off. Then, when it finally gets going, you may enjoy the final third, but it's a hell of a long road to travel just for the pay-off.

If you liked Dreamcatcher, stick to it. If you didn't, you probably won't like this either!

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

Black Sea - Probably a longer film than it needs to be

‘Black Sea’ is a submarine thriller, almost entire shot in the confines of the underwater vessel.  It charts the – slightly shady – mission of a team of Russian and British sailors who get made redundant from their day job and decide to go on a hunt for treasure, allegedly hidden at the bottom of the ocean, left over from World War II. However, the two nationalities don’t really hit it off and soon tensions start to rise over the best course of action and, of course, who gets the loot.  

Jude Law is the only really recognisable face among the cast; he plays the captain of the British contingent (sporting a fairly reasonable Scottish accent) and he does his best to carry the film, but then he’s given the most to do and his character goes through the most changes.  The others are all basically ‘fodder’ who will, no doubt, be severely reduced in number by the time the credits roll.

Being in the submarine most of the time, yes it is a nicely claustrophobic atmosphere and – according to the film’s trivia – was filmed in a genuine (retired) sub, so it’s all pretty authentic.  However, the film is pretty long and does tend to drag in places.  It probably could be trimmed down by at least ten minutes here and there to make the overall runtime just a little bit tighter.

I don’t know why, but the closest film I can liken ‘Black Sea’ to, is Alien.  Yes, I know there’s not acid-blooded monster stalking the crew, but the submarine-set wasn’t too dissimilar to the Nostromo.  And the characters were generally being picked off one by one, albeit by each other rather than a giant creature.  Obviously, I wouldn’t rate it as highly as Alien.  It’s one of those films that’s pretty predictable overall, but not too bad for it.  There wasn’t really that much the film-makers could do that hasn’t already been done before.  

It’s not a bad film, but nothing that you haven’t already seen before.  Plus it’s a little hard to categorise.  It’s not a war film, because it’s set in modern day.  It’s not horror (no alien!), it’s a sort of drama/thriller, but with only traces of both those two genres.  Probably best to watch on TV before you ever consider paying to watch it.

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

April Fools Day - Old school slasher fun

Ah, where to begin with ‘April Fools Day’ – undoubtedly one of the silliest ‘slasher’ films ever made (and that’s saying something!).  The usual bunch of overly s*xed and obnoxious teenagers go on Spring Break to one of their houses, conveniently situated on an island – naturally with no escape (and, back in the eighties, they never had to make excuses for ‘lack of cell phone coverage!’).  Once there – surprise surprise – they start getting picked off one by one.

Now, unlike other slasher films at the time, the killer is never seen (until the ‘big reveal’ at the end, obviously), making it like an early ‘Scream’ film and part ‘who-done-it’ as well as simple teen-chopping fun.  

If you’re into your early slasher films then this one is worth a watch.  There aren’t any stars to speak of (are there ever?) unless you count an appearance from ‘Biff’ from the ‘Back to the Future’ films.  Plus the death scenes aren’t that well done (a bit of decent gore make-up here and there, but the obvious lack of budget does show sometimes).  However, just because it isn’t that gory (or well acted!) doesn’t mean it’s not fun.

It kind of knows what it is (and what it’s not – i.e. High-brow) and plays to its strengths.  Without going into anything that may spoil it, it’s actually quite clever here and there with a few things that you might not see coming.

Naturally, it has all the flaws of the genre, such as the nice girl surviving longest and anyone who has s*x dies first, but if you’re generally a fan of slasher films you’ve long since learned to forgive such traits and should be able to enjoy it for what it is – good, reasonably gory silly fun.

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

Creep (2014) - Wow, what a drag

Oh, dear.  I've come to reviewing 2014's 'Creep' in order to warn people just how bad it is and I've found that the vast majority of other comments are all very positive.  Now I'm wondering what I missed?!

It's one of those 'found footage' films which sort of came back into fashion over twenty years ago with the 'Blair Witch Project' and has never really left, largely because you can make a feature length movie on a shoestring budget.  Here, a man hires another man to video his days in a remote cabin, due to him dying of cancer and the tapes being - one day - bestowed on his, as yet unborn, son.  So, there's two characters - each who kind of takes turn in filming each other - and that's the entire cast.

It seems the two actors knew each other for a long time before making this film and effectively improvised most scenes.  What you're left with is one long rambling bore-fest.  Sorry to be so negative, but I really found it a struggle to get through.  One of the characters is so annoying you can hardly care about him, constantly creating his own 'jump scares' by popping up from out of shot and shouting, while the other is about as drab as I've ever seen on screen.

I seriously could have turned it off after only a few minutes, but stuck with it because I don't mind a good 'slow burner' where it's not wall-to-wall excitement and builds up the tension before the final pay-off.  Sadly, the 'pay off' (if you could even call it that) was a shot that lasted about 30 seconds.  I guess that was the highlight of the film.

If you're looking for gore, you won't find it here.  It's cheap, feels long even though it's actually less than the average length of a movie and has characters who you won't care about.  Or rather that's just my opinion.  Judging by the amount of people giving it 'full marks' I guess I'm just the minority and you should probably ignore me.  Just thought I'd put in my two cents to point out not everyone went for this one.

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

X-Men 3: The Last Stand - The whole is NOT better than the sum of its parts

Amazingly, X-men 2 - being the sequel - actually surpassed the original. It was longer, fleshed out the better characters a bit more and generally improved on the original. People awaited the conclusion of the trilogy with baited breath. Then came the news that the behind-the-scenes staff were not happy. Bryan Singer left. Other directors came and went, as did other crewmembers and X3 limped onto the stage trying to convince us that all was still well with the franchise.

To be fair - it's okay. The action is good, as is the special effects. However, overall it seems like a backwards step for the story. It's quite short (just over an hour and a half) - nothing wrong with that, apart from the fact that it's X-men and the clue's in the name. The X-men is about multiple characters and, when turning it into a film, you have to try and cram as many of them in as possible. You can't please everyone. There will always be some left out ("Where's Gambit?" many cried before he showed up later in Wolverine's own film). However, there are still too many to really care about. Characters - good and bad - come on screen for one or two scenes and that's all we get of them.

Old favourites Wolverine, Professor X and Magneto get the most screen time and do their best to try and hold things together. But none of their characters are pushed forwards in terms of development. Wolverine has some cool fight scenes. Magneto shows his dastardly side with a brilliant scene involving the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco and X reminds us of the X-men's overall message.

But these are just scenes. They're all good, but they're interspersed with second-rate, under-developed characters taking up screen time just so the producers can say, "See, look, there's Collossus!"
It's a fun action film, but, after X2, just leaves you thinking it's not much of an improvement (incidentally the same thing I said about Terminator 3's relationship to T2).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

This Is Spinal Tap -This is a great film

The word ‘cult’ was pretty much invented for ‘This is Spinal Tap.’ It’s hard to say who the target audience is, but it’s fair to say that whoever it is, it’s a ‘niche’ group. ‘Mockumentaries’ are commonplace these days in both film and TV, but back in 1984, they were a lot rarer.  Here, we have a (fake) fly-on-the-wall documentary about Britain’s loudest rock band ‘Spinal Tap’ as they release a new album and try to tour America at the same time.

The best thing about the film is that it never openly makes fun of its subject matter.  The band may be made up of self-absorbed, egotistical, long-haired idiots, but, the strange thing is, you actually care about them.  They’re hardly the brightest bunch and their lack of intelligence does mean that we – the audience – do feel superior (and even sorry on some occasions) for them when things go wrong.  And they frequently go wrong.

Spinal Tap may be Britain’s ‘loudest’ group, but their star is fading and the tour is not as ‘sell out’ as they’d like it to be.  Sometimes it’s actually quite sad watching them as they desperately try to hang onto the life they were once used to.

Like I said at the beginning, it’s hard to know who the ‘target audience’ for This Is Spinal Tap’ really is.  The comedy is more subtle than your average ‘laugh-a-minute-fest’ and you need to have an appreciation for both mockumentaries and also darker, black humour.  Plus a love of heavy metal and/or rock music should help.  

Many films don’t age well.  At least this one has bad haircuts that were as bad at the time of filming as they are today!

Also, special mention to Michael Mckean, who puts on a great British accent like he’s a native.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

The Skeleton Key - A rare gem with real chills

When the Japanese film 'The Ring' got re-made for English-speaking audiences it kind of started a trend of horror movies where a lone female slowly investigates a dark, brooding situation, gradually coming to terms with the supernatural element she's uncovered.  2005's 'The Skeleton Key' is definitely in that bracket, yet whereas so many were pretty forgettable clones of 'The Ring,' this one did so much that was right I really do see it as up there with the best horror films of the genre.

Kate Hudson plays a young nurse who becomes the live-in help of an aging old man (John Hurt) who has had a stroke and is bedridden in New Orleans.  His wife (Gina Rowlands) seems more than capable of looking after him, but the help appears begrudgingly welcome.  However, Hudson soon realises that there is more going on with his 'illness' than just a stroke and dark forces are at play.

I can't really say anything else about the plot as it's one of those stories where if you know too much about it you may find yourself inadvertently spoiling what's really going on.  You only get the one chance to watch it without knowing where it's going and I do recommend you go into it knowing as little as possible.  However, I've seen it a fair few times and loved it every time.  That's because it's quite a slow burner.  You gradually learn more and more about what's really happening and if you've seen the film you can enjoy all the little hints and nods to the deeper undertones.

It may be classed as 'horror,' but don't expect any rubbery monsters or computer-generated ghosts chopping teenagers up with chainsaws.  I won't say what the 'supernatural threat' is as - again - it will be a 'spoiler,' but when the film is over and you think about it, you'll realise just how chilling and unsettling the premise really is.

Kate Hudson is great and a perfect lead, but the film would definitely not be as good without the acting stalwarts Gina Rowlands and - the very mute - John Hurt, who conveys plenty of scares barely saying a word all through the film.

If you're looking for an outright 'gorefest' then this won't fit the bill for you.  It's slow, but deliberately so, and slow without being dull.  It gradually drip-feeds you clues and spooky hints of what's happening and you'll definitely want to see where it ends up.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Showgirls - Liking this makes you more guilty than eating After Eight mints for breakfast

How I wish I could write this review anonymously. No one should publicly admit to liking Showgirls. There's very little to like about it. Yet I still do. And, looking at some of the other comments on here, I'm not the only one (perhaps there's a secret `Fight Club-like' organisation out there somewhere for people like us?).

It's about a young woman who drifts into Las Vegas with dreams of being a dancer. She ends up being a stripper. However, her fortunes don't stay that way for long, as she's offered a role in a top Vegas casino's show... which involves taking her clothes off.

In case you've never heard of this film, it does involve a lot of female nudity. Now, this naturally attracted a lot of criticism of the film being sexist. And, in short, it is. However, isn't that the point? We're getting a look into an industry (whether it be the stripping industry, the showgirl industry, or even the film industry) which is heavily male-dominated. It's run by rich middle-aged men who get to decide which young 18-21 year old females get the parts. Of course there's going to be a heavy element of sexism and quite a fair share of sleaze involved.

I won't try to defend Showgirls and say things like `the nudity empowers the women,' because that would probably be untrue (and rather pretentious). But I will say that the nudity is at least valid. Making a film without nudity about a subject involving strippers and erotic dancers would be like making a film about the Second World War without soldiers.

It's all pretty cheesy stuff. I don't know whether that was the film-makers' intentions when they made it, but that's the end result. Everything is very dramatic. The lead characters dances overly-dramatically, walks overly-dramatically and, if you look closely, even eats a hamburger overly-dramatically. It's kind of like the acting quality you'd expect from an afternoon soap (but with more nudity, obviously).

However, if there's one redeeming feature that can genuinely be talked about, it's Gina Gershon, who plays the femme fatale `Cristal Connors.' She seems to revel in flitting between evil and seductively charming and is a joy to watch when it comes to baddies.

I don't think anyone should recommend Showgirls to anyone, without knowing what sort of films they're into. You'll either love it or throw a brick at the TV. Best to just tell people you hate it until you meet up with them in some underground car park with the rest of the Showgirls fans. Remember, the first rule about liking Showgirls is that you DO NOT admit to liking Showgirls.

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

The Rover - I’m guessing people will either love or hate it

‘The Rover’ is one of many ‘post apocalyptic’ films, offering us its vision of ‘life after society.’ This time they don’t bother adding zombies to the bleakness, choosing instead to do something dark, gritty and hopefully realistic (think ‘The Road’ if you’ve seen that).

We’re introduced to Australia, a few years after ‘the collapse’ (whatever that might be).  Either way, it’s left people basically to fend for themselves and the Outback is a dangerous place to be.  We meet Guy Pearce (who, despite numerous Hollywood films under his belt, I still think of him as ‘Mike’ from Neighbours) who has his car stolen by a gang of wasters who are on the run.  This seems to tip him over the edge and he goes on a crusade to get it back... no matter who or what stands in his way.

I’ve seen plenty of ‘revenge films’ where the hero must go on a rampage in order to avenge something.  However, this is the first one I’ve seen the hero base his sole purpose in life in order to take back a set of wheels.  Unrealistic as that may sound for a plot, I suppose it’s give some added credence by the fact that he doesn’t seem that stable to begin with.  And here’s my first problem with the film.  I didn’t like Guy Pearce’s character.  I’m okay with ‘anti-heroes’ who have to bend and break the rules in order to bring about justice.  However, he seems to be pretty much without morals.  I won’t go into the exact details, but, soon after meeting our ‘hero’ he doesn’t something pretty dark which doesn’t really make you identify with him.  He then meets a guy who looks a bit like a fat version of Robert Pattinson.  I later looked on the internet and was shocked when I realised it WAS Robert Pattinson!  I’m guessing he wanted to ‘bulk up’ and look as different to his sparkly vampire persona as he could.  And he succeeded.

Then the two of them generally continue their quest for a car (and stuff).  Now, seeing as The Rover has already been in cinemas, I’m guessing that most people will now watch it on DVD.  And here’s the thing... because the ‘story’ is basically either or both Mike from Neighbours and Edward Cullen travelling through the Outback and meeting one dodgy person after the next – then ‘rinse and repeat,’ you can actually use the DVD’s ‘chapter skip’ option to take you through the story and not actually miss anything.  Seriously, if you tried pressing the button a few times you wouldn’t miss a single pertinent plot detail.  It’s just ‘meet the next grubby character and keep going.

Now, I know I’m being a bit negative about it all, but it does have its good points... namely its look and feel.  I mentioned earlier about how it looked like ‘The Road’ (only in the sunnier Outback, obviously).  It too is dark in tone, depressing and does a pretty good job at showing how life might be if society fell apart at the seams.

Most people will either love or hate it.  And I can see both arguments.  You’ll either love how dark and moody it is (dialogue is often pretty light and well spaced-out!), or simply find it dull.  There certainly isn’t enough action in it to call it a thrilling action movie.  Basically, if you’re in the mood for ‘bleak and slow’ then you’ll get something out of this.  An rollercoaster ride-explosion-fest it is not.

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

The Terror Within - Could have done better

I'm quite partial to cheesy sci-fi B-movies.  I don't expect too much and am quite happy with a rubbery monster, chomping his way through a cast of unknowns.  To be fair, I got all that with 1989's 'The Terror Within,' but, just because it was cheesy, didn't really mean it was that good.

Earth has succumbed to some sort of plague (don't dwell on it too much - it's just an excuse for the remaining humans to live underground) and those who have survived now dwell in a bunker while mutated monsters (known as 'gargoyles' roam the land).

George Kennedy is about the only cast member you may have seen before.  And he leads the rag-tag bunch of survivors as they try and stay alive when one of the dastardly gargoyles finds its way down below.

The creature got in about a third of the way into the film and, up until that point, I was quite happily enjoying the story (despite its lack of originality).  However, no sooner did the monster make its appearance, did the film show itself for what it was - a shameless rip-off of 'Alien.'

Now, I've seen plenty of 'Alien' clones, none of which lived up to the 1979 classic, but many that were entertaining in their own way.  However, this one just comes across as a bit on the cheap side. 'Alien' was dark and claustrophobic with a truly memorable xenomorph that had never been seen before on screen.  The monster in 'The Terror Within' is truly laughable.  It's just a (fat?) man in a rubber costume.  It really isn't scary at all and is quite cringeworthy.

The characters are pretty one dimensional and make every classic horror movie mistake when dealing with something that's trying to kill them.  They split up often and run into dangerous situations without really thinking things through.

Overall, if you like cheap rip-offs of 'Alien,' then there are plenty out there that are better than this.  There isn't much in the way of gore, but if there was a 'high-point' it was the 'birthing' scene of the creature - it may be a complete rip-off of John Hurt's classic scene in 'Alien,' but at least it was suitably gory and even made me a bit squeamish.

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

Pumpkinhead 4 - Blood Feud - Lame addition to the franchise

Eek, where to begin? Just don't bother. If you like low budget horror films then watch the first Pumpkinhead. This one offers nothing new and is just terrible.

I try to be a little more constructive, but it's just bad, bad, bad.

It reunites Lance Henriksen with the franchise. The film-makers obviously think that his name will entice people back to the story. And it worked... with me. I still think he's a great actor with amazing screen presence. However, he's not in this film enough to save it.

It's about a load of hillbillies. You won't care about any of them (even those meant to be sympathetic). They resurrect the demon Pumpkinhead. He kills people. Rinse and repeat.

It's a pity this film is so bad because Pumpkinhead himself still looks pretty cool. It's like the film-makers spent so much money on a decent-looking monster that they forgot to employ a competent writer. Shame.

1/10 This might as well have been written, directed and produced by Uwe Boll

Mud - Enjoyable, but very slow

Sometimes when you describe a movie as `slow' people may think that you didn't enjoy it. The trick with `Mud' to get the most out of it is to be in the mood for something with no car chases or gun battles.

It's about a wanted criminal, aka `Mud,' who, while living on an island off a U.S. river, befriends a couple of boys. What follows is a tale that is primarily based on love, i.e. the expectations people have of love, versus the reality.

Like I say, it's slow. It's about relationships forming (and unforming, of course!) therefore don't go expecting anything too fast-paced and action packed. However, if you're into more `character-driven' movies, then give this one a go. People often criticise child actors for `ruining' a movie. The young boy here gives an outstanding performance, as does Mathew McConaughey.

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

The Hunt (2007) - Not sure what I saw in this

'The Hunt' is an interesting film for me.  I remember the first time I watched it I was really quite taken with it.  I know it's hardly 'fast-paced' and definitely more of a 'slow-burner,' but the final third was pretty terrifying.  In fact, I enjoyed it so much, I bought it.

A couple of years later, I re-watched it and kind of wondered what I saw in it.  I've seen a few other reviews that describe it as 'Blair Witch with aliens' and that's pretty apt.  It's about two hunters who take one of their step-sons into the forest in order to film a documentary on 'bow hunting.' Granted it's not all filmed from a 'POV perspective,' but there's enough first-person footage of people running through the woods and talking straight into camera to draw similarities.

I've watched it three times now and each time the only thing I'm left with is the feeling that I must have been in one hell of a forgiving mood on the initial viewing.  I'm not saying it's terrible.  It's okay, but no more than that.  The acting isn't bad, but it has a really cheap feel - like a 'made-for-TV' movie.  Even the aliens - when you finally see them - look like they've been animated on a Playstation 2.  Plus don't expect many kills, or even gore on the few deaths you get.

I think if the film truly has a 'weak spot' it's the child actor who plays the little boy.  I don't want to come down too hard on him as, due to his age, has hardly had many years of 'treading the boards' to perfect his acting talent.  He just comes across a bit too weedy to really have much audience support.

Due to the film-makers deciding to tell the story as a kind of 'long flashback,' which is loosely interspersed with what is happening in the present, it does tend to rob the film of any tension as you kind of know what's happened and nothing really comes as that much of a surprise.

Overall, 'The Hunt' isn't an awful film, it's just so mediocre that you've seen a load of better horror/sci-fi films and this one is pretty forgettable (unless you're me, clearly).

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

Love, Honour and Obey - Could have actually been better.  SHOULD have been better

I first watched ‘Love, Honour and Obey’ back when it was released in 2000.  Seeing as I’ve always been reasonably into British gangster films, in short, I thought it was pretty cool.  However, I never had it on DVD and have only just got round to re-watching it a good fifteen years later.  Despite my good memories of the film, I begrudgingly have to admit that it hasn’t aged all that well.

Perhaps I was so into Guy Ritchie’s style of cockney gangster flick of the late nineties/early 2000s that I somehow lumped this into the same nostalgically-good category.  I don’t want to be too harsh on it, because there are definitely some good points and I didn’t totally hate it – it just let me down on a repeat viewing.  We meet Johnny Lee Miller’s character who is pretty much a London nobody and dreams of working his way into ‘the mob’ who it just so happens that his childhood friend, Jude Law, is already related to.

The overall impression I got after the credits rolled was that it felt more like a ‘made-for-TV’ movie.  And, upon looking into it, I did find that it was originally shown on the BBC before its release on DVD (or VHS in those days!).  It’s rare that I notice the ‘direction’ of a film so much.  Normally, a film is cut together so smoothly that you can follow the story at all times.  However, here scenes just sort of end as if the film cut out mid-dialogue.  It really is a bit jarring after a while.  Plus there are some scenes that don’t really go anywhere and feel a little out of place in the scheme of things.  And, while we’re on the topic of odd scenes, this film does struggle to know what it wants to be.  At first glance it’s a gangster film, but it’s never really dark and gritty enough to be that nasty.  It throws weird comedic scenes and plot-lines in there which wouldn’t be out of place in an American Pie film.  However, again, it’s not funny enough to be a comedy and, like the editing, it bounces all over the place.

But, like I say, even now I didn’t feel I totally wasted my time watching it.  For a start it contains a stellar cast, headed by Ray Winstone, Johnny Lee Miller and Jude Law (the less said about Sadie Frost’s performance the better).  However, the stand-out performance comes from a truly menacing Rhys Ifans for his rival villain.  For some reason they’re all called by their actors’ first names – weird, but interesting.  Then you have the karaoke scenes which really are quite fun (not to mention catchy!).

There was still just about enough nostalgia here to entertain me and, if you’re a major fan of any of the leads, you’ll probably find enjoyment during its hour and a half run-time.  However, I can’t see it being regarded as much of a classic in the long run.  It was kind of trying to ride the coattails of Lock, Stock and hope no one really noticed.  I did at the time, but it doesn’t now.

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