Ninja III: The Domination - The perfect cheesy eighties film

If ever someone was going to bury a time capsule for future generations in order to show them what an eighties movies looked like, I'm putting forward 'Ninja III: The Domination' forward as a suggestion.  I haven't watched the first two 'Ninja' outings (I must track them down!), but if they're half as good as 'Part III' then I'm in for a good time.

If you're expecting a deep and meaningful narrative with complex characters and deep story arcs then you're in for a major disappointment.  In fact, if you're simply looking for a 'good' film then you won't find it here.  This movie is comprised of only negative elements.  That's possibly why it's so damn awesome.

A ninja tries to assassinate an American politician, but, despite taking out possibly half of the CIA's workforce in the process, he's gunned down and killed.  Or so it seems.  Luckily, his spirit is trapped in his sword and is later found by a leg-warmer-clad beauty who then becomes possessed by his soul, picking up all his powers and then going out on a rampage of revenge on the poor boys in blue who ended his life.

There are no actors you'll probably know, but don't worry - everyone here does their best to elevate the cheesy script.  Calling their performances 'bad' would probably be a little disingenuous, as the director was equally inept and didn't seem able to draw much out of them.  There are plenty of fight scenes, but don't expect anything up to the levels of 'The Matrix' here.  Sometimes people will throw punches and you can see the hits don't connect, yet you still hear the sound effects and the victim falls backwards.  There's a sub-plot involving a love story between the lady-ninja and a police officer and it's as predictable as it comes.  A new character is thrown into the film at about the halfway point who feels like a different writer has suddenly taken over.  In any other film this may feel jarring, but here you just need to roll with the (fake) punches.

Like I say, this film is terrible - so terrible it's awesome.  I don't think film company Cannon hoped it would be laughably bad, but it is.  But that's what makes it so fun.  If you're looking for a film that is truly 'so-bad-it's-good' then you will definitely find it here.  I enjoyed every awful minute of it and will definitely track down all other films in the series.  Please may they be as bad as this.

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

Screamers - Fun but flawed little sci-fi film

Okay, there's probably no way I would ever have watched this, but, growing up in the eighties and being a big fan of 'Robocop,' I couldn't help but try and 'support' its leading man, Peter Weller, in whatever he chose to do after hanging up his metal suit.  Therefore, when I found 'Screamers' in the video store with his name on, I figured I'd give it a try.

I watched it the once.  Now, over twenty-five years later, I've decided to give it another go.  It would be fair to say that it left much of an impression on me.  The only thing I remember was that it was a science-fiction film set on a far away planet with metal things ('Screamers') that burrow under the ground and kill you.  Seeing as I've just watched it, I guess I can now say that there's more to it than just that.  But not an awful lot more.

The far away planet is in the midst of a civil war and there are more than just the underground little robot killing machines (which my girlfriend kept referring to as 'murderous moles!') to worry about.  So Weller must lead a rag-tag bunch of humans across the desolate planet (which is probably just a patch of desert in California) to try and discover the source of the new threat, or just escape - whichever comes first.

On my second (2021) viewing, I noticed in the opening credits that it was based on a story (which I haven't read) by the (hugely talented) Philip K Dick ('Total Recall' anyone?) and the screenplay adapted by Dan O'Bannon (the screenwriter of the almighty 'Alien').  Based on these two sci-fi heavyweights, I was surprised that it hadn't left more of an impression on me.

I won't go into any more detail as there are some elements that you might not see coming.  But at least I can see why I haven't revisited it for all this time.  It's just... okay.  It's a B-movie and, for what it is, it does it's best.  It doesn't have the budget, nor the actors (sorry, Peter, you'll always be the 'true' Robocop) and some bits don't really make sense.  There are some nice sets here and there, but the special effects seem to be very 'hit and miss.' They're either actually pretty good, or laughably bad.  Although it is nice to see a film that doesn't rely completely on computer-generated effects and greenscreens.  It's no 'Robocop, Alien, or 'Total Recall,' however, if you're in a forgiving mood and you just want a slice of B-movie, sci-fi fun - it'll kill an hour and a half of your time.  Just don't expect to remember much about it in twenty-five years time.  I sure didn't.

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

Troy (Director's Cut) - Epic swords & sorcery (just with the sorcery edited out)

I did watch the original version of 'Troy' in the cinema when it first came out and it was pretty good.  I really enjoyed it and it was definitely a film I'd watch again.  However, when it came to buying it on DVD I found the 'director's cut.' Normally, when one of these is released you get a few extra minutes added in here and there - so few that you either have to be a mega fan and know every line, or you simply just don't notice.  Not here.

The director's cut of 'Troy' contains whole epic action sequences and sub-plots which were - for some reason - not included in the theatrical release.  I can only assume that the studio behind the film assumed that it was too long and less people would want to sit through it.  Personally, I think it's much better this way.

I was always a little confused at how 'Troy' seems to have been rather overlooked and as forgotten with the sands of time as it's central character, Achilles (Brad Pitt), fears he may well become.  The movie never really got the praise I feel it deserves.  I wonder whether that was to do with most people only knowing about the theatrical cut with so much left out.  For the record, I even here that this cut could have been longer, as the original story 'Troy' is based on contains the gods watching down on what humanity is doing to each other (in a kind of 'Clash of the Titans' kind of way).  

Now, since vaguely looking up 'Troy' on the internet, I do hear that there are some purists who are well into their Greek mythology who claim that the film doesn't do the story justice.  I must confess that I have never read the source material, so I really can't compare the two.  But I know that I like this.

It's an epic tale of how Greece went to war with the - so far - unconquered city of Troy.  Greece has Achilles and Troy has Hector (Eric Bana).  And they're fighting over naughty little Orlando Bloom (Paris) and his affair with Helen of Greece (not Helen of Troy!).  That's only a few of the familiar faces you'll find among the cast.  You don't just have the sweaty biceps of Pitt and Bana, but also acting heavyweights Sean Bean, Peter O'Toole and Brian Cox.

I know it's kind of long, so I guess that may put some people off watching it.  And, if you're desperately looking for a realistic interpretation of what the original story was like, this perhaps isn't it.  However, if you're into a 'historical' tale told with a modern (and fantastic!) cast, awesome action scenes and a story that is as old as time, then definitely give this one a go.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Die Hard 2 - Surprisingly good sequel

It's terms of action films, I think it's fair to say that the original eighties 'Die Hard' was a 'classic.' It seemed to have everything from the cast, to the obligatory action, but also a great villain, snappy dialogue and a real sense of claustrophobic tension.  I doubt those who made it really had that high hopes for it, so when it performed so well a sequel was green-lit pretty quickly.  And we all know what happens when a sequel is rushed out!

But not in this case. 'Die Hard 2' (despite its uninspired name!) is actually pretty damn good.  Okay, so if I had to compare it to the original, its predecessor would win hands down every time, but it certainly is a worthy sequel and one to add to your collection.

I suppose the main aspect of the first 'Die Hard' was that it was one man, police officer John McClane (Bruce Willis) all on his own, trapped in a tower block filled with hostile terrorists.  I guess it would be a little too much of a stretch for the imagination to have that happen to him a second time.  Therefore, things do work a little bit differently here.  This time round it centres on Washington airport and a group of terrorists who have taken control of the air traffic control system and are threatening to crash one plane after another unless their demands are met.

Because McClane is now part of a 'team' (who range from inept police officers, to tech guys, janitors and special forces) - technically - he has the opportunity to simply walk away from the dangerous situation at any time.  Yes, I know his wife is on one of the planes, giving him a vested interest in seeing them land safely.  But it's this difference between the two films which removes the sense of claustrophobia which the first movie possessed.

However, like I say this doesn't make it any the less action-packed and a definite watch for anyone who can appreciate the 'excess' of actions movies back in the eighties and nineties, to fan of Bruce Willis when he actually seemed to care about the films he was in.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Man Who Fell to Earth - Loving the Alien

As a 'die hard' David Bowie fan, you may think I'd be automatically inclined to love everything he's ever done, albeit musically, or on screen.  He's dabbled in acting here and there and let's just say his filmic career has been a 'mixed bag.' However, most seem to agree that 'The Man Who Fell to Earth' is an outright classic.  I guess it is.  To a degree.

Bowie plays an alien who comes to Earth in order to save his own dying planet which is running out of water - fast.  However, once he's here he has to come to the - depressing - conclusion that he's probably never going home and slowly falls victim to us humans' 'desires and pleasures.'

You may well think that, based on that plot synopsis, that you're going to get some sort of major out and out science fiction film with plenty of special effects and maybe even some action.  You'd be very wrong.  What you'll get is more akin to a documentary.  No, the characters are all acting and - of course - not aware of the camera.  Yet it feels like it's almost a 'fly-on-the-wall' kind of affair.  Bowie is excellent as the titular alien; he's aloof and 'otherworldly,' although critics do point out that he's more just playing himself and even slightly influenced by various substances that plagued his life in the seventies.

If you're a major fan of Bowie, like me, then you'll probably love it, but despite the overall feeling that this film is amazing, there are always going to be those who downright hate it.  And, to be fair, I can see why.  It's no easy watch and, although I own it on DVD, it's not a film I choose to sit through often.  You certainly need to be in the mood for something very dark and serious.  There are never really any moments that lighten the mood and it'll leave you feeling pretty bleak and empty afterwards.  Plus it's getting on for nearly two and a half hours long, so it doesn't end quickly either!

It is a classic though.  If nothing else you have to agree that there's very little in the way of modern films that come close to the look, feel and topics that 'The Man Who Fell to Earth' covers.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Village of the Damned (1995) - Much lampooned and most enjoyable

I've only just watched 1995's 'The Village of the Damned' and yet I have this real feeling of de ja vu.  For some reason, despite my love of horror and the film's strong cast and crew, I never got round to seeing it in the nineties and yet I feel like I must have seen it somewhere.  Then it hit me... I haven't just seen it somewhere, I think it's more like I've seen it everywhere!

A small American town faints - yes, literally - everyone just drop where they're standing, only to wake a few hours later with many of the child-bearing age women now pregnant.  Skip forward a few years and there's a crop of creepy platinum-blond-haired children running around - and practically running the town at the same time!

It seems like this 'concept' has been made fun of, or at least references, in so many pop culture classics since its release that I kind of knew what would happen by now without needing to watch the actual source material.  However, it's so good... I'm glad I did.

The two leads know their stuff - Christopher Reeve and Kirsty Alley.  Both seasoned pros in their respective fields, but the one thing they have in common seems to be an ability to know that this film, although pretty horrific in places, can't be taken overly seriously.  Therefore they seem to know the right time to play things straight, but not TOO straight.  You also have Mark Hamill thrown into the cast list as the local priest.  He's not in it much and, when he's christening the children after their multiple births, I think the producers missed a trick in not having him saying 'May the Force be with you,' instead of the traditional blessing!

The cast all play their parts well, but - possibly - what elevates this film over many of its genre is the fact that (horror legend) John Carpenter directed it.  I read on the internet (so hardly fact!) that he only agreed to do this because he was contractually obliged to do so.  I don't know how true that it, but he certainly seems to be able to get a good performance out of his cast, even when he's not really trying.  Plus you have 'typical' John Carpenter-esque music which really does add to the overall foreboding feel.

There's not too much in the way of gore, but it is rather creepy.  Films (especially in the horror genre) that rely on children as primary actors can be a bit hit and miss.  Sometimes the kids just aren't believable, due to their lack of years in front of the camera (hardly their fault at a young age, but it can be a turn off for viewers).  However, here they all fit the bill perfectly and will make you damn glad that your little monster in real life isn't half as bad as these literal monsters.

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

The Nest (1987) - Worth it for the final act (just)

If you choose to watch only ONE film about mutated killer cockroaches, then I strongly recommend 1987's 'The Nest.' Yes, granted there aren't that many to choose from, but this one is pretty good.  It's set on a small island where one of those evil corporations has decided to use as a 'test subject' for their latest 'invention,' i.e. mutated cockroaches.  Of course they never quite figured the little critters would be quite so hungry for human flesh, but that's why they run these sort of tests, I guess.

The characters aren't that bad (despite what I'd read in other reviews which says they're totally unlikeable and badly-acted.  I actually thought it was a nice touch having the male lead 'seeing' two women at once!  This is hardly the actions of 'the hero' and just tickled me for some reason.

The first couple of thirds of the film I was sitting back thinking that, although watchable, it was all a little cheap and I could take it or leave it.  However, I suppose a film like this doesn't have millions of dollars for a budget and has to work with what it has - and what the film-makers obviously had was the idea that they would save the best until last.  The final act is where all the best bits are.  I won't go into too much detail, but the plot takes a few interesting (if a tad unbelievable - but, hey, you've sat down to watch a film about killer cockroaches, so I guess you're not too fussed about suspending your disbelief just that little bit further!) turns.

And the 'good turns' come in the form of the 'practical effects.' It's nice to see what people could do with latex and dummies; they just look so much more real that today's digitally-added computer special effects that most modern films are made with.

'The Nest' may never be a true 'horror classic,' but if you like your eighties films cheesy and full of gore then this one is worth sticking with.

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

The Unholy (1988) - Standard demonic exploits

There's a popular YouTube reviewer I always watch and he has a saying that you won't remember a movie in 'T-minus 2 days.' I really wanted to love 'The Unholy;' I have a thing for eighties horror and always go for practical effects and story over anything made today with slick CGI.  Here we have a demon (called 'the unholy' believe it or not) who likes to pray on the innocent and pure once a year in an offering to the big red horned one down below.

Of course priests and virgins are pretty damn 'pure' so the unholy counts itself lucky to find a '2-4-1' offer here where both souls may well be turned and sent into the fires of hell.  A young priest is charged with the task of facing down this demon and, er, slaying it I guess.  Just 'defeating' it seems to be enough for the creepy church elders who send him on his quest.

There's not much to say about most of the film, because not an awful lot happens.  That's a sort of 'half criticism,' because, despite it not exactly being a rollercoaster of excitement, I did stick with it until the end.  The end.  That's when it really picks up.  There is a fantastic monster in the final act which will impress anyone (as it's practical effects over computer), but it isn't exactly excitement all the way getting there.  The characters all seem rather one dimensional.  Then from practically blending in with the background set, they crank the acting up to 'eleven' and start screaming the set down.  There was one nice touch a felt with someone who, in other movies, would probably been portrayed as just an outright baddie, but he actually felt a little more three dimensional than the 'heroes.'

However, I didn't regret sitting through the film and I definitely didn't hate it.  I just was hoping there would be something a little more memorable to turn just another demonic eighties horror film into a classic that I'd want to watch again.  I doubt I'll ever watch it again, sadly.

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

Yoga Hosers - I dare you to try and make it all the way through

I feel like I should start this review by saying how much I love actor/writer/director Kevin Smith's work.  Throughout the nineties and beyond he's created some of the cleverest, wittiest and most entertaining films ever to come out of (non mainstream) Hollywood.  I pretty much will watch most things with his name attached.  Yes, some of the more recent films have only really been average, but perfectly watchable - and you know that, even if what you're seeing isn't top quality, there's still a good chance his next film will be better.

Then I found 'Yoga Hosers.' I didn't even know it existed until recently.  I watched Smith's horror/black comedy 'Tusk' and never knew that his own daughter (alongside real life best friend, Johnny Depp's daughter, Lilly) had cameos in 'Tusk,' let alone went on to star in their own spin-off movie.

The two girls (or should I say Smith/Depp's daughters?) play two slacking clerks at a convenience store (anyone thinking this sounds familiar?) in Canada.  Yes, the plot starts off very similar to Smith's first ever big screen outing 'Clerks.' However, this one moves from comedy to horror/comedy.

I have no problem with the shift in genre.  I just hated the two central characters.  The two stars of 'Clerks' were losers, but you kind of felt sorry for them and could relate to their plight.  Here, these two girls are just nasty.  I was kind of rooting for ever monster who potentially could have eaten them.  It's rare that I take such a dislike to characters, but - even during the opening credits - they were annoying me enough that I could happily turn the film off even before I saw all the production team involved in its making.

Did I mention it's set in Canada?  I think I did.  And you'll be hit over the head with that fact/'gag' at every possible moment, especially pointing out that Canadians pronounce 'about' as 'aboot.' Hilarious.  Didn't 'South Park' do this over twenty years ago?

I just wanted this film to end.  And, for me, it never did.  I never gave it the chance.  I must have got over halfway through before the lack of laughs and sheer horrible leads made me hit the remote and find something better to watch.  One upside - the 'retro' computer game music that came on every time a new character was introduced and we saw their 'profile' (although this soon became overused).

Come on, Kevin.  You can do so much better than this (not including his 'Masters of the Universe' show for Netflix.  That came straight from hell and can go back there even sooner than 'Yoga Hosers.'

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

Equilibrium - 1984 (but with guns)

'1984' - George Orwell's classic novel about one every day man's struggle in a dystopian future.  Now, what if that every day man wasn't just a mid-level clerk in a giant office, but a gun-totting, kick-a$$ tough guy, hell bent on enforcing this fascist regime?  But, wait, there's more!  This one-man instrument of death rebels against the status quo, where the population are forced to erase their own emotions by taking a daily dose of medicine, then goes on a murderous rampage to overthrow the population's oppressors?  This is basically 'Equilibrium.'

There's probably a lot of negative things I could say about this film.  Yes, the 'setting' seems straight out of the book '1984' (complete with 'Big Brother-esque' face, 'lovingly' ordering the masses around via huge TV screens.  Yes, it also came out only a few years after 'The Matrix' and therefore has a similar style of martial arts/gun-play when it comes to action scenes.  And, yes, it could easily be lost among similar sci-fi B-movies.  I think these are all fair comments if you're in the mood to hate on it.  But, on the other hand, it's just so much fun.

Christian Bale seems born to play the cold-hearted 'cleric' whose icy heart slowly melts as he becomes more and more in touch with his emotions.  And it's his show all the way.  There are a few other faces you may - sort of - recognise, but (like 'American Psycho') this is Bale through and through.

If you like your dystopian thrillers with more than a little hint of kick-a$$ action (or 'gun-fu' as I believe it's technically called) then you should definitely give this one a try.  I know people call it a 'discount 'Matrix' rip-off, but it really isn't.  The combat is actually quite different with no 'bullet time' effects that I can remember.  Plus it's more science-fiction than straight out action.  Alternatively, if you want to take a peek into what a totalitarian, authoritarian regime would look like, then just take a look out of your window during 2020-and beyond.

Oh, and also, Sean Bean is in it.  Is that a 'spoiler?' Anyone who knows anything about Sean Bean's fate in movies will know what I mean with that one!

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

The Book of Eli - Enjoyable, if predictable

I know that a lot of people absolutely love this film and find it hard to say anything negative about it and I'm certainly not intended to slate it beyond all reason.  However, I've watched it a few time (so it can't be that bad, right?) and always been left with a feeling that, although it's certainly good, judging by the heavyweights in the cast and overall budget, it just could have been much better still.

The ever-excellent Denzil Washington plays a loner who's surviving in one of those 'post apocalyptic worlds' that seem to be common in film and TV shows these days (think the desert-like setting from the 'Mad Max' movies).  He's your typical no-nonsense badass who's been charged with the task of transporting the last copy of a book to a specific location (I'm not sure whether the exact book is supposed to be some sort of secret or not, therefore I won't mention it in case it's technically a 'spoiler,' but when I first watched it, I guessed what the book was pretty quickly).  There is another 'plot point' that I certainly won't mention, as I definitely didn't see it coming - and, just for the record, found it a little 'implausible!'

However, life on the road is fraught with dangers - not just the random thugs wanting to either steal his weapons and water, but a local governor of a town (Gary Oldman) who knows about the book and wants it for himself in order to increase his power.

There's very little I can say about the film that's bad.  Obviously, with Washington and Oldman as the leads you know you're in for some good performances.  However, it just seemed like both actors could do so much better.  Everyone's seen them give numerous great performances, but here they just seem like they're 'phoning it in' a bit.  However, even an average performance from either of them still elevates the film from just another sci-fi survival film to something at least worth a bit of your time.

There are other good names on the cast list - everyone from Mila Kunis to Malcolm McDowell pop up and are all perfectly functional for their role.  I guess that's a word I'd use to describe 'The Book of Eli' - functional.  Despite it's stellar cast list and epic setting, it just comes across to me as another 'Mad Max-esque' movie.  It's certainly not bad and if you're interested in that type of film then I'm sure most people won't feel that they've wasted their time watching it.  

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

Point Break (1991) - More fun that it deserves to be

On paper, 1991's 'Point Break' shouldn't work.  Or at least it should have long since been forgotten and confined to cinematic oblivion.  However, for some reason, everything about it just worked.  It worked back then and it still works now.  Possibly down to its two main leads (the highly bankable - back then, anyway - Keaun Reeves and Patrick Swayze), but also down to its sheer rawness.

The eighties gave us action films with burly musclemen wiping out scores of faceless henchmen, whereas the nineties tried to be a little more 'grounded' with its action - but only a little! 'Point Break' is about a young FBI agent (Reeves) who infiltrates a gang of bank robbers by learning to surf alongside them.  However, the one thing he didn't bargain on was the leader of the gang (Swayze) and how charismatic he is - can Reeves really bring himself to arrest him?

To say this is an 'all out' action film would be a bit of an overstatement.  It's more of an 'action/thriller/cops and robbers film.  Either way, whatever it is - it's awesome!  It's an example of a film that - for some reason - everything comes together perfectly and it's a completely easy watch from beginning to end.

The thing I always found with movies set in the eighties (and, to a degree, the nineties) is that they always seemed to 'start quicker,' or at least get going sooner.  Today, half the movie would be taken up with 'character building' and getting to know everyone's motivation.  I don't know whether that means that eighties/nineties films had more cliched characters, but here all characters are very easy to 'get behind' from the moment we meet them, meaning we can cut to the 'good stuff' a hell of a lot sooner.

And the good stuff is good indeed.  The 'action' may not involve mowing down mini armies of henchmen, but the set-pieces are awesome and have even been imitated and even lampooned a few times over the years ('Hot Fuzz' I'm looking at you!).  This is an example of a film that could never be made today.  They'd be too much political correctness and weird attempts at adding a 'message' into the film that the original 'Point Break' just didn't need to be amazing popcorn fun.  Did you notice I said 'original?' Yes, they tried to remake it, so just make sure you ignore the abomination that is the 2015 remake of this classic.

Special mention to Gary Busey who plays Reeves' partner - always strikes me as a 'forgotten, but integral' part of this film's success.

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

Demon Wind - Gets better towards the end

I really wanted to like this film.  I'm a big fan of cheesy horror films (and in particular cheesy eighties horror films - yes, technically this one came out in 1990, but it has one hell of an '80s vibe!').  The plot is nothing new, in fact, since the (far superior) 'Evil Dead' films, a handful of friends heading out to a remote dwelling, before being attacked by supernatural forces.

There's an opening segment set in the past where a husband and wife are murdered by demons, before flashing forward to present day and a young couple, the boyfriend of which is descended from the initial victims.  They're off to find out what happened and they seem to have invited half their address book along for the ride.

On the way, you get the typical 'creepy locals' who warn them away from their intended destination.  However, in true horror movie style, they ignore such foreboding words and go to a deserted farmhouse anyway.  The cast are nothing special.  You won't have heard of any of them and they're pretty generic, i.e. you, dumb and oversexed.  There was one guy who stuck out - he reminded me of a young Benedict Cumberbatch who, instead of just being another cardboard cut-out, was effectively a ninja who indulged in magic!

It was a pretty hard watch for the first two thirds as not an awful lot happens.  Yes, it does pick up in the final act when heads (literally!) start to roll.  There's a decent amount of gore and the practical effects are nice and bl00dy - effectively better than 90% of CGI effects released today!

It was one of those films that didn't seem to know what tone it wanted to be.  It starts off really serious, like it's trying to be really scary.  Then, only a few scenes later, you get wise-cracking gags and silliness.  Next, we're back to trying to be really dramatic again.  Off-putting in my opinion.

It's okay enough.  It could have been better.  The final act was fun, but - for me - one of the most odd things about it was the fact that the film-makers clearly only had the one single sound effect for whenever someone gets hit, or knocked over.  Seriously, listen out for it.  It happens no matter who gets hit, whatever they fall on and generally whenever someone bumps into something else.

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

Panic Room - Tight little thriller

I do like films that are basically set in a single location and hardly need any special effects, fancy sets or intricate action set-pieces to work.  They're a hard trick to pull off.  They risk either being called 'cheap,' or simply 'boring' because they don't really go anywhere.  Luckily, 'Panic Room' is an example of a good little film that doesn't need action, special effects, or multiple locations to be tense and engaging.  Of course casting Jodie Foster in the lead never hurts either.

She plays a single mother who moves into a large New York apartment with her teenage daughter (a near unrecognisable Kristen Stewart).  Unsurprisingly, this building comes complete with a small, secure 'panic room' which can be used should a trio of burglars ever break into your house late one night.  Guess what happens when they move in?

Yes, three men (including Forest Whitaker and Jared Leto) break in, forcing Foster and Stewart) to take refuge in the titular location and do their best to launch some sort of 'counter offensive' from there.

Now, I know most people will just ask, 'Why doesn't she then call the police?' Well, the film's script does a decent enough job of explaining why no 'obvious' option is available to her from then on, so - in terms of the movie's plot - it does all make sense and you don't have to suspend your disbelief too much to appreciate it.

The whole film takes place within the apartment (which, sometimes does come across as more of a 'mansion' due to its size than any flat that I've ever been in!) and, despite the set's size, it still gives off a nicely claustrophobic atmosphere.  All performances are good here (but then you'd probably expect that from the talent on the cast list) and the film is still as good today as it ever was.

If you're looking for a decent little thriller to watch this will certainly kill an hour and a half and you won't feel like you've wasted your time.  Interestingly, it's also directed by a well-known (and highly competent) director - David Fincher - yet somehow, in my opinion, it never really felt like part of his body of work.  Still good though.

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

Nick of Time - Great fun nineties thriller

I know it's kind of hard to see Johnny Depp as anything else than a smooth-talking pirate captain (and that's even before his star power has waned slightly!), but - believe it or not - once upon a time, he was a fresh-faced young lad who wouldn't look out of place in your average boyband.

In the 'Nick of Time' he plays a loving father of a young girl who, while taking her to a new city via train, gets accosted by a couple of rogue security agents who hold his child hostage in exchange for him assassinating a political target.  

Okay, so the premise is a little far-fetched and you may be asking yourself, 'Why doesn't he just go to the authorities?' the moment he gets the chance.  However, the script actually does a good job of filling in all these types of 'plot holes' courtesy of one Christopher Walken.  He's the main villain, hell-bent on getting Depp to do his dirty work - and he's at his most sleazy and intimidating here.  It's almost like Depp is playing the 'straight man' to Walken's hissing viper of a man and Walken is on top form here.

Depp's on screen daughter doesn't get much screen time and that's no bad thing.  Kids in adult films can be hit or miss and, although she doesn't seem too bad, I doubt she could handle too much attention in centre stage.

The other character worth mentioning is played by Charles S Dutton (whatever happened to him?) as a well-meaning, but slightly reluctant, shoe shiner who may just be able to offer Depp a hand.  He's a nice touch to the film and adds more than just an 'escape route' for depth, but someone to play off.

Overall, I'd give 'Nick of Time' a go.  Yes, I'm sure you'll think that no matter how tight the writing is, there are still one or two times you'll have to suspend your disbelief in order to get maximum enjoyment out of this film.  It's still a lot of fun.  It's a tight, tense little thriller with a great cast and, although no surprises in the long run, is just great fun to watch.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996) - Nice try

I think it's fair to say that (most) sequels are pretty much lesser versions of the original and, in particular, horror films seem to suffer more than most from this stereotype.  This is the fourth in the line of 'Hellraiser' films - the original telling the story of a bunch of particularly nasty demons who you can release into our world via an antique puzzle box.  

The first was a classic, but - and you may not believe it based on the way the demons were marketed as the 'central focus' - the monsters were only in it for a few minutes near the end.  The two subsequent sequels realised that the demons (or 'cenobites' as I believe they're called) were the real 'stars' of the show (in the same way Freddy is the real star of the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' series) and therefore utilised them to the max.  

Doug Bradley reprises the role of 'Pinhead' (or 'leader' of the cenobites) for the last time before he hands the reigns over to someone else (dare I say 'inferior?').  And he really is about the only real reason to watch 'Part IV.' It's like the film's writers fell for the oldest cliche in the book, i.e. when you've run out of ideas, just set it in space and hope that that's enough to make it seem fresh and new.

Or at least it starts in space.  We're soon treated to a film of - sort of - three thirds where we meet the inventor of the puzzle box hundreds of year ago and follow his descendents who are bound to its evil - and therefore must repeatedly face off against Pinhead throughout the ages.  The trouble is, none of them are particularly interesting and - although they're technically the good guys - they're just too boring to really care about, so you find yourself drawn more to Pinhead and his lady friend who makes her first appearance in the franchise.

It tries its best here and there, but there's not that much that you haven't seen before in the previous three installments.  There are some nice make-up effects, but the computer-generated attempts fall victim to not having enough of a budget to make them believable/scary.  If you're a fan of Doug Bradley and his iconic performance as Pinhead then you might as well watch the last one he's in.  I know the third installment got a lot of hate, but - personally - I thought it was head and shoulders above this one.

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

Natural Born Killers - Probably not as controversial as you've heard

Back in the nineties, and Quentin Tarantino's name was the epitome of 'cool' and 'hip' film-making, the prospect of another of his films coming out (after both the much hyped 'Reservoir Dogs' and 'Pulp Fiction') was almost too much to handle.  Yes, there were many who pointed out that - technically - 'Natural Born Killers' was not actually one of his films were he did all the writing, producing and directing, but, as it has his name attached, none of us cared.

Then it got banned.  Apparently, it was too violent for the general public and its depiction of serial killers randomly executing innocent people would turn us easily-influenced viewers into the monsters we saw onscreen.  All it really did was make us want to watch it even more.

Back then we were forced to watch it on, er, 'less official' means which certainly could never live up to the experience of seeing it on the big screen, or even on your own TV (properly).  Therefore, everyone enjoyed it - despite it being blurred, juddery and a terrible picture.  No one dared say anything other than it was a 'masterpiece.'

Luckily, these days, 'Natural Born Killers' is available to buy on most good DVD sellers online and you can see it in all its glory (albeit on the small screen).  Plus, without the 'mythos' surrounding its release, you can relax, sit back and actually watch it with a little more of a neutral head on.  Yes, it's still a good film, but probably not one you'd watch often.

Two killers: Mickey (Woody Harrelson) and Malory (Juliette Lewis) go on a killing spree and that's about it.  Yes, there are plenty of people who see the story as some type of satirical take on the American way of life and try to read 'deeper' meaning into the story.  It's one of those films that probably hard to truly recommend.  Yes, there's plenty of grotesque and uncalled for violence.  And, rather than Tarantino directing, Oliver Stone takes the chair and gives us one hell of a psychedelic trippy ride, using every directing trick in the book in order to give the feeling that you've been taking every illegal drug possible before you sat down to watch.

There's plenty of famous faces on the cast list, not just the main two, but expect Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Downey Jr also chewing up the scenery, really giving us 'cartoonish' impersonations of cold-hearted - yet supposedly good - characters.

Is it a masterpiece?  Well, it's definitely not your normal 'Classic Hollywood' film.  If you're in the mood for something very different to everything else that's on Netflix these days then it will certainly make you think  Just make sure you have a strong stomach when it comes to excessive violence, swearing and generally bad people getting away with things.

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

Leon - Still holds up

The nineties had its fair share of great action movies, such as 'The Rock, Speed' and 'Armageddon' and, although 1994's 'Leon' doesn't really contain half as much action, or nearly a quarter of the destruction and special effects of the others, it's as if it sits in some sort of 'Marvel-style' 'shared universe' of movies.

Luc Besson directs Jean Reno as the titular 'Leon' - a loner-hitman, living in New York, happily earning his money by *ahem* 'removing' people from circulation.  His life is straightforward (if a little violent) enough, until a gang murders the family in the next apartment and he's forced to look after the only survivor - a young girl called Mathilda (Natalie Portman).  The two of them form an unlikely bond and he even feels protective enough towards her to confide in her as to the true nature of his profession and maybe 'teach her the tools' of his trade.

The premise is sound enough to warrant a watch, but 'Leon' is one of those rare films where every performance is just so perfect that it can't be flawed.  Although, as great as its two leads are, it's Gary Oldman as the villain who steals every scene with his delightfully manic performance.

Like I say, there's not half as much action or high-octane energy in 'Leon' when you compare it to other 'action' films.  It's more centred on tension and the drama of each character and their slow transformations from interacting with each other.

Perhaps the only small 'criticism' (notice the quote marks?) is that certain scenes do somehow feel a little 'uncomfortable' to watch.  These normally focus around the young girl's 'feelings' towards her adult mentor, but then I'm guessing the script is supposed to show the awkwardness that a relationship like this can cause.

However, that doesn't detract from the fact that 'Leon' is still as watchable today as it was back then and it's become a well-deserved classic in its own right since its release all those years ago.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Critters Attack (2019) - Should have done better

Balls of alien fluff rolling around like killer hedgehogs, murdering people with their glowing red eyes and hideous spiked teeth.  What could you possibly want from an eighties horror film?  Three sequels maybe?  Or maybe not.  Just like most horror films (and possibly all films in general?), the sequels do tend to be steadily inferior to those that had come before them.  However, just because the original 'Critters' spawned three sequels back in the eighties and early nineties, didn't mean they were bad.

Now, some twenty years later, the little hungry balls of fur are back again - and I was delighted for the reunion.  Then I watched it.  Have you ever sat through a film where you know something is wrong, or just doesn't work and yet you can't nail it down and put your finger on it.  2019's 'Critters Attack' was like that for me.

Yes, the nasty little aliens are back and - again - are the 'real' stars.  The humans are merely there to provide the monsters something to scream and bleed while they get eaten.  I think one of my main problems with the film was that they tried too hard to make the central characters relatable and give them all backstories.  It didn't work.  They just felt annoying.  Then you had the secondary characters who were only on screen for about a minute before they were devoured mercilessly.

The special effects on the monsters are nice, but perhaps the film borrows too much of what worked in previous installments and this feels more of a cheap (yes, it has that 'made for TV' feel about it) remake, rather than a sequel.

By the end of the film I was just preying that the final act would end.  I really can hardly recall how it actually ended.  I could tell by the time that it was nearly over, but had checked out mid-way.  If I had anything better to do I would probably not have bothered watching the second half at all, as the unlikeable characters really didn't do much for me and, by the time the credits rolled, I wished that the Critters had eaten the lot of them.

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

Death Spa (1989) - If you go down to the spa today...

...you'll sure be in for a surprise!  Because, even though it's only 1989, an L.A. gym is completely automated with futuristic technology and therefore making plenty of money in the process.  So, it's a shame when an unfortunate and gruesome set of fatal - in some cases - accidents befall the establishment just before it's big customer drive.

The owner doesn't know what to do?  Is it his dodgy brother in law who installed the computer system, someone trying to cause trouble in order to buy the property on the cheap, or something a little more supernatural?

With the grey and pink striped backdrop of eighties decor, one by one the clientele is bumped off one by one - and it's actually pretty good fun.  Certainly the first half has not just a lot of good moments, i.e. gore and mysteries, with even a few 'red herrings' thrown in there just to throw you off the scent, but also it's quite well directed and everyone is trying really hard.

However, it sort of gets lost in itself during the second half.  Perhaps it tries to tie together too many different ideas and sub-plots, but hasn't the time to do them all justice.  A lot of stuff happens in the final act, but, by this time, it feels like it's just a load of weird random happenings thrown together to try and get as many scares in as possible.

If you're watched the original 'Dawn of the Dead,' you may know horror legend Ken Foree.  He's about the most recognisable actor in this and - like so often in the B-movies he pops up in - steals every scene.  Sadly, he's not in it as much as I thought he should be.  The rest of the cast do their best with what they've got and do okay.

Overall, if you like eighties cheesy horror films, you should enjoy this.  Be gentle and not too harsh.  It loses its way, but it's still a lot of daft fun in spandex.

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

Lucky Number Sleven (but in the desert)

This film mainly reminded me of (the far superior) ‘Lucky Number Sleven’.  I won’t say why, because that might spoil it for you if you watch ‘Guns, Girls and Gambling.’ The two films follow (dare I say a ‘more British’ style?) genre of film where a character gets into trouble with numerous different warring factions (normally gangsters – think Lock Stock, Snatch and Layer Cake) and ends up having to dodge the lot of them and/or pit them against each other in order to come out on top.

Christian Slater’s offering is – sadly – not quite as good as any of those films I’ve mentioned.  However, that’s not to say it didn’t have a certain charm.  Did I like it?  Yes, I did.  It kept me entertained for its duration.  It’s not the longest of films, but it does have some fun scenes which go a long way to make me stay the distance.

From the title, you can probably tell that it is going to be a little tongue-in-cheek.  It could never be played totally straight.  There’s plenty of black humour as one assassin murders another, before being offed himself in another gruesome way.  There are plenty of characters, all of which get their own ‘freezeframe introduction,’ complete with title.  This probably happens a little too often and ceases to be cool pretty soon, especially as most of the characters get killed only a few scenes after they’re introduced.  The other downside – in my opinion – is the blonde ‘bombshell’ assassin who spouts poetry before she kills her victims.  It’s supposed to be cool, but it just doesn’t work and I found it pretty hard to stand.

You may have noticed Gary Oldman on the cover.  That’s about his biggest part in the film.  What he does is little more than an extended cameo, but – naturally – he steals every scene he’s in.  There are some twists in the story – some you’ll see coming, others may take you by surprise, but by the time the credits roll, you’ll feel satisfied that everything adds up (well, just, but it does more than it doesn’t!).

If you like those sorts of Guy Richie gangster movies, or are just looking for something loud, a bit cheesy and quick, then give this one a go.  It’s no classic, but it is entertaining if you set your sights low enough.

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

Ouija (2014) - The definition of mediocre horror

If ever there was a DVD box destined to end up in one of those 'bargain bucket' bins in petrol stations, it was 2014's 'Ouija.' It is possibly the most average modern horror film ever made.  The tragic thing is that it's not bad.  It's not even worthy of being classed as a bad film, simply one that borrows everything from a dozen far superior films and won't even stay with you by the time the credits are rolling.

The first cliche it starts out with is a teenage girl dying through supernatural circumstances (a ouija board, believe it or not) and the rest of the film is dedicated to her group of friends investigating (and falling foul) of the same evil presence.

She has five friends.  Let's just call them 'Teenagers 1-5.' Seriously, you won't remember any of their names.  You'll just call them 'the main girl, the snarky girl' and the 'girl with the fringe' (yes, one of the main characters defining traits is that she has a different haircut).  Plus the two guys look almost identical - which I suppose is slightly ironic as they're characters are pretty much interchangable.

Obviously, 'Ouija' is supposed to be scary, but every 'scare' comes from a 'jump scare' where something pops out, coupled with a creaky noise.  One scene even involves a shopping trolley.  Yeah, it's that inventive.

There is a supernatural entity involved, but you'll have seen more creepy creatures in movies, plus antagonists that kill their victims in more creative and disgusting ways.

In short, you'll have seen everything here before.  Apparently, according to the film trivia online, there were major reshoots after the film's initial 'finishing.' It shows.  There are added sub-plots which feel tacked on.  I guess if it has a plus point it's that it's short.  Although, despite being only an hour and a half, it does feel a lot longer.

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

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010) - De ja vu starts to set in

Believe it or not, I actually quite enjoyed the original 'Twilight' - not enough to ever really want to watch it again, but it passed a couple of hours.  I always think it was a bit of a victim of its own success.  It was so popular the people who made it realised they had to drag out of the story no matter what.

In the original, a young teenage girl, Bella Swann, moves to a small American town where she falls in love with a local vampire, Edward Cullen.  Yeah, it's a bit cheesy and mainly aimed at 'young adults', but, like I say, it killed a couple of hours.  The trouble was that the film has to end when the protagonists get together.  Therefore, with a romance film, if you're going to make a sequel you then have to come up with new ways of keeping them apart.

'Eclipse' is now the third entry in the series and even the second one was a bit of a stretch as to why these people who were so 'completely in love' should be apart.  It plays heavily on a - supposed - 'love triangle' with a werewolf character, Jacob, and, at the time time release, there was plenty of hype in the media about whether you were on 'Team Edward' or 'Team Jacob.' Again, the whole point of the trilogy (to date of release of this film) was for Edward and Bella to get together, therefore it's hard to believe she'd suddenly ditch the vamp for the wolf.

Now, maybe all this wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that the characters themselves are just so one dimensional.  Bella is played by Kristen Stewart and Edward by Robert Pattinson who, believe it or not, both can actually act.  It took a while for these two young actors to shake off their typecasting and show they could do more than just stare at each other with mouths slightly open.  Plus, for a film (mainly?) designed for young teenage girls, I do find a lot of Bella's decisions pretty, er, 'suspect' in her eternal quest for love - hardly a good role model in my opinion.  In fact, she's a bit of a 'Mary Sue' where everyone loves her despite her complete lack of personality and even being pretty selfish.

I know there are a lot of teens who love this franchise and every installment.  I'm just not a teen any more and was never really that romantic to begin with, therefore this just seemed to be flogging an undead horse a little too far.  My sixteen year old daughter would completely disagree.  She's probably going to make me watch parts four and five soon.

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

Donnie Brasco - The ultimate 'slow burn'

'Donnie Brasco' is one of those 'based on real life' types of stories.  Like many (I suspect!), I don't know an awful lot about the 'real events' it was based on, but I get that the overall premise is pretty accurate - namely a young FBI agent (Johnny Depp) spends many years infiltrating America's organised crime family with a view to bringing it down.  He does this by befriending a mid-level gangster (Al Pacino) who he uses as his 'way in.'

If I was being harsh I'd say that there's not much here that's new in terms of crime/gangster flicks.  However, when you have such acting heavyweights as Pacino and Depp as the leads, you know it's going to be worth a watch.  It's hard to say which one is the 'true' star, as both give excellent performances showing a level of relatability many other similar films don't even come close to.  Just because Pacino is the 'bad guy,' doesn't mean you're going to hate him.  Similarly, just because Depp is the fine, upstanding lawman, doesn't mean that he's beyond making bad decisions - especially when it comes to his homelife which, as you may imagine, takes one hell of a battering due to his 'work commitments.'

Because it is using real life as its source material, there is a distinct lack of 'action,' i.e. if you're hoping for some major action set-pieces with plenty of shoot-outs and car chases then this is not the film for you.  In some ways it's a 'one note' story - the only real moment of tension is wondering how and when Pacino and the gangsters are going to realise that they have a 'mole' in their ranks.

However, this 'moment of tension' is stretched out for around two hours - quite a feat - and one that might come across as boring in the hands of less skilled actors.  However, like I say, with the Pacino and Depp combo at the forefront, no moment of screen time is really wasted.

As I say, it's not 'action-packed,' so if you're in the mood for some sort of fast-paced rollercoaster ride of a film then this isn't one for you.  However, if you have a couple of hours to kill and want to watch two actors in their prime, sparring off each other in a slow burn of a movie that is based on real life - giving it a certain amount of higher stakes in my opinion, then definitely give this one a go.

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

The Switch - Plenty of `Rom,' not so much `Com.'

Even though I'm a guy, I'm not immune to the odd romantic comedy - if it's got something decent to offer.

Jennifer Aniston and Jason Bateman are both likeable leads who have a decent pedigree of humorous films on their C.V.s, so I thought, `Why not?'

Yes, they're good and yes, they have reasonable charisma throughout the film and yes at the end of the ninety minutes you do feel reasonably warm and fuzzy inside. The only thing I found was that there weren't that many laughs along the way. There was a fair amount of romance and some character development, plus adequate dilemmas for them to strive through - I just thought that it would be funnier. Maybe it's my sense of humour, but I just didn't find it funny.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy it. The best character bond was actually between Jason Bateman and the young boy `Sebastian' - the element that made the film worth watching.

A worthwhile way to kill an hour and a half - not so much a `Rom Com' as a `Rom Drama' in my opinion.

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

Swingers - If Goodfellas was comedy...

Swingers is about five guys who are dealing with single life in various different ways, all sharing experiences as they go from one L.A. bar to the next.

That's about it. We follow their lives. A lot of people have criticised the film for having no plot. And they're right, it doesn't really. But does it matter? Only if you're really only interested in films with tight and deep plots. If you like your comedy a little on the adult side (and perhaps this film will appeal to guys over girls), plus are happy to follow these people and simply go along with the ride, you should get something out of this.

It's kind of like a gangster film, but without the violence and crime. You have many long `talkie' scenes, set around various bar tables in dingy clubs, while the protagonists sit back and discuss film trivia. This hardly drives the narrative forward, but, if you're into character pieces (and film trivia!) you should find it amusing.

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

Swamp Thing (1982) - An era DC would probably like to forget

If you’re keeping up to date with the now rampant battle between comic powerhouses Marvel and DC then you’ll probably know that Marvel are waaaaay ahead with their ‘shared universe’ and DC are, despite Batman, Superman and Margot Robbie in hotpants, lagging behind significantly.  Back before such an epic cinematic conflict took place, DC had a fair few minor ‘superheroes’ on the silver screen, yet little way made of it. ‘Swamp Thing’ is one such example.  And for good reason.  It’s pretty awful.

Many people have slated DC’s recent offerings such as ‘Batman vs Superman’ and ‘Suicide Squad.’ Personally, I quite enjoyed them, but if people had to sit through ‘Swamp Thing’ they’d really have something to gripe about!  I watched it for three reasons: (1) It had Ray Wise in it.  He’s hardly a ‘big name’ in cinema, but, if you’ve seen him in ‘Twin Peaks’ (and pretty much anything else), you’ll know he’s a damn fine actor and always gives an intense performance.  (2) It was directed by Wes Craven and (3) It’s DC – and therefore may one day be dragged kicking and screaming into their floundering shared universe.

I was basically short-changed on all my three reasons.  For a start – the great – Ray Wise was hardly in it (sorry if that’s a minor ‘spoiler’ but there’s little anyone can say that will spoil this film any more than it already is.  Yes, the equally great horror maestro Wes Craven did direct it, but it was one of his early films that I think he probably never put on his C.V.  Surely he must have only done this one for the paycheque!  And finally, if this is an example of what happens in the ‘Swamp Thing’ then I hope he stays well clear of Batman and Superman!

It’s just awful (I think I already said that).  Sorry, I can’t think of any other way to describe it.  No, I’m not a ‘film snob’ who only wants to watch ‘high art’ with deep and meaningful character development (hell, one of my favourite films is ‘Flash Gordon’ so I’m well up for a good ‘good-bad’ film any day!).

There are old horror/sci-fi films which, despite their age, still stand up today.  ‘Swamp Thing’ will never be one of them.  I even spoke to someone who had read some of the comics it was based on and she confirmed that the film was completely different (and not in a good way!).  The ‘climactic’ end battle between hero and villain is truly laughable and like something out of a parody using men in rubber suits to slug it out (think that scene in ‘Crank 2’ that just sort of came out of nowhere!).

Just don’t bother with this at all and pray that DC have upped their game to produce the output they do today.  You may hate ‘Dawn of Justice’ and ‘Suicide Squad’ but, compared to ‘Swamp Thing’ they are truly cinematic greats!

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

Suspiria - They don't make `em like they used to...

...and some people may say `Thank goodness for that.'
Some people might, but not me. Suspiria has a lot going for it. It also has a lot of negatives about it. In fact, it may even be one of those rarest of films which actually might benefit from a modern day remake.

It's about a young American girl who enrols in a ballet school in Europe. Unfortunately, the school is run by witches (and not even the nice Nicole Kidman types from Bewitched).

The good: the film is spectacular to watch, simply because of the use of rich and vibrant colours in every scene. If ever a movie had `a look' then this is it.

The bad: the acting. It's dubbed. And when was the last time you watched a film with Oscar-winning performances that had been dubbed? The acting is pretty bad.

The indifferent: the musical score. If you like electro (and possibly have seen Dawn of the Dead 1979) you may be familiar with the band The Goblins. Well, they outdo their previous work with a truly loud score. It's supposed to make you jump and create tension. Personally, I liked it, but I've read plenty of negative comments saying how it was too loud, distracting and even made people have to turn the volume up and down all the way through the film.

There is gore - low budget stuff though and if you like your horror slow burning and colourful, you might get something out of this. 

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

Survivor (2015) - The Bourne survivor

Matt Damon plays an employee of the secret services who is wrongly-accused of a crime he didn’t commit and is relentlessly pursued across a major European city by those – supposedly – on his own side.  That would be the plot of – pretty much all – ‘Bourne’ films.  Now, if you remove Matt Damon and insert Milla Jovovich in the lead then you basically have ‘Survivor.’

Having watched the film, I can honestly say I can’t think of a single thing wrong with it.  That might make it sound good.  However, the problem lies in the fact that I also can’t think of a single thing that’s right with it, either!  It’s just totally run-of-the-mill and/or by-the-numbers.  You could pretty much take any leading star (male or female) and have them chased around a city a bit while they try and prove their innocence and bring down the baddie then you have this.

Milla Jovovich starts out like your average office employee (well, average employee of a secret government  department).  What I’m getting at is that she is never presented as being trained as a special forces field agent.  She comes across as little more than a pen-pushing secretary.  However, as soon as she’s in danger she turns into her ‘Alice’ character from the Resident Evil franchise and starts kicking the blue blazers out of anyone who crosses her.  Apart from Pierce Brosnan.  Yes, he’s is in it, too.  I almost forgot about him.  Yes, he’s chasing poor old Milla.  He’s sort of like a less threatening Terminator, only without the foreboding presence of Arnie.  He’s a charming enough actor if given the right material to work with, however he hasn’t got enough to do here to make him stand out.

If you like your ‘spy’ films where the hero has to ‘out’ the villain in their own organisation and/or prevent some sort of disaster then you should like this.  It’s one of those films where if you’re a fan of the genre and haven’t had to actually pay to watch it (I watched it on Netflix, so it’s part of my bundle!) then you probably won’t feel too ripped off.  I’m just sure glad I never paid full price for a cinema ticket to sit through this.

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

Survivor - I nearly didn’t survive this

Oh, dear... where to begin. ‘Cheap’ is the word I’d use to describe ‘Survivor.’ Even the title is hardly inspired.  I ran the word ‘survivor’ through the Internet Movie Database’s search to try and find this film, but there are so many other films/TV shows called it, that I had to end up looking it up via an actor’s name.  In fact, the searching for it online was actually more enjoyable than the film.

Okay, that maybe a little harsh, but it was just so cheap it was hardly worth bothering with.  It’s about (and I can barely be bothered to regurgitate it all again!) the last few survivors from a doomed Earth, now destined to fly through space while they search for a new home planet.  The spaceships all look computer-generated, but that doesn’t last long.  The ship soon crashes and they have to survive on an inhospitable planet.  Or at least one of them does.  A lone girl has to basically fight through hordes of native humans (and later monsters) to try and rescue the few remaining crewmates who survived the crash. 

It basically plays out like ‘After Earth’ but with less of a budget.  Then again, After Earth hardly set the Box Office on fire, so that is a strange film to base another one on!  Later on the cast moves to underground and, what with the inclusion of the monsters, it ends up a bit like ‘The Descent.’

Even sci-fi fans won’t really enjoy this film.  It’s just too cheap and too unoriginal to really offer anything new.  Yeah, if you’re really that bored on a Saturday afternoon and you come across this film on TV (no way you would ever feel justified in paying for it!) you may just sit through it.  Only if you’re bored though.  Really bored.

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

Surveillance – Darkness runs in the family

In case you don’t know, the writer/director of ‘Surveillance’ is Jennifer (daughter of renowned master of the surreal David) Lynch.  So, if you’ve seen anything from Blue Velvet to Mullholland Drive (or any other of ‘Daddy’ Lynch’s work, you’ll probably know what to expect from his offspring.

Like her father, she delves deep into places most of us would rather not go.  Here, two FBI agents arrive in a small town, hot on the trail of a couple of wanted serial killers.  Unfortunately, they’re too late to stop a spree of killings, but do their best to piece together the carnage from the handful of survivors who have made it out alive.

The characters are a wide and varied bunch, but, what unites them is that they’re all pretty unlikable.  Yes, there is a little girl who brings a touch of innocence to the film and – rightly so – she even won an award for her performance.  But the rest of them are pretty dark – even the ones who you’re supposed to root for!  Much of the tale is told through the eyes of the survivors, making the film mainly a series of flashbacks which are open to interpretation.

You get a fair amount of (what I’d call) ‘Pulp Fiction-esque’ dialogue which shows us more about the characters, rather than speeds the plot along.  This can either work well, or drag the story along.  I’m glad to say that it does the job here.  Again, like her father, the dialogue is pretty cringe worthy to listen to, largely due to its content and how awkward and uncomfortable it makes the (few innocent) characters feel.

However, unlike David Lynch’s films, this one is a little more straight forward.  His tend to be very open to interpretation, whereas Surveillance has a definitely ‘beginning, middle and end.’ Yes, it can be a little jumbled sometimes, but you shouldn’t have any trouble keeping up, especially if you’re in the mood for something very dark and twisted.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Surrogates - Competent little sci-fi number

Yeah, I know, Bruce Willis may be a bit past his sell-by date.  He’s hardly the box office draw he once was.  And, yes, he does tend to exhibit a noticeable sneer/smirk throughout most of his most recent roles, but give him a chance here.  He’s not so bad.

Surrogates set in the future when we all have robots to carry out our menial chores – all of apart from wise-cracking cop, played by Will Smith, who is hell-bent on proving that our robot ‘protectors’ are not what they seem.  Oh, wait, that’s not the plot for Surrogates at all – that’s the plot for ‘I Robot.’ Never mind – just take out the word ‘robots’ and replace it with, er, ‘surrogates’ (which are basically robots) and you have the storyline.

If you haven’t seen I Robot, Surrogates may be quite original, but I couldn’t believe how similar the two were.  But I still enjoyed it.  I put in my review title that it was a competent LITTLE sci-fi number.  That’s largely because it’s quite short for a film – coming in well below the average hour and a half.  And, because of this, it’s over pretty quickly, almost like a TV episode of some sci-fi show.

It has action, conspiracy, reasonably special effects and Bruce Willis isn’t that annoying.  In fact, his – how should I put this – ‘mature’ action hero status actually works here.  The human race all have (surrogate) robots shaped like them who go out into the world under their human master’s control.  Naturally, everyone’s surrogate is young and gorgeous while their human owner’s body gets older and flabby from the comfort of their home.  It’s quite amusing when Bruce’s beautiful bot gets beaten up and the ‘real’ human Bruce has to go out onto the streets with his bald head and wrinkles for all to see.

All of this means that if you’re a fan of the sci-fi genre you should get something out of this film.  It’s one of those films that you like more if you haven’t had to pay for.  If you can borrow it off a mate or find it as part of your online TV package, give it a go.  It will definitely kill just over an hour of your time, but you probably wouldn’t have wanted to pay full price in the cinema to see it.  Oh, and it’s also advisable not to watch I Robot before you see this (it’s definitely superior – sorry, Bruce).

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

Super Mario Bros - Go goomba!

I watched ‘Super Mario Bros’ in the cinema back in 1993.  I enjoyed it.  Today, I still watch it from time to time on DVD and I still enjoy it.  I guess I’m one of those select few who just didn’t get the hate this film got.

Maybe it was because, although I played a lot of video games during the eighties and nineties, I was rubbish at ALL Super Mario Bros games (and my cousin was annoyingly fantastic at them).  So, perhaps I was unaware of all the hype and expectations this ‘game to film’ adaptation had attached to it.

It’s a family adventure film.  Basically, there’s an alternate dimension where dinosaurs evolved into humans instead of the monkeys who did over here.  There, the evil dictator ‘Koopa’ wants to merge the two worlds and basically rule them both.  Luckily, plucky New York plumbers Mario and his bother Luigi travel there to stop him.  So, expect car chases, futuristic worlds and a few lasers and funky bazooka-like guns thrown into the mix.

Yes, it’s hardly a classic.  Everything it spoon-fed to us on a plate.  You won’t need to exercise much brainpower to really understand what’s happening here.  Every scene tells us something we need to know and everyone speaks as if they’re explaining the entire theory of the universe at all times.
I thought it was good – just a light-hearted family, sci-fi adventure romp.  But then I’m in the minority.  If you’ve never seen it then you should be aware that 99% of people HATED it.  It’s largely one of the biggest cinematic flops ever.  I guess it’s because Super Mario Bros had such a large following that everyone of its fans had their own idea about what they wanted to see from the live-action film and they didn’t get anything near.  The computer Mario world is cute and colourful.  The filmic version is a dark, depressing dystopia-future more akin to Bladerunner.

When I watched it last, I guess one scene can sum up its failings (and not just the slightly dodgy ‘goombas’ masks which are blatantly just small masks stuck on tall men’s bodies).  It’s a nightclub scene where the clientele are dressed in what I would describe as ‘fetishwear’ (complete with gimp masks).  I guess the BDSM scene was not what most cinema goers were expecting from source material where mushrooms waddle about the screen and coins bounce up from floating blocks in the air.

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