My Bloody Valentine (1981) - Bloody is the word (for the eighties, anyway)

‘My Bloody Valentine.’ A slasher.  There’s not an awful lot more to say.  If you’ve grown up over recent years and are generally interested in the genre, you’ll find that this little offering from 1981 is pretty tame in comparison to what’s released today.  However, back when ‘video nasties’ were just taking off, this was pretty strong stuff!

A small-time mining town in America has a legend (don’t they all?) – this one tells of a miner who went berserk years ago on Valentine’s day and killed a bunch of people.  Now, several years later – guess what – it looks like he’s back.

Normally, this is where I say that the cast is made up of oversexed, annoyingly attractive teenagers.  But not this time.  Here we have oversexed, annoying UGLY teenagers.  Don’t ask me why (and I promise you that I’m no oil painting!) but this must be the ugliest group of leading actors every assembled to be chopped up by a nut-job with a gas mask and pick axe.  I guess we can blame it on the eighties.  Or the lack of budget needed to bring bigger (and more physically attractive) stars on board.

Yes, one by one our facially-challenged heroes are chopped up in various hideous ways.  Nothing too new there, apart from the fact that the death scenes seem a little more violent for the time than your average Friday 13th film.  Notice I don’t say ‘gruesome’ – only violent.  I mentioned the budget earlier and it seems like they didn’t really have enough money for expert make-up and prosthetics needed for the gore.  I suppose it’s the way it’s filmed that makes it so violent.  There seems like there’s a real sense of nastiness in the deaths.

Not that you’ll care much about those getting sliced and diced.  They really are pretty irritating.  If Jar-Jar Binks was a little less computer-generated and a little more eighties then those are the people getting murdered here.

Perhaps one thing that the film does have going for it is that you don’t actually know who’s under the gas mask.  In that was it’s more akin to the ‘Scream’ franchise in as much as like a who-done-it.

There’s not much new here (especially nearly forty years later!), but if you’re into the slasher genre in general and like to see where this type of film found its roots, then give this a try.  The gore isn’t really there and the violence – although strong for the time – has also diminished, the mystery element may make it worth an hour and a half of your time.

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

Fright Night (2011) - Solid enough vampire yarn 

I can't actually remember the original nineteen eighties Fright Night. I did watch it somewhere around 1989 and promptly forgot it. I don't know what that means - either I didn't think much of it or my memory's shot to bits.

The original is still heralded as a classic by many horror fans, but, as I couldn't remember it, I went into this remake with little to no expectations. And, from what I saw, it copied the original pretty well. It didn't do a shot-by-shot remake, but kept the overall feel of the first movie (based on what I've read about its predecessor), i.e. a blend of comedy, horror and gore.

Maybe this remake would have sunk without a trace, but it's lent a hand by a pretty decent cast. A good start is A-lister Colin Farrell as the enjoyably evil vampire, then you have ex Dr Who David Tennant, Toni Collette, Imogen Poots, Anton Yelchin and the always amusing Christopher Mintz-Plasse.

Charming Colin Farrell moves in next door to Anton Yelchin and it's not long before he's `outed' as a vampire. Soon people start getting their throats torn out and a decent amount of bloodshed is to follow.

Fright Night is nothing too revolutionary, but vampires have been so in fashion of late that it's hard to find a completely original movie in the genre. It's a popcorn flick. It you fancy something frothy and lightweight then you might enjoy this (alternatively, the ladies may just fancy Colin Farrell - I'm sure they'll be happy with what they get).

Fright Night (2011) gets a respectable 7/10. If you're tired of seeing vampires that sparkle in sunlight, try this one. It's old school throat-tearing.

Desperation - So-so King adaptation

 Stephen King’s books have a habit of being hit and miss when they make the transfer from paper to the screen. In fact, more of them have been ‘misses’ that ‘hits.’ This one falls into that grey area somewhere in between.

As per usual, anyone who’s read the book ‘Desperation’ is based on laments how it’s been interpreted on the big screen. I hear it’s best to just read the book. It was supposed to be a two (or more?) part TV mini series, but, in the end, got turned into a ‘made-for-TV’ movie. It runs at about two and half hours and – sometimes – feels every bit as long.

It’s about a collection of various characters who all get (unfairly) ‘caught’ by – the slightly unhinged – Sherriff of a town in the middle of nowhere, subtly called ‘Desperation.’ Then, once incarcerated inside his cells, they have to come up with a way of escaping from more than just the immediate bars that surround them.

First of all, it’s worth mentioning that we have Ron Perlman on the cast list, who – as usual – turns in a brilliant performance as the afore-mentioned nutter-Sherriff. Any fans of Ron’s will enjoy the film just on his appearance. However, what’s left is good and bad as the rag-tag band of survivors try to figure out what happened. It’s a bit like The Stand, only not as long and therefore with a ‘rushed’ feel in places and ‘not enough information’ in others.

Also, it’s worth noting that the film relies heavily on ‘God’ to move the plot forwards. Atheists beware – they may get a little tired of everything the Almighty doing being right all the time.

It’s not a great King adaptation, but it’s certainly not the worst either. Enjoy it for its perks and do your best to forgive it for the parts when it drags a bit.

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

Creep - Flawed, but fun

When cinema recounts the ‘horror greats’ it’s unlikely that they’ll ever mention ‘Creep.’ The reason being... it’s nothing special.  Yet, despite it’s ‘averageness’ I really can’t bring myself to hate it.  In fact, I’m writing this review after my third viewing of it (or is it fourth?) so it must have something appealing about it!

A woman – could be any attractive blonde leading lady – gets trapped on the London Underground for the night and ends up being stalked by the titular ‘creep.’ And that’s about that.  Expect running, screaming and generally chasing.  I won’t go into who or what the ‘creep’ is, as that’s half the fun – I will say that it’s never entirely written in stone as to what he is, leaving his origin partly up to the viewers’ imagination.

Like I say, nothing special, but not a bad ‘slasher’ film.  It does have its flaws.  As usual, you’ll roll your eyes when the woman does get the upper hand over the creep and yet fails to ‘finish him’ as we all would when faced with a similar situation.  Obviously, she’ll often make decisions which will prolong the story, as opposed to doing the sensible thing.  But, if you’re into your horror movies, you’ll be used to the leading lady doing all that and will accept it as simply the way horror films work.  The other thing that’s worth mentioning is that the leading lady isn’t that nice.  She’s hardly your average ‘scream queen.’ She can be a complete b*tch when she wants to and it’s hard to root for her sometimes.  When you’re feeling sympathy, it’ll probably be for the secondary characters she encounters along the way, namely the ‘junkies’ who have made the Underground station their home.

However, I can’t remember the last horror-slasher film that was perfect.  This one definitely isn’t, but if you’re in the mood for something pretty easy to watch and understand, plus with a few good gory moments and you can forgive the obligatory plot holes, then give it a go.  It’s not too long and won’t waste much of your time if you don’t enjoy it.

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

Zombieland: Doubletap - Forced, but not that bad

Despite my love of all things 'zombie-related,' for some reason I never really 'got' the original 'Zombieland.' I thought it was okay, but, based on other people's opinions, everyone else seemed to love it while it just felt a bit run-of-the-mill to me.  This sequel comes quite late in terms of capitalising off the original's success - a sign that it may not be up to scratch.

Sure enough, it took a mauling from critics and kind of sank without a trace.  Having watched it now, I can sort of see where the critics were coming from.  The word I'd use to describe it is 'forced.' The first film ended and didn't really have much room to go in terms of carrying on the story.  The four heroes of the first outing all return (rare for a horror movie!) and have decent enough chemistry as we find what's happened to them in this post apocalyptic undead-filled dystopia.  There are jokes between them and most actually land.  Yet the whole story seems to be based on one plot device after the other to set them up from their happy/safe beginnings and move them into danger.

Characters split up.  You know they're going to be back together by the end of the film.  They are forced to move locations, leaving safety for more dangerous parts of America, simply because the story needs them to.  And the zombies themselves have been 'beefed up.' The problem is, when you have expert zombie-killers as the main characters, then the undead are not particularly threatening.  Trouble is, the 'souped-up' ghouls are little more intimidating than any that came before them.

A new character, played by Zoey Deutch, was introduced.  At first I thought she was quite annoying (at least she was supposed to be), but, by then end of the film, I realised that she had most of the best/funniest lines and I possibly wanted to see more of her!

The zombie genre was popular in the seventies and eighties, but got done to death.  However, when the 'Resident Evil' movies of the early 2000s brought the genre back from the grave we were given practically every type of zombie movie and spin-off we could ever want. 'Zombieland: Doubletap' is a horror/comedy with the emphasis firmly on laughs.  There's not much gore here that you haven't seen before, but there's also not much you haven't seen before full stop.  It's okay and an easy enough film to have on in the background, but you'd probably feel a bit cheated if you paid full price at the cinema for it.

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

Bleeder - Dark, disturbing, but definitely dull

I really wanted to like ‘Bleeder’ – a Danish thriller with a young Mads Mikkelsen and The Bridge’s Kim Bodnia.  It started off well – it introduced us to four men who hung around together with a mutual love of films.  This led to some nice dialogue exchanges which built character and created a genuine atmosphere among them.  However, the best thing about the build up was the sense that something not very nice was brewing and it was all going to explode sooner or later.  Unfortunately, it all exploded later rather than sooner.

Yes, there were a couple of pretty horribly dark moments towards the end of the film, but we’re talking VERY near the end of the film.  Therefore, by the time you’ve got the pay-off you’ve been waiting for it’s all over.

Now, I can hear the fans of the movie claiming that I hate films with slow build up that focus on character development and that the only movies I watch involve car chases and over-used CGI.  That’s not true.  I have nothing against slower non-Hollywood output.  In fact, I prefer them to constant Michael Bay-style offerings.  It’s just in this case I felt everything that was good (and there was a lot of good) just seemed not enough when it came to the minuscule moments of ‘pay offs.’

I just sat there through one long drawn out dialogue scene after the next waiting for something that, when it did finally come, seemed like too little too late.  

There’s also a romantic sub-plot that seems to be have been crowbarred in.  And, finally, there’s Mikkelsen himself.  When it was all over I realised that his character (despite being one quarter of the film’s protagonists) could probably have been omitted all together.

Bleeder is a good film.  There’s too much right with it to condemn it all together.  It will definitely have an audience, but just don’t expect wall-to-wall fight scenes or explosions.  It’s the very definition of a ‘slow burner.’

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

Ashes - Ray Winstone holds it together

Most people will be more familiar with Ray Winstone as `tough-guy' characters, so perhaps that's one reason he's decided to take a break from `busting heads' and started to show the viewers that he's got more of a `sensitive' side.

In Ashes, he plays an Alzheimer sufferer who gets `kidnapped' by his son from the hospital he's been committed to and then taken on a roadtrip across England. Why? Well, that's something you have to find out.

The first thing you need to is that this certainly isn't a `feel-good' film. It's dark, nasty and certainly not light-hearted in any way. Its major plus-point is Ray Winstone. He plays the part perfectly, switching from scared bouts of violence, to just plain scared. He's the reason this film is worth watching, as the `story' is somewhat lacking. I was left wondering why exactly these two were driving across country, as it isn't really explained until about the hour mark. Although, that is the time when the film generally starts to pick up.

The first hour - excluding Ray's performance - is pretty hard to sit through. It doesn't really go anywhere and drags by. However, if you can excuse that, it does get better and the last act ties everything up.

If you're a fan of Ray then you'll enjoy this. Otherwise, you'll have to be in the mood for a very dark drama to get something out of this.

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

Tideland - Does weird necessarily mean good?

I'm writing this review after my third viewing of `Tideland' - a film by acclaimed director, Terry Gilliam. If you're familiar with him (and his `ex Monty Python roots') you'll know that his films are always - to put it mildly - a little `off centre.'

Tideland is no exception. It's about a young girl who, after both her drug addict parents die, seeks refuge in both an abandoned farm house and her imagination (which consists of talking doll heads and squirrels). It certainly is different and it has numerous good points. First of all is the young actress who has the hefty task of carrying the film almost single-handedly. She plays the part brilliantly (and quite beyond her years) as she portrays a girl with a troubled past who has only really got her imagination to keep her going. She does meet a few others along the way and their acting is also top notch, too. No one can say that Terry Gilliam doesn't get the best out of his cast.

Then you have the direction itself. It's brilliant. Gilliam uses every shot to get the most out of the location and he manages to create a truly weird, wonderful and dreamlike state to set the movie in.
However, if you've seen his other films - Brazil and Twelve Monkeys - you'll know that Brazil was a success because it had such an excellent script which moved the story ever onwards. Twelve Monkeys was primarily a mystery concerning what happened to the planet. But where Tideland falls down is in the story. There isn't one.

Yes, it's weird and wonderful, but it's effectively a series of bizarre (and brilliantly filmed) scenes which don't really go anywhere.

It's certainly not a bad film, but the reason I've watched it for a third time is because I'd forgotten what happened completely. This could be down to the lack of real story for me to actually remember.
If you like weird, wonderful and arthouse-like films, you'll love this. Just don't go hoping for too much in the way of a story.

8/10 stars for acting and direction. 6/10 for the story.

Silent Trigger - It’s like Die Hard (if Die Hard was really bad!)

Okay, where do I begin… I have been known to enjoy a good ‘so-bad-it’s-good’ movie from time to time and I am a fan of the ‘classic’ action movies of the eighties (and therefore all those muscle-bound hunks who starred in them).  Therefore, based on my nostalgia for Dolph Lundgren’s stints in such ‘classics’ (well, I thought so!) in ‘He-Man, Dark Angel and Universal Soldier,’ I thought I’d give ‘Silent Trigger’ a go.

Now, normally this is the time I say something like ‘You should know what you’re getting with a film called ‘Silent Trigger.’ I know it’s a B-movie.  I know it’s ‘straight to DVD.’ I know there’s no real (current!) stars in it.  I’m just expecting a bit of mindless action and vague entertainment for an hour and a half.  I guess I got the latter.

‘Silent Trigger’ was certainly ‘entertaining,’ but possibly in the wrong kind of way.  Whether it was due to the blatantly computer-generated attempts at major action set pieces, or just the ludicrousness of the script – it did hold my attention, sadly just to see how bad it gets.  The plot (and I use that term loosely) begins with Dolph Lundgren failing to assassinate his target (did I mention he was an assassin?  Well, he is) due to the inexperience of his partner, played by Gina Bellman and her forever-changing accent.  The ‘agency’ (they don’t really mention which) that they work for aren’t happy and… and already it gets confusing.  Skip forward a few years and the pair are reunited to carry out one more job from a vantage point that looks like the Nakatomi Plaza from ‘Die Hard,’ only not quite finished yet.  However, it’s not as straight forward as it sounds (and killing should be reasonably straight forward for a pair of professional assassins as it’s kind of in their job description) as they come to blows with pair of security guards tasked with… er… defending (?) the under construction building.

And that’s sort of it really.  It’s two professional assassins versus two professional night security men.  You may think that’s a pretty one-sided battle, but you’d be wrong.  I’m not sure whether the security staff are really good, or if the assassins are just bad.  Either way there’s a lot of ‘cat and mouse’ which takes place, leaving me a little unsure as who I’m supposed to be rooting for – the killers, or the nut jobs guarding the place.

So, there’s basically only four people in the cast and therefore what little action there is is sparse and hardly high-octane.  So, in order to pad out the film’s runtime there’s more flashbacks which don’t really make an awful lot of sense and all could have been left out of the story if truth be told.

I like a good B-movie.  Sadly, this just isn’t really one of them.  There’s not really enough here to warrant recommending it.  Yes, if you’re a REAL die-hard fan of Dolph himself I guess you’ll like it more than normal, but even he can do better (I take it you’ve seen the Expendables?).  Just leave this one in the bargain basement of DVDs at your local petrol station where it belongs.  Sorry, Dolph!

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

The Running Man - They don't make `em like they used to  

The Running Man is a classic - classic Arnie, classic action and classic everything.

It's about Ben Richards, a cop in a dystopian future who's framed for a crime he didn't commit (aren't they all?) and forced to `star' on a futuristic game show called `The Running Man' where prisoners are hunted down and killed in front of a live studio audience.

It's a simple plot and copied quite a few times (the latest being The Hunger Games, which follows the same format), but it works perfectly. Arnie is on top form - if you like his particular brand of acting, i.e. he beats the hell out of, or kills, anyone who stands in his way then follows it up with a glib (and pretty cheesy) wise-crack.

I looked The Running Man up online after I'd watched it and, it's fair to say, that people like to make fun of the million or so plot holes in the film. Yet, even though people like to point them out, very few actually find they detract from the overall enjoyment of the movie.

In short, it's great. Stupid yes, but great. Put you mind on hold and watch what Arnie does best (which isn't politics) and dream of the day when TV has reached this stage, i.e. where X-Factor judges are hunted down with chainsaws for the enjoyment of us at home.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Pusher – Danes do drugs

Apparently this gangster film was really huge in Europe.  I’m not sure how ‘big’ it was here, in Britain, but, in my opinion, it’s no ‘Lock Stock.’

Firstly, it feels cheap.  I know a lot of people who enjoyed it will call it ‘gritty,’ but Reservoir Dogs was ‘gritty’ and still felt stylish at the same time. ‘Pusher’ just feels like it was filmed with a video camera without anyone’s permission on each location.

It’s about a gangster, who seems to dabble in everything from drugs to armed robbery, trying to organise a drugs deal which – guess what – goes wrong and leaves him in debt to an even nastier gangster.  Do we care?  Not really.

I have no problem with films about gangsters (or ‘bad guys’ to use another term).  We don’t have to like them to enjoy the film, just as long as they provide some form of entertainment.  Our central character here doesn’t.  He’s bland.  He doesn’t ever really inspire us to care whether he lives, dies or finds a way of paying his way out of the situation.  He just sort of spends the film wandering around doing some half-hearted effort of calling in old debts.

And that’s about it.  A cheap-looking film with bland characters who you won’t really care about and a plot that’s been done to death.  Yes, the film has Mads Mikklesen in an early role, but he doesn’t do enough to elevate it to anything other than very ordinary.

However, this film has seemed to have spawned a couple of sequels meaning many must have seen something in it that I didn’t.  I guess if you can put up with the subtitles and don’t mind the rawest of raw films then you may get something out of it.

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

Mute – There’s a good film here (somewhere)

Alas, poor Duncan Jones, I knew him well.  I didn’t.  But I did really enjoy his first two sci-fi films ‘Moon’ and ‘Source Code.’ These were followed by the – sadly forgettable – big-budget ‘Warcraft’ movie and hopes were high when he returned to his (more low budget/high concept?) sci-fi roots.  However, it’s fair to say that this ‘straight-to-Netflix’ release has been met with ‘divisive’ responses – and by ‘divisive’ I mainly mean negative.  I really wanted to like this, so I did my best to force the nay-sayers from my mind and enjoy the film.  I wish I did enjoy the film.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s not ‘bad-bad,’ it’s just not that good either.

It’s set in the near future where technology is, er, slightly better than it is now.  Actually, for its futuristic setting technology isn’t really a big part of the story.  An Amish man who doesn’t speak due to a childhood accident travels from America to Berlin to meet up with his girlfriend, only for her to go missing in mysterious circumstances, setting him on a quest to find out what’s happened to her.

First of all the film does look great.  I reckon it’s pretty difficult to talk about this film without mentioning ‘Bladerunner’ as Ridley Scott’s epic really did set the benchmark when it came to portraying dystopian, tech-driven cities of the future and ‘Mute’ seems to pay homage to this look and feel.  I’m not sure of other people’s complaints when it came to this movie, but my main issue was the fact that our hero never spoke.  Yes, he’s a good actor who does his best to express as many emotions as he can through his body language and facial expressions and for that he should definitely be applauded.  I could have lived with that, if it wasn’t for Paul Rudd’s character.  He plays a particularly sleazy villain who no one would ever really root for, if it wasn’t for the face that he played his part so well and the hero never said a word.  Therefore, having watched the film, I find myself finding the bad-guy far more memorable than the hero we were supposed to identify with and support.

I guess there’s a reason why ‘Mute’ was released ‘straight-to-DVD’ (or ‘Netflix’ in this day and age).  The studio was obviously worried that it wouldn’t make anywhere near the money back it needed to if given a theatrical release at the Box Office and I can understand why.  It’s hard to see ‘Mute’ getting enough attention in the cinema to make it a financial success.  It’s not a bad film and I guess you get what you pay for.  I reckon the reviews would be even more harsh if the viewers had to pay ‘full price’ at the cinema in order to watch this.  If you feel like investing two hours into a slow moving sci-fi film where the hero doesn’t speak, leaving him wide open to being eclipsed by the man we’re supposed to hate, then you’re probably a minority.  I didn’t hate it, I’m just certain that Duncan Jones can do much better.

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

Friends With Benefits - Standard rom-com - does what it says on the tin  

It's a romantic comedy. That's all you need to know.

If you've seen one before, spoken to someone that has, or simply just passed a poster for an upcoming film featuring two, young, likeable, sexy leading characters of the opposite gender, then you basically know the score.

Some rom-coms are aimed at adults, others at those not quite allowed to hear all those sexual references and naughty words.

Friends With Benefits is an adult rom-com. It's about Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis who decide that, instead of going out together, just to stick to the `bedroom aspect' of the relationship. Wait a minute, I hear you cry - didn't they already do this in Love and Other Drugs and that one with Natalie Portman. Yes, is the answer, they did. And they're doing it again. Is this a bad thing? Not really, if you like romantic comedies.

Justin and Mila are as likeable as the next couple you watch who end up falling in love (I refuse to put the word `spoilers' in a review of a romantic comedy as you know as well as I do what will happen in the end). They have good chemistry and you'll smile a few times along the way. What more do you want from this kind of film?

It also tried to poke fun at rom-com clichés, then ultimately adheres to them. But, if you're bored, break out the popcorn and watch these two annoyingly attractive specimens of humanity exchange some witty banter.

If you like this sort of movie, you could do worse.

If you think this review is overly-cynical - it's probably because I'm single. I would imagine this movie is better to watch with a partner - *sobs*

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

Halloween (2018) - Wow, actually pretty good

Okay, I should point out that I'm - probably - the only horror fan in the world that just doesn't 'get' the original 'Halloween.' I've watched it a fair few times and it just leaves me cold (and bored).  In fact, I actually even preferred the, much maligned, 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch' or the Rob Zombie remake to the 1979 version (please don't hate me).  Therefore, my hopes were hardly high for this weird sequel/reboot/re-imagining.  Whatever it is.

So, because I was never into the whole 'Halloween' franchise when it came to following serial killer 'Michael Myers' I'm not really fussed as to where and how this one fits in.  I hear it's a remake of the sequel to the original, thus erasing other sequels - or something.  I don't care.

On the off-chance you know even less about the franchise than I do, Michael Myers is a - possibly supernatural - masked serial killer who has a love for knifing babysitters while they work.  Back in the seventies, he stalked and very nearly killed young Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis).  Now, in present day, she's a grandmother who's been left traumatised by her brush with the bogeyman all those decades ago.

Overall, what you get here is nothing new.  It's a 'slasher' flick - killer picks off one teen/cast member after the next, finally facing off against the star.  Nothing new to see here.  And it would probably would be quite forgettable if it wasn't for Jamie Lee Curtis herself.  It's rare that I say a film is 100% carried on the shoulders by its star, but her performance here is just superb.  Maybe it's because - in modern cinema - our on-screen heroes are normally pretty perfect to start with.  Not here.  She's a complete mess, suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and drinking herself to death even before Myers can get to her.  She's living as a 'prepper' hermit, convinced that Myers will one day return for her and try and finish what he started.  And - guess what - he finally finds a way to break out of his secure institution and find his way 'home.'

About the only thing that felt a bit 'odd' to me was seeing Michael Myers without his mask.  I know it's a strange thing to say from someone who doesn't really care that much about the series, but I'm so used to ONLY seeing the killer all masked up that even just catching glimpses of the man under the mask just felt, well, odd.

Whether you approve of remaking a franchise midway or not, this one deserves a watch if you're a horror fan as Jamie Lee Curtis really does bring something new to the (modern) genre.  I wonder if they could 'reboot' 'Aliens' after the second film too and do the same for Lt Ripley?

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

Knowing - Kind of similar to 'The Box' (if that's any help)

I know that nowadays the name 'Nicolas Cage' is met with either a smirk or a sigh, depending on how you view him.  His recent movies have hardly set the Box Office on fire (most being released straight to DVD or streaming service) and it's hard to remember a time when he was A-list material and capable of selling a movie on his name alone.  However, there was a brief period in between his blockbusters and his, er, 'lesser' films where he made some which were actually pretty good - and yet still seems to have been forgotten. 'Knowing' is definitely one of them.

Cage is also well known for his own brand of 'over-acting' which can be anything from comical to cringe-worthy.  Here, director Alex Proyas seems to be able to reel him in enough to capitalise on his talent, while at the same time keep him grounded.  Cage plays a school teacher who, along with his young son, stumbles on a code back from the fifties which accurately depicts all the major disasters of the last few decades.  If this wasn't creepy enough, some are set to occur in the next few days and there are some odd-looking men lurking around his family.

I won't go into the plot too much for fear of spoilers because, I really do think that if you're into science-fiction then you'll really enjoy this one.  It's got some nice ideas and isn't afraid to go in directions that you might not see coming.

Cage is still great as a leading man and I've been a fan of director Alex Proyas' work ever since he did 'The Crow.' This may not have the visual flare of some of his early work, but he deserves props for getting a really good performance out of his leading man.

If the film has a weakness I'd say its special effects are a little uneven.  I was actually really impressed with some of them and they left me pretty creeped out.  However, it looks like the 'effects budget' was spent on the big set pieces and when it came to some of the 'lesser' effects (mainly involving fire) they look very 'computery' - if you know what I mean.

There's another 'forgotten' sci-fi film called 'The Box,' starring Cameron Diaz and directed by 'Donnie Darko's' Richard Kelly which feels like it could be set in 'the same universe' as 'Knowing.' So, if you have seen 'The Box' (and again - don't believe the negative reviews - it's actually pretty good for some dark sci-fi drama) and you liked it, definitely give 'Knowing' a try.  It may not be a 'feel-good' movie, but if you're in the mood for some dark sci-fi, or just a Cage fan, give it a go.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Derailed - A thriller that does the job

Question: Do you generally like thrillers?  If the answer is ‘Yes’ then you should appreciate this.  It’s nothing special, but there’s just about enough to it to warrant investing an hour and a half of your time into it.  Sure, you may not remember it in twenty years, but I think you’ll be entertained nonetheless.

For a start you have two decent leads – Clive Owen and Jennifer Aniston and they always turn in pretty decent performances.  They play a couple of high-flying city executives who meet by coincidence on a train and begin an affair.  Let’s just say things go downhill for the pair of them pretty soon after that.

You may notice that I’m steering clear of mentioning too much about the plot.  Basically, the reason is that the plot – although nothing absolutely amazing – is one of the film’s selling points.  If I told you too much about what happens, it would definitely detract from the film’s enjoyment as you’d probably start guessing (correctly) what was going to happen.

There’s enough to it to raise it above the masses of ‘straight-to-DVD’ B-movies out there.  Fans of the two leads will obviously enjoy it more and anyone who likes something just that little bit tense should be entertained by it.

Obviously, there are a couple of moments where you may find yourself yelling at the screen, “But I wouldn’t do that!” You’re just going to have to accept that on-screen characters don’t always do what we would.  Don’t let it ruin the film for you.  It’s better than a few nit-picked gripes with the overall plot.

Nothing too special, just solid.

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

Creature (1985) - This is ‘Creature’ – NOT ‘Alien’ – try to remember that

‘Alien’ was a classic.  It was also financially successful.  Therefore, it stood to reason that a hundred other films would try to capitalise on its coattails. ‘Alien’ – sorry – ‘Creature’ is one of them.  Only it’s rubbish.  So why did I sit through the entire ninety minutes?  Probably because I was eager to see just how much worse it could rip off a superior film.  And it rips Alien off quite well.

Astronauts go into space (do you really care where they go or why they’re there?) and meet an alien (sorry – CREATURE – I keep forgetting).  It stalks them.  You’ll probably be able to tell who’s going to die and when.  That’s about it.  So why didn’t I turn it off?  Normally, I quite like films that are so-bad-they’re-good.  However, this isn’t so much ‘so-bad-it’s-good’ as ‘so-bad-it’s unbelievable-that-no-one-sued.’ Seriously, it is so much like Alien it’s a wonder no one called in the lawyers.  I can only assume that Creature just didn’t make enough money for anyone at 20th Century Fox to bother with.

Actually, I quite liked the idea behind the whole story – I won’t mention what it is as it’s a half decent attempt to come up with some sort of original plot.  But a slightly good overall idea doesn’t really make it worth watching.  You only really need to bother with this film if you’ve seen Alien and want to see how bad another film can copy it without getting sued.

Also, there’s a really weird bit when a creepy older man does his best to constantly sexually assault any female member of the cast and the rest of the crew just kind of let him off.  Weird.  And definitely creepy.

A sad, carbon copy of Alien, but if you’re a fan of the Ridley Scott’s classic, you may find some strange enjoyment out of this.  Maybe.

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

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw - So much macho fun

I was never much of a fan of the 'Fast and Furious' franchise (apologies!) - somehow they all just merged into one, long overblown car chase.  However, luckily I've always been a fan of both Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson and Jason Statham, so I was more than happy to give the 'spin-off' film a go.  I heard the film-makers point out that this will have a 'different feel' compared to the usual racing-orientated movies that have gone before and - luckily for me - they were right.

What you have here is an action movie that feels like it would be more at home in the eighties or nineties when action films were completely overblown and deliberately over-the-top.  Post 2000 the genre decided to take a more 'serious' approach and go for 'realism.' That's okay - the last twenty years or so have also produced decent (serious) action flicks, but if - like me - you grew up on muscle men killing hundreds of foot soldiers, armed with only their biceps and a witty quip, then I think you'll like this.

It's silly and it never tries to be anything other than good fun.  The Rock and The Stath have perfect comic timing and the banter between them is a joy to behold.  Idris Elba is given the duties of being the villain and does brilliantly with the - slightly corny - dialogue he's been given and proves he can be up there with the best of the Bond villains from yesteryear.  Plus there are also some very famous faces among the cast list who you might not expect to see pop up here and there - I won't spoil it.

Of course there's plenty of ridiculous stunts and action.  Plus people can take seemingly infinite amounts of punishment and barely get a bruise.  You need to totally suspend your disbelief if you want to enjoy this for everything that it deserves to be.  I had great fun with it, but - in my opinion - the only thing that really stopped it being an absolute classic was its length.  It's well over two hours and at one point about three quarters of the way through the film (when they arrive on Samoa) there is about twenty minutes or so that really seems to drag.  Maybe it's been because what's come before was so fast-paced, but it really could have been left on the cutting room floor.

I'm glad they still make cheesy action movies like this today.  It's part (old) Bond, part Fast and Furious and part Expendables.  All in all, it's just a great film to put your mind of hold and just say, "Yeah, whatever," to with a smile as one person drives a motorcycle up a wall... or something.  Bring on Hobbs and Shaw's next madcap outing.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Blair Witch Project - The (sort of) original and (sort of) best

‘The Blair Witch Project’ invented the ‘found footage’ portion of the horror genre.  Well, it kind of did.  The genre was technically lurking in the background, somewhere behind the slasher genre and low budget zombie flicks.  You could probably trace it back to such cinematic delights as ‘Cannibal Holocaust’ in the seventies (only you’d probably regret it if you did).  Anyway, The Blair Witch Project may not have entirely invented the type of film which is purely watching shaky handheld camerawork filmed (for the purposes of the story) by the characters we’re following, but it did bring it back to the forefront of horror-movie making.  Maybe that along means I should despise it.  Only I don’t.

If you’re not familiar with the ‘found footage’ genre then you probably don’t watch enough horror films, therefore any interest you may have in watching three teenagers get lost in a woods will be minimal.  That’s pretty much the story.  The three of them are film students and decide to make – you guessed it – a project on the (allegedly fictional) ‘Blair Witch.’ Naturally, things don’t go according to plan and, if getting lost wasn’t annoying enough, some unseen force starts to mess with their little school trip (and one girl gets a runny nose – if you’ve already seen it you’ll know what I mean).

You may have picked up on my use of the word ‘unseen.’ For all found footage films are cheaply produced (okay, feel free to shout me down with such epics as ‘Cloverfield’ and the odd high budget one, but MOST are!).  That way the film-makers don’t really have to spend that much money on special effects when they can just have the person holding the camera shake it about a bit and then run off.  This is the Blair Witch Project all over.  If you’re expecting hordes of computer-generated monsters storming the woods and chasing our hapless teens down then you’re going to be sorely disappointed.  

You have to realise that you’re going to get long periods of time where not that much happens.  The highlight for much of the film is crossing the same river again and again.  When I read what I’ve written I really think I’m not really selling the ol’ BWP very well.  Believe it or not, I did enjoy it.  Back when I watched it in 1999 it was still a fresh genre and, not including old ‘video nasties’ was pretty original.  Plus the acting was good.  It really felt adlibbed (actually I think some was) and what you might expect from watching hours upon hours of footage filmed by just some bloke behind the camera.  Perhaps one of the reasons I enjoyed it was because I spent a fair proportion of my childhood as a young boy getting (sort of deliberately) lost in the woods and could relate to how creepy the prospect of never getting home again could be (although I made sure I was never more than a stone’s throw away from the road and with my dad at all times!).

The three actors themselves were just about likable enough, but they do get a little bit annoying and whiney towards the end.  I guess that could be explained by them slowly losing their minds due to their predicament, so, if you don’t mind their constant swearing, it can be excused.

So, if you’re okay with ‘found footage’ films and are interested in the one that spawned a hundred inferior clones, then give this one a go.  It’s not long and you won’t waste too much of your life on it.  It’s genuinely creepy here and there.  Just don’t bother with the sequel which doesn’t even bother to be original and is just your standard horror cliché-fest.

Oh, and if you don’t think much to the way BWP ended, you’re not the only one.  It’s a love or hate ending.  I guess Family Guy hated it – look up the clip of Brian Griffin the cinema watching Blair Witch on Youtube and see that you’re not alone.  I felt a little cheated, but grew to accept that that was the way it was just going to be.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

As Above, So Below - Seen it all before

Two words: ‘Found’ and ‘Footage.’ That’s basically all you need to know.  If you’re in any way into your ‘modern horror’ films, you’ll already know that ‘found footage’ movies are basically entirely filmed from the perspective of the cameraman (using some loose pretext of ‘needing’ to film absolutely everything that everyone does).  If you didn’t already know that then you’re probably quite lucky.

The reason Hollywood seems to be so obsessed with way of filming horror is because it’s cheap.  If you’re constantly running away from a monster (for example) then the camera shakes and you don’t need that much in the way of special effects.

‘As Above, So Below’ is just another in a long line of found footage movies.  Yes, it’s got slightly more of a budget than your average B-movie and the acting is okay.  Basically, some girl and her cameraman decide to look for treasure in the tunnels under Paris.  They get some bland tour guides to show them the way and then end up lost down there.  Naturally, there are things down there which are going to chase them and generally mess with their minds.  So, expect every horror (and found footage) cliché going.  Ever since ‘The Blair Witch Project’ it’s been common for the protagonist to talk directly into camera at close distance.  As Above, So Below does this.  Just like it does all the chasing through the darkness with shaky camerawork.  The first half is basically getting to know the characters.  Not that there’s much to know about them.  They’re just the cannon fodder for when the film gets going.  The chases come in the second act, but, if you’ve seen any other found footage film, you’ll know what’s coming.

You won’t care about the characters.  You probably won’t care much about their plight.  There are a couple of moments when you’ll jump and there’s a bit of gore near the end, but there’s nothing here to really write home about.  It’s not a bad film, but there’s just so little new here that it doesn’t make it worth watching.  If you’ve never seen a ‘found footage’ film before, you may think it’s original and get something out of it.  But, for us hardened horror buffs, move along...

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

Phantasm V: Ravager - A pretty mess

I guess the fifth part of a horror franchise is an odd place to start, but in case you don't know - or skip the kind of 'on-the-nose' recap at the beginning of the film, a tall, creepy old man has been using the dead to create an army of inter-dimensional dwarves who are trying to take over the world.  The only man standing in his way is 'Reggie' - a balding, overweight ex ice cream man, wielding a shotgun with four barrels.

Yes, it's quite 'out there,' but - in my opinion - was pretty good for the first three. 'Part IV' was a bit of a drag and I felt obliged to watch the final outing.  We meet Reggie as he wanders through the desert in search of either the tall man, or his friends who he's lost along the way.  From there he encounters one person after the next who he either has to kill, or gets killed by flying silver balls the like to drill into your brain (yes, they're a 'thing' in 'Phantasm').  However, soon he finds out this may not be 'reality' and everything starts going downhill.

The film jumps around between time periods and even dimensions.  I know it's supposed to be jarring for our protagonist, Reggie, and makes him question what's real and what's not.  But it just came across as too 'all-over-the-place' to really be a coherent story that the viewer could follow.  Cast members from the previous films return, but sometimes they die and sometimes they come back to life - again, making you question which parts of the story are supposed to be real and which are just dreams.

The tall man himself, as usual played by the ever-creepy Angus Scrimm, also comes back, but part of his sinister fell was his age to begin with (and that was back in 1979!).  Now, in 2016 he's starting to show his age and, although he does his best, just doesn't seem as menacing as he once was.

The last quarter kind of picked up for me.  I won't claim to understand which parts were real and which were just some sort of coma-induced nightmares, but the special effects were pretty good in creating a hellish apocalyptic world and the attack from giant balls was kind of neat.

As usual with the franchise it was well directed and Reggie is always worth a watch.  It was just too all-over-the-place to be fully enjoyed.  My advice: stick to parts I-III.

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

Thunderball - Bond takes his first stumble

Okay, I'll admit it... as much of a die-hard Bond fan that I am, I have never liked Thunderball. Dr No was an amazing start, From Russia With Love improved on it and Goldfinger was possibly the best Bond of the Connery era. Then came Thunderball which, in my opinion, is the worst (yes, even behind Diamonds are Forever).

It's just too slow and too long. Although, when I check the running time, it's not that much longer than other Bond movies (past and present). It just feels much longer. Some of the `action' scenes are painfully slow - largely because `underwater' features heavily in the film's plot (about Spectra trying to blackmail the world governments using nuclear weapons). What you get is `action' scenes set underwater, therefore they're - by definition - slow moving and it's hard to tell who's who with all the scuba gear. They just go on forever and should have been cut (in my humble opinion).

I would leave it there by saying that Thunderball is my least favourite Connery Bond film, however, upon reading the other reviews, I find that I'm actually in the minority. Most people seem to love it. Maybe I'm missing something, so, if you're a Bond fan, I guess you have to watch it for yourself and see. Personally, I'm skipping this one and going straight to Never Say Never Again.

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

Silent Night, Deadly Night - Not bad for its time

I’ve watched numerous ‘slasher’ films over the years, so I flatter myself I’ve seen most things when it comes to the genre, but ‘Silent Night, Deadly Night’ kind of left me speechless.  Yes, there’s nothing that new about what you get here – killer stalks various people and despatches them in bloodthirsty ways.  However, the whole feel of the film just left me unsure of what I was watching.

This ‘vibe’ I’m talking about is either a deliberate attempt to do something a little different with the genre, or just bad film-making.  I think there are arguments for and against each of these.  I’m not sure whether the structure was supposed to be all over the place, but I was left never really sure where this film was going until about the final third (where it does start to conform to a more generic slasher film structure).

You’ve probably seen the promotional material depicting a ‘killer Santa’ so I’ll just leave it at that and I won’t go into too much detail regarding the plot because I’d never seen the film before and I genuinely didn’t know what to expect (besides the obvious slasher stuff).  There are some bits that are actually quite neat and offer a slightly more refreshing take to a genre which was already pretty old when this film was released in 1984.

Then you have bits of the film which suddenly become so damn cheesy and daft that you wonder whether this is a film that’s a little more ‘self aware’ than you gave it credit for.  Bits of it are so over the top I could see them being parodied on something like South Park.

The gore isn’t great, most likely due to budget restraints, so don’t expect too much of the red stuff or any death scenes that you haven’t already seen before.  It may all be a bit tame (and very dated!) by today’s standards, but, if you’re looking for a classic slasher film with a few weird quirks and things you might not expect, this one may do the job.

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

Rumpelstiltskin - If Arnie was a hobgoblin

I do love a great eighties horror film.  They’re so bad they’re good.  Therefore, I was delighted when I found ‘Rumpelstiltskin’ on Netflix and wondered how I managed to miss this one during the eighties.  Then, about halfway through, I realised (with a little help from the internet) that it was actually made in the nineties.  I don’t really know why I feel the need to mention that so early – perhaps because the film simply feels like it was made in the eighties.  That and because I couldn’t get the Terminator out of my head.

Rumpelstiltskin is a – sort of – modern take on the fairy tale about the little man who tries to steal babies unless you can guess his name.  He was happily kiddie-snatching all those hundreds of years ago when a crafty old witch only caught him in the act and banished him into a statue.  Then, in the eighties (yes, I still refuse to believe that this was filmed in the nineties) he’s thawed out, yadder, yadder, yadder and now he’s after another mum with another baby.

And, in my opinion, it kind of felt like the original Terminator film.  There was an unstoppable creature hunting down a helpless woman with a man to protect her.  Okay, so Sarah Connor was lucky enough to have Kyle Reece to help her out.  Here, the female protagonist has a sleezy chat-show host to generally get in the way and wind her up.  He’s definitely no Kyle Reece, but he is pretty amusing.

Rumpelstiltskin could just be another monster B-movie, but it’s basically saved by the titular monster’s performance.  He’s just so delightfully nasty.  He’s impervious to pain and knows it.  Therefore, he likes to take his time as he stalks and terrorises all those who get in his way.

The film knows what it is and doesn’t ever try and take itself seriously.  If you like slightly tongue in cheek films with a thoroughly evil little man at the centre of it all then give this horror classic a go (especially if you can catch it on Netflix for free!).

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

The Purge 2: Anarchy - Ticks every generic box

I’m writing this review straight after seeing ‘The Purge 2: Anarchy’ simply because I’m guessing I probably won’t remember it in a couple of days time (and, if I ever completely forget, at least I can read my own review to remind myself that I probably don’t need to watch it a second time).  Okay, so that may sound like I hated it.  I didn’t.  Then again, I can’t really think of anything positive to say about it either.  It’s one of those films that left me with no real lasting impressions, good or bad.

If you watched the first ‘Purge’ film, you’ll know that crime has pretty much been eradicated in the America of the near future.  How has this been achieved you may ask?  By allowing all citizens to (legally) commit any form of crime they like for a short period of time (I think it’s just the night, but it might have been as long as twenty-four hours).  During this time you’re free to murder, steal and assault anyone you please and the police and other emergency services are ‘off duty’ and therefore won’t stand in your way.  The reason behind this is – apparently – to allow man’s primitive urges to be released, hence stopping them from doing it for the rest of the year.  And, if you can try not to think too deeply about that (as you’ll probably come up with plenty of plot holes in that kind of society) you’ll probably at least be able to sit through the film.

The only problem is... find yourself out on the streets during this time and you’re really in trouble.  And that’s exactly what happens to our five unwitting heroes.  So, a small group of people must survive the night against gangs of normally sane and rational people, all hell-bent on murdering for the sake of it.

Unfortunately, I didn’t really think much in the way of the characters.  They’re all pretty generic.  They run, they scream.  Sometimes they fight back and there are a few reasonably well-shot shoot outs and chases.  That’s about it really.

It’s an action movie.  It has chases in.  It tries to make itself stand out with various social commentary on mankind’s primitive desires and so forth, but, ultimately, if you’ve seen any film that’s centred around people trying to survive something (anything!) then you’ve kind of seen this before.  It’s not so bad.  It’s not horrible.  Like I said, I can’t really think of anything really negative to say about it, other than there’s just nothing new here that warrants a second viewing.

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

Bordello of Blood - So much (gory!) fun

'Bordello of Blood' is the second in the 'Tales From the Crypt' series and, to my shame, I have to confess that I've never seen the original, so I can't compare the two.  However, I can say that this 'sequel' is absolutely mad - in the best possible way.

Erika Eleniak's younger brother, Corey Feldman, goes missing while visiting a seedy bordello and so she enlists the help of a private eye (Dennis Miller) to investigate.  What he finds is a whole lot of semi-naked vampires.

Yeah, the plot isn't anything massively special, but you really shouldn't be watching it for that.  What you get here is a totally 'self-aware' horror/comedy which never takes itself seriously and is all the better for it.

There's gore - and plenty of it.  Plus, possibly due to its lack of budget all effects are 'practical' which - in my opinion - always looks better than CGI.  The script is smart and there are plenty of moments of banter which add to the 'cheeky' feel to the film.

Dennis Miller is the star and Erika Eleniak is the co-star, but if you're a fan of Corey Feldman, you may be left feeling a little short-changed as he's not in it as much as you may think he should be.  However, perhaps the real star of the show (besides the animatronic 'Crypt Keeper' who introduces and closes out the tale) is Angie Everhart who plays the lead vampire.  She's clearly loving the role and oozes sex appeal in a wonderfully over the top fashion.

If you like eighties/nineties cheesy horror films with lashings of sexy women and witty dialogue then definitely give this one a go.  It has one of the greatest 'action scenes' involving water pistols which makes me smile just thinking about it.  I'm now off to watch 'Tales of the Crypt: Part 1!'

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

Murder Party - Nice idea, but its execution is hit and miss

‘Murder Party’ is about just that.  A bunch of pretentious (psychopathic!) art students send out random invitations for strangers to attend the titular Halloween ‘murder party.’ Their reasons... they want to kill them (and call it ‘art’).

Only one person is lonely enough to take them up on their invite.  A loser who basically has no friends and makes his own costume out of cardboard drops by, only to find himself tied up and gagged while the nut-jobs decide how best to murder him.

Now, the problem I had with it was that our unwitting ‘hero’ spends most of his time tied up and gagged.  Therefore, we hardly get to know much about him, other than what we saw at the beginning, which basically shows us how much of a loser he is.  Therefore, it’s hard to relate to him or care much about his predicament.  We really get to know his captors more them him for the first two thirds of the movie.  And his captors aren’t the sort of people you’d really want to get to know.

The gang of murderous art students are a pretty awful bunch.  Yes, they’re the ‘villains’ of the movie, so we’re hardly meant to root for them, but without a decent hero to follow there’s no one you’re going to care that much about.

There are plenty of murders and the natural gore to go with it, but there isn’t really that much story.  There’s a few nice moments of black humour which help out the viewing and it is a pretty short film (it needs to be!).

It’s not awful, but I felt like there were long periods of time that felt like they had only been put in there to extend the runtime of a movie that doesn’t really have enough plot to warrant it being anything other than a TV episode (length).

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

Friday The 13th Part 8: Jason Takes Manhattan - The one where Jason doesn’t really ‘take’ Manhattan at all

‘Part 8’ of the infamous horror franchise wasn’t a success. No surprise really as it’s a classic case of a film with a completely misleading title. Having the undead masked serial killer, Jason Voorhees, slashing his way through New York sounds like a good idea for a film, right? Yes, you’re right. However, the ‘money men’ behind the film didn’t agree.

For budgetary reasons they couldn’t afford to shoot in the Big Apple until the final twenty minutes, leaving pretty much the whole film set on a boat heading to the city in question. Here we have the typical ‘slasher’ film, only on a boat instead of the traditional camp in the woods.

So, fans were more than a little annoyed at the misleading nature of the film. Also – for no reason at all – Jason can now ‘teleport.’ One minute he’s a hundred yards behind you, then next he’s standing in front of you. Yes, he’s a supernatural being, but no explanation is given for this new talent. Plus it does tend to spoil the ‘chase’ between killer and victim when no matter where and how fast you run, he just appears in front of you every time.

So, Part 8 is a bit of a let-down in general. Yes, there are a few nice touches here and there and if you’re a die hard fan of the series you’ll probably appreciate it. However, although it’s definitely watchable (if you’re into this sort of film) it’s not one of the better films in the franchise. Even the writer agrees that not enough time is spent in Manhattan and agrees with fans. Apparently, it was all down to the film’s producers that they weren’t allowed to spend enough time there.

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

Den of Thieves – Better than I could possibly imagine

I didn’t expect much when I sat down to watch ‘Den of Thieves.’ Gerard Butler’s Box Office draw has long since faded and there were no other major stars attached.  All I knew was that the film was ‘long’ (well over two hours) and I even pictured myself walking out about half way if it really didn’t grab me.  Luckily, I was hooked long before the middle of the film!

If you’re bored of your typical ‘cops and robbers’ film, then this one does its best to be a little original.  The two things that stood out for me were the facts that it wasn’t so much ‘cops and robbers,’ as it was ‘bad cops and bad robbers.’ Seriously, the police didn’t act that much better than those who were robbing from banks in L.A. and gunning down anyone who tried to stop them.  The second thing was that normally this kind of film just concentrates on the cops who are out to catch the villains.  However, this time it felt like the robbers got equal screen time to those out to thwart them.  In fact, Gerard Butler was about the only officer of the law who you really got to know (out of his squad of about six men).  You actually got to see a lot more of the robbers’ home life and therefore understood their motivations (on top of just getting rich!).

I don’t want to give away too much of the plot, but you get the sense that this could go either way.  Will the robbers get their big score?  Will there be a twist or turn in the proceedings and, of course, who will make it out alive?  It is pretty violent, so expect a fair few scenes of torture, gunplay and general foul behaviour (and that’s just from the police!).

If the film does have a flaw then it’s the length.  I mentioned it was well over two hours and, although a lot of this is spent on establishing the characters, there are a few scenes (all of which involving Gerard Butler’s on-screen family) which drag and really do slow the pace down.  In some places I was just desperate for the bank-robbing portion of the story to start up again.  However, that’s a minor gripe.  I totally intend to buy this on DVD when it comes out and therefore may just skip those few scenes which I felt don’t really add that much.  Ultimately, if you’re looking for an excellent and action-packed, gritty cop thriller then this one will definitely keep you entertained.  Gerard Butler seems to have found his feet again after that awful ‘London Has Fallen’ nonsense!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Crawlspace - Can anyone say `Aliens?'

We're told by the writing at the beginning of `Crawlspace' that all contact with a top secret Australian military base has been lost (don't you just hate it when that happens?) and now, the only thing left to do is send in a platoon of gruff, rough-and-ready soldiers (think that squad of `Colonial Marines' from `Aliens') armed with motion trackers (think those `motion trackers' the Colonial Marines used in `Aliens') to see what's gone wrong.

Of course Aliens had about an hour of screen time before the Marines arrived. In that time we were shown who was who and character was developed. In Crawlspace, we're just shown them in a helicopter arriving at the facility. Of course there's the cocky one (think Hudson from Aliens) and the tough female one (think Vasquez from Aliens) and the dependable one (who, in my opinion, was Australia's answer to Jason Statham).

Once inside the base they creep around tunnels and air ducts (think a cross between the air ducts Newt leads Ripley through at the end of Aliens, only with those circular doors that were being closed behind Captain Dallas in Alien) and other sets that look straight out of the colony on LV-426. Then, while doing so, we're treated to some `first person' shots showing our heroes' gun barrels that make you feel like you're playing Doom while some of the lines the characters speak are directly lifted from Aliens (in particular the scene where the Colonial Marines first get attacked under the Cooling Towers and their motion trackers are going crazy).

So, what's waiting for our Aussie Colonial Marines? Well, there's a couple of scares where the base's locals jump around ahead of them (the way Newt did when the Colonial Marines first found her in Aliens) then they meet a Gorillagram, who comes out of a smoky background the way some xenomorphs do in Aliens. But then the whole film turns into something more like Scanners.

There's a couple of nice twists in the tale that you might not see coming. All in all this film is too average to be that memorable, which is a shame, because Australia is gaining quite a nice reputation for coming up with films that are a little bit different to Hollywood's output.

Watch if you really want to (or have scratched your Aliens DVD and can't be bothered to buy a new one just yet).

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

Phantasm IV: Oblivion - The cracks are starting to show

The 'Phantasm' franchises reaches its fourth installment and it does feel like it's starting to run out of steam.  The first one was dark, creepy and original - when a group of friends start to realise a tall, old man has a sinister plot involving dead bodies and alternate dimensions.  It was great - well shot, excellent use of special effects, sets and cinematography.  Then came parts two and three, where the emphasis was taken off the 'fear factor' and centred more on bloodthirsty laughs - think 'Evil Dead.'

Now, for part four, the creator admitted that he wanted to get back to the franchise's roots and water down the humour in favour of scares again.  What we're left with is a bit of a mish mash of both that feels like a cross between 'Evil Dead, Twin Peaks' and the original source material.

I always enjoyed the exploits/performance of 'Reggie' - a balding, overweight ex ice cream salesman who now hunts demons with a souped-up (cool!) shotgun (again, think of him like the long lost uncle of 'Ash' from the 'Evil Dead' films).  He's back (thankfully!) and gives as good a performance as ever.  In fact - for me - his sections of the story were definitely the highlights.  They're gory, daft, cheesy and generally over the top.

However, then you have a - sort of - second story which runs in tandem with Reggie's as his former student, Mike, is captured by the tall man and taken to another dimension.  These scenes are nice.  That's about all I can say about them.  They're surreal, but don't seem to have the budget to be really memorable.  They're also a bit confusing, with Mike and the tall man bouncing through time periods and alternate dimensions.  Then, by the time we get back to Reggie, it feels like a totally different film.

'Phantasm IV: Oblivion' isn't a bad film, it's just definitely the weakest of the four so far.  I enjoyed the first three and could definitely binge watch them, but I doubt I'd bother with this entry.

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

Bladerunner 2049 – Good, but could do with a trim

Despite my love of epic sci-fi, Ridley Scott, Harrison Ford and general futuristic shenanigans, I am possible the one geek out there who never really ‘got’ ‘Bladerunner.  I’ve watched it numerous times over the years, every time hoping I’d see it for the ‘masterpiece’ that everyone else seems to.  The weird thing about my interaction with Bladerunner is that as soon as the credits roll, I forget everything I’ve seen.  About the only two things I can remember are something about a man questioning a robot about a turtle and Rutger Hauer snapping fingers towards the end of the movie.  Therefore, when I sat down for the (long awaited) sequel ‘Bladerunner 2049’ my hopes were hardly high.  It’s now nearly a day since I’ve watched it and, although I wouldn’t call it the greatest film I’ve ever seen, at least I can pretty much recall everything the average cinema goer does about a film they’ve just watched – so at least that’s an improvement on the original (from my point of view!).

The first film is set in the future where human-shaped robots (known as ‘replicants’) live among the human population.  Harrison Ford was the cop in charge of bringing in any replicants who go AWOL.  This time round in 2049 we have a similar set-up, this time with Ryan Gosling taking over the role of the cop chasing down rogue replicants.  Now, he’s a good choice for the serious tone of the lead.  Just because the original was filmed in the eighties where action movies were a little more over the top and tongue in cheek, doesn’t mean either ‘Bladerunner’ film is anything other than completely serious.  And, I should say now that neither should really be considered an ‘action’ movie.  If you’re looking for wall-to-wall shoot outs and car chases, you won’t find them in ‘Bladerunner world.’

I suppose as much as I enjoyed Gosling’s performance in the lead, I was (and am) always a Harrison Ford fan.  Now, he came back in a big role in ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ and I keep hearing rumours of a fifth ‘Indiana Jones’ movie.  So, I hope I’m not spoiling this film for anyone when I say that, despite Ford being featured heavily in the marketing, the overall film is kind of ‘Ford-lite.’ This is Gosling’s film and, to be fair, he does it well.  But, I’m being a bit negative.  The film was actually pretty good – it’s strength lying in its atmosphere.  You really do get a feel of what the world is like here.  The long (reasonably non CGI!) establishing shots, combined with the haunting musical score bring a sense of gravitas to the film that few others have.  I can see this becoming a bit of a cult masterpiece of the future, simply by how it looks and in relation to its score alone.

However, as atmospheric is as this film is and, despite that being a bonus, it’s also the film’s undoing.  The film stands at quite a lengthy two hours, forty-three minutes and much of that is spent watching long, lingering establishing shots of various desolate landscapes.  Basically, I’d probably end up editing about ten seconds out of every scene and bring down the overall running time by about twenty minutes (it would help – my opinion!).  Yet, as much as the slow pacing of some of the scenes did drag for me, ultimately the film didn’t seem the full run time (probably felt more like around the two hour mark).  So, I guess that means that I actually enjoyed this one more than the first (rare for a sequel, I know).  Due to its length I probably wouldn’t watch ‘2049’ again for a while, but I definitely think I’d watch it again as it’s left more of an impression on my than its predecessor.  Yes, I’d have liked more Ford (and possibly more Jared Leto, too – also underused!), but you can’t have it all.  In a world of sub-standard sequels it does seem that this one was actually worth the wait.

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

Arthur Christmas - Fantastic Christmas film. In fact, fantastic film. Full Stop

Arthur Christmas is one of those rare computer generated films which is lucky enough to have things in common with such greats as Toy Story and Shrek, i.e. it can be watched on many levels and therefore enjoyed by both adults and children.

It tells the (very British) story of Father Christmas' operation and how he, and his family, plus an army of highly-trained elves, delivers presents to all the boys and girls on one night. However, his family-run business hits a rocky patch when one little girl is accidentally missed out, threatening to ruin Father Christmas' good name in the process. Step up Arthur (youngest son of Father) Christmas, who with the help of an elf with an obsession of wrapping things in pretty paper and bows, plus his aging (and slightly senile) Grandfather (aka `Grand Santa') set about making the one last drop on Christmas Eve in which to get the present to the girl before she wakes up and thinks Father Christmas has forgotten about her.

It's not a particularly complicated story and, on hearing about it, I first wondered how much mileage could be made out of it. The trailer looks impressive, but sometimes they squeeze all the best gags into the ninety second trailer and there's nothing left for the film itself. Luckily, this is not the case. The story is truly charming. It highlights the best of British (vocal) acting talent and weaves it into a heartfelt story about family at Christmas with jokes that will make children chuckle, while others will go straight over their heads for `parents only' to enjoy.

I'm no fan of Christmas. I think it's overhyped, expensive and too commercial. Many a Christmas ever I've locked out the three well-meaning ghosts, but Arthur Christmas even managed to make me feel almost festive - an emotion that Dudley Moore couldn't even manage in his Father Christmas movie. That's how good Arthur Christmas really is (unless I'm experiencing a mid life crisis a few years early).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Jennifer's Body - As if the teenage years weren't stressful enough

I remember when I first watched 2009's 'Jennifer's Body.' I thought it was great.  It was only when I looked online that I realised it had been a bit of a flop at the Box Office and was taking a critical mauling from the critics.  Now, over ten years later, I've given it another watch... and I still love it!

It's a horror movie.  Don't be lulled into any marketing (whether official or fans' interpretations) that states that it's some sort of deep and meaningful critique of youth or femininity.  It's pretty much a horror movie.  And, in my opinion, all good horror movies are either great because they're genuinely scary, or brilliant fun because they don't take themselves too seriously. 'Jennifer's Body' definitely falls into the latter category.

Without going into too much detail, a teenage girl (Megan Fox) gets possessed by an evil demon and begins to crave more than just a couple of tubs of chocolate ice cream while watching 'The Notebook' on a Friday night, i.e. human flesh.  Only her best friend (Amanda Seyfried) knows the truth and sets about doing her best to stop her murderous ways.

Yes, there's some gore, but it's nothing you haven't really seen before.  It's the script that's what makes the film great fun (and I hear it's even finally found a bit of a cult following today).  Like I say, it doesn't take itself too seriously and there's plenty of banter between the cast and it's like they know that what they're doing - kind of - sends up the genre.  Not only does Fox and Seyfried carry the film, there's a great supporting cast to look out for, including Chris Pratt, Lance Henrikson and J.K. Simmons.

Don't go into this film expecting anything deep and meaningful, just enjoy a bit of a gory satire on the horror genre and modern teenage life in general.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one