The Fugitive - don't let this one escape you

There are some films which are pretty much perfect (for what they are). ‘The Fugitive’s’ beauty lies in its simplicity (not to mention the excellent performances from its two main stars).  A prominent doctor’s wife is murdered.  He’s accused and convicted, but manages to escape and sets out to prove his innocence.

Of course ‘simple’ doesn’t always mean great.  Like I said, ‘The Fugitive’ would be a lot less if it wasn’t for the fact that everyone’s favourite space pirate/adventurer, Harrison Ford, wasn’t the fugitive in question.  As with most of his films, he’s great to watch and perfect to root for.  But of course things go even less smoothly for our runaway doctor than they already have been.  If being wrongly convicted for spousal murder wasn’t bad enough, the toughest U.S. Marshall ever, played perfectly by Tommy Lee Jones, has been despatched to bring in his man – at any costs.  Again, Jones’ performance is spot on and if ever there was a better game of ‘cat and mouse’ then I haven’t seen it.

There are plenty of memorable scenes in the film, most of which involve the two leads squaring off – most notably the scene at the dam.  And, even thought the film is now over twenty years old, it can still hold onto its own today.  It doesn’t look in any way dated and you don’t need iphones or Twitter to prove how modern it is.

Sometimes I try to guess who the audience to a film is.  In this case, I’d say: everyone.  If you like thrillers, if you like tension, if you like mystery or you just like either/or Harrison Ford or Tommy Lee Jones then you’re in for a treat.  In fact... if you like good films in general you really should check it out.  Despite its two hour runtime, it flies by (not sure whether that makes the ‘semi-sequel’ ‘U.S. Marshalls also a success – most people may just want to stick with this one).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Diamonds are Forever - The first Roger Moore Bond film (without Roger Moore though)

I'll start with a fact: most serious Bond fans HATE Diamonds Are Forever. I used to watch it when it was on TV in the eighties (when I was a child) and I loved it. Nowadays, I guess I can see where people are coming from. It is a bit of an odd-one-out among the franchise.

Sean Connery returns as Bond (after the unsuccessful George Lazenby took over the titular role for a single outing). Now he's older. And it shows. Plus it doesn't really carry on from On Her Majesty's Secret Service; it feels like it's more a continuation of Connery's last Bond film, You Only Live Twice. Also, due to Lazenby's Bond not being financially profitable in American, Diamonds Are Forever is conveniently sent almost completely in the USA (including the first ever American Bond girl). Also, to add a few more pennies to the film's takings, we have plenty of product placement throughout. Therefore, Diamonds Are Forever seems to have its share of oddities before you even get to the plot.

Bond chases diamonds to America and ends up getting tangled up with his arch enemy Blofeld (again). There's not much to the story, but that doesn't matter too much as it flows along nicely. However, one criticism that was always applied to Roger Moore's Bond films was that they couldn't be taken seriously. People seem to prefer Connery's more serious outings. However, almost every line has a - naughty - double meaning to it and some of the situations do border on the comical.

Then, just when you think you're in a smutty comedy, you have two of the creepiest hitmen ever seen on screen thrown in there. By today's standards, they're not too politically-correct. But whether it was then or now, they still seem to have been airdropped in from a much darker story.

Diamonds Are Forever is a mixed bag. Most serious Bond fans will hate it. I only like it because I remember it from my childhood and I never really got all the plot holes and silliness that came with it.

Don't hate it too much. It's not that bad, but it certainly is the `odd Bond out' from Connery's time as the secret agent. You may only watch it once, but if you like Roger Moore's `lighter' Bond, you may get some enjoyment out of this.

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

Borderland - Good little horror/thriller

`Compact' is the word I'd use to describe Borderland. It doesn't offer anything revolutionary which will blow your mind, but, if you're a fan of the genre, you should find it satisfying.

It follows the (familiar) story of X good-looking young Americans, travelling to X and running into trouble in the form of X. Sometimes these packs of good-looking young Americans are girls, sometimes boys, other time a mixed group. Sometimes they travel to a remote town in America, sometimes a remote town in Europe. Once they get to where they're going, they run into trouble in the form of zombie/vampires/ghosts/rednecks/cannibals - choose your `nasty.' In this instance, three lads travel to Mexico and get mixed up with... well, you'll have to watch it to find out.

Like I say, the story is pretty generic. I've seen plenty of these sorts of movies (you can probably tell by my cynical tone), but this one is pretty reasonable. The protagonists aren't (completely) unlikeable, don't do (too many) stupid things and you can basically root for their plight.

If you like this sort of film, give it a go. Trust me, there are many worse than this (and I've sat through almost every last one of them).

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

Assault on Wall Street - The alternative to setting up your own crystal meth empire

‘Assault on Wall Street’ does kind of do what it says on the tin (eventually).  It’s about your everyday guy who, upon learning that his wife’s medical bills can’t be paid, resorts to some pretty drastic measures to get the job done.  However, instead of doing a ‘Walter White’ and turning to a devious life of manipulation and crime, he decides to just gun down those he feels are responsible for him losing his money on some particularly dodgy Wall Street deals.  I’m pretty sure that’s not a ‘spoiler’ as, if you’ve seen any of the promotional material, you’ll probably have already figured that out from the picture of the main character dressed in a suit and carrying a high-powered machine gun.
But is it any good?

Yeah, it’s not bad.  And, when you consider it’s come from the same guy who brought us Alone in the Dark and House of the Dead, it’s actually a lot better than it deserves to be.  However, don’t expect a continuous, long-drawn-out bloodbath (if you’ve seen Uwe Boll’s other maniacal film ‘Rampage’).  It’s actually pretty slow-moving.  The first two thirds are all about the human element of losing all your money (and house to follow) to a bum trading deal.  It also touches on the American healthcare system and how difficult it is for the ‘little guy’ to do anything about it when the lawyers charge extortionate amounts of money and you don’t have any.  Due to this and its – quite literal – attack on capitalism, some have labelled it ‘liberal propaganda.’ I’m not sure how fair that is; it just seems to tell a lot of it the way it is.

So, if you’re looking for something that’s two parts drama and one part shoot-em-up, plus a dash of social commentary thrown in there for good measure, just sit back and try not to think that it’s been made by Uwe Boll (and definitely don’t dwell on how much Edward Furlong has sunk).

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

Tokyo Gore Police - An art-house B-movie (if such a thing exists)

I really wanted to LOVE ‘Tokyo Gore Police.’ I’m a big fan of loud, dumb, deliberately over-the-top movies, so I had high hopes for this one.  It fulfilled my expectations, but only half as much as I thought it would.

Yes, it’s a Japanese movie (so anyone who can’t watch a film with subtitles might as well move on right now) and it’s set in a futuristic Tokyo where the police have been privatised and catching criminals is big business.  This would be awkward enough, if it wasn’t for the presence of the mysterious (and also insane) ‘engineer’s (no, not the same ones from Prometheus, thankfully) who can turn severed limbs into weapons – a feat that has to be seen to be believed.  Unfortunately, the extent of these engineers’ criminal tendencies doesn’t just stop with overcharging you to repair your Honda at the garage.  They seem to delight in mass murder and general chaos.  Enter ‘Ruka’ – our surly heroine who specialises in slicing these freakish nut-jobs to pieces before they can grow a rocket launcher where their ankle used to be (seriously, that’s the sort of thing they do).  So, she sets off to hunt every last one of them down (and possibly learn how they came to be if she has the time).

It has all the makings of a decent enough B-movie, but it has the word ‘gore’ in its title.  Therefore, it has to live up to its name.  And it does.  If you like gore then you will leave this film fulfilled.  It has some of the most hideously memorable monstrosities ever to grace the silver screen.  I thought many reminded me of some sort of early David Cronenberg film where ‘body horror’ is used.  Until you’ve seen a woman turn a certain part of her anatomy into a giant crocodile and eaten a man alive then you haven’t lived.

So it has the gore.  It also has the ‘look.’ And this is where I call it *almost* an ‘art house’ film.  The director seems to have taken great care to frame and colour his shot.  There’s a lot of colour.  It’s almost like a living comic book with its brightly-coloured sets.  Plus many of the shots are long and deliberately drawn out, giving a sense of offering the viewer more than just a mere slash-up-the-monsters film.

So, it gets its plus points for being gory and nice to look at – so far so good.  The only thing I felt it lacked was a coherent story.  Yes, there is a story in there somewhere, but it seems to lose its way at times.  It’s nearly two hours long and I felt that it could have lost about twenty minutes in the first half to concentrate on getting from A to B.  The second half seems to be a little more focused and therefore makes more sense.  However, in the first act I found myself staring at the screen blankly, wondering what was going on (and just waiting for the next gore moment to arrive).

Overall, I enjoyed the film.  I’m glad I watched it and it has definitely left images in my mind that will never go away (no matter how hard I try to make them!).  I just wanted it to have a tighter story, as (when nothing hideous was happening in the first half) I found it a little boring and hard to watch.  One of those rare films where it needs a director’s cut to actually shorten the film!

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

Six Bullets - Actually pretty good

I could always take or leave Jean Claude Van Damme's action films, even in the eighties - he was always second fiddle to Schwarzenegger and Stallone. Then he seemed to go off radar for years into an abyss of B and C movies that went straight to DVD.

And here he is again, going straight to DVD. However, for a change, this one's actually pretty good. JCVD plays an ex soldier or mercenary (they call him both, but it doesn't matter) who now works as a butcher, in between rescuing kidnapped children from the clutches of vile child-trafficking gangsters in Eastern Europe.

So, when an American couple lose their fourteen-year-old daughter, who ya' gonna' call?

One way to describe Six Bullets would be `a poor man's Taken' as it has elements of the hit Liam Neeson film where he has to rescue his kidnapped daughter in similar circumstances and surroundings. But that would be a little unfair, as Six Bullets does just enough to try and make it its own film in its own right.

For a start, the American couple don't just sit back and let the Muscles from Brussels do all the work, they take up arms and give him a helping hand.

There's not much here that's new, but it's done in a decent enough way to be worth a watch if you fancy seeing another action film.

Solid and definitely Van Damme's best film in years (not including The Expendables 2).

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

The Frozen Ground - An understated, no-frills cop movie

Do you like cop films that are filled with tension, plenty of explosive car chases, blazing shoot-outs and finally the hero lawman confronting the evil serial killer on top of a highrise block of flats? If the answer is `yes' then you probably won't like `The Frozen Ground.'

It's based on a true account of the police's attempt to apprehend a serial killer in Alaska in the early eighties. And, basically, it's a lot more `real' than your average cop vs serial killer film. Nicholas Cage plays the cop and he spends much of the film interviewing witnesses, sitting behind a desk and trying to persuade judges that John Cussack is their man.

It's hardly a thrill-seeking rollercoaster of a story, but, if you're in the mood for something a little more realistic then you might enjoy this. All the performances are good and the cold, foreboding Alaskan setting adds a nice eerie ambience. You could almost look at it as more of a documentary than a thriller, so, if a low-key crime drama is what you're looking for then give this one a go.

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

Devil's Playground - Must try harder (but not much)  

Somewhere, someone said something like, "Hey, everyone loves zombies, right? And the Resident Evil films were successful. What about if we mix it with 28 Days/Weeks Later? We can't lose!"

Whoever said that lost.

The Devil's Playground doesn't so much as play homage to other (zombie/infection) movies as simply rips them off. It's mainly Resident Evil meets 28 Days/Weeks Later, but watch out for plot elements ripped right out of I Am Legend and various scenes re-worked from Dawn of the Dead (2004) and Night of the Living Dead.

London is overrun with zombies who don't just run like the modern crop seem to do these days, but also pirouette, somersault, bounce off walls and hang upside down from vans to peer in the sliding door (as opposed to simply looking inside said open sliding door). They've come a long way from Romero's `shufflers' - seriously, these guys are more graceful in the air than a ballerina. Plus, instead of just killing and eating people, they go as far as to `strike a pose' every time they enter a room, just for added menace (and to give any major characters a fair chance at running/clobbering them).

Talking of main characters - it's like a C-list of British action heroes, none of which have obviously ever seen a zombie movie, as it takes most of the film to figure out the ol' `destroy the brain' way of killing them. Danny Dyer and Craig Fairbrass fight it out for `most cockney hero' title. The leading lady spends most of her time looking frail and meek (certainly no Milla Jovovich here!). The rest of the cast just try too hard. They're a mixture of stereotypes who, if cast as `b*tchy' is UBER b*tchy, if cast as `lovable' is UBER lovable and so on. Poor Jamie Murray - she's worth so much more.

At the end of the day The Devil's Playground is quite nicely shot, but ultimately a student movie (albeit one of the better ones) with plenty of badly computer-generated smoke rising up from burning London.

If you like zombie movies, you will probably dislike this. If you already dislike the genre, this one won't win you round. There's nothing new here, just a badly-acted copy of a mish-mash of better works. Advice: stick on a Romero film, 28 Days Later, or, if you fancy something more `popcorn' a Resident Evil flick.

Oh, and note to film-makers - deserted streets of London are no longer creepy seeing as 28 Days Later did it almost ten years ago. 

4/10 avoid like the 'Rage' virus in 28 Days Later

Street Trash - I wanted to like this more

I'll start by saying that I'm no 'cinema snob.' Ninety per cent of my DVD collection's titles end in '...of the Living Dead' and I love low budget horror from the eighties with practical special effects.  Therefore, 'Street Trash' should have been everything I've been looking for.  I've even watched it twice now (as I managed to forget everything about it after the first viewing) and I still just can't seem to warm to it.

If you read much of the promotional material about the film you'll see how it says that a liquor shop starts selling bottles of toxic waste to the homeless population of New York, causing them to melt in all sorts of hideous ways.  That's all technically true, but - when you watch the movie - you'll see that that's just a small part of the story.  Yes, the practical effects are brilliant and - for me - definitely the high points of it all.  But it's just a series of random events centred around the homeless who live in a junkyard with no real story tying it together.

First of all the characters are all pretty unlikable.  Even the 'hero' is pretty UNheroic and I didn't really care what happened to him.  The homeless all steal from each other and are only too happy to do one another down in order to get any advantage over their ranks.  Then you have the fact that characters sort of just drift in and out of the story, never really feeling like the film-makers know what to do with them.  Some come at the beginning then aren't seen again until much later in the story - and don't go expecting any real resolution for most of them.

As I say, the effects are great and I loved them all.  Plus the general direction is inventive and I couldn't help but feel that there actually was a good story in there somewhere, it was just a case of the writer wanting to cover too many different areas and not really focusing on one particular subject.  It's worth noting that I'm probably in the minority with my lukewarm reaction to this film.  I've read a lot of other people's comments and most people who enjoy the genre do seem to find this one a real 'hidden gem.' For me I just didn't 'get' this one.

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

Borat - Will probably offend everyone (and all the better for it)

If you’re wondering whether to watch ‘Borat’ or not, you probably need to ask yourself how do you feel about its star – the man behind the moustache, aka Sacha Baron Cohen himself.  If you don’t know who he is by now, or have never heard about him, I strongly advice you look him up on the internet (there must be numerous clips of his work on Youtube for example) and, if you like what he does, then Borat will be a treat for you.

Sacha Baron Cohen is an English comedian/actor who specialises in sending up his (unsuspecting) victims by portraying outrageous characters in their vicinity and secretly filming their reactions.  Here, he plays a fictional journalist, Borat, from Kazakhstan who travels to America to do a documentary on American culture.

However, if you’re thinking that the whole film will be nothing more than ‘hidden camera antics,’ then you’ll be wrong.  It's kind of a 50/50 split, as the ‘story’ is heavily scripted around the ‘set pieces’ which make up the footage that is filmed without the knowledge of the public.  It’s most likely best to view the film as half scripted, half hidden camera and completely outrageous.

It is offensive.  Although it’s hard to say exactly who to.  Much of the debates surrounding the film centres on who should be offended more.  Some say that it portrays people from Kazakhstan poorly while others say it’s ‘anti-American’ and, in places, anti-Semitic.  I think it just mocks the world we live in and nicely points out that no one should be beyond parody.

Don’t expect a beautifully-created storyline with well-developed characters and clever story arcs, just enjoy seeing pretty much everyone sent up, as they are repeatedly amazed and appalled by the antics of the man with the moustache.  And, as I said at the beginning, if you have no idea what to expect from this film, don’t watch it.  You need to know what you’re letting yourself in for before you spend an hour and a half in the company of Borat.  Also, if you enjoyed this so much that you bought it on DVD, it’s worth noting that a lot of extra funny scenes were cut from the theatrical release and can be found on the ‘extras’ menu – don’t take the DVD out of the machine without checking those babies out!

No matter how many times I watch this film, it never gets old and the jokes don't get any the less funny.  Also, kudos to Pamela Anderson for her cameo near the end.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

The Atticus Institute - Apparently they still had ‘found footage’ back in the seventies

‘The Atticus Institute’ is a documentary.  Only it isn’t.  It’s one of those films that is shot like one, yet scripted – I think they call them a ‘mockumentary.’ I’ve seen the genre before and they can be pretty entertaining; normally they’re quite funny and this one is supposed to be scary.  It’s about the first ‘government sponsored’ institute which studies the paranormal.  The story is about the facility’s first ‘genuine’ patient with paranormal abilities.

Therefore you get a load of ‘talking head’ interviews shoved in every few scenes.  It’s set in the seventies, so all the scenes ‘recorded’ back then are nice and grainy, while the ‘interviews’ are supposed to be filmed with modern cameras, therefore being clearer in picture quality.  Yes, both sorts are well-filmed.  The overall effect is certainly one of watching a documentary on past times.  Only the interviews totally take you out of what little scary mood has been created (and there’s not much of that to begin with).  Whoever’s being interviewed basically tells you a bit about what happened back in the past and then we see what they’ve already said in grainy ‘stock’ footage.

So, everything that’s going to happen is first told to us by an interviewee.  And you can probably guess what’s going to happen anyway.  Once the institute gets its first ‘real’ person with psychic abilities then you know it’s going to go wrong for them.  And it does.  Only it doesn’t really crank up the mood to anything because it’s being told to us in retrospect and you sort of already know what’s happened because it’s all taken place already (that’s assuming you couldn’t guess what happened anyway).

And, what few scares are in here aren’t that scary.  The lynchpin of any ‘found footage’ film is that it doesn’t have much of a budget.  And it shows here.  Basically, if you like horror films, there are better.  And, if you like ‘found footage’ films then you’ll probably have seen better also.

Plus there’s a British actress who plays one of the doctors who completely overacts every time she’s interviewed.  She wound me up.

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

The Mutant Chronicles - Lord of the Rings... is space!

Imagine a film was pitched to a studio wanting space battles, epic Steampunk sets, monsters, deep and memorable characters and generally a piece of work that will leave a lasting impression like 'The Lord of the Rings' has had on society.  Then imagine the studio said, "That sounds great - do it!  Now here's $50.  Off you go."

That kind of miniscule budget may just have a slight impact on what can be done.  However, the film-makers tried and 'The Mutant Chronicles' is the result.  I've seen a lot of hate for this film online - most of which saying how 'cheap' it looks.  To be fair... they're not wrong.  It's like watching humans acting in front of a Playstation 2 cut scene for an hour and forty minutes.  And yet - for some reason - I can't bring myself to hate this film.

It tried.  It wanted to be so much more, but was never allowed to be so.  It has some familiar faces (John Malcovich and Ron Perlman), plus a host of characters who probably deserved so much more backstory than what they got (due to time/budget constraints).

In about a thousand years, the world is split in three and currently fighting in World War One style trenches (don't think about it - just accept it).  Unfortunately, in one of the battles the warring armies unearth some long forgotten evil and have to team up in order to throw a ring into Mount Door... or something.  Put a page of a book in a library.  No, not really, but something like that.

So the Fellowship of the mutants sets off across a (computer-generated) post apocalyptic world in order to slice their way through waves of monsters who look like they're out of a Playstation 1 game I played back in the nineties, but can't remember the name of.

If you're going to enjoy this film you need to know what you're in for.  I say again - it's cheap.  If you're expecting anything more then you're probably not going to like it, but if you're in the mood for a sci-fi little B-movie with big aspirations then give this one a go.  It's highly watchable.

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

Tokarev - ‘Taken’ it is not

If you know your recent action movies then you’ll probably have seen Liam Neeson in ‘Taken’ he’s a former killer of one description or another and his daughter gets kidnapped, so he must utilise his skills and avenge her.  I guess Nicholas Cage’ films haven’t exactly been setting the Box Office alight lately (anyone remember the remake of ‘The Wicker Man’ and that one when he and Ron Perlman were in medieval times?  No?  You’re not the only one!) so he must have figured that, being an ‘elder statesman’ of the action genre, he could try his hand at a bit of parental retribution.

The trouble is... the ‘avenge your daughter’ story has already been done by Liam Neeson (very well!) therefore when another film comes along that is basically the same, it just gives off the feeling that we’ve seen it all before.

Whereas Liam Neeson was CIA, Nicholas Cage was a former gangster.  Now, after he’s ‘gone straight’ someone kidnaps his daughter and he has to take matters into his own hands to find out the perpetrators etc.  If you’re a huge fan of Cage then you’ll probably get more out of this than most.  However, even from a die-hard fan’s perspective, this is hardly his ‘finest hour.’ He’s simply going through the motions.  Danny Glover is also in it, but he’s basically a side-plot to the main story and his character could probably have been written out of the story completely, as he doesn’t really have much to work with and therefore doesn’t add much to the overall story.

Expect punch-ups, car chases and shoot outs – pretty much what you’d expect from any other ‘straight-to-DVD’ action flick.  It’s okay, but nothing that memorable.  

The best part comes near the end.  I won’t spoil it for you, but I actually enjoyed the final ‘reveal’ – if you watch the film you’ll understand what I mean.  However, a nice ending doesn’t really mask the fact that ‘Tokarev’ is mediocre at best.

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

Siren - A failure on every level

It's hard to believe that any film can get so much so wrong all at once.

Siren has no major stars in it and is a self-confessed horror film. Therefore, the best the film-makers were probably hoping for was that it attained a cult following on DVD. I doubt it will.

For a start the cover is misleading. It shows three bikini-clad women's bodies on the front. There are only two women in the whole movie (and only one ever wears a bikini slightly near the end of the film). Secondly, the tagline describes the film as `The best supernatural thriller since Dead Calm.' First of all Dead Calm was released over twenty years ago and it wasn't supernatural. The only similarity is that both films have boats in them.

Then we have the film itself: three of the most unlikeable people in the world take a boat trip and end up getting stuck on an island with - you guessed it - a siren. Despite not heeding the obligatory warning from the clichéd old geezer at the boating station about sailing too close to the rock and getting caught by supernatural beings, they do it anyway. Do we care? Probably not by now as we're so sick of watching these people.

Anyone hoping for vague titillation will be disappointed. You see two women naked from the back and they kiss a couple of times. No nudity. Not even lots of bikini-clad women.

The horror. There isn't much. There's hardly any in the film at all. When it tries to be scary about three quarters of the way through, it just feels confusing.

It's one plus point - it was short. However, the 1 hr 16 minutes felt a lot longer than it actually way!
Just don't bother with this one.

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

Frontiers - Texas Chainsaw (in France)

Frontiers is a good movie - or rather a `good movie' if you like horror films. However, in my opinion, it will never be a great movie, on account of the fact that it's just The Texas Chainsaw Massacre set in France.

A group of youngsters head out into the French countryside (does it really matter why?) and spend the night in a local hotel. Sadly for them, the hotel is run by a family of cannibal Neo Nazis.

From then on we're treated to the general `hunt `em and kill `em' type film which the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is often credited as starting. We have escapes, near escapes, gruesome deaths, a family of murderers with a strong family bond, an elderly relative that needs help eating her chopped up human dinner and all the things we've seen before.

So, if you liked any of the Texas Chainsaw films or are generally a fan of the genre, you could certainly do worse than Frontiers. It's well shot, well-acted and has plenty of the red stuff flying around. Perhaps the only criticism is that some of the youngsters are pretty much as unlikeable as the Nazis who are hell-bent on chopping them up.

If you don't mind the subtitles, you could spend a worse hour and a half watching this. It's just a pity it basically covers the same ground as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

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

The Devil's Knot - Interesting, but slightly disturbing subject matter

Okay, so I’ll admit that I’m writing this review as a parent of a small child.  That way, you may understand that watching a film about a child who’s kidnapped and murdered is always going to affect me more.  Plus this actually happened.  ‘The Devil’s Knot’ is based on a real incident in American in 1993 when three boys were found murdered in a small town and three teenage boys were subsequently arrested.

By all accounts the film is actually quite close to the truth, or at least, what is perceived as the truth.  Obviously there is some ambiguity as to the accused’s guilt, that way there is some proper interest in the story.  Colin Firth plays the investigator who doubts the ‘open and shut’ of the case and starts looking a little deeper into what transpired, rather than just following the inevitable thirst for *any* blood from the local townsfolk.  The first thing that struck me was that he did an American accent well.  I’m not aware of any other film where he’s put on a U.S. accent and he did it pretty well.
Reece Witherspoon is one of the grieving mothers and plays a naturally sympathetic role well, drawing on her ability to pull off a decent southern American accent.

As the ‘killers’ are quickly apprehended, much of the film is centred around the following trial and courtroom battle.

Basically, the film is an extended courtroom drama, so, if you’re into those, you should enjoy it.  Personally, I could have done without seeing the moment when the youngsters are ‘found’ – it’s quite upsetting, based on how real it looks.  But then that’s just me speaking as possible an overprotective parent.

All in all, a good film – difficult subject matter and handled well in a balanced way.  I’m not sure I’d want to watch it again, but I don’t feel like I’ve wasted the two hours I invested in it.

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

Body Melt - It does what it says on the tin  

Body Melt is an `Ozploitation' flick about an evil old company who gives experimental drugs to a community and ends up getting more than they bargained for.

If you watched Neighbours in the early nineties, you may enjoy playing `Spot the Neighbours star' as a handful crop up. It's certainly fun to see Ian Smith (better known to us as Harold Bishop) in a slightly more nasty role than a tubby loveable doddery bloke next door.

There's a reasonable amount of gore in Body Melt. The special effects are cheap, but utilised well and are quite inventive - expect varieties of bodily deformities.

However, these effects are not as constant as they might be, leading to large chunks of film with little going for it. Most of the actors are not that great and the characters they play are pretty unlikeable. You may be hard put to it to decide on who the `hero' is, as there's a fair few characters, none of which get enough screen time to really expand their personalities.

Plus the story - what little there is - is a bit all over the place. It's a nice idea, but could have been scripted a bit better and with the use of more professional actors.

It's not the worst film of its kind, but it's certainly not the best either. The nice gore and odd bits of humour are probably enough to make you think you didn't completely waste an hour and a half of your life. Braindead is definitely better though. 

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

The Attic (aka 'Crawlspace') - Quite good (and also quite bad)

Many a time the problem with a movie (and ‘horror’ movies in particular) is that you don’t care about the characters.  As ‘Cabin in the Woods’ pointed out, the ‘stars’ of such films are little more than: ‘Generic Blonde A,’ the ‘Jock, the Slut’ and ‘the Best Friend.’ So, for a start, they’re not particularly entertaining and, secondly, you don’t really care about them when they meet their grisly end.

However, in ‘The Attic,’ the characters are actually quite well-written.  The main cast are all a family, who have just moved into a nice suburban house in America.  And, they’re actually quite likeable.  They’re likeable, largely because they behave like a real family, i.e. they bicker and get at each other, plus no one has been written as a deliberate ‘comic element.’

So, in a cheap B-movie, I found myself actually wanting to watch more and really enjoying the film.  Unfortunately, although the writers can definitely do ‘characters’ and dialogue, they’re not too good at story or plausibility.

The family move into their new home, only to discover that the previous occupant is still living in the attic (and he doesn’t take too kindly to newcomers in ‘his’ house).  And that’s where the story falls down.  You may guess that a certain amount of murders follow and no one seems to notice.  People just disappear from the property and no one really bothers to look into it.  Plus the badguy himself is pretty lame and not particularly threatening.

The death-scenes are at least inventive on the low budget and some of the kills are clever (if possibly a little unrealistic).  And special mention to the youngest member of the family.  He’s not in it that much, so he doesn’t have a lot to do, but his ‘one-liners’ are quite amusing.

All in all, I really enjoyed the dialogue and family interaction.  It was just the plot and lack of realism that spoiled it.  I’d quite like to see the same family in a different (horror) situation, as they were definitely the film’s high point.

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

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) - Spectacles Paperwork Meetings Suits  

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is slow. Sometimes that's a bad thing, but, on this occasion, it's deliberately so. It takes some of the best British actors (and Colin Firth) and uses them subtly as spies and spy-catchers in an interweaving spy story. I might use the word `thriller' to describe it, but I don't think it's meant to be particularly thrilling.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is not James Bond. It makes no bones about that. Don't expect car chases or Bond girls (the best you get there is Kathy Burke!). Instead, you have a more realistic portrayal of spies in the midst of Cold War Britain, showing us the `old boys' network that lurks among the corridors of power in British politics.

If you like your mysteries deep and your performances intense then this is the film for you. It's already received rave reviews and award nominations for its cast. Basically, you're looking at either a 4/5 rating of even a 5/5.

Sadly, I'm a philistine and I crave noisy explosions, exotic locations and bikini-clad lovelies collecting shells on sandy beaches. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy bored the hell out of me and I turned it off on about the hour mark. I just got sick of men in glasses and suits walking in and out of rooms to talk to someone or pick up some paperwork.

Many people will love this film. Fair play to them - they're probably right. It just wasn't for me. All I was left with was a gasping craving for a Vodka-Martini and a sports car that drove underwater.

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

Sinister - Yeah, not bad - it did its best

I suppose how much you enjoy Sinister will depend on how well you know your horror movies. Enough time has elapsed since The Ring for Hollywood to think that most audiences will have forgotten about `that sort of horror.'

Ethan Hawke plays a real-crime writer, who deliberately moves his family into the home of another family who were all murdered, so that he can study tapes of the crime for his upcoming book. Once there, he naturally starts finding himself in the middle of all sorts of spooky goings on.

The Ring had a `killer video tape,' whereas Sinister has... well, it's not completely different. And instead of a female lead investigating it, you have Ethan Hawke. And so on. Okay, so Sinister isn't a complete rip-off of The Ring, but it just felt like it was definitely in the same area of dark, brooding, supernatural, creepy horror.

And it's not bad. With the seemingly endless flow of monster/ghost movies out there, it takes something a little different to stand out. And Sinister just about manages to raise its head above the pile. If you read the marketing, you'll see people raving about just how scary it was. I didn't find it that scary, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it.

It is quite dark - by that I mean literally (not just the subject matter, which, obviously, is also quite dark). The film is mainly shot inside one house which you could be forgiven for thinking that they don't have a single light bulb in any room. Some may say that adds to the atmosphere, others may find it too hard to tell what's going on. Perhaps my only gripe would be that I found the whole family a little annoying. Ethan Hawke's character is obsessed with being famous. His `loving' wife never seems to bother looking after the kids, leaving all disciplining to him (it even took me a while to work out whether the mother was actually the biological mother or a stepmother, as she repeatedly refers to the children - when speaking to her husband - as "your children"). Plus the kids themselves are hardly endearing - the girl's okay, but the boy (don't be fooled by his haircut - he IS a boy) is surly and generally unlikeable.

It's no classic, but it does offer enough different to make it worth a watch.

Special mention to the local sheriff's deputy - just a minor, if quite cool character.

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

The Quiet Ones – Quietly forgotten 

There once was a time when the studio was synonymous with classy horror.  Then they disappeared.  Then they came back.  And only a few people really noticed.  Their first efforts returning to the genre had mixed success.  However, ‘The Quiet Ones’ really is a film that is best left off their C.V.

It’s a sort of mixture of ‘found footage’ and possession film.  Luckily, the whole film isn’t found footage. It’s *supposedly* based on true events.  I haven’t looked into this, but I’m guessing it’s about as true as most films that are allegedly based on true events.  A university professor is conducting experiments on a girl who is apparently possessed.  He also wants it documented by a student cameraman (hence we have elements of point of view shots thrown in the mix for ‘added scare’).

Nothing radical about the premise, but perhaps my biggest gripe was that they tried to set it in the seventies.  Seriously… it’s like the film-makers only had access to a sixth form college’s wardrobe department.  The ‘costumes’ (and I use that word lightly) are basically the most clichéd seventies outfits I’ve ever seen.  In fact, they pretty much look like they could be worn today and no one would really notice.  The biggest nod to the seventies are in the haircuts, which are bad.  The nerdy cameraman-guy has a clichéd nerdy haircut.  The suave rich guy has a clichéd suave rich haircut and the girl just looks like she’s wearing a wig (don’t get me started on the girl – she shows just how ultra decadent she is by constantly waving a cigarette around in one of those long holders they never use any more and wearing mini dresses).  Then you have the professor in charge of it all.  He too is the most clichéd ‘nutty professor’ type character committed to screen in recent years.

It’s unfair to critise the principal cast’s acting abilities, for the dialogue is so stilted and badly-written that even the greatest actors would struggle to breathe life into the words.  About the only actress who really brings her character to life is the poor unfortunate girl who’s been possessed and spends her days being tortured by repeated playing of Slade songs and having her arms burned (for what reason I don’t know!).

All in all, this is a bad film and – worse – completely unscary.  The mish-mash of documentary footage and regular footage adds nothing to the atmosphere which comes across as cheap and nasty at all times.  There are twists to the tale, but, by the time they arrive, you probably won’t care much about them anyway.  Just  best to skip this one.

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

Mystic River - Hard-hitting, gritty and great

Shame on me for not knowing that Mystic River was directed by Clint Eastwood until AFTER I'd watched it (yes, somehow I must have missed his name in the opening credits - shame on me, I know). I was just watching it because of its pretty impressive ensemble cast, including Sean Penn, Kevin Bacon and Tim Robbins.  To be honest, it's not like Mr Eastwood has that much of a 'visual style' to his work.  It's not like a Guy Ritchie film where you can probably tell who's directing it after just a few scenes.  However, what Eastwood may lack in visual flair, he clearly doesn't find it hard to get the best out of his actors.

We meet the three when they're just boys and Tim Robbins gets abducted by two men. He later escapes, but carries the scars with him right the way into adulthood. When they're grown up and have families of their own, Sean Penn's nineteen-year old daughter is murdered and Tim Robbins is the primary suspect.

Not only did I not know about Clint Eastwood's involvement, but I also didn't know that it was based on a book. I haven't read this, so I can't compare the film to this. All I can say is that it's a pretty intense ride. You need to be in the mood for something pretty heavy as there's no `light-relief' to be found here.

All the characters play their respective parts well (Laurence Fishburne should get a special mention as he has the least character development and yet still brings more than a few nice touches to his role as supporting detective) and it was no wonder that it eventually went on to win Oscars.  I'm no real fan of Sean Penn (mainly due to his real-life rants), but even I could put my natural dislike for him aside to enjoy his performance here.

I won't give too much away about the plot, but I can't imagine many people will be disappointed with what they've watched. As long as you're in the mood for something dark, this should suffice.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

From Russia With Love - The `Bond-wagon' really starts to roll

A lot of people think that `Dr No' is the best Bond film. Yes, it was the first and therefore the most original. But I found that it was really just the `opening bracket' for what was to come. In `From Russia With Love' I felt that the (Connery-era) Bond was actually starting to get going.

It has double the budget of Dr No and therefore feels like a much more grandiose. We have more action, more gadgets, more baddies and, of course, more women. Plus Connery himself seems more at ease with the character he's playing.

Dr No felt distinctly low budget, whereas From Russia With Love feels a lot like the Bond that we're used to, i.e. big budget, explosive (and deliciously over-the-top) stunts and action. We're finally introduced to SPECTRE - a criminal organisation hell bent on causing trouble between the superpowers - who come up with a plan to pit the British against the Russians, involving a stolen coding machine and a beautiful Russian spy. Just as well Bond is on hand to sort it all out.

This is one of the rare Bonds that is pretty much liked by everyone. It's got a great plot which weaves and twines nicely, but stays understandable at all times. The villains are not just wonderfully evil, but also memorable and there is enough action to put it up there with the best of them.

But, best of all, it doesn't take itself that seriously, making it the Saturday afternoon film which the current (Daniel Craig) Bond films just will never be.

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

The Devil Inside - Good effort - sadly only an okay product  

If star ratings were awarded for trying, The Devil Inside would definitely get 5/5 stars. It truly wants to be something. Ever since the Blair Witch Project redefined horror with its `first person perspective' there have been many imitators.

Some have worked, others haven't. Sadly, The Devil Inside is the latter.

Every post-Blair Witch first person film will be judged against Blair Witch and, although The Devil Inside tries to break away, it doesn't really succeed. It's about a girl who goes to the Vatican to track down her long lost mother, who was sanctioned by the Catholic Church. Was she simply mad, or possessed?

The Devil Inside lurches from one carbon copy of another similar film to another. I saw shades of Paranormal Activity mixed in there with The Last Exorcism (both superior films in my opinion). The actors did as best they could with what they were given. As with these kinds of films, they did well to capture the `naturalistic' elements of their dialogue.

It's just not that scary. If you've seen one exorcism movie, then you've basically seen this one (even if this one does do it from a first-person perspective - which The Last Exorcism has already done anyway).

It's not bad, it's just not original. And [SEMI SPOILER ALERT] the ending will leave viewers thoroughly divided. You only have to look at some message boards to see that some people loved it - most despised it and felt ripped off.

It's your call. If you really need one more exorcism movie, then give it a go. But you've probably seen everything The Devil Inside has to offer before... and better.

4/10 Dumb and Dumber would probably appreciate this film

Critters 4 - Critters in space

Yes, those nasty killer rolling fur-balls did technically come from space, so seeing them back there isn’t that much of a stretch.  However, it does just seem like a bit of a gimmick by the film-makers to try and keep a – slightly – tired horror film franchise going.

Critters 4 was made back to back with Critters 3 (a fact that you’ll probably have guessed if you watched the ‘in-credits’ scene that preceded Marvel’s in-credits scenes by nearly twenty years), therefore it does follow on perfectly.  The last of the Crites’ eggs are sent up into space, but naturally they hatch and cause mayhem.  Basically, if you’ve seen one ‘monster-on-a-spaceship’ film made after ‘Alien’ then it’s basically like this.  Or, another way to describe it would be a ‘slasher/monster film in space.’

You have a load of disposable characters who are there to be killed off by the escaped Crites, a few that you’re supposed to care about (but probably don’t!) and Charlie – the only major character who’s been in all four movies (and this time he’s been given top billing!).  He’s just about the only person you’ll care about, as he’s from ‘our’ time and is even more of a fish out of water in space than he is on Earth.  However, one good actor can’t really help how mundane the overall package is.  It just feels rather cheap overall.  The sets all look – well – like a set!  And I read online that some of the external shots of space and spaceships have been reused from a previous sci-fi movie.

As I’ve said, if you’ve seen any monster-in-space film made after ‘Alien’ then you’ll probably have seen this, or better, as it will give you all you need to know about the genre.  The kills aren’t much to write home about and long time fans of the franchise may disapprove of the way they’ve changed one of the other long-running characters (or was that just me?).  If you love the Critters franchise that much, you may like this.  I own it because I have the four disc DVD box set, so I kind of watch it out of duty when I’ve already seen the first two (same could be said for the third, but this one doesn’t even have Leo as a kid to laugh at).

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

Blue Ruin - How slow can you take it?

‘Blue Ruin.’ I’ve checked online and it’s definitely classed as a ‘thriller.’ Now, the word ‘thriller’ will probably conjure up images of high speed car chases and wall-to-wall tension.  Based on that definition, Blue Ruin is definitely NOT a ‘thriller.’ It’s possibly one of the most ‘non-conventional’ thrillers you’re ever going to see.

It’s slow.  Very slow.  In fact, especially near the beginning, there are large portions of the film where people don’t even talk to each other (or even have anyone to talk to!).  We meet out ‘hero.’ A scruffy, borderline vagrant, who finds a killer from his past his back and he sets out to deliver retribution.  I guess it’s more of a ‘revenge’ film, but don’t go thinking of the ‘Death Wish’ saga, or ‘Kill Bill.’ The main difference is the hero himself.  He’s possibly the least ‘hero-looking’ leading man you’re ever likely to see.  He looks like a strong gust of wind would probably knock him over – hardly the sort who’s out for bloodthirsty revenge.

And he doesn’t do much – mainly ask for help and prepare.  That’s mainly why it’s so slow.  I was watching it wondering when something would actually happen.  That may make it sound like I thought it was boring, yet when I checked the clock, practically an hour had passed.

Basically, you’re only going to enjoy the film if you know what you’re getting.  If you’re hoping for a star-studded action-packed blockbuster, you’ll leave sorely disappointed (did I mention there’s barely a recognisable face in the whole film?!).  However, if you’re in the mood for a more subdued little number which knowingly plods along, trying its best to be different, you’ll get your money’s worth here.

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

Attack the Block – Not bad, if you can get over one factor…

I know that British science fiction films are always a bit hit and miss, due to the lack of budget for special effects and actors. ‘Attack the Block’ is no different in as much as you probably won’t recognise anyone in the cast (besides Simon Pegg’s best mate, Nick Frost – and he’s not in it much).  However, this film knows that and plays to its strength enough to actually make it worth watching.  It’s set in (what I always called) a ‘council estate’ in London, but the locals tend to just call it ‘the block.’ It’s a maze of run-down high rise, low income flats where you probably wouldn’t want to walk alone at night.  And that’s pretty much where the story begins – a woman walks home from work, only to find herself fall victim to muggers.  However, before she has time to call the police, a new threat arrives – aliens.

So, it becomes one of those ‘team-up’ movies where two sets of people with vastly contrasting backgrounds/values etc, have to pull together in order to defat a greater foe.  Now there’s nothing wrong with that, but if one section of your ‘heroes’ (note the quote marks?) are the muggers who stole from a helpless nurse one night, it’s a little hard to see them in much more of a better light than the monsters who are now ripping them to pieces.  And they do get munched on quite soon.  The aliens deserve a mention because – and maybe due to a lack of budget – they quite simple, but, at the same time, also quite well done.  They have a different look and feel to any other monsters you’ve seen on screen and, for that, it actually works.

Plus the film has John Boyega in his only real ‘pre Star Wars’ role.  It’s interesting to think how he went from low budget sci-fi to possibly the biggest budget sci-fi franchise ever known.  Now, as anyone who’s watched the new Star Wars films will know, he’s very good at what he does and highly watchable.  However, as I’ve mentioned, he’s playing one of the muggers.  Granted you could argue he goes through major ‘character development’ and in the course of the story mends his ways, but – again – a lot of the likeability of this film relies on the audience being able to root for these hoods over the monsters.

So, if you can get over that ‘minor’ gripe then there’s actually quite a bit here to entertain you if you’re looking for a cheeky little sci-fi/horror number that is self-knowing enough not to take itself seriously.  Plus I still think the aliens are cool.

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

The Time Traveller's Wife - A great film (but only if you haven’t read the book... apparently)

Okay, how many times have you heard someone say, ‘The film’s not half as good as the book?’ Well, this is definitely one of those times.  However, seeing as I haven’t read the book (or possibly ANY book since I was at school) I really can’t compare the two.  However, what I got was a pretty good little film.

I’m into sci-fi, so I kind of expected the ‘time travelling’ element to take centre stage.  Yet, what this really is is a romance story, masquerading as science-fiction (think the way ‘Ghost’ was basically a love story disguised as supernatural).  Now, I normally don’t tend to go for ‘tear-jerkers,’ but I actually quite liked this one.

One half of the film is about the titular time traveller (Eric Bana) who has an undetermined condition that forces him to travel through time to a random moment... completely naked.  Rachel McAdams plays his long-suffering wife, who has to put up with a husband who disappears every now and again, only to return at an equally random moment.

Unlike most films involving time travel, there’s no real ‘antagonist.’ The ‘problem’ the characters have to get through is truly accidental and no one’s fault and it’s about how (and whether) they can get through this, especially when talk of children comes into play.

Like I said, I don’t know the difference between how the book portrays the characters, but the two main leads here have chemistry and you’ll probably find yourself rooting for them to get through this.
It’s not action packed.  Basically, if you haven’t read the book and you’re thinking of watching this, you’ll need to be in the mood for a slow-moving love story with an incidental sc-fi element.  I might even go as far as to describe it as a film designed more for women, only I enjoyed it more than pretty much every woman who I know who’s seen it!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For - Just doesn’t quite work this time

Like many, I really enjoyed the original ‘Sin City.’ Okay, I have never read any of the comics that it’s based on, so I can’t really compare the two mediums.  However, it just worked.  The main stories intertwined and were brutally original as they depicted the lives of the inhabitants of the fictional ‘Basin City.’ In fact, the first film was so popular it’s hard to believe it’s taken nearly a decade to produce a sequel.

But was it worth the wait?  Well... sort of.  I think that if the original Sin City didn’t exist, this one ‘Sin City: A Dame to Kill For’ would have been hailed as the classic that that first one was.  It’s hard to describe what exactly is wrong with the sequel.  It just has this vibe about it that says that something isn’t quite right.  And that’s weird because it contains all the elements of the first one.  Many of the central characters return this time round (notably Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis and Jessica Alba), but equally many of the others who were probably wanted couldn’t make it for one reason or another – due to other commitments or sadly passing away during the gap between productions.

The violence is also there.  It was probably tempting to the film-makers to lower the graphic content of the film to attract a younger audience to the cinemas.  Of course the general ‘look and feel’ of the film is kept identical (but then that’s no guarantee of success – take ‘The Spirit’ for example!).

For me, it was all about the dialogue.  Everything seems really stilted, like the actors are just reading their lines directly from the comic material it was based on.  There was one scene where I could practically see Mickey Rourke standing in a Hollywood sound studio while he read his lines and had them overlaid over the footage of his character walking the streets of Basin City.

Sin City 2 isn’t bad.  Its major sin (no pun intended) is that the first one was so good.  Therefore any sequel had too bigger mountain to climb to try and surpass it.  To sum up... For fans of the original, they could probably watch Sin City many times and still enjoy it.  As for the sequel... you could probably watch it every few years, but it would certainly never grace your TV screen as often as its predecessor.

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

Queen of the Damned - Fun for the casual viewer

It says on the front cover of the DVD of ‘Queen of the Damned’ that it is the sequel to ‘Interview With a Vampire’ – you remember that – the smash hit movie, starring Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt.  Everyone loved that.  It was a hit!  Unfortunately, ‘Queen of the Damned’ is only a sequel as it’s using some of the same characters (characters, not actors – there’s a difference) and set in the same universe, so to speak.  Basically, it’s not really a sequel.  It’s another vampire story written by Anne Rice following some of the characters who you might have seen before.  Don’t expect to see Tom or Brad in this one.

However, just because it doesn’t really follow on, doesn’t make it a bad thing – a disjointed thing, but not a bad thing.  But, in some ways, it’s not really the film’s fault.  It’s about a vampire who has got disillusioned with drinking people’s blood over the centuries and has gone to sleep for hundreds of years.  Now he’s woken in the modern age and decided to ‘out’ all the other vampires and their blood-sucking ways.  It goes without saying that the rest of the vamps don’t take kindly to his outspoken ways and decide to take him out.  So where does the Queen come into it?

She doesn’t.  That much.  Unfortunately she’s only in it for two scenes because the young actress playing her tragically died while the film was being made, leaving the story lacking what should have been a big part of its central element.

Plus it doesn’t really do the book justice.  I haven’t read the book.  I’m one of the many who just watches the film, but I’ve generally browsed through enough internet message boards to realise that a lot of die-hard fans of the source material didn’t appreciate the transition to film.

So, it’s got its fair amount of negative points.  And yet it’s actually quite good.  Not great, but somehow highly watchable (if you’re into vampires in general).  It should all be quite campy and yet Stuart Townsend plays the lead vamp pretty well and is actually fun to watch.  Aaliyah, for the few scenes she’s in, sizzles as the Queen of the undead.  It would have been pretty good if she’d have been able to show what she can do all the way through the film.

It’s probably not a film you’re going to want to see again and again, but if you’re not totally bored with vampires after binge-watching box sets of ‘True Blood’ then take a look at vampires rocking out on stage and fighting each other in the chorus.

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

Mystery Men – The Avengers they are not

It’s hard to imagine a year go by where you don’t see someone in a latex body-stocking flying through the sky while buildings crumble all around them.  Or, in other words, a superhero movie.  Marvel’s dominance reigns supreme these days and DC does its best to mop up any gap in the filmic calendar year that Marvel don’t already have a stranglehold on.  However, back in the ‘olden days’ of 1999, just dressing someone up in a silly costume wasn’t enough to guarantee a billion dollars at the Box Office.  That’s probably why ‘Mystery Men’ never really made much of an impact back then and only really fills a niche gap in the market today.  We’re introduced to a world of superheroes, or rather ONE superhero – the unsubtly-titled ‘Captain Amazing’ – a man who has dedicated his life to protecting the city from wrong-doers and has therefore enjoyed all the lucrative benefits that come with it, i.e. corporate sponsorship and women.  In fact, he’s protected the city so well that there’s hardly a super villain left worthy enough to take him on.  So, while he spends much of his time as his (completely unrecognisable, glasses-wearing) alter-ego, it’s up to another band of ‘heroes’ to mop up the few thieves still daring to snatch old ladies’ purses.  However, these heroes are anything but ‘super.’ Their ‘powers’ are unusual at best.  We have a man who gets angry to the point of, er, being very angry.  A man who puts on a fake British accent while he throws forks and a guy who hits people with a shovel.  Not a Batarang to be seen among them!

Nowadays, when you look at the cast of ‘Mystery Men’ it almost reads like a who’s who of Hollywood.  Yet, back then all the stars seemed to be faces who you kind of knew because you’d seen them before in… oh, you know… it was him out of that thing on TV.  You have Ben Stiller, William H Macy, Greg Kinnear, Eddie Izzard and Geoffrey Rush to name but a few.  It’s a pretty impressive ensemble, so I always wondered why it was never bigger than it seemed to be.  I guess at the time people may have thought it was a superhero movie and, due to the public seemingly thinking that all superhero movies were like ‘Batman and Robin’ they stayed away, plus Ben Stiller’s star hadn’t quite peaked back then, so it couldn’t ride on his future post ‘Something About Mary’ popularity.  Plus it might be difficult to market, as, on first inspection, you could be mistaken for thinking it was a ‘proper’ superhero film, i.e. complete with giant budget and epic action set-pieces.  Then again, if you look closely at the silly costumes and the fact that one woman is using the skull of her father inside a ‘magic’ bowling ball as a weapon, you could be forgiven for thinking that it’s a straight comedy.  However, again, it may have many funny moments, but you wouldn’t call it a ‘laugh-a-minute’ ride.

‘Mystery Men’ is one of those films that dips in and out of various genres.  Personally, I’d call it a ‘satire of the superhero genre.’ Now, I enjoy both DC and Marvel’s current crops so I like to think I’m well up on the various conventions and clichés associated with the genre.  Therefore, when I watch ‘Mystery Men’ I can appreciate how much work has gone into lampooning it.  However, when it was released the genre it was parodying wasn’t established enough to really sell this movie.  If you’re looking for something that takes a satirical, yet loving, swipe at all things superhero-related, then you should definitely check this out.  Don’t expect total action.  Don’t expect outright comedy.  Expect a subtle blend of the two.  If you’ve ever read the cult comic ‘Astro City’ you’ll know the tone of this film.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

From Dusk Till Dawn - A grisly classic - not to be missed

There are few people nowadays who don't know From Dusk Till Dawn's `twist.' Originally, it was two separate screenplays - one about bank robbers fleeing the authorities and the other about a standoff against vampires. Quentin Tarrantino decided to combine the two and package it as one film. The result: awesome.

Although not directed by Tarrantino (instead, he casts himself in a leading role), it has a totally Tarrantino feel. Two bank robbers abduct a family in an attempt to escape the law and flee over the border into Mexico. Unfortunately, they run into a whole bar-load of vampires and are forced to team up in order to survive the night.

Yes, it may sound like many similar films, but for a start it has an impressive cast, featuring a (young and unusually nasty) George Clooney, Tarrantino himself as Clooney's creepy, psychotic younger brother, Harvey Keitel, Juliette Lewis and plenty of cameos from other famous faces as either vampires of those destined to drive a stake through their hearts.Expect slow-building, rambling dialogue, not to mention the inevitable foul language and violence.

If you like either Tarrantino's films or general action/horror, mixed with healthy doses of black comedy, then you really should watch this.

And, guys, if you haven't seen Salma Hayek's `snakedance,' you really haven't lived. Kristen Stewart's vampire isn't a patch on her!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Devil - Does the job  

Devil is about, well, um, the Devil (in case the title didn't tip you off) and how he likes to mess with the bad people destined to join him in hell for all eternity. And, in this case, he chooses five people with dubious pasts to trap in a lift and then generally mess with in the most grisly way he can think of.

The first thing I should say about Devil is that it's quite a short film, therefore talking about the plot may give away a few twists that might spoil the enjoyment. It doesn't need to be too long. Not all the action takes place inside the lift (as there is a team working on getting them out of there), but it's still quite a condensed atmosphere that doesn't lend itself too much scope to expand. Therefore, in this case, less is more.

It's actually quite good. Oddly enough, despite being a horror film, it's rated 15 (or even PG13 in some places), meaning there isn't an awful lot of blood and entrails floating about the place. What `scares' come are largely jumpy and `atmospheric.' However, that doesn't seem to matter. It's a condensed little film that should appeal to horror buffs with some decent performances and enough twists to hopefully surprise you.

Probably not a classic up to The Exorcist's standards, but entertaining enough in what it gives you.

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

Critters 3 - The only film where Leo looked his age

In case you don’t know, ‘Critters 3’ is best known for being the first ever film to feature Leonardo DiCaprio.  Here, he plays a kid who is a kid.  Then, forever after, he was destined to play an adult who looks like a kid.  But then that’s just me being bitter at his seeming inability to age.

Anyway, if you haven’t seen ‘Critters 3’ then you might want to start with the first two, as they’re arguably better and, well, chronology and all that.  The Critters are little alien monsters who crash-landed on Earth and generally eat everyone and everything – or rather everyone and everything who isn’t one of the lead cast.  These baddies tend to only eat people you won’t really care about.  Or at least they certainly do now!

I haven’t seen another monster/slasher film where the villains do so little damage to so few people.  If the Critters franchise was ever really classed as ‘horror’ (which it wasn’t really – it was more only every horror with a spoonful of comedy).  Now, it really is played out tongue-in-cheek with no real attempts to scare you.  The Critters roll and bounce around the place, bumping into things and come across more like Mr Bean with bigger teeth than anything that really threatens humankind.

Critters 3 is a short film.  And for good reason.  There really isn’t that much in the way of plot to fill it.  You get the little monsters brought back from the countryside into a big city.  You’d think that with the added number of human-prey this would make a change from the farm-country the previous two were set in.  However, the whole film is basically set in one apartment block.  And, for some reason, no one (Critter or human) ever really seems to make much of a play to leave the building.  You could argue that this creates an air of tension and claustrophobia.  But it doesn’t.  It’s just a cheap continuation of the franchise.

Yes, I know I’m being kind of negative.  And this is yet another step down for the franchise.  But that’s not to say that I didn’t find some enjoyment in it.  The Critters themselves – one again – are the real stars and, for all their ‘prat-falls’ they’re still quite fun to watch.  

If you like your eighties monster-horror films then you’re probably best off sticking to the first one (which most people seem to think is best, personally, I preferred part 2, but anyway...).  However, if you REALLY like the Critters and want to see more of them, you can try this – it’s the sort of film where you can surf the net and watch it at the same time and still miss much.  Plus, did I mention it had baby-faced Leo in it?  He’s being chased my fur-balls – c’mon, that’s got to be worth watching, right?

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

Blood Glacier (aka The Station) - Land of `rabid foxes'

Here's a fun game... watch `Blood Glacier' and give yourself ten points every time someone mentions rabid foxes. I would say drink an alcoholic drink, but you'd probably need hospital treatment if you did that.

In `Blood Glacier' we join an assortment of bearded geologists studying a glacier somewhere in the natural wilderness. Then, one fateful day, their glacier looks like it's made up of blood. Although it's quite pretty it does have the drawback of produces rabid foxes. Okay, so the `rabid foxes' turn out to be an assortment of monsters, but the geologists still seem to refer to them as `rabid foxes' for much of the film (even when Santa Clause arrives with his butt-kicking wife).

What you have here is a homage to John Carpenter's classic, `The Thing.' I don't say `rip-off' because that would be running Blood Glacier down and, despite its reliance on rabid foxes and baldy-beardy men, it's actually pretty fun. Yes, it has subtitles, so be prepared for that, but the effects are cool, the monsters well thought out and not that much (if any?) CGI effects which ruin so many films. The cast does as well as any cast in these situations. Of course there are always going to be a few daft moments where people do that thing Ripley does in Alien where they sacrifice humans to save animals, but, apart from that, if you're a fan of foreign horror, or liked The Thing, I'd give this one a go.

It also includes the rather surreal line, `Stop eating that banana while you're crying!' I don't know why that amused me so, but it did.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Atm - The most annoying horror film EVER

That's quite a claim, I know. But bear with me... we all know from watching horror films, that there's at least one moment where the hero knocks the evil killer to the floor then just runs off, allowing him to get back up and chase them down all over again. We all scream, "No! Hit him again! And again!" but they never do.

That sort of thing normally happens once or twice in your average horror film. Not in the case of ATM though. You will find yourself screaming at the TV screen near constantly for about forty minutes of the film.

ATM is about three friends who use an ATM (or `cash machine' as I always called them) in the middle of the night. They go inside to withdraw some dollars, only to find there's a psychotic killer (who looks a bit like Kenny from South Park in my opinion) waiting outside for them. And that's why he does - waits. He stands across the parking lot staring at them. They could just run away. They don't. It's also worth noting that these are the only three people in 2011 who don't have a single mobile phone between them. The killer then kills a passer by. While he's doing that, they could just run away. They don't. The killer then ransacks their car (which is parked right across the car park). They could just run away. They don't. The killer then wanders round the back of the ATM building they're in to hammer it a bit (why?). During that time he's banging on the back, they could just open then front door and run off without him seeing. They don't. And so it goes on.

These are truly the stupidest three people in the world. I watched it to the end, just to see if it got any better. It didn't really. And that was a shame as, believe it or not, the characters were actually quite well-written and funny. Plus the production values were quite high, putting it above many other modern horrors.

If you're expecting something clever and different like Phone Booth then you won't find it here.

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