Spectre – Operatic 007

You need to know that I’m writing this review never truly warming to the tone the Bond franchise took post Brosnan.  I preferred the happy-go-lucky Bonds of the past compared to this new ‘darker’ Bond for the 2000s.  However, I learned to appreciate that ‘Casino Royale’ was actually a good film.  It wasn’t what I’d call a ‘Bond film’ but it was a decent spy thriller. ‘Quantum of Solace’ just seemed to be an ‘add-on’ to ‘Casino Royale,’ but I felt that the series was taking a few tips from the past by injecting a little ore humour into ‘Skyfall,’ therefore making it the best of the trio (in my opinion).  Now, having sat through Craig’s latest turn as the invincible superspy, I feel that it was a hard watch. 

Yes, it retained a little humour which I did appreciate and the action was there.  It was just the direction which seems to irk me.  The previous film (and my favourite you may remember!) was directed by our own Sam Mendes who I thought did a great job.  Therefore I was a bit surprised when I didn’t like his style any more.  The closest I can describe it as was when Homer Simpson ran a plough business and tried to boost his sales by making a pretentious black and white advertisement which had loud operatic music, beautiful women and no relation at all to the service he was providing.  This is what I felt when watching many long drawn out scenes in ‘Spectre.’ Loud opera music, slow moving people and grandiose locations.  It all felt really over the top – and not in a self-knowing good way.  It just screams that it’s trying really hard to be deep, meaningful and artistic, yet all it’s doing is coming across like a bad advert for posh perfume.

So, that’s the bad out the way, now on to the good.  The action is there, but (and I know I watched it on a popular online streaming service rather than on a big cinema screen) I felt like I could tell which explosions were computer-generated and which weren’t due to a weird graininess of the picture (I stress – this could have been down to the quality of my broadband, so I’m reasonably forgiving on this one).  I think the best part about the film was actually getting another dose of nostalgia by having our most evil of all Bond villains back again – Blofeld himself. 

This time he was played by Christoph Waltz who is actually pretty creepy as the – virtually – omnipotent leader of the infamous terrorist organisation.  It was nice to see someone repeatedly get the better of Bond and there were plenty of nods back to the previous (Craig) Bond films thrown in there for good measure.  The other thing I liked was how Bond didn’t actually do it alone this time.  In ‘Spectre’ he was ably aided by M, Moneypenney, Q and some other guy I couldn’t quite catch the name of.  This made a pleasant change to simply pitting Bond against the world and felt almost a little like one of Tome Cruise’s ‘Mission Impossible’ films.

Overall, I’d say that ‘Spectre’ is a pretty good effort.  It’s all there if you know what you’re expecting from a ‘modern’ Bond movie.  The direction grated on me and I tended to roll my eyes a bit, plus Craig himself was looking a bit tired all round.  I’ve heard the rumours about him not wanting to play Bond any more.  Maybe I was looking for signs of this, but I think it shows.  However, it was decent enough.  I’m interested to see where it goes from here, as it’s clear that the franchise is technically ‘ongoing’ as opposed to the old ‘stand-alone’ Bond films.

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

Drag Me to Hell - Too cheeky to be scary (but fun anyway)

I'm writing this review after my third viewing of Drag Me to Hell. I guess I've finally `got it.'
After seeing it advertised on its release, I was under the impression that it was meant to be [really] scary. Therefore, when the credits started to roll, I felt severely disappointed. This is NOT scary. It is however quite tongue-in-cheek - which I should have really guessed, seeing as it was made by the producers of the Evil Dead franchise.

It's about a girl who gets cursed by a psychotic old gypsy woman, who damns her to hell unless... well, you have to watch it to see what lengths the poor bank-worker will go to to save her soul.
This film, although grotesque in places, is far from frightening. It's more designed to make you laugh and throw-up at the same time.

Don't take it seriously. Just get some mates, some beers and some popcorn and enjoy it for all its daftness (and ALWAYS be nice to gypsies if they want an extension to their mortgage).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Unstoppable - Simplistic fun

It’s a rare ‘action’ film which doesn’t really bother with some sort of ‘evil’ antagonist.  Many people have likened ‘Unstoppable’ to the classic nineties epic, ‘Speed.’ However, the only reason Keanu Reeves had to stop a speeding bus was because Dennis Hopper had put a bomb on it, hence the threat.  In ‘Unstoppable’ we literally don’t have a sentient enemy for our heroes (Denzil Washington and Chris Pine) to do battle with.  Instead, we simply have a train.

Due to a mix-up on the platform, a giant freight train (naturally carrying some pretty explosive cargo) runs amok without a driver at the helm.  And our railway workers, Washington and Pine, are the only pair in the right place at the right time to stop it.  That’s about it.  I have to say that when I read the synopsis, I wasn’t that impressed.  It sounded a little dull.  I thought any ‘action’ film worthy of the genre should at least have a couple of mad bombers threatening humanity.  As it happened, I was wrong.

Unstoppable is actually really good fun.  It’s not a long film (only slightly over the hour and a half mark) and it rattles by like the train everyone’s trying to catch.  It’s so simply there really isn’t much you can say about it.  One train.  Two men.  No brakes.  That’s about it.

Granted there are a few attempts at sub-plots surrounding Washington and Pine’s families, but the film doesn’t focus on that aspect too much.  It sticks to what it does best – the train and everyone’s attempts to stop it.

I suppose there was always the chance that a simple story like this would end up dull.  And it’s probably worth crediting the stars and the director for bringing what could have probably been a turkey to life.  Tony Scott shines at the helm and it’s a pity that this was his last film due to his tragic death.  It’s clear he was a most talented director and will be sorely missed.

If you’re just a fan of either of the two leads then you’ll like this, or if you just like action films in general.  It definitely doesn’t need a human antagonist to add any extra tension to the mix.  Don’t judge.  Give it a try.

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

Special Correspondents’ - Not that ‘special,’ but not that bad either

I’m basically a really big fan of Ricky Gervais (and if you haven’t seen anything he’s done before you should know that he’s one of those people who you either love or hate – look him and his work up before continuing!).  I pretty much watch whatever he’s in, so I was quite happy to find this film on Netflix.  At first, I was disappointed, but – I’m pleased to say – that it got better.

It’s about a couple of radio news reporters who miss their flight to a war-torn country and have to fake their reports from the comfort of a friend’s apartment in New York.  However, things don’t go too well and begin to spiral out of control.  As I watched it I wasn’t that impressed with the way it began.  Basically, there weren’t that many jokes in the opening half hour.  I guess that they were trying to set up the characters and general plot, but the ratio of laughter to screen time suffered.  However, I’m glad I stuck with it – it gets better.

After the half hour mark it does get funnier.  If you’ve seen the promotional material you’ll probably see that Ricky Gervais is starring with Eric Bana.  Despite the former Incredible Hulk being the more obvious choice for leading man, I never really felt that it was ‘his’ film.  It’s like he’s a token leading man to Ricky Gervais.  I only noticed in the end credits that the film is both written and directed by Gervais.  It’s almost like he knows he’s not leading man material and did his best to give a more ‘traditional’ star the chance to ‘front’ the film.  However, Eric Bana never really seemed that comfortable in the role and, despite being the front man, is also the straight man.  Gervais (or others) get all the best (and by ‘best’ I mean funniest) lines and by the time the film ends you sort of realise that it’s Gervais’ character who, despite being set up as ‘Robin’ to Bana’s ‘Batman’ was the one who had gone on the journey and been through the character arc.

But, like I said, at the end of the day I was glad I watched it.  But then I’m a fan of Gervais and, despite what you may think when you sit down to watch it, it’s his film and Bana is actually the supporting cast member.  I’ve seen some reviews on the net saying that ‘Special Correspondents’ is boring.  I wouldn’t say that, but I also wouldn’t say that many people would feel like they got their money’s worth if they’d paid full price to see it at the cinema.  Netflix is doing wonders making and broadcasting their own stuff.  And this is a prime example.  It’s sort of a made-for-TV movie which you’ll probably enjoy because it’s part of your package and haven’t really had to pay through the nose to watch.

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

Dracula Untold - The story probably should have remained ‘untold’

Okay, so that’s a little harsh. ‘Dracula Untold’ is hardly the worst film ever made.  And, yes, I did manage to sit through it feeling mildly entertained.  It was just that it didn’t really contain anything in it that I hadn’t already seen a hundred times before.

In the current filmic world we live in where every story has to be retold, remade, or re-imagined, we now get a glimpse at how the legendary vampire, Dracula, became the man (or monster?) he was.  What you have is a pretty formulaic action/adventure film that could have been rewritten about anyone really.  Drac used to be a warrior.  He gets into a spot of bother with an army who want his kingdom’s first born sons, so he beefs himself up at the gym and fights them off.  Okay, so maybe not at the gym.  Instead, he allows Charles Dance to turn him into a superpowered monster known as - guess what - a 'vampire.'

What follows is one CGI created battle after the next.  Nothing I haven’t seen before.  I know this is a minor point and it’s probably unfair to slate a film based on its budget, but everything from the action to the landscapes were blatantly digital, it’s like watching a ‘cut-scene’ on a Playstation game.

However, greats like ‘300’ did that and most people loved them.  At least '300' was a bit different and fun. 'Dracula Untold' just seems like it’s nothing new.  Plus the characters are pretty bland.  Both hero and villain could probably have been played by any actor who looked vaguely heroic/villainous.  Plus Drac also has the most wimpy little boy as a son ever featured in a film.  You may think that the son of a mighty warlord (even before he became a vampire!) might be a little tougher.  You’d be wrong.  His constant sniveling and floppy curly hair annoyed me! 

All in all, 'Dracula Untold' isn’t a bad film, it’s just not original enough to warrant a viewing from any seasoned film fan (just like I said for ‘I Frankenstein!’) and doesn’t offer anything you haven’t seen a hundred times before – and better.  Apparently, the film-makers originally wanted this to kick off their shared 'Monsterverse.' However, when it became clear that this was hardy destined to set the Box Office ablaze, they decided to wait until they had 'star power' on their side and kick it all off with Tom Cruise's 'The Mummy.'

And, on a different note, is it just me or is Drac able to make love while wearing leather trousers at all times – watch out for that scene and see if you can see what I mean!

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

Byzantium - Why so serious?

Boy this movie is serious. I know every film shouldn't be like American Pie, but `Byzantium' is just soooo unbelievably serious and melodramatic at all times you feel as drained as you would be if you'd been sucked dry by a pair of roaming vampires.

Yes, the blood-suckers have been somewhat trivialised by the `Twilight' franchise. Here we have a more gritty portrayal of the undead, as a two hundred year young mother/daughter combo, wander England, never staying in any place for too long in case their bloodlust is ever detected.

It's not that original, but it does its best to be different to other portrayals of vampires. These girls can move around in daylight and, apart from their thirst for blood and immortality, are just like the rest of us. Or they would be if every one of us were completely miserable.

I could like the serious tone of the film if I could just like the two main characters. The mother - after two hundred years of existence - has only mastered one profession: prostitution, which she thinks her daughter should be eternally grateful for (because it `puts food on the table'). The daughter has also never bothered to learn anything in all her years and spends her time wandering around the place on her own (as opposed to getting a job which would mean she didn't have to spend her life disgusted with her mother's way of making money). In between murdering pensioners, she seems to have the innate desire to tell anyone who'll listen that she's really a vampire, despite obviously not realising that humanity probably doesn't want them living among them. Also, despite cracking less smiles than Kristen Stewart, the daughter somehow manages to attract an annoyingly innocent, sickly nerd who, if this was real life, would never have a chance with a pretty girl. He falls madly in love with her and it provokes problems because she's an immortal and he's not. And, suddenly, from out of nowhere, what was once the `anti-Twilight' suddenly turns into a bleaker instalment of the franchise without the action scenes and glittering vamps.

The story never really gets the chance to move forward, because every time it takes a step forwards, we're treated to a flashback which takes us two steps back. A couple of them would be fine, but it soon feels like half the (two hour) film is taken up with telling us things that happened hundreds of years ago. There's also a plot about people (slayers?) coming to hunt the vampires, but this isn't touched upon enough to really to give the girls an element of danger.

However, I've looked at other reviews and some people say `finally... a good vampire movie.' Maybe I've been too blinded by Twilight to appreciate Byzantium, but I just found this too slow and the characters too unlikeable to be watchable for two hours. Pity - I really wanted to like this.

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

Universal Soldier - Van-Damme’s ‘Terminator 2’

‘Shared universes’ are kind of in vogue these days, largely thanks to Marvel’s superheroes movies.  However, if one film was supposedly happening in the same world as another back in the early nineties, I’d wager that ‘Universal Soldier’ would be happening while the Terminator and John Connor busted Sarah out of that mental institution.

Yes, both films are made by the same production company and some of the same producers are behind the two of them, however Universal Solider will never quite be remembered as fondly as Arnie’s second cyborg outing.  T2 had bigger stars, better effects and a deeper plot, but there’s no denying that the two films share the same ‘vibe.’

Van-Damme plays a Vietnam soldier, killed in action during the war, and then resurrected by a black-ops military agency as a ‘super soldier,’ used for thwarting terrorists.  Yes, feel free to ignore what happened to Van-Damme’s corpse during the twenty-five or so years between death and revival.  This would be all well and good if it wasn’t for the fact that the same unit also revived Van-Damme’s borderline psychotic commanding officer, played (amazingly!) by Dolph Lundgren.  Now, these two bad boys had a history of animosity between the pair of them when they were alive, so old grievances are soon revived along with the soldiers’ bodies and the two go head to head.

And it’s great fun – violent, action-packed, big, dumb, stupid fun.  And it knows it.  Like T2, there’s actually some nice moments of humour which are never overused and do help to lighten the mood and give it a ‘comic-book feel.’ Both lead actors have been criticised over the years of being little more than muscle men with no real acting ability.  However, in my opinion, both shine here.  Van-Damme is the good guy, but never boring due to his naïve personality.  He can’t really remember what he was and what he’s here for and has a childlike quality in the new world he’s found himself in.  Lundgren is just psychotic.  In know this is just a loud, over-the-top sci-fi film, but, in terms of lunatic badguys, he’s right up there with them.

Maybe Universal Solider is mainly for guys, especially those who (now) enjoy The Expendables-type movies which bask in the glories of the silly old action films of yesteryear.  It’s not T2, but it’s a nice little comedian piece to it.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Species 2 - Not bad, but a missed opportunity

‘Species’ was always a classic B-movie and it certainly made enough money to guarantee a sequel. The good news is that (most of) the principal cast returned (quite a rarity in sequels these days) and it sort of follows the Terminator/T2 rule where the original bad guy is now the good guy, helping to defeat something even worse.

Despite the original alien, played by Natasha Henstridge with her trademark lack of clothes, being killed off in the original, she’s been cloned back now to help the human race hunt down a second alien (this time male). Now… that doesn’t sound like a bad plot for a B-movie, however, my main problem was that Natasha Henstridge is hardly in it! She only really comes into the film in the final act and, by then, it’s a little too late to make any real difference.

The story focuses on all the wrong characters. Even though you also have Michael Madsen and Marg Helgenberger reprise their respective characters, the film spends too much time on those related to sub-plots and a new sidekick who is little more than a wise-cracking helper who’s constant slang and (alleged) witticisms about his lack of sex soon become annoying.

But, when the story gets it right, it still retains enough of the fun and bloodthirsty chaos of the original to make it just about watchable. If you’ve never experienced the ‘Species’ franchise, start with the original. If you like that, you may want to check out this one (It’s pretty widely regarded that part III is a waste of time!).

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

Down Terrace - I think I watched a different film (twice)

I'm writing this review of Down Terrace after watching the film and experiencing a severe case of dejavu at the same time.

I hired it on the basis that I like gritty British gangster movies and I saw this one's trailer on another similar film. However, after about twenty minutes I got the distinct impression that I'd seen the film before, as I was predicting most of the scenes accurately. The reason for this was that I had seen it before. However, I had turned it off after about half an hour due to the fact that it was awful.

Somehow I had erased the memory of this film and then hired it out again thinking it was a different one (and, once again, duped by the trailer).

Now, I've looked on various movie-related websites and the reaction to Down Terrace is - overall - pretty positive. I don't know what it was about the film, but it just didn't do it for me.

It's about a family of gangsters who, two of which have just returned from Court, and now believe that there's a `mole' within the organisation.

Perhaps one thing that majorly bugged me was that none of the - supposed - gangsters really seemed like gangsters. Maybe I'm just used to Guy Ritchie's stereotypes, but this lot came across as a load of fat, middle-aged men who you'd find propping up the bar at a Working Man's club. They weren't in the least bit threatening (as you might expect a hardened gangster to be). As for the `black comedy' that was repeatedly mentioned in other reviews, I couldn't find any.

I forced myself to sit through the whole thing this time, hoping to find out what I was apparently missing. I couldn't see it myself. Just because a film is low budget, does not make it particularly good. I'm now writing this review in the hope that when I next watch the trailer for Down Terrace by accident, I don't think to myself `Ooh, that looks good, I think I'll watch it' and just remind myself that it's awful.

I hate to be all `overly commercial,' but I think I'll stick to Guy Ritchie's stylised representations of the London criminal underworld in future.

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

The Business - A nostalgic piece set in the day when Danny Dyer still made good films

The Business tells the tale of a small time wannabe gangster Frankie (Danny Dyer) in the eighties who goes to Spain and hooks up with some bigger (and nastier) gangsters. It's not the most inspiring premise, but it was made (what seems like) long enough ago when Danny Dyer could actually carry a film on his own.

Nowadays it seems like the words `Danny' and `Dyer' means a box office turkey in move-going terms, but The Business is an early exception to the now goes-without-saying Dye rule.

The glitzy, sunny Spanish sets, combined with the horrible characters Dyer has to converse with (yes, even more horrible than Dyer himself) and the thumping eighties soundtrack, actually make The Business an enjoyable little British gangster flick. It may not be Goodfellas, but it has a few `Joe Pesci' moments along the way which will leave you squirming. It may also not be up to the standard of Lock Stock and Snatch, but if you're looking for some hard-nosed entertainment for an hour and a half, you could probably do worse (such as Danny Dyer's more recent films!).

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

Killer Workout - So bad, yet so much fun

Whether you rate your movies based on 1-5 stars, or just 1-10, 'Killer Workout' should probably get near to the top of either scale.  However, that doesn't mean that it's a near perfect film which almost rivals classics like 'The Godfather' and 'Empire Strikes Back.' Movies like these exist on a different scale.  They're not meant to be cinema classics and know that they're never going to be remembered in the annals of cinematic history; they play to their strengths and, as a result, develop a cult following in that category of 'So-bad-it's-good.'

As the title (semi) implies, it's a 'slasher' flick.  There have been good ones and bad ones.  This one is so bad that it's actually highly watchable, just for the cringe factor alone.  An unknown serial killer is going around a gym, brutally murdering lycra-clad fitness freaks with a safety pin.

Now, you may be asking, how he manages to kill so many without being caught.  I'm sure you've all been to gyms in your time and are aware that they're hardly sprawling buildings with multiple corridors and hiding places.  And you'd be right.  This one isn't either.  The killer kills people one at a time.  And then goes home for the evening.  The police then find the body, take it away in one (of numerous!) white body bags.  Then the gym opens the following day and all the customers return, never really that bothered by the murder only hours before.  Rinse and repeat.

The only thing that happens more than a safety pin to the jugular is aerobics (actually, in some places this film is actually titled 'Aerobi-cide'!).  In fact, about a quarter of the run-time is dedicated to fit ladies gyrating provocatively to dance music.  If that sounds like your sort of thing then you're probably in for quite a good time.

There are - supposed - 'twists' in its loosest of plots and you may not actually see them coming.  In terms of guessing who's up to no good and who's going to win through, it might actually offer you a surprise here or there.

It's got gore, it's got a bit of nudity and a hell of a lot of dancing.  Don't expect any Oscar-worthy performances and some of the close-ups to peoples faces/expressions are truly hilarious.  It's the kind of film you watch with mates over a few bevvies and just laugh at how bad it gets with fight scenes that are sped up with jump cuts to make them more 'exciting.'

It's bad, but it's fun and you'll never look at a safety pin the same way again.

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

Underworld: Blood Wars – The franchise has jumped the lycan

I’ve always been a fan of the ‘Underworld’ franchise.  The first film totally blew me away and – amazingly – the sequel (in my opinion, anyway) was that rarest of beasts of a sequel that was actually better than the original.  Yes, a few people said the prequel that came next was a missed opportunity, as it didn’t address a lot of the mythology that people were hoping for.  And, despite many film critics absolutely despising the fourth instalment, I took some dumb enjoyment out of the affair.  Therefore, I couldn’t really see how ‘part 5’ would be anything other than more of the same silly, action-packed entertainment.  I was wrong.  Sadly.

I just couldn’t believe how much the quality has fallen with this one.  It just felt like one of the most generic, by-the-numbers films ever made.  Yes, it had some of the same characters in it.  Yes, Kate Beckinsale looked good in her catsuit.  And, yes, there are still plenty of action scenes.  Yet, this time round, it just didn’t feel like anything other than an extended trailer for a film.

Although Kate Beckinsale does her best in the lead, this time round she seems almost bored to be here – like other roles have dried up and she needs this one to pay the bills.  The other characters are equally forgettable; there’s a new vampire who basically looks like the ‘Mother of Dragons’ from ‘Game of Thrones’ and (yet another) new leader of the werewolves (sorry, ‘lycans’) who just snarls in a menacing manner and even the – normally great – Charles Dance can’t really add any old-school charm to the proceeding.

However, when I sat down to watch this, I was hardly expecting major character development and meaningful story arcs – I would have settled for some decent vampire versus werewolves action.  I didn’t even get that!  The action scenes are possibly some of the worst ever in modern movies.  Twenty years ago they might have been considered something special, but times have changed and people are expecting something a little different.  But, again, I could have taken dull action – what I really got was ‘stupid’ action!  If you think about any of the major fight scenes they make no sense whatsoever.  The characters do things that are so ridiculous that it makes all those old horror films where the blonde leading lady doesn’t bother killing the killer when she has the upper hand absolutely believable and inspired.  I’ve never seen a more poorly-trained army of vampires who gets wiped out like they’re ‘normal’ humans.  I suppose at least they don’t ‘sparkle’ in sunlight.

On the plus side, it does shed some light on some questions raised in previous instalments regarding characters who just – sort of – disappeared from the franchise, but apart from that, there’s really not much here that you haven’t seen before.  I hear there’s an ‘Underworld 6’ in the pipeline – I’ll probably watch it, but this instalment has severely lowered my expectations towards the franchise.

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

Species - A B-movie of epic proportions

I think it’s fair to say that you can’t spell ‘Species’ without a capital B (and that’s B for ‘B-movie’). And, for an out and out B-movie, Species has to be up there with the best of them.

There is nothing particularly ‘stand-out’ about anything in it. An alien – or rather the most ATTRACTIVE alien you’ve ever seen – is unleashed on an unwitting L.A. population and we follow the rag-tag bunch charged with the task of tracking her down before she reproduces (and, if you’re interested, the ‘reproducing scenes’ are worth watching this film from most red-blooded males’ points of view!).

Absolutely nothing new to see, just a hell of a load of cheesy fun that, albeit quite serious, never gets heavy enough to drag the film down into a melodrama. It just manages to stay slightly above ‘tongue-in-cheek’ to allow everyone (and when I say ‘everyone’ I probably just mean men) to enjoy the crazy, corpse-strewn ride.

There are plenty of memorable moments, but most of those involve a nude woman. Yes, you’re completely right in thinking that ‘Species’ is hardly a deep and meaningful film, filled with Oscar-worthy dialogue and complicated character arcs. It’s cheesy, tacky, low-brow, but ultimately great fun.

Enjoy with popcorn.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Downsizing – Big concept, downsized execution

‘Downsizing’ looked really good from the trailer.  Yes, don’t all films?  It’s about – believe it or not – a world where, if you want to decrease your carbon footprint and get more for your money, you can be shrunk to a mere five inches tall and (effectively) live in a doll’s house-like world with your friends and loved ones.  I know the premise is a little ‘out there,’ but Matt Damon is the lead and it looked really funny.  And it nearly was.

The film had two major stumbling points for me.  I was quite happy to suspend my disbelief in order to accept the plot.  However, the first fault came because I’d seen the trailer.  The film almost feels like two stories rolled into one.  The first half is basically the trailer, only full-length.  Therefore, if, like me, you’ve seen the trailer, then you’ve basically seen the entire first half of the movie – i.e. no shocks, surprises or new gags to come.

Then, at roughly the halfway mark, it feels like a completely different writer took over control.  The film ditches ninety per cent of its established characters and brings in a load of new ones.  Not only this, but the whole film feels weirdly-different from everything that’s set it up beforehand.  The first half is like a quirky romantic comedy and the second turns into a deep drama with heady political messages about the environment.

Matt Damon is likeable enough in the lead and if you’re a huge fan of his then you’ll enjoy it.  The supporting cast all do their best, but it’s the writing of the secondary characters that lets them down – they individual character arcs all seem totally unbelievable.  It’s like Darth Vader suddenly turning good halfway through the first ‘Star Wars’ film.

Also, was it just me or did the special effects seem a little on the cheap-looking?  With a story involving tiny people interacting with normal-sized people you’d expect them to blend the two seamlessly.  However, much of it looked very ‘blue-screen’ esque.

I know I’m sounding quite negative about it all, but, believe it or not, it is quite fun.  There are definitely good jokes that land in there (well, mainly the first half) so it’s not all bad.  I just wished that it had chosen one particular genre and stuck with it, rather than trying to be everything all at once.

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

Burn After Reading – It’s a little bit funny

I think I've watched the Cohen Brothers' 'Burn After Reading' about four times now and, although I find it a weirdly enjoyable film, I still can't get my head round the beginning.  I guess you'd call it a black comedy/drama, filled with mix-ups and adulterous relationships, yet the catalyst for how it all begins seems to be one of those 'blink-and-you-miss-it' kind of moments.  A CIA analyst (John Malkovich) gets fired and ends up being blackmailed by a pair of gym employees (Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt), one of which is sleeping with a married man, George Clooney (who is also sleeping with John Malkovich's wife, Tilda Swinton).  Confused?  You may well be.

It’s a pretty confusing plot, not because anything’s that difficult to understand – it just has a real air of confusion about it all.  And, I think that’s deliberate.  For we, the audience, are treated like the CIA agents in the film, left to look in on this series of odd developments and wonder what the hell is going on here.

Of course the film’s storytelling style may not be to everyone’s liking, however you have to admit that it has a stellar cast.  With those names in the lead you’ll be hard pushed to not enjoy their performances.  Although, I have to say that (no-so-famous) Richard Jenkins stole every scene he was in and brought a real air of tragic pathos to the cast.  In fact, he may well be the film’s ‘heart,’ as, despite the other lead actors being big names, you may find it difficult to empathise with anyone besides Jenkins.

Although everything ties up with these characters lives, like I said, it does it in a deliberately vague way which leaves you with question marks over your head (making you see the events through the bewildered eyes of those men supposed to know everything that’s going on ever).  Oh, and don’t read too many spoilers – as there are definitely some moments that you won’t see coming!

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

Something different from Schwarzenegger?  No, but never mind.

This film would like to make us believe that that this is a radically different venture for big Arnie. It’s not. It’s pretty much the same kick-ass, kill-the-bad-guys stuff we’ve seen from him throughout the years, but, does that mean it’s a bad film?

The critics would say yes. This film was possibly most famous for getting pushed back a year, after comparisons were drawn with the Twin Towers atrocity on 9/11. However, if you can get past that (and there aren’t as many similarities as some people may lead us to believe) and just enjoy the ride, you may be in for a surprise.

It’s a well put together action flick and, if you’re a fan of the genre, it should keep you happy for an hour and forty minutes. Give it a chance and enjoy what Arnie does best.

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

Underworld: Awakening - Great film (if you liked the first three) 

Okay, for those of you still wondering what Underworld is all about... it's about a war between gun-totting fit female vampires in tight clothes and big ugly werewolves. So, if you've seen any of the first ones and liked them. Then watch this. You'll like this too.

If, on the other hand, you think that women in spandex leaping off buildings while firing twin pistols at a monster that, deep down, you know has been added post production via computer is a pretty dumb premise - steer well clear.

Luckily, I enjoyed the first three and loved this one too.

Twelve years after Selene's last battle, humans have only gone and figured out that vamps and werewolves are real and hunted every last one of them down (apart from the ones they missed). Selene's been frozen in ice and studied, but, luckily, she gets woken up by... you'll have to watch the film and see. But, anyway, she's more than a little cranky and being prodded while in ice by humans in lab coats for over a decade. Luckily for her (and us I guess) she's defrosted right next to her famous black slinky costume and quickly puts it on and goes to express her disgust with humanity by a strongly-worded blog and some scathing tweets (only joking, she grabs the nearest knife and gun and starts piling up the bodies).

Oh, and it's 3D this time. My only gripe. The 3D was even more pointless than every other 3D film that's designed purely to make you spend more money.

From reading other reviews the general consensus is `more of the same.' And I can't add to that. It is. There's not a lot new here and some have criticised it for not adding to the overall story enough, but, what the hell, it's still fun and Kate Beckinsale is still gorgeous. They could make a film about vampires in spandex sitting there blowing their noses for ninety minutes and I'd watch it if Kate was in it. Biased. Yes, probably.

Bottom line - this film may be the forth instalment of the Underworld franchise, but it's still head, shoulders and biteable neck over the Resident *yawn* Evil films.

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

Special (2006) - The Avengers it is not 

With Hollywood so obsessed with easily-bankable superheroes, sooner or later you were going to get a spate of movies making fun of them.

However, `Special' isn't one of them. It, like another similarly-themed film called `Defendor,' is a different take on the genre. If you want a parody of a superhero film then watch something slapstick like `Superhero Movie' (which, incidentally, is the cinematic equivalent of self harm). `Special' is about a decent, well-meaning man who signs on for some experimental drugs-testing trials. The results make him believe he has superpowers. Obviously, he doesn't. Here might have been the time to add in some really funny jokes into the mix. Special doesn't. It's a sad take on seeing a rotten world through the eyes of a man who wants to do the right thing, but doesn't really know how - or even get it right.

I found this film sad and poignant rather than laugh-a-minute. If people do think it's funny, then it's the blackest black comedy around.

It won't be for everyone. It's low budget is visible from time to time and it goes without saying that there are know well-known actors in it.

Did I enjoy it? Yes, but you have to be in the mood for something a little heavier than Toby Maguire in red and blue tights.

Uplifting and heart-warming it is. The X-Men it is not. 

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

Double Dragon - Not (quite) as bad as it’s made out to be

The first thing you need to know is that ‘Double Dragon’ is based on a computer game.  And, as any seasoned cinema-goer will know, any film based on a computer game is often not worth the celluloid it’s made with.  And, as with Streetfighter, Super Mario Bros and House of the Dead, Double Dragon is pretty bad.  But not that bad… although certain conditions apply to that statement.

I grew up in the eighties and played the original Double Dragon video game religiously, therefore I’m always going to look upon the film version through slightly rose-coloured spectacles.  Secondly, I seem to have a mild appreciation for really ‘so-bad-they’re-good’ films and this is so bad it’s good.

It’s about brothers, Billy and Jimmy Lee, growing up after some sort of great earthquake in a rebuilt Los Angeles.  The police struck a deal with the gangs that no ‘gang warfare’ or crime will take place during the day, putting a curfew in place at night where law-abiding citizens can hide away from the hooligans who rule the streets during the dark.  They find half of a magic medallion which isn’t really that magic.  Although it would be if the other half was found.  And the other half is in the possession of the leader of the gangs – the T1000 himself with a really bad haircut – Robert Patrick.

I think one of the main reasons Double Dragon is widely regarded as such a flop is because it really didn’t have the budget to be anything special.  It kind of comes across as a ‘made-for-TV’ movie and the script is pretty awful.  Even Robert Patrick (normally reliable in everything he does), struggles to bring anything to his role as ‘generic bad-guy.’ Plus the film is rated ‘12’ yet I think that’s a little strict.  I’d say the primary audience for this film is eight-year-old boys who are watching this on a Saturday morning.  A film based on fighting should at least have some violence in it, however all the fight scenes are almost comical with the heroes using everything from frying pans to random object to despatch their foes.  Oh, that brings me onto the foes.  The gangs Billy and Jimmy fight seem to be dressed in completely different uniforms to each other.  It’s like watching the two boys beat up the Village People.  Seriously, you have one gang member in a bowler hat and suit, one dressed as a workman, one as a postman and so on.

Unless you’re like me and loved the computer game, or can appreciate camp rubbish films like this, you’ll have to be a young boy to get anything out of this.  I’ve now re-watched Double Dragon and, although it killed an hour and a half of my time, the fact that the two heroes spent much of their screen time screaming (supposedly) ‘comically’ into the camera even started to get on my nerves. 

But it was fun – silly fun.  Pretty bad, but I’ve seen worse (House of the Dead – I’m looking at you!).

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

Bunraku - Style over content  

I had no idea what this film would be like before I watched it - I saw it was sci-fi and watched it anyway. During the (most impressive) intro, I saw just about every Hollywood name I ever knew mentioned. It has quite an impressive cast.

Set in an indeterminate timeless point in the future where all firearms have been outlawed and the gangs rule the streets, a couple of strangers decide to take them on. Nothing hugely original in the story; I think the cast signed on because of the way it was filmed. It looks amazing. Maximum points to the lighting guys and the set designers - at first I thought it reminded me of a living computer game, however, about half way through it, I changed my opinion to more like a graphic novel.

All the cast seem to be enjoying being in an `arty' flick, but just sort of mumble their lines. These (slightly over the top) dialogue sequences are intercut with a few fight scenes which are okay as they go, but nothing you haven't seen before.

Yes, it all looks great - every scene is a visual treat on the eyes. There just isn't much more to it than that. I don't know what it was aiming for. Some scenes are downright comical (intendedly so I'm guessing?), others are way too up themselves and serious.

It's probably a great film. I enjoyed it at first, but it got a little old a little too soon. Serious art-house sci-fi fans only. Perhaps the failings are on my part?

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

Underworld 3: Rise Of The Lycans - Enjoyable, but unnecessary prequel

Have you watched the first `Underworld?' If you have, you may well remember a bit of talking about a female vampire who fell in love with a male werewolf (sorry, `lycan'). Well, that three minute monologue from the original has been turned into an hour and a half story. And this is it.

So, if you've seen the first film, there's nothing here that will come as a surprise. But that doesn't mean it's a bad film. For a start (despite being made by a different director) it has the same look and feel of its two predecessors and most of the appropriate original cast members return. Special mention to Bill Nighy who steals every scene as the evil vampire `Victor.'

There's action, romance and plenty of mutated wolves mixing it with medieval vampires. If that's what you're looking for (and, if you like the other Underworld movies then you probably do) then this should tick all boxes.

However, behind all the action and gore is a strong romantic story - your typical `forbidden love' debacle between two clans, in some crazy way, almost like Romeo and Juliet. Despite the Underworld series all featuring this as a central theme, it continues the tradition of being `Twilight' for the older generation (who definitely don't like their vampires with big hair and sparkly skin).

Warning: this Underworld movie does NOT feature Kate Beckinsale (not unless you could the five seconds at the end). I've seen a fair few people moaning because it doesn't. You have been warned (although Rhona Mitra isn't that bad as a replacement in my opinion!).

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

Twins – It shouldn’t work (but it totally does!)

‘Twins’ is probably the film that first proved that ‘Hollywood action hardmen’ COULD do comedy.  Before this it was unheard of that someone as well-known for ‘action’ could ever try and be funny.  However, ‘Twins’ proves that the right actors, meeting with the right script, can produce something that stands the test of time.

The premise is simple (if only a little far-fetched) that a *ahem* ‘perfect’ man (Arnold Schwarzenegger) grows up on a tropical island, to discover that he actually has a long-lost twin brother back in mainland USA (Danny DeVito).  Therefore, our – unusually naive – Arnie heads to LA to find him.

I first saw this film when I was a kid and loved it then, simply because I was a massive fan of Schwarzenegger and this was the first of his films I was legally allowed to see in the cinema.  However, now I’m older (and I can almost quote the film word for word), I can appreciate it on a new level.  It really is ‘perfectly written.’

There’s never a moment of the script that feels dragged out, or could be left on the cutting room floor.  Every second either moves the plot on, establishes character, or is simply very funny.  Arnie proves that he can do more than just beat people up (although he still cracks the odd skull or two here) and plays ‘the straight man’ brilliantly to DeVito’s zany comic character.

‘Twins’ stands up today as it did back then.  You don’t need to be a huge fan of Arnie’s to  appreciate this.  You only need a sense of humour.  It’s a comedy that doesn’t rely on gross or crude humour and it’s not topical, which helps it stay as enjoyable today as it was back then.  Maybe it was ‘lightning in a bottle’ as many other ‘action heroes’ have tried their hand at comedy since (including Schwarzenegger/DeVito again in the ill-fated ‘Junior’) and it was never half as good as this.

There are few films today that can be described so genuinely as ‘fun for all the family.’ But, while we still have all these ‘blasts from the past,’ who cares?

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

Spawn – Is it that bad?  Yeah, sort of

Nowadays you can’t move at the cinema for someone dressing up in a cape and silly costume and fighting the forces of darkness while flying around a major US city.  However, back in 1997 superhero films weren’t – believe it or not – guaranteed Box Office gold like they are today.  I’d never read any of the ‘Spawn’ comics, so I went into the movie kind of blind.  And I enjoyed it.  It was only a few years later during the birth of the internet did I realise how much everyone seemed to hate this film.  I’ve watched it again (a few times, believe it or not) and I can see where the masses are coming from.  It’s hardly ‘high art’ (but I enjoyed it anyway!).

It’s about a Government hitman who gets double-crossed by his shady employer (when will these hitmen ever learn?) and ends up getting killed.  If that wasn’t bad enough he wakes up after his ‘death’ to find he’s spent the last five years in hell and the devil has asked him (or rather blackmailed him) into leading his dark army on a siege of Earth.  Luckily, our hitman decides that’s probably not a great career option and with the help of a ‘knight’ (or rather modern day homeless mentor Obi-wan Kenobi figure who once was a knight) chooses to fight the forces of darkness instead.

When I first watched it I guess I hadn’t seen that many superhero films (Tim Burton’s Batman duo excluded), so I enjoyed the dark tone, the cool suit our anti-hero wore and the action in general.  Michael Jai White gives a good performance as the grizzled ‘Spawn’ and the real stand-out performance is the (totally unrecognisable, thanks to excellent make-up) John Leguizamo as the most memorable bad-guy ‘The Violator.’

However, I guess nowadays it’s fair to say that it hasn’t aged well.  Any criticism you may hear regarding how the special effects look like they’ve been rendered for a Playstation 2 are pretty on the nose (and even at the time I wondered why the beast-like Devil’s lips never moved when he spoke), but, looking at it afresh, I can’t help but notice how bad Martin Sheen’s dialogue is.  He’s supposed to be the main villain and yet he’s even more cliché than any Bond super-villain you’ve ever seen.

The whole film basically ‘tell’ not ‘show.’ Every piece of dialogue is some sort of 'set-up' to give the viewer information and let them know what's happening, solely designed to move the plot forward and avoid confusion.  ‘Spawn’ is never really going to be remembered as much more than a missed opportunity.  It’s certainly not up to the coherent standards of today’s superhero movies.  I still watch it, because – for some reason – I feel quite a twang of nostalgia for it (despite its numerous flaws!).  But even people who saw it back in the late nineties don’t hold it in the same – reasonably – high regard as me.  I hear there’s a ‘reboot’ on the way, so maybe that will bring Spawn to the audience he probably deserves to be show to.  But John Leguizamo is definitely awesome in this – if you hate absolutely everything else about this film, you should appreciate his performance as sheer evil foulness.

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

The Double (2013) - One of those films that’s hard to describe

Okay, I quite liked ‘The Double,’ but I’m not sure how many other people will.  What’s it about?  A man who works in a dead end office job (don’t we all?) who, for no real reason, one day finds an identical man working in the same building, only this ‘double’ is highly successful and appealing to women.

Now, whether that premise appeals to you or not is one thing.  However, the way it’s filmed is also paramount as to whether you’re actually going to enjoy the film.  In short: it’s a bit weird.  If you’ve seen either David Lynch’s ‘Eraserhead’ or Terry Gilliam’s ‘Brazil’ then you’ll sort of know the weird vibe that this film tries to convey.  It’s almost a little hard to place when and where this film is set.  At times it’s like it’s supposed to be set in the nineteen fifties then suddenly they’ll use a mobile phone and remind us that it’s really present day.

Fans of Jessie Eisenberg may feel that his –central – performance is a little more ‘subdued’ than usual.  But then he’s deliberately playing himself down to illustrate just how ‘low down’ the pecking order his character really is.

And it’s slow.  Not in a boring kind of way, just deliberately so.  The story rambles as it chooses atmosphere over action.  I can see a lot of people not liking it, saying it’s simply ‘boring.’ However, it all depends on whether you like this sort of film as to whether you’re going to get anything out of it.

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

Bullet to the Head - A nice little compendium piece to the Expendables

Bullet to the Head is basically a typical Stallone/Schwarzenegger film which would probably be more at home in the eighties or early nineties. Like Arnie's `The Last Stand' it shows off what Stallone does best, i.e. grunt, look mean and generally kill people.

This time he's a hitman whose partner gets killed by... well, it doesn't matter. What does is that he makes sure the bodies start piling up.

It's an action film. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no great surprises here and, if you know Stallone's body of work, you won't really expect much more.

If you're looking for deep and meaningful character development with twists and turns and plenty of originality, move alone! If, however, you just want to see Stallone bust heads for an hour and a half, then put your brain on hold and enjoy Bullet to the Head (and quite possibly The Last Stand, as the two films seem to go hand in hand as two of a - highly entertaining, if rather dumb - kind).

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

Underworld: Evolution - Not bad for a sequel

 With the possible exceptions of Aliens, Terminator 2 and Empire Strikes Back, it's widely regarded that all sequels to horror/sci-fi films are of inferior quality to the original. However, I think that Underworld 2 (or `Evolution' as it's better known) is actually at least on a par with the original.

For a start the same creative team was behind it (which always helps), the story picks up right where its predecessor left off and it actually expands the whole Underworld universe.

Whether you like this or not will largely depend on whether you liked the original. It's not as if they just re-did the original script, but it's such a continuation, you really need to watch the films in order for you to fully get the importance of this one.

One downside which people kept making was how this second outing constantly uses flashbacks in order to recap the story from the first one. I guess this is just for those who are watching this film without seeing the first.

However, assuming you've watched and enjoyed the first, you really can't go wrong with the second - you have more action, more vampires and werewolves (none of which twinkle in sunlight!) and Kate Beckinsale in more rubber (but that's probably only a plus point for the guys).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me - Twin Peaks in name only

The TV series of Twin Peaks was widely regarded as `monumental' and some of the most original TV-viewing ever made. However, it's second (and untimely last) season was dogged by cast in-fighting, schedule changes, production difficulties and network pressure to tell the writers what to writer. Therefore, it was cancelled, but left behind not only a lasting legacy among loyal fans, but also a `cliff-hanger' ending which had Twin Peaks' followers begging for some sort of resolution.
Therefore, many were pleased when a film was made straight away - everyone thinking it would pick up where the series left off. It didn't. And it paid the price.

What the fans (and cinema audiences in general) got, was a darkened version of their beloved show which seemed to belong to a different story entirely. In short... `Fire Walk With Me' couldn't win. It wasn't the `ending' TV viewers were hoping for. And yet it relied heavily on people having watched the series to really understand what was happening. Half the cast were missing and it became a prequel to the series, showing us the last week of murder victim Laura Palmer's life. However, if you watched the TV series, you'll already know what happened to her, so watching what we already knew seemed a little pointless.

The TV version of Twin Peaks had a certain charm. Yes, it covered (very) adult subject matter, but it also had a quirkiness which gave it a healthy dose of light-heartedness. The film however only has the darkness with none of the humour. A lot of fans found this jarring. In some ways Fire Walk With Me is more in keeping with (writer/director) David Lynch's later works: Lost Highway and Mullholland Drive, both of which are `dark only' in tone.

However, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me is a good film (believe it or not). But, I can totally see why it wasn't successful. For a start, if you haven't watched the TV series then you'll probably have no idea what's happening. But, if you watch the film before the series then you'll totally ruin the series (should you ever decide to watch it) as the film has MAJOR spoilers for the TV show. Despite lacking all the `favourite' characters from the show you will find a damn fine horror movie which is both hauntingly atmospheric and visually stunning. Just don't expect to understand what's happening if you haven't watched the series.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Space Station 76 - Have you seen the trailer for this?

I happened to catch the trailer for ‘Space Station 76’ and couldn’t believe that no one had already thought of this type of film already.  I grew up in the seventies and eighties and was well into the sci-fi of the day, i.e. with wooden sets, cheesy robots and unfashionable hairstyles.  Therefore, when I saw that a film was dedicated to sending up this genre, only in the modern age, I couldn’t believe my luck.  This film was truly made for me.  It looked hilarious.

I was wrong.  The trailer was hilarious.  The film was not.  Not because the jokes fell flat or didn’t work when they were stretched out into a full-length  feature film, but because the film just wasn’t really a comedy, as it was presented in the one and half minutes trailer.

Yes, the sets are indeed well-designed (i.e. old fashioned seventies incarnations of what the future may look like) and there are a few moments that produce a wry smile from you.  However, the film is actually more of a dark drama and – dare I say it – quite depressing. 

Leaving the kitsch period feel aside, the film is about a space station billions of light years away from Earth.  Some of the inhabitants of the station have lived there all their life, others much of their adult life.  Either way, they’re only one step away from going stir crazy.  Therefore, you have many depressed and broken people, all desperately seeking some form of justification for their existences.

And there’s the problem.  I rented this film thinking it was a comedy that based its jokes on the clichés of yesteryear’s science fiction and I got quite a dark drama about the misery of human existence at its loneliest.

Therefore, I –sort of – didn’t enjoy it.  But that’s not to say that it was a bad thing; I just wanted something different.  Just know what you’re getting before you sit down to watch it.  There are moments of humour, but much of it is very dark and there are places where you won’t know whether you should be laughing or crying at the characters’ plights.  Just make sure that you’re in the mood for something a little tragic that’s dressed up as a silly seventies sci-fi show.

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

The Double - Pretty decent spy thriller

One of the major problems with `The Double' is the trailer advertising it. If you've seen it, it tells you most of the story (and one of the twists). However, I only found that out by reading the internet forums about this movie. I suppose I fortunate enough not to see the trailer, hence I quite enjoyed finding out what was happening as it went along.

It's nothing too revolutionary - old dog spy (Gere) paired with up and coming spy (Grace) - it's effectively a mismatch/buddy-cop film but with spies. It flits between action and talking, with a few surprises thrown into the mix. Plus it isn't too long, so it fits everything in and quite nicely.

But, although it's a decent watch, it probably could have been better. It gives away one of the surprises too early, which may lead some to lose interest. However, at least there are a few more twists to come which I'm guessing the writer hoped would make up for it.

In short, it's not bad, but not a classic. Plus, avoid watching its trailer at all costs. Long gone are the days when a trailer is made to tease and draw you to a movie without revealing anything. I decided to watch the trailer AFTER I'd seen the film and I can see what people meant about it. I really don't know what the film-makers were doing with the trailer - it's effectively a ninety minute film condensed into a couple of minutes.

Overall this is a decent and entertaining production for which you have to keep expectations low on all levels in order to enjoy it.

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

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the movie) - The prequel…. Basically

Ah, ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ – the seminal TV show of the nineties which launched Kirsty Swanson as a household name.  Well, maybe in a parallel universe.  Before Sarah Michelle Gellar started saving the world (a lot) and falling in love with almost every good-looking undead stud in Sunnydale, they actually tried the format on the big screen.  This version never really took off and has kind of been lost among the annals of cinematic history, only being revived as a strange beast of interest that (TV) Buffy fans like to watch, simply in order to compare this weird ‘alternate take’ on their icons to what the ‘real’ thing turned out like.  And I have to confess that that’s why I watched it.  I was never a mega-fan of the nineties TV series, but I’ve grown to watch it through my daughter and was kind of curious what the filmic incarnation of Buffy was like.  If it was up to my daughter she’d probably end the review here as she could barely sit through the whole film!  However, I thought it was an interesting little ‘compendium piece’ if nothing else.

Yes, it doesn’t have quite such a memorable cast list as the TV show and the dialogue isn’t half as snappy (and the vamps don’t ‘dust’ when killed, probably due to budget reasons!), yet it still maintains a strange sort of charm.  Whereas in the TV show it is definitely Sarah Michelle Geller’s show, here it’s the older, more established actors who are a more memorable, for our non-Geller Buffy mast face off against B-movie veteran of the eighties Rutger Hauer, while being taught her slaying skills by ‘watcher’ Donald Sutherland.

I guess the filmic incarnation of Buffy is even harder to ‘sell’ now in retrospect than it was at the time.  When it first came out it didn’t have huge names, big effects or anyone that would draw in the masses.  And, let’s face it… the title of ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ does sound a little cheesy.  I know the film (and TV show) doesn’t always take itself too seriously and a healthy dose of cheese is required during watching at all times.  I just could imagine the audience’s reaction to seeing a film entitled this.  It seems to be too old for youngsters and yet to ‘teen-ish’ for adults, therefore didn’t really draw in a wide and varied audience.

As with the TV show, we meet our titular ‘slayer’ Buffy, who’s a teenager who just so happens to be this generation’s ‘chosen one,’ tasked with wiping vampires out from the face of the Earth (or rather just her hometown to start with!).  Once you’ve invested your time in the TV show, it’s hard to watch the film without trying to relate it back to the ongoing series.  I see this as a kind of ‘prequel’ as it deals with Buffy learning of her heritage and being taught the ways of the Force (or slaying vamps – whatever).  And, for that, it does almost work when looked at in conjunction with the TV show.  Yes, there are always going to be some continuity errors that don’t really match up, but, seeing as the two mediums don’t occupy the same ‘shared universe,’ this can only be expected.

It’s hard to recommend the film really, as fans of the genre will undoubtedly be so into the TV show that they refuse to except this as part of the lore.  However, if you’re someone who can appreciate the ‘evolution’ of the character and wants to take a sneak peek into an alternate universe where Sarah Michelle Gellar doesn’t reign supreme, give this one a go.  Yes, it’s daft and yes, it’s cheesy, but wasn’t the TV show all that, too?  This isn’t a film for everyone, but it is one that does still have an audience out there, even if it’s getting smaller by the day as more and more people only ever remember the TV show as the ‘real’ Buffy.  But this one could be a lot worse (especially seeing as we’ve never got a new series from Joss Whedon!).

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

Underworld - The dark side of Twilight

There was a time (somewhere before 2008 I believe) where if you mentioned vampires fighting werewolves, you would instantly think of the Underworld saga. Sadly, vampires started to twinkle and werewolves used to run around topless and Selene and her Underworld buddies were forced to take a backseat.

However, if you're bored of vampires gazing at each other longingly and only breathing through their noses, then you may still enjoy watching the two undead races slug it out with guns. Think `Resident Evil' only darker and better.

Underworld tells the story of a vampire assassin (or `Death Dealer' as they're called) who, during her war with the werewolves (or `lycans' to use the technical term) falls in love with a human who may just be destined to play a bigger part in both races' lives.

It's dark like The Crow, has fight scenes like `The Matrix' and, if you're a guy, Kate Beckinsale running around in skintight rubber. If any of that sounds like you're cup of tea, then you'll probably enjoy Underworld. Amazingly, two decent sequels were also spawned off the back of this (and a fourth instalment that can be taken or left, depending on taste). Either way, give it a go - it's what vampires and werewolves were supposed to be before they used to go to high school together.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Twelve Monkeys - Python meets Terminator

`Twelve Monkeys' is Terry Gilliam's mind-bending time travel epic which tells the story of convict, Bruce Willis, being repeatedly sent back in time to discover the cause of a mysterious virus which wiped out 99% of humanity.

It doesn't have Terminator's action sequences, but the plot is kind of similar, plus Gilliam shows his flair for depicting his weird vision of the future by showing us a world that is a cross between Brazil and Time Bandits.

Despite Bruce Willis not always receiving that much praise for his acting abilities, he comes across pretty well here as a vulnerable and confused man, trying to make sense of the weird situation he finds himself in. (A very young) Brad Pitt also co-stars and steals every scene with his odd eyes and borderline psychotic personality disorders.

It's a great film, but you have to be in the mood for it. I've watched it about three times in the space of nearly twenty years and loved it every time. I have to feel like sitting down and really trying to get my head around who's doing what and why.

Like I said, it's not just like Terminator where bad guys fight good guys. You may have to think a little with this one. If you're a fan of Terry Gilliam's work, you should love this. If you've never seen anything he's done before, you may have to tread carefully with this one and check out some more reviews before you decide to commit over two hours to looking into his twisted mind.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Spaceballs – Nearly as good when you’re old

I remember going to see ‘Spaceballs’ when it came out in the cinema (a building with a massive TWO screens and is no longer there any more).  I think I was about 11 at the time.  Back then I didn’t really know who Mel Brookes was, or anything about his other films.  I just liked ‘Star Wars’ and that was all I needed to know.  And, based on that most flimsy of reasons to see a film - I loved it!  It’s a parody of ‘Star Wars’ (and the occasional other sci-fi gag) which follows the original’s plot reasonably accurately, i.e. rougish smuggler must rescue a princess from a black-helmetted space dictator.  Now, nearly three decades later I thought I would watch it again and, I didn’t love it… so much.

I guess it’s one of those films where you have to be young to really laugh at every single joke.  I now feel that, although much of the time I was at least smiling a bit, it’s not quite as funny as when I used to laugh at simpler things.  It’s a decent enough watch and it’s nice seeing John Candy clearly enjoying himself as the ‘Chewbacca-type’ creature (unsubtly named) ‘Barf.’ Now I look at it again I can’t help thinking that Mel Brooks is trying a little too hard to be everywhere, as he casts himself as basically the lead (and a couple other roles) and now I see it through adult eyes, he seems a little too full of himself, even if he does play a complete idiot.

I mentioned John Candy as the stand-out role, but the others are good, too.  Bill Pullman is functional as the ‘hero,’ but it’s Rick Moranis who steals every scene as the completely incompetent ‘Darth Vader’ rip-off, now known as ‘Dark Helmet.’ There’s a great ‘Alien’ cameo too by John Hurt and some other nods to a few famous franchises, so you’ll probably need to know all movies in the genre to appreciate everything.

I may be sounding a little harsh overall, but I did enjoy it again, even after all this time.  I’ll probably watch it again in another ten years, but next time I’ll know not to expect it to be the same as when I was a kid.

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

Doomsday - The perfect storm of nonsense

Paying `homage' to other films can be touch and go at the best of times. Sometimes it ends up looking like a film's just blatantly copied another (most likely superior) movie and you get nothing new.

However, with `Doomsday' you can never be entirely sure which homage you're watching. We join the action a few decades in the future where Scotland has been quarantined due to a virus wiping out the population (possibly down to an infected deep-fried Mars bad - we don't know). However, when the virus resurfaces in London, an elite squad is send north of the border to try and find a cure.

Yes, it's a B-movie, but it's a damn fine one. When the team assembles, we get extreme shades of the Colonial Marines from Aliens (see some `borrowed dialogue' even), then we move on to Escape From New York (even down to the fact that the central character has only one eye) and Mad Max 2 when it comes to fighting the enemies. Finally, give it a 28 Days Later feel with the vibe and musical score and you have one hell of a violent mess of a film.

With this many elements in the mix, it's never going to sit together perfectly, but then I doubt the film-makers ever intended it to be perfect. It has its faults and there are plot-holes aplenty if you're in the mood to pick holes in it. However, I watch Doomsday purely to be entertained. I'm not looking for high-quality drama or a watertight script.

It's severely tongue-in-cheek, even bordering on daft at some stages. And good on it. It can never hope to compete with the serious Hollywood action blockbusters, so it carves out its own niche in the market by copying other films in a `knowing' way.

For everyone who loves this film (like me) there will be someone who absolutely hates it. And I can understand where they're coming from. If you're expecting some high-quality, Hollywood action, then you may be disappointed. To get maximum enjoyment from Doomsday, put your brain on hold, grab the biggest bucket of popcorn, place your tongue firmly in your cheek and enjoy the crazy ride.
A true guilty pleasure film if ever there was one.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Bruiser - A Superhero before his time? 

There is a tendency among modern superhero (films) to portray their particular marked crusader as some sort of flawed, anti-hero - take Chris Nolan's Batman trilogy, Robert Downey Jr in the Iron Man films and The Watchmen.

Bruiser was released in 2000, just slightly before this trend really took off. It's about a put-upon worker who wakes up to find his features have changed to that of a plain white mask. Therefore, now no one knows who he is, he seeks revenge on all those who scorned him. This sounds like a basic sort of superhero movie plot and, courtesy of zombie-lord George Romero, he adds a bit of horror into it too.

Does it work? Sadly, not really.

Although it could have been decent enough, it suffers from a lack of stars, a clunky script (Romero also wrote it and, as anyone who has watched his more recent zombie films will know he's kind off gone off the boil with his pen) and quite possibly budget. There's no real action and only a few kills. However, my biggest gripe was how our (anti?) hero was never really the put-upon loser he was billed as. Henry Creedlow works for a famous fashion magazine (think Vogue etc), has a beautiful wife, lives in a big house, drives a fast car and plays the stock market. From this we're supposed to feel sorry for him. Okay, he gets pushed around a bit, but, for me, it just didn't make him as much as a loser as the film suggested. Then there's the `super villain.' Only he's not. Captain America fought Red Skull, with Batman it was the Joker. Here, the `villain' is an annoyingly loud guy who sleeps with more women than Peter Stringfellow. He's not trying to kill anyone, nor is he trying to take over the world. He's just an idiot. Again, hardly someone you can truly hate (get annoyed by - yes - but not hate).

Full marks for Jason Flemyng for his America accent. Maybe Bruiser will get a remake one day and give it a budget and a script makeover. In the meantime, probably one to avoid. Sorry, George - I still love Dawn of the Dead.

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