Orange County - Not as good as I remembered

I originally watched the 'teen comedy' 'Orange County' roughly around when it was released back in 2002.  Granted I'm now nearly twenty years older, so perhaps my sense of humour had changed (dare I say 'matured?') since then.

I really enjoyed it back then, but, for some reason, never managed to track down the DVD or find it on any online streaming service until now.  I couldn't remember much of what it was about, but I knew I found it very funny.  Now, in short, my verdict on it would be that it's simply 'okay.'

A young man (living in 'Orange County,' California - believe it or not) wants to be a writer and go to university, but, for reasons that may possibly be a little bit hard to believe, but more designed to move the plot along) he doesn't get in - even though he should have done.  Therefore, he, his brother (Jack Black, before he was that famous) and his girlfriend, take a trip to the campus in order to 'bluff' his way in.

I seemed to remember it as a 'road movie' where much of the film is dedicated to the situations the characters found themselves in until they reach their destination, but, looking back. I think I may have been getting this film confused with the multitude of bawdy 'teen' comedies that filled the cinemas in the wake of the popularity of the classic 'American Pie.' Actually, the film only really has the two settings - roughly the first half is dedicated to the characters getting ready to set off.  The second half is at the university where they're trying to find a way of getting in.

Like I say, it may be me, but I didn't laugh half as much as I remembered I did.  Which is a shame, as the cast is pretty decent - with quite a few familiar faces cropping up along the way.  It's certainly not a bad film, but it's one of those where you can probably have it on in the background and not really miss much.  One to stream (as part of a package), or watch for free on TV rather than buy on DVD.

I also haven't watched 'American Pie' in a while - I wonder what I'd think of that now?

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

Super 8 - One for the kids 

J.J. Abrams pays homage to all of Spielberg's early movies with this mix of the Goonies and, er, an alien invasion movie.

One of the most nasty aliens possible lands in a small American town - nasty largely because of its intense desire to grab people from behind at night time. First we see its back, moving quickly amongst the darkness then we see the odd arm, wrapping itself around a hapless victim's neck. Every now and again you see a leg - possibly - it's normally too dark to see.

Anyway, the grabby-grabbity alien is running amok in a small town grabbing people like they were the last Nike trainer on the shelf, but, luckily, the U.S. Army is there to save everyone. Only they don't. Their masses of tanks and guns are pretty useless against something big that likes to grab people. However, humanity is saved by six (ish) plucky, nerdy kids who have a knack for not being grabbed (and if they are they can be rescued later) and a love of using cheap fireworks as weapons.

I grew up with the Goonies and I still watch it, largely for nostalgia values. If it was released today I probably wouldn't bother with it.

Super 8 didn't do much for me. It was too dark and it was only on the 1 hour 32 minutes mark did you find the alien has a face (while its grabbing someone). However, judging by the rest of the reviews, I'm clearly in the minority here. Most people seem to love it. I can only assume they're twelve year old boys. This film is rated 12A and never before has the rating been so applicable. If you want a better opinion of the film, ask a twelve year old boy as that's clearly who this film is aimed for. Give me Sigourney Weaver in a power-loader suit any day.

6/10 May just keep you awake if Freddy Kruger was haunting your nights, but 9/10 for those who are slightly more than kids, but not yet allowed to vote.

Super - Sad, surreal and definitely super 

With all the `official' superhero moves spewing out of Hollywood, there were always going to the spoofs that went with them.

If you want a true `comedy,' one which mocks the genre and has plenty of people acting silly in costumes and cracking jokes, then you'll probably prefer Superhero Movie. However, `Super' does not simply fall into the `comedy' genre. It's so much more.

At first, I wasn't sure whether I'd like it or not. The first half I found a little slow, but I was glad I stuck with it. It really picks up the pace in the second half and, although not a complete laugh-fest, this film does add something to the genre. It's a real black comedy and deliberately throws the conventions of superhero movies on their heads - some of which are actually quite shocking.

Even with Liv Tyler and Kevin Bacon in the cast, Super will never be a mainstream success, purely because it doesn't follow the superhero formula. At best it'll attain a cult status - and a well-deserved one at that. 

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

American Gangster - Saved by the stars

I know that films which are supposed to be 'based on a true story' can sometimes be a little, er, 'liberal' with the truth and, seeing as I haven't researched how accurate 'American Gangster' is, I'm judging it on pure entertainment values alone.  In the seventies, Denzil Washington plays an up and coming drugs kingpin from Harlem who quickly rises through the ranks to form such a vast empire that it also includes three quarters of the New York police department.  However, one law officer who refuses to be corrupted is played by fellow acting heavyweight, Russell Crowe, who vows to bring in Washington and all those he's employed - whether drug dealers of police officers alike.

Seeing as it's based on a real life case, they couldn't really put in wall-to-wall shoot-outs and car chases, mixed with unexpected twists and double crosses.  Therefore, what you're left with is quite a subdued little film which could - if in the wrong hands - actually be quite dull.  Luckily, with the acting pedigree in front of the camera and Ridley Scott behind it (I must confess... I only knew he directed it when his name came up in the end credits!) a film that's actually over two hours never feels like it outstays its welcome.

I guess the only real criticism is that the two leads never really get the chance to play off each other like you may want them to.  But then the story dictates that 'cop' and 'robber' don't spend that much time having coffee and donuts together in real life, therefore why should they ever really meet on screen until handcuffs are involved?  In that was I found it kind of like 'Heat' which was the first film to properly star the other great acting heavyweights Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino.  Many went to see it because of their star power, only to be left a little disappointed at the lack of time they spend on screen together.

Both Washington and Crowe play 'flawed' characters - both having their good and bad sides and you'll sympathise and despise them in equal measures.  It may not be up there with some of the greatest 'cops and robbers' films and it definitely doesn't really fit into the 'gangster' genre, but, if you're in the mood for something deliberately slowly-paced then this one is worth a couple of hours of your time.

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

Sucker Punch - Well... I liked it (please don’t hate me!)

I’ll start off by saying that most people seemed to absolutely HATE ‘Sucker Punch.’ I didn’t.  I guess I’m weird.  But I can live with that.  Zack Snyder, normally best known for only directing his films, now writes AND directs one, too.  Sucker Punch is the result.  And, whereas I choose to mainly just enjoy it for its silly action sequences, I can see why the haters had such a field day tearing it to pieces.

So... what’s it about?  Er, good question.  There’s a girl.  She’s accused to murdering someone she didn’t and sent to an institution for the mentally insane.  Do they still do that?  I don’t know.  The film’s time period is woefully unspecified.  Anyway, once there she teams up with four other hot girls and they fight German steam-powered zombies in First World War trenches, robots protecting a trainload of explosives heading into a futuristic city and Orcs.  And I also think I remember giant monster-samurais.  And then there’s the bit about the girls working in a brothel.  And gangsters.  And they kill a mummy dragon’s baby.

Do you think I’m making this up?  I’m not.  Basically, the film does try to cover many levels at once (with limited success).  It’s one of those movies which exists on many levels (not all of them real – many interpretational and symbolic).  Some say it should have just stuck to one, but it doesn’t, therefore it does tend to confuse and disorient a fair proportion of the viewers.

As a story, it’s a bit of a mess.  I can see that.  I appreciate where the haters are coming from.  However, I can’t fault the awesome action sequences.  They’re amazingly shot and look like something out of the highest powered computer game ever made. 

I think if I’d paid full price to watch it at the cinema I may feel a little short-changed.  However, I saw it on DVD and I must have been in the mood just to watch hot girls slice apart Nazi samurais in giant mech-armour suits.  That’s the kind of level you need to set your brain on to appreciate it.

Don’t think about story.  Don’t think about character development or deep and meaningful story arcs.  Just watch the action scenes and enjoy the dark and brooding soundtrack.  If Sucker Punch is an example of Zack Snyder’s writing ability then perhaps he should stick to directing a little longer while he hones his art.  However, it’s still a lot of fun.  If you’re me.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Suicide Squad - Bad guys have all the fun

‘Suicide Squad’ is one of those films that’s surrounded by ‘filmic politics’ before you ever enter the theatre.  You have the fact that it’s based on a comic therefore there is an army of fans who are ready to pick apart how their favourite bad-guys are portrayed on screen.  Plus it’s part of DC Comics’ attempt at playing catch-up to Marvel by creating their own shared universe.  Then you have it as a – loose – sequel to Batman vs Superman, which is a film that has totally divided the entire world right down the middle as to its quality.  And it seems that 'Suicide Squad' is going to go down that route.
It doesn’t have Superman in and Batman is merely a cameo.  Many will at least expect the Joker to be a major player, but his appearances amount to little more than an extended cameo.  Plus you have people who will berate Jarred Leto’s performance before they’ve seen it because a ‘new Joker’ is still a little too close to Heath Ledger’s Oscar-winning portrayal of the ‘Clown Prince of Crime.’

What we have here is a superhero film about the villains.  And, again, that is a difficult premise to sell.  Marvel’s universe was based on heroes and gave each their own movie to set them up before bringing them all together for the 'Avengers' movies.  Here, we’re introduced to characters who all but the most ardent of comic book fans, will never have heard of.

Anyway, the premise is simple (if a little far-fetched) – a government agency decides that, in the event of an evil superhero threatening the world (or ‘meta-human’ as they’re called) a task force of ‘expendable’ soldiers should be assembled in order to combat this.  Therefore, all the villains currently in custody are brought together (just in time to combat such a threat!).

You’ve probably already seen Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn (i.e. the Joker’s long-suffering female associate) and, just because you haven’t heard of ‘Deadshot’ you’ve probably heard of Will Smith, who plays him in the film.  These two are basically the stars and will probably go much further in the DC shared universe.  Both get the most screen time and for good reason – they’re the two who are most fun to watch.  Harley Quinn is wonderfully bonkers and Will Smith plays a bad guy who still has enough good in him to save the universe while being bad at the same time.

The action scenes are well done, but not excessive (maybe for budget limitations) and CGI isn’t too prevalent, but, sadly, when used does come across as a little blatant.  It’s hard to say whether anyone will definitely love or hate the film, as – like 'Batman vs Superman' – it seems to completely divide.  I enjoyed it.  It’s harmless fun and does the job.  Plus it’s probably better than the 'Batman vs Superman' film itself!  However, for every person who loves it, someone else despises it.  Even die-hard comic book fans won’t be guaranteed to embrace it whole-heartedly.

I see it as good, old-fashioned popcorn-munching fun.  If I had one complaint I found it a little slow to start, but a film with so many characters needs to find a way to introduce their backstory somehow.  If you’re unsure of whether to watch it, read as many reviews as you can, or just wait until it appears on Netflix in a couple of year’s time.  Personally, I think it will always be worth a watch simply for Margot Robbie and Will Smith's on screen performances.  Probably more like a 'Marvel Phase 1' movie.

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

Suburbicon - Who knows what this was meant to be

First of all, let me say that I really enjoyed George Clooney's style of directing in 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind' and who doesn't enjoy the writing of the Coen brothers?  Then combine these elements with A-listers like Matt Damon, Oscar Isaacs and Julianne Moore and how can this possibly fail?  It did.  Spectacularly.

Perhaps the reason it bombed was that it had too many good elements (if that's even possible).  For a start it has no idea what it wants to be.  In the first act it introduces plot threads that really don't relate to the central theme of a couple getting mixed up with some shady characters and a plot involving murder and misinformation.  Plus there's the fact that it's set in the 1950s (I think - could be 60s!), but, either way, there's not an awful lot of point in setting it here.  It could be set today not really effect the main storyline at all.  Nice sets though.  Just not really necessary.

In the film Matt Damon is married to Julianne Moore.  Or should I say he's married to ONE Julianne Moore.  The other is her sister - which took me a little while to actually figure out if they were the same person or not!  However, no matter how many Julianne Moores you have on display, the fact remains that there's no likable character.  A child is - technically - the person you should root for and you will do.  However, he can't really carry the film in terms of good vs bad.  Oscar Isaacs isn't in it enough and, when he does make an appearance he does steal every moment he's on screen.

'Suburbicon' is billed as a 'black comedy.' I don't recall laughing once.  I couldn't 'get' the humour (if there is any to begin with!) and I do enjoy a slice of darker humour.  It's a murder drama/thriller that tries to be too many things at once.  You could take out so much of this and leave - probably - quite a tight little story that would have been enjoyable to watch.  Does the phrase 'Too many cooks...' apply here?

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

Strippers vs Werewolves - Sadly not even a cult classic

Okay, I wasn't expecting a film with the calibre of The Godfather. I kind of knew what I was getting when watching a film entitled `Strippers vs Werewolves.' However, I was at least hoping for some stupid, cheesy fun with plenty of gore and chuckles.

Unfortunately, this film doesn't deliver on any of it. I had at least reasonably high hopes, based on watching another couple of similarly-themed films: `Zombie Strippers' and `Strippers vs Zombies.' Neither of them were exactly Shakespeare, but they were at least entertaining in a totally dumbed down way (which was all I was expecting). However, Britain's attempt to cash in on this B-movie genre really doesn't take off.

For a start, the acting is bad. Yes, it's a low budget horror B-movie, but I was still hoping for a little less wooden performances. Secondly, the werewolves are about as scary as a dog you'd see hanging out of Paris Hilton's handbag. Thirdly, it's just not particularly funny. Fourthly, you won't give a damn about a single character and, finally, there's not that much gore (or at least for about ninety per cent of the movie).

In all, it's a film trying to get people to see it, based on its blatantly cheesy name. If you look this film up on the internet, you'll notice that it only took £38 at the UK box office. I'm guessing that was one person who watched the film and who bought about £30 worth of popcorn and sweets.

Is there no film that Billy Murray won't star in?

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

The Strangers - Strangers in the night 

When you watch a film and you see the protagonist's life is in danger, one of the questions you probably ask yourself is `What would I do in that situation?' In horror films it happens more than most.

The Strangers is about three unknown people who mercilessly stalk a young couple at their home in the early hours of the morning. So, when we watch it, we picture our own home - how would we defend it? What random blunt objects could be turned into makeshift weapons to fight back with? And, of course, how would we escape?

In The Strangers, the answers would probably - get gun and walk out of the dangerous situation. Sadly, neither man or woman involved ever considers this. Okay, from time to time, one of them might do something we would try - the idea of hiding in a room and pointing the gun at the only way in is a decent enough suggestion. However, that quickly gets abandoned due to a convenient plot device.

This review is based on my second viewing of The Strangers. I quickly forgot it after the first viewing, but I like Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman, plus I like horror movies, so I thought I'd give it another go. The second time I turned it off just before the hour mark. It was getting too annoying.

On the plus side, there are some bits that make you jump in the first third and the violence in the last act will satisfy the more bloodthirsty among us (I remember that from my first viewing - I never got to it second time round).

It's an okay film, but the baddies SHOULD be overcome easier than the central characters seem to bother with.

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

Stranded - Eighties Dr Who had better sets (and they wobbled!)

If ever a film had `Made for TV' written all over it, it was `Stranded,' - a film about four astronauts who, in the middle of a year-long stay on the moon, end up stranded there after an asteroid strike.

On the plus side, the film certainly feels like you've been stuck in a bland, lifeless environment for the best part of a year. The sets look like they were cobbled together from the bridge of the (sixties TV show's) Starship Enterprise and the whole thing stinks of an episode of some generic sci-fi show like The Outer Limits which they've stretched out to fill the full ninety minutes.

Once upon a time, Christian Slater was a star. Nowadays, his films go straight to DVD and, from there, into the bargain basement buckets you see by the checkouts at motorway service stations. There's nothing wrong with his performance here. He can act. There's just not much to do here. Yeah, there's some generic terror, but do we care? There are only four people in the cast and none of them have much in the way of backstories for us to get a flavour of what they're like.

It's one of those films you can watch while you're doing something else. If you have ironing to do, bring the ironing board in, set it up, pop in and out to get spare hangers and catch the odd glimpse of the film. You won't miss much in the way of story. Alternatively, wait until it comes on the sci-fi channel - shouldn't be too long.

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

Stuck In Love - Not as `edgy' as it tries to be

`Stick in Love' is a romantic comedy which desperately tries not to be. And, it succeeds to a degree. For a start... it's not that funny, so maybe we should refer to it as a `romantic drama.' However, what it really wants to be is `different' and `unconventional.'

The film-makers (probably like many viewers) have obviously had enough of the tired old `boy meets girl etc.' cliché and set about trying to make something different. I say again... they succeeded (to a degree).

They create a deliberately dysfunctional family, all of which have very jaded and bitter takes on `love.' The situations we meet them in all start off as refreshing as the film-makers probably hope they will be. It's not just the situations that are different, but it's the characters themselves that make it that way - and that's no bad thing.

However (and it's a big however), throughout the course of the story, all `different' aspects are ironed out in favour of turning it into the same old clichéd rom-com still without the `com' aspect though). So, what starts out as edgy and different, ends up feeling as generic as any other `boy meets girl' story.

Don't get me wrong... it's certainly not a bad film. All the actors play their parts well, so, if you like rom-coms (minus the `com') you'll probably love this. I enjoyed it; I was just enjoying it more when I thought it would be really different ALL the way though.

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

Street Fighter - Just don't take it too seriously 

Streetfighter 2 - the arcade so popular, it reinvented one-on-one beat-`em-ups. It was only natural that Hollywood was going to try and cash in on it. However, as Mario Bros found out, making a movie out of a (pretty plotless) video game is no easy task.

First of all, let me say that Streetfighter the Movie is rubbish. Secondly, let me say that I loved it.

There was no story to the arcade, so the film's writers were always going to have to take a hell of a load of creative licenses to try and gel it all together in some form of narrative format (after all, how much story can you get into sixteen people from around the world knocking the hell out of each other?). And, I think they did a pretty good job - at least with the story anyway. It follows - mainly - the film's biggest star Jean Claude Van Damme, As Colonel Guile, who leads an A.N. (that's `Allied Nations' - think United Nations, but with a different name) task force of soldiers against the warlord dictator of (made-up country) Shadaloo, namely M. Bison. The `Mussels From Brussels' is joined (and hindered) by almost all the other main Streetfighters (not that any fighting is ever done in any street, but never mind...).

Unfortunately, what the film does well in coming up with a coherent and (nearly) believable story, it lacks in what fans want to see. Sadly, none of the actors are particularly good. There are too many characters and none of them are given enough screen time to particularly develop their characters. Plus many of them don't really look much like their on-screen counterparts. Not only that, but their computer-generated incarnations are also better at delivering their lines. The actors' dialogue is pretty clunky and cringeworthy. However, all this could be forgiven if the fight scenes were better. Okay, so it was released a few years before The Matrix redefined martial arts battles, but the fights are more similar to old James Bond fights where people just roll around on the floor a bit. The `special moves' taken from the arcade are pretty hard to spot and, despite having a pretty big budget (for 1994), it makes you wonder where it was spent.

So Streetfighter is a pretty bad film. And I still love it. Maybe because as a teen I played the arcade, or maybe because Kylie looks pretty hot as Cammy. It's camp, it's stupid, it's mainly for die hard fans of the arcade. If it ever finds a new audience, it will probably be with twelve-year-old boys as they would find it pretty much action-packed and exciting.

The Matrix it is not. Stupid fun it just might get away with, even if Mortal Kombat is actually a better film.

Don't be too harsh on it - at least Raul Julia gives one hell of a cape-swishing performance in his last ever on-screen role.

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

Straw Dogs (2011) - Haven't I seen you somewhere before? 

There are remakes and there are remakes. Granted, right now in Hollywood, you can't step on a celebrity star without tripping over a remake, but, sometimes they can work. Sometimes. If a film was made a while back that had a decent idea, but, for whatever reason, couldn't be truly realised, then why not give it a modern day makeover?

Then you have the other kind of remakes.

Straw Dogs is a remake of an ultra violent seventies movie about a man and woman who move into a new home in Cornwall, only to run into trouble with the locals. In the remake, the action has been moved to America, but the plot is basically the same.

If you know what to expect then you're waiting for the violence to finally kick off. It does, eventually, but not before well over an hour of `build up.' This build up shows us how the young, nice, happy couple completely ignore all warning signs that they have a town full of redneck psychos all around them until it's too late and the afford-mentioned psychos are throwing bricks through their window and trying to lynch them.

The originally Straw Dogs was only famous (or rather infamous) for its violence. Since then, we've seen far worse gore and brutality on screen and remaking it (quite faithfully to be fair) seems a little pointless. There isn't enough gore to keep the `gore-fiends' happy. It's too slow to be classed as a psychological thriller. And the characters are too stupid to know what's coming until it's too late.

I think, if this was the first incarnation of Straw Dogs, it might be called a `home invasion' film. However, the fact that there are other films out there which have already secured that particular niche genre, makes this one even less original. Funny Games, The Strangers, that British one that I watched and completely forgot its name - all of those have beaten the Straw Dogs remake to the punch,

However, if you're a fan of Kate Bosworth and like the idea of watching her running around in not very many clothes for the whole film, then you might get something out of it.

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

Storage 24 - A cheeky little number

We all know that Alien was `the daddy' when it comes to these sorts of `monster-munching' movies. You have your alien/mutant/werewolf/whatever, chasing around a load of humans who are trapped in a spaceship/laboratory/missile silo/whatever, until the humans are suitably depleted enough to luckily beat the beast.

Storage 24 conforms to this template. My question: so what?

I read once on the internet, when someone was comparing George Lucas' (commercially unsuccessful) `Willow' to the (critically-acclaimed and money-spinning) Lord of the Rings franchise, they said: Obviously Lord of the Rings is a better film, but is it fun?

Storage 24 is not a classic film. But, in my opinion, it IS fun.

It never takes itself too seriously. The characters are just about well-formed enough to be enjoyable and the monster is suitably horrible. Therefore, it pretty much has everything you can want when you're picking a monster-munching movie to eat popcorn to.

If you want something deep, classy and serious - go elsewhere. Suspend your disbelief... and enjoy.

NOTE: if there was an Oscar for `best use of yapping dog toy,' Storage 24 would win hands down. And probably again the next year, too.

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

The Conjuring - One of the best 'average' films I've seen

If I described a film as 'run-of-the-mill' you'd probably think I was going to absolutely slate it.  I can quite honestly say that 'The Conjuring' is one of the most 'by-the-numbers' films I've ever watching.  I've sat through quite a number of horror films since the eighties and there is definitely a pattern in films that involve 'hauntings' where a family moves into a big, creepy house, spooky things start to happen and then paranormal investigators are brought in to help out ('Poltergeist' is a prime example).

'The Conjuring' ticks all those boxes and, despite being released roughly thirty years after 'Poltergeist' the story is pretty much beat for beat.  So you could say what's the point in watching 'The Conjuring' when it offers so little that you haven't already seen for decades.  However, for some reason, I just found it totally worth a watch.

I can appreciate that there's nothing groundbreaking contained there, but it was done very well.  There are children in the family and youngsters can always be a bit 'hit and miss' when it comes to acting.  Yet, these all played their parts well.  Plus you have Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are the most well-known actors and they play the paranormal investigators, but they do it with more of a sense of realism than 'Poltergeist' and don't come across as almost cartoon characters.

However, possibly the film's biggest asset is its direction.  Most horror fans are getting a little tired with the tried and cliched technique of 'jump scares' where something leaps out at the camera along with a scary noise.  Here, these are used to a minimum.  Many a time I thought one was going to happen, when in fact something much more subtle and creepy took place instead.

It's lack of originality may never make it a classic, but, if you're looking for a horror film that relies on creepiness rather than gore and jump scares, it may be worth checking this one out. 

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

Stolen - The clue is in the title

If I were to ask you, "What's another word for `Stolen?'" You may well answer, "Taken." And that is this film in a nutshell. Just remove Liam Neeson from the proceedings and insert Nicholas Cage and you basically have the same film, or rather a lesser version of it.

Nicholas Cage's daughter has been taken (or should I say stolen?) and he has to race around a city, generally punching people and indulging in high-speed car chases, until he gets her back. Perhaps if this came out before Taken, it might be considered the better version. However, it doesn't even have Liam Neeson's - well-choreographed - fight scenes going for it.

Nicholas Cage plays his usual part: he punches, he shoots, he drives. It's all good - if you like Cage. And that's about it. If you're a fan of Nicholas Cage then you probably won't feel ripped off for devoting an hour and a half of your life to this. But he's done better - and so have other people.

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

Stoker - Kind of like a car crash - I couldn't look away

`Stoker' is a story about... actually, I'm not entirely sure. Having sat through the whole film, I find it quite hard to describe. A mother and a daughter (who act like they're living in the eighteenth century - I had to wait until I saw a cell phone and convertible sports car to realise it was in the present day) invite their long lost uncle to stay. He acts weird. But then both the mother and the daughter also act weird (kind of like they are, or should be, on medication), so it's a little hard to have a baseline for `normal.'

Anyway, without spoiling it too much, bodies start piling up.

I didn't like this film. Despite the many positive reviews I found it boring and the dialogue long, rambling and, in many cases, pointless. I decided I didn't like it very early in the film, so, why didn't I turn it off? I just couldn't help but watch it through until the end. Even when it was finished, I wasn't entirely satisfied. There are a few questions that are open to debate (you'll have to check out the internet message boards if you want to delve into what people believe is really happening). However, for whatever reason, I couldn't put this film out of my mind.

I reckon I'll even watch it again one day, just to see what it's like a second time round.

Ultimately, Stoker is weird, creepy and disturbing, not to mention subtly odd, but then I think that's the idea, so I guess it succeeded. If you're thinking of watching it, you'll be in for an odd ride. Just make sure you're in the mood for something like that when you do and you'll probably enjoy it (or, like me, if you didn't technically enjoy it, then you'll still find it weirdly addictive).

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

Stitches - A noble effort at comedy/horror

I watched `Stitches' mainly because, as well as loving horror, I'm also a big Ross Noble fan and was interested to see how his stand-up would transfer to acting. To be fair, he doesn't have much to do in the way of acting.

His `unconventional' (sorry, Ross) looks make it easy for the make-up department to transform him into an evil, undead clown, hell-bent on seeking bloodthirsty revenge on the party of children who caused his death in the first place.

In short, Ross Noble steals every scene he's in. Sadly, he's not in it enough. He doesn't really come into it (proper) until midway through and, by then, you've been forced to watch your usual `teen drama.' As this is a British film, I was hoping for something a little more original than `uber-geek falls in love with beautiful girl who just so happens to be going out with an arrogant jock.' Sadly, that's all we get. All the (non undead clown) characters are total stereotypes. You'll know exactly who'll die the moment you see them.

And die they do. That's where the film excels. I'm guessing it had quite a small budget, but it really makes the most of the gore. Some of the death scenes are truly disgusting (and hilarious in their over-the-topness).

Stitches is worth watching if you like horror and Ross Noble. He provides all the comedy and gore which will satisfy you. However, sadly the film can never truly be a classic, as the first half is pretty bland and the second half is only ever really alive when the (dead) Ross Nobel is on-screen.

It's a good film that's (sadly) wrapped up in the oldest movie cliché going.

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

St George's Day - Frank Harper, you should stick to acting

You probably know Frank Harper from pretty much every British gangster film (he was `Dog' in Lock Stock). Now, he's taken to writing and directing one of his own. St George's Day tells the story of two London gangsters who lose a shipment of drugs that belong to the Russian Mafia and have to pull off a heist to get the money to pay it back.

Yes, it's hardly an inspired plot, but, when you watch it, you'll soon realise that that's the least of its problems. Frank Harper narrates pretty much the whole way through, giving his `patriotic' thoughts and opinions on the story, plus introducing every character along the way. And there are many. Every other scene has a new gangster who gets his own intro from Frank, most of which are hardly seen again in the film.

Unfortunately, St George's Day utilises every cliché in the book. Every line sounds like someone doing a bad impression of what they think a cockney would say. After a while, you start to wonder how quite a talented bunch of actors were ever roped into this film to begin with. I say `talented actors' as most of them are. However, this doesn't apply to former Page 3 girl turned `actress' Keeley Hazell. She is truly wooden beyond belief.

St George's Day brings nothing new to the genre of gangster films. It's clichéd, boring, overly-long and just bad. One to avoid. Stick with Lock Stock and Snatch.

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

The Stepford Wives - Still holds up after all this time

Okay, let’s just get the ‘remake’ starring Nicole Kidman and that other guy out of the way – it’s rubbish. Ignore it. Yes, the seventies Stepford Wives may be just a little bit dated (play ‘spot the flared trousers etc), but, if you’re serious about horror, then there’s no comparison.

If you don’t know... a family move to the quiet, secluded little American town of Stepford where the man of the family joins the (secretive) ‘Men’s Association,’ leaving the woman of the family to make friends with some of the most submissive and prim women ever. Coincidence, or something darker afoot?

It’s something darker, but then as it’s a horror film, you probably could guess that anyway.

On the off chance you haven’t seen ‘The Stepford Wives’ I won’t say too much about the plot. You’ll only get the one chance to see it without knowing what happens, so I won’t spoil it for you. Just know that it is a masterpiece of ‘understated’ horror. It doesn’t need ‘torture p0rn’ or anything gruesome and bl00dy to scare. It’s just scary in a whole different way.

If I had to pick one gripe with the film, I’d say the editing is a bit choppy. Some scenes seen to cut or fade into another a bit randomly. Still, it doesn’t take away from the film too much.

Also, while you ignore Nicole Kidman’s remake, it’s probably best to ignore all the ‘Stepford sequels’ – none of them are up to the original.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

State of Emergency - Expected more

I read some of the other reviews for State of Emergency and was pleasantly intrigued. All seemed to talk about it having less gore and more story. And I'm cool with that. As a fan of zombie films in general, I've seen gore in all its forms, so a film based around a decent story would also suit me.

It's about a viral outbreak which turns most of a town into zombies (or perhaps I should say `infected' as they run and behave a lot more like the creatures from 28 Days Later, or Dawn of the Dead 2004 edition).

Sadly, I couldn't see much evidence of a story. The first quarter of an hour has no dialogue. We just follow our hero after his girlfriend has died (somehow) and now he's left creeping around a barn and, on the few occasions he encounters a zombie, he always manages to drop or leave behind his weapon (really bugged me!). However, he's saved when he hikes across a field and takes refuge in a warehouse with three really boring and unlikeable characters. Once inside, they spend their time watching zombies standing there in fields (I didn't get this bit!). Not only that, but his previous girlfriend may have only been dead a few hours, but - by an amazing coincidence - one of the other humans is a suitable girlfriend replacement.

It's a short film and kind of feels like it's set at the same time as 28 Days Later, or rather Dawn of the Dead 2004 (but minus the budget of either). There's the (seemingly obligatory) CGI blood added to the few zombie deaths we see on screen.

It's not a bad film. I just didn't find it as good as some of the other reviews were making it out to be. Ironically, people don't seem to like the ending. I thought the ending made a nice change!

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

Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi – The end of the greatest story ever - and not in a good way

In 2015 we – us ‘Star Wars’ fanboys – finally got treated to more ‘proper’ Star Wars (and by ‘proper’ I mean with characters we actually cared about in a story set after the events of ‘Return of the Jedi’ rather than prequels or spin-offs). ‘The Force Awakens’ opened to almost completely positive reviews, most completely overlooking the fact that it was a thinly-disguised reboot of ‘A New Hope.’ Yes, I too enjoyed it, but never really went as far as to claim it was as good as many were making it out to be.

Now, ‘The Last Jedi’ opened to mega-praise by the critics, describing it was either ‘The best Star Wars film ever,’ or (at worst) ‘The best Star Wars film since The Empire Strikes Back.’ Then the audience reviews started rolling in and it seems they weren’t so impressed.  I can see why some people didn't like it.  If you never really grew up with 'Star Wars' in the seventies/eighties (and I should point out that I DID!) then you'll see this as a well-shot sci-fi action film and leave it there.  However, if - again, like me - you've been waiting nearly forty years to see your childhood heroes back in action, you may be slightly disappointed.

For those of us dying to see Luke, Han and Leia sharing the screen - we were robbed.  Han isn't in it (no spoilers as to why), so he's out right away and Luke and Leia only share one - kind of pointless - moment together.  Then, the characters themselves have been changed out of all recognition.  Luke is no longer a hero - just a bitter old man who threatens to kill people he disagrees with and gets beaten up at every turn by anyone weilding a stick.

It's the 'Daisy Ridley Show' now - she's presented as perfect in every way, even though her character never seems to have earned any of the powers she's gifted.  In 'The Force Awakens' she does at least have good on screen chemistry with John Boyaga and I was hoping to see that relationship develop further.  However, they're split up and he's sent on - possibly - the most pointless 'side quest' ever to be transferred to the big screen with an equally bland new character 'Rose Tico.'

Oscar Isaac is a great action and - again - shared good screen chemistry with Boyaga in the first outing. Again, their relationship is shelved in favour of him taking a dressing down by a new character with pink hair who now could well be the most annoyingly awful character in the 'Star Wars' universe (Jar Jar Binks, you've just been replaced).  Adam Driver was much more in sync with being the villainous Kylo Ren and clearly enjoying his beefed-up role, but without his mask now he's more just like an angry teen than a truly terrifying Vader wannabe. 

 
It's great to see Carrier Fisher, but, due to her unfortunate passing, she won't get to spend proper screen time with those who made the series so great.

The film looked brilliant and was a joy to watch – visually, but there's so much 'humour' (notice the quote marks?) which just felt out of place in a 'Star Wars' movie and more in line with an ‘Avengers’ movie.’ Then there's the length of the film itself.  It's long.  And not much of interest happens.  It's - technically - the slowest chase movie you'll ever watch.

However, I could almost overlook most of the above flaws if it wasn't for one thing - the story simply didn't make sense.  Things happened that didn't fit in with what was going on around them, or the greater 'Star Wars' law in general.  I know you could say it's all just a silly 'space wizard' tale, but all stories need rules and this one seemed to want to break every last one of them without a decent explanation.

'The Force Awakens' was cheap.  It was just a 'soft reboot,' but - for me - the inclusion of a (recognisable) Han Solo made it enjoyable for me.  Here, there's not an awful lot of 'Star Wars' that I can see - just a pretty, incomprehensible mess that spoils everything that's come before it.  This is - sadly - where I bail out on the franchise.  I don't really care what Episode 9 is like - it can't do anything to make up for the mess that's just come before it.

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

Star Wars: Episode VII The Force Awakens - The Force is still pretty strong with this one

Whether (or rather how much) you will like the latest Star Wars instalment (Episode VII: The Force Awakens) will largely depend on how old you are or how much you liked the original.  A lot of people hated the ‘prequels.’ I did, too.  But then I was born the year the first Star Wars came out and grew up through the eighties on the exploits of Han, Luke and Leia.  Therefore, when episodes I, II and III came out, they really couldn’t live up to the originals.  I felt – like many – that they relied too much on computer special effects and the characters were just two dimensional.

At least the prequels suitably lowered my expectations for what would come after the films I loved.  I’ll say that now I’ve seen Episode VII I’m actually quite pleased (or rather relieved that what came next wasn’t as bad as what came before).

A lot of people are calling Episode VII a ‘soft reboot.’ That’s largely because it follows what could be described as the original film’s ‘formula.’ Yes, there is certainly a feeling of de ja vu, but then when it’s based on Star Wars, is that such a bad thing?  Again, it’s at least better than the prequels.  It’s set thirty or so years after Return of the Jedi and we see where the Rebellion versus the Empire has gone.  What makes this better than the prequels is that it introduces new characters and links them (relatively seamlessly) with the old ones we know and love.  Plus there’s not as much CGI effects, or what there is blends better with the story and isn’t as noticeable.

The new characters have more of a job.  They’re young and naturally not as at ease with a project of this scale, but they do their best.  A few people have criticised them for their acting shortcomings, but I’m hopeful they’ll get better as the story goes on.  Luckily, the ‘old guard’ is on hand to help out.  Special mention to Harrison Ford who steps effortlessly back into the role of Han Solo.  A lot of people feared it would be Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull all over again, but the smuggler’s still got it where it counts (and Chewie is pretty cool, too).

Episode VII will appeal to the kids of today.  There are enough lightsabre-wielding role models for them to imitate in school playgrounds up and down the country and adults – like me – who grew up with the originals, should like it because it reminds them of what they once loved. 

It’s not perfect.  It has its flaws.  But then didn’t the original trilogy?  Who can forget loving the Ewoks when they were five years old, but now we see a bunch of teddy bears defeating the Emperor’s best Stormtroopers, we do tend to roll our eyes.  So, if you can see past the hype and that it’s actually a pretty decent attempt at recreating the magic of the originals, while at the same time not setting out to rip it to pieces, then you should definitely give it a go.  Even the roly-poly droid BB8 wasn’t as annoying as I thought he’d be (based on what I saw in the trailers!).

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

Star Trek: Beyond - An enjoyable little Trek

As a lifelong fan of the ‘Trek-verse’ I watched the trailer for ‘Star Trek: Beyond’ and was pretty underwhelmed.  There just didn’t seem to be anything really there that stood out.  Yes, I watched it pretty soon after the trailer for the Star Wars film ‘Rogue One’ which oozed drama and intrigue.  However, seeing as I own every other Star Trek film (yes, even the ‘odd’ numbered ones) I got this one too.

It’s written by Simon ‘Scotty’ Pegg who, interestingly enough, criticised the trailer for not accurately portraying his work and, upon seeing it, I was actually pleasantly surprised.  I suppose you have to look at it from two points of view.  It’s going to be watched by people who are die-hard fans of Trek and the casual movie-goer (for the record, I fall somewhere between the two camps).  If you’re a major fan then you’re going to get a lot more of the ‘in-jokes’ that stem from the original series and Trek-lore in general.  However, if you’re familiar with the films then you should be expecting something pretty special.  All Trek TV was – naturally – lower budget, therefore when it hit the big screen it needed to contain something really different. ‘Beyond’ only just about manages this.

Yes, it’s actually quite good fun, but there’s nothing really there to won, only entertain for a couple of hours.  Trekkies may be disappointed because they have different expectations from a Star Trek film.  However, if you’re just a casual fan of the show and/or movies in general and you’re looking for a fun, cheeky little piece to fill a couple of hours, you should find it here.  It has action, banter between the stars, some good set pieces and the obligatory romantic sub-plot.  What more could you require?

Stand-outs for me are Bones and Spock, who continually bicker like a pair of old ladies all the way through the film.  This is in keeping with their original incarnations and they really seem to thrive on it here.  Sadly, the great Idris Elba feels a bit underused as the bad guy and could have been so much more.

There’s an underlying sadness about the deaths of Leonard Nimoy and more recently Anton Yelchin which make this Trek outing a little more poignant than most, but you have to know about the off-screen history too to really notice that.

Ultimately, ‘Star Trek: Beyond’ is good fun.  It’s no ‘Wrath of Khan,’ but it’s certainly no ‘Final Frontier’ either.  And, if you don’t get that reference then I can say that if you kind of like light-hearted sci-fi/action then hopefully you’ll like this.  But, then again, I actually quite enjoyed ‘Into Darkness,’ so what do I know?

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

Star Trek Into Darkness - The posh of Khan

Star Trek: Into Darkness pretty much continues where the 2009 reboot took off. It's hard to imagine there are too many people watching Into Darkness who don't know what to expect. This film is very `JJ Abrams,' i.e. it's full of flashy computer special effects and even more flashy lens flares.

However, if you can look past the polish then you'll find that there's actually a pretty involving story behind it. The actors - once again - put in excellent performances, imitating their `older' incarnations perfectly (some even getting better the second time around - Simon Pegg as `Scotty' being the main improvement). There's plenty of room for character development as the film is over two hours long as Kirk and co take on John Harrison (aka a new British (?) `Khan') who has sworn to destroy the Federation.

You don't actually need to have seen the last big screen outing where Kirk and Khan squared off. However, if you have seen `Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan' then you'll probably enjoy watching how the `tangent universe' we're now watching, mirrors the old Star Trek universe.

The best thing about both new Star Trek films is that they both retain their `Star Trek feel,' even with updated special effects. You would probably never confuse these movies with any from the Star Wars franchise. The new Trek movies play to their strengths, rather than try to imitate Star Wars.

Perhaps the only criticism may be that `we've seen this all before.' But that would most likely be from those of us who watched the Star Trek films the first time round. Yes, some bits feel a little too recycled, but there's definitely enough that's original here to make this an excellent, high-budget action movie which should - hopefully - appeal to long-standing and new fans alike.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Star Trek (2009 reboot) - A great Trek (begrudgingly)

I have to confess to being one of those people who never thought they should `reboot' the original Star Trek franchise. William Shatner and co were so engrained in their respective roles that I didn't think anyone could fill their exact shoes (even if they were supposed to be their younger selves).

I was wrong.

Star Trek (XI) is undoubtedly the best of the franchise since The Wrath of Khan. If follows the early years of the most famous crew in sci-fi history. Yes, every actor nails his or her character (possibly with the minor exception of Simon Pegg as Scotty, but that's a minor gripe). Also, this isn't just `Star Trek The Early Years' - the story cleverly weaves in the old mythology - I won't say too much on that in case you're not aware of how it all plays out.

I will say that (if you can forgive JJ Abrams slightly overused `lens flare effects') it is the most exciting of all the Trek movies. There's plenty of action and decent special effects. It doesn't quite rival Star Wars - it seems to be able to maintain its `alternativeness' to the other great sci-fi franchise. It doesn't just breathe new life into the franchise (Star Trek X was a little disappointing), it makes `Trek' accessible to the masses. If you don't know your Tribbles from your Borg, it really doesn't matter - this starts everything again and you don't need to know the backstory - you only need to be in for a good, popcorn-munching, sci-fi ride.

May this franchise live long and prosper.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Star Trek: Nemesis - Not bad, but badly flawed

Like many Trek fans, I have mixed feelings about The Next Generation's final big screen outing. On the surface, it's actually a pretty good little film. It has action (quite a lot, actually), drama and a few lighter moments.

However, there's something about it that just leaves you (and me and the wider audience) a bit cold. I didn't notice the numerous similarities to (Trek II) The Wrath of Khan until I read other people's comments on the internet. My reasons for not looking at it as a classic are due to a lot of it not really making much sense. Despite listening to fans' criticism about Star Trek 9 being little more than a glorified TV episode, the film-makers have tried to go all out on the action front, but, while doing so, have left many glaring gaps in logic which don't ever get addressed. I heard a lot of the film was left on the cutting room floor in an attempt to speed it up and it certainly does come across as rushed.

If you like Trek (or at least the Trek films) you'll probably get at least some entertainment out of Piccard and co's last outing (Piccard and Data are - once again -the central characters. The others all get their moments, but most seems a little forced and the fight scene between Riker and a Romulan near the end seems simply added to remind viewers that he is also just as heroic as Piccard).

Perhaps its major flaw that most people who have watched it have almost loved it. And, in some ways, a film that could have been great, is worse than a film that is simply bad.

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

Star Trek: First Contact - The best `Next Generation' trek film, by far

Piccard and his crew didn't get as much (big) screen time as Kirk, so there's not that many other of his movies to compare First Contact to. However, it is definitely the best of all the next generation's filmic outings.

Possibly its greatest strength is that it can be watched by people with no prior knowledge of Star Trek lore. It's about a race of (effectively) space zombies, known as `the Borg' who travel back in time to take over Earth. Therefore Piccard and co must follow them back and teach `em not to mess with us earthlings.

What you have here is a fun, sci-fi adventure with plenty of action and space aliens. If you know Star Trek, you'll probably already have seen this one. However, my challenge goes out to all those out there who consider `Trek' to be the domain of spotty nerds in their mothers' basements - if you're in any way interested in sci-fi, try this one out with an open mind, you may get a pleasant surprise.
Note: I do happen to live in my mother's basement, but I don't speak Klingon.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Star Trek Insurrection - Good Trek - not so good film

It's been said many times that Star Trek 9: Insurrection, is little more than an extended TV episode. There's little more I can add to that. And, if you liked The Next Generation's small-screen outings, then you should enjoy this.

However, the films were always supposed to appeal to a wider audience, therefore they were expected to be bigger, bolder and louder. Plus Insurrection follows the excellent Star Trek 8: Fist Contact, which really took `Trek' in a new, more action-orientated direction. Therefore Insurrection always felt like a step backwards.

There's nothing wrong with this film, in fact, it's actually quite enjoyable. However, unless you're a die hard fan, you probably won't find it that interesting and there are certainly better Trek movies than this one.

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

Star Trek Generations  - Trek for everyone?

Star Trek (VII) `Generations' had the difficult job of trying to please everyone (or every `Trekkie' at least) by bringing together both Captains of the Enterprise in the same adventure, while, at the same time, not giving too much screen time to the more tried and tested filmic icon, James T Kirk, in favour of the Next Generation.

So, out went the bankable old crew and in came the untested marketing enigma of whether the Next Generation's success on the small screen would translate to the big screen. And it was made so. Just.
Star Trek lore tells that the even numbered films are better than the odds. And, when you compare to the previous `Undiscovered Country' (number 6) and the following `First Contact' (8), you may be inclined to agree.

Generations is not a bad film. It's definitely one of the better odd numbered Star Trek films, but it was hampered with the impossible mission of bridging the gap between old and new. It does its best. The small time the two Captains are together is good fun to watch, just woefully too short. But then again, it's supposed to be the new lot's film, not another James T Kirk affair. Also, back with Kirk, there were only really three main characters (Kirk, Spock and Bones). Since the Next Generation, every regular cast member has been given his or her own set of episodes, therefore all of them are - almost - given their own screen time. Unfortunately, most people only prefer the more interesting characters of Piccard and Data, meaning you have to put up with Beverly Crusher and Ryker at the same time.

Generations won't really win too many new fans over to the Trek Universe. It's more a labour of love. I don't know anyone who truly loves it. They sort of put up with it as a necessary bridging gap between old and new. It's not the best, but it certainly isn't the worse (films 5 and 9 get my vote on that one).

You probably need slightly more than a mild interest in Trek to really enjoy this.

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

Star Trek 6 - Undiscovered Country - A fitting send off for the old guard

Anyone who dares to admit to being into the Trek films will know of the theory regarding how the `even' number films are all a lot better than the `odd' number movies. So, here we have Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country and, as the theory goes, it is pretty good.

It's the last full feature film of the original (and now very old) cast and what better way that to duke it out with their old foes - the Klingons. There's less comedy than in Star Trek 4 and less banter than Star Trek 5, it's more a product of its time, set when the Federation are trying to make peace with the Klingons (and released in the cinema not long after the end of the Cold War). It tries - and doesn't quite make it - to be like second outing (The Wrath of Khan), i.e. pitting Captain Kirk against an opposite number/captain. It may not have the drama or suspense, but it is a good adventure which most people should enjoy.

In the wake of the reboot, I'm not sure how many new fans The Undiscovered Country will win over, but, for all of us who remembered the original cast, it's a great and fitting send off for those who have boldly gone for so many years.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier - The worst of the Trek films, but still not that bad

Most people who know about the Star Trek films feel that the fifth outing was the weakest of the series... and they're probably right. Nothing really fits for the big-screen. The villain isn't particularly villainous. The Klingon sub-plot is pretty lame. There isn't much action and there's never much of a feel of threat to the characters.

However, despite all that, the film isn't too bad. I look at as more as an extended episode of the TV show. The Enterprise gets taken over (rather easily in my opinion - it must have been the Security staffs' lunch hour or something) by some blokes wearing rags, lead by Spock's half brother (who should have been played by Sean Connery, only he turned the part down). Then, the ship is taken to the centre of the universe (which is apparently only a few hours journey away) in an attempt to meet God.

Since Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home had a lot of humour in it, it seems like they've tried to recreate a humorous atmosphere in number 5, too. However, it doesn't really work and take away what little tension there is for the situation. The banter between the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triangle is nice, but, again, it only serves to make this a light-hearted film that deals with serious subject matter.

William Shatner, aka Captain Kirk, also directs. And, to be fair, he doesn't do a bad job. Everything here is pretty standard stuff. It certainly won't win over many new fans to either the genre or the franchise. However, if you're a fan of the old crew and have an hour and a half to spare, there are worse sci-fi outings out there.

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

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home - A light-hearted `Trek'

For those of us who followed the Star Trek (film) saga from the beginning, it's hard to believe that `The Voyage Home' is really a follow-up to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The second outing was dark, brooding and brutal, whereas The Voyage Home is light, fluffy and even political.

The crew of the Enterprise (minus their ship - see III for what happened to that!) are on their way back to Earth when they find an alien probe is on the brink of destroying their planet in the search of whales it made contact with thousands of years ago. The only option - to Kirk anyway - is to travel back in time to present day, pick up a couple of humpbacks and then bring them back to the future to tell this annoying probe where to go.

Yes, you could also call Star Trek IV `Save the Whales.' However, the film is more than just a piece of animal rights propaganda. It never feels like it's stuffing its message down your throat (Avatar, see how it's done!) and it such an enjoyable ride that you really forget about the subtext.

It's probably the most widely-watched Star Trek film to date. People are sometimes turned off the franchise due to its `geeky' reputation. However, you don't need to know that much about the characters to appreciate it, nor do you have to sit through hours of space battles as ninety per cent of the film is set in present day Earth. It's the most `family-friendly' of the Trek movie and, whether you're a fan of the franchise in general or not, I would say that most people should be able to sit down and enjoy the ride.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock - The best of the `odds'

Anyone familiar with the majority of the Star Trek movies will know there's a train of thought where all the odd numbered films are somehow of a lesser quality to the even numbered ones. Therefore. Star Trek III: The Search For Spock, is somehow not as good as the other.

I disagree. Okay, it's not The Wrath of Khan (arguably the most highly-regarded of the original franchise), but then nor are any of the subsequent movies which followed. It is however, the sequel to The Wrath of Khan. With Spock dying at the end of the last film, there had to be some proper conclusions drawn from the sequel. And The Search For Spock does just that.

Taking a more modern example, it's like what Quantum of Solace is to Casio Royale in the James Bond franchise. It's basically the end half of Khan, showing us what happened next and tying up the loose ends that were left off regarding the `Genesis project.'

We have Kirk and crew at their most brazen: forcibly stealing the Enterprise and going where no man has been allowed to go before, i.e. into a restricted area of space to see if they can resurrect their fallen comrade. Not only that, this is the first (true) outing for the Klingons. Many people don't seem to like Christopher Lloyd's performance as the Klingon leader. Again, I have to disagree. Granted he didn't have much dialogue to work with, but he's a pretty nasty baddie, clearly enjoying slaughtering the goodies indiscriminately and most people will be happy to see the back of him.

Star Trek III may not be the greatest of them all, but if you like `Trek' in general and still pine for those golden days before JJ Abrams rebooted the whole lot, give The Search For Spock a go (and try not to dwell on the fact that he's really directing the whole show from behind the camera - boom boom).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - Ultimate Trek

While many will hail the 2009 Star Trek reboot as the best ever outing of the franchise, it may have the special effects and the adrenaline rush to even rival Star Wars, but, somehow, it doesn't have the sheer dark moodiness of The Wrath of Khan.

The second Trek film is helped by the fact that it follows a not particularly well-received first movie, therefore many considered that anything was a step up. However, the franchise seemed to step too far (where no man has gone before, perhaps?) and created a movie that has yet to be topped. Here we see Kirk up against an old foe from the TV series, genetically-engineers super psycho, Khan. It's a homicidal game of cat and mouse as they constantly chase and elude each other until they come to the ultimate climax - the death of one of the regular cast members (I'm sure you know which one!).

Whereas one of the Star Wars franchises main strengths is its sheer `mass appeal.' It's hard to find anyone who hasn't at least watched (and most likely enjoyed) one of the films. However, Star Trek will always carry more of a stigma about it and there are connotations of nerdy geeks wearing tight-fitting costumes at science-fiction conventions. That's the reason that, no matter how good a Trek film is, it's unlikely to win over many new fans.

The Wrath of Khan will always live as the fans' favourite, until you come to the next generation (of us fanboys, not the cast from the eighties) who may well choose the 2009 reboot.

If you like your sci-fi a little more moody and intense than simply a little pointy-eared green man talking backwards and then whacking a bloke in a cloak with a glowing stick, then you may just enjoy this, too.

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

Star Trek: The Motion Picture - The most underrated of the Star Trek franchise

Star Trek: The Motion Picture was Paramount Studio's attempt at cashing in on the Star Wars craze that was sweeping through the late seventies. However, instead of getting a fast-paced action romp, they got something more in tune with 2001: A Space Odyssey. Therefore, the first big screen Star Trek outing was always left in Star Wars' shadow. This, of course, was slightly rectified by the sequel (and darker and more action-orientated) The Wrath of Khan, but that's another story.

It's easy to see why Star Trek: The Motion Picture never set the box office alight, it's slow, very talky-talky, with lingering shots of things that you don't really know what they are and absolutely no action. However, that said, it's actually quite good (but only if you're in the mood).

If you're looking for something fast-paced then you should probably ignore most of the Star Trek saga and skip straight to the 2009 reboot. Whereas if you are a fan of slow-burning (and dare I say it?) `intellectual' science fiction then you might get something out of this.

Avatar it is not. Interesting it is. Although, it should probably have an `Eighteen Certificate' slapped on it - not because the content is particularly `adult' in nature, but simply because there's no way anyone under eighteen would ever appreciate it and have the patience to sit through it.

May the old crew live long and prosper.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation - Not as bad as some make out (but definitely not that good, either)

Fact: Everyone loved the first ‘Starship Troopers’ movie.  Face no 2: I made that first fact up.  However, it’s fair to say that a film about extremely good looking teenagers getting their brains sucked out was never destined for true critical acclaim or Oscar nominations, but it was pretty damn good fun anyway.

I suppose that’s what people were hoping with part II.  The problem was that, no matter how much fun Starship Troopers was, it never quite set the Box Office alight as the film-makers might have hoped.  Therefore, any sequel was destined never to have the budget of the original.  And here it really shows.

If you check out most of the reviews of ‘Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation’ you’ll see that most people absolutely hated it.  And, I can see where they’re coming from.  Firstly... the budget.  It doesn’t have one.  Any big dramatic set pieces you may recall from the first film have been replaced by a single set and a background of a sandstorm on an alien planet (largely to cover up the lack of ‘alien’ surroundings).  Then there are the actors.  You won’t have heard of any of them (okay, so you didn’t know Denise Richards before Starship Troopers, yet the calibre of actors seems better in the first film).  Then there’s the general change of tone.  Gone are the big, blazing gun battles and in their place a thin, lifeless plot about alien bugs who can get inside humans – again, largely to replace the need to make proper aliens as the bad guys and use regular actors instead.

All of the above is bad and yet I can kind of forgive it for.  I have actually watched Part II a few times.  Yes, it’s a B-movie and it’s not that good, but I can’t bring myself to totally hate it.  In my opinion... the worst flaw it contains is its repeated lack of logic.  It’s just badly written in places that totally spoils what could be (at least) a lesser compendium piece to the original.  You have plot devices that are just wedged in to forward the story and keep the main characters alive, even if what you see contradicts what’s happened just a few scenes before.

It’s hard to recommend Part II to anyone really.  Fans of sci-fi and B-movies in general will probably just find it lame.  Those diehard fans of the original will find this one blasphemy as it changes things around so much and, if you’re generally looking for an action movie, you’ll have seen a hundred better ones.  So, I guess the only people who will find something vaguely enjoyable out of it (like me!) are those who can forgive it its many flaws and limitations.  If you set your sights low enough, you may just find something entertaining here.  But don’t hold your breath.

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

Starship Troopers - A classic - on more levels that you may be bothered to think about 

Starship Troopers is set far in the future where our precious Earth is threatened by a race of giant ugly alien bugs. Therefore, we call upon our heroic young men and women of the mobile infantry to fly out into the vastness of space, wipe these aliens nasties out of existence and return triumphant.

That was the plot and the plan rolled into one.

You could be thinking that's it's just another mindless action film where annoyingly attractive men and women (who should really be models than soldiers) shoot swarms of CGI monsters. And it is. Only it is and it isn't. Yes, there are plenty of breath-taking action scenes where the computer effects actually work and it really does look like the monsters are there.

However, although Starship Troopers likes to come across as just another shoot-em-up film, it does have - believe it or not - some deeper meaning. It pokes fun at the media, propaganda and even allows us to catch a glimpse of a `utopian' future which is only one step away from fascist (check out the eerily similar Nazi uniforms the officers wear).

If you liked Robocop and the way it almost threw in some tongue in cheek social and political commentary with mindless action, then you should like this. And, if you're like me, you'll be repeating the slogans from the film for days to come... They'll keep fighting... and they'll WIN!!! 

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather