Critters Attack (2019) - Should have done better

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lucky Number Sleven (but in the desert)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ouija (2014) - The definition of mediocre horror

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donnie Brasco - The ultimate 'slow burn'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swingers - If Goodfellas was comedy...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survivor (2015) - The Bourne survivor

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

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

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

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

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

Survivor - I nearly didn’t survive this

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

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

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

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

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

Surveillance – Darkness runs in the family

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

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

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

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

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

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Surrogates - Competent little sci-fi number

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

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

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

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

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

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

Super Mario Bros - Go goomba!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Superman Returns - Not that bad, but not that good

Superman fans waited what seemed like a long time to see their lycra-clad hero back in action.  Then they got this.  In a world filled with reboots and remakes you have to give the film-makers credit for actually daring to make a sequel to the original Christopher Reeves quadrology.  According to ‘Superman Returns’ the ‘Man of Steel’ went back to his home planet for five years and has only just got back.  Of course now he looks slightly different (like Brandon Routh to be precise), but obviously acts exactly like Reeves and his portray of the character.

It certainly feels like part of the original set of films, but, for some reason, it just doesn’t work so well now.  Perhaps cinema goers are more used to heroes who have a ‘darker’ background and general and outlook on life.  Routh’s Superman is totally squeaky clean and people are probably just getting a little tired of the fact that he can change his clothes and put on a pair of glasses, therefore rendering him completely undetectable to everyone (including those who know him best).  The Christopher Reeves movies were campy and you could kind of ignore things like that.  I think people now desire a little more realism and it’s hard to take it all seriously.

Kevin Spacey adds some noteworthy prestige to the story, playing Superman’s arch nemesis Lex Luthor.  However, despite being an actor as talented as Spacey, he’s not really given that much to do.  He’s not that threatening and, seeing as he’s only a human, you know he has to get his hands on some of the mythical mineral from Superman’s homeworld, Kryptonite, in order to really threaten the titular hero.  Luthor has a plan which revolves around creating a new land mass, which will basically destroy the continent of America in the process.  He doesn’t really have an army, nor the means to defend his new homeland, making his whole plot a little ridiculous.

The special effects are okay and obviously they’ve been cranked up since the eighties – including the (seemingly mandatory) CGI effects for the set pieces.

I think the best part of the film is the music.  It’s taken straight from the original films and when it starts to play, it does feel like you’re right back in the eighties.  I guess this only applies to people of a certain age (like myself!) to get this one.

‘Superman Returns’ isn’t bad.  It’s just about twenty years too late o be relevant.  It kind of gets overshadowed by all the other – far superior – superhero movies currently on offer.  I’m guessing it will probably be more forgiven by those of us who still like the originals and it will probably keep young boys happy on a Saturday afternoon.  Otherwise, the modern generations will only really like ‘Superman’ through his newly-rebooted persona as ‘The Man of Steel.’

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