Ninja III: The Domination - The perfect cheesy eighties film

If ever someone was going to bury a time capsule for future generations in order to show them what an eighties movies looked like, I'm putting forward 'Ninja III: The Domination' forward as a suggestion.  I haven't watched the first two 'Ninja' outings (I must track them down!), but if they're half as good as 'Part III' then I'm in for a good time.

If you're expecting a deep and meaningful narrative with complex characters and deep story arcs then you're in for a major disappointment.  In fact, if you're simply looking for a 'good' film then you won't find it here.  This movie is comprised of only negative elements.  That's possibly why it's so damn awesome.

A ninja tries to assassinate an American politician, but, despite taking out possibly half of the CIA's workforce in the process, he's gunned down and killed.  Or so it seems.  Luckily, his spirit is trapped in his sword and is later found by a leg-warmer-clad beauty who then becomes possessed by his soul, picking up all his powers and then going out on a rampage of revenge on the poor boys in blue who ended his life.

There are no actors you'll probably know, but don't worry - everyone here does their best to elevate the cheesy script.  Calling their performances 'bad' would probably be a little disingenuous, as the director was equally inept and didn't seem able to draw much out of them.  There are plenty of fight scenes, but don't expect anything up to the levels of 'The Matrix' here.  Sometimes people will throw punches and you can see the hits don't connect, yet you still hear the sound effects and the victim falls backwards.  There's a sub-plot involving a love story between the lady-ninja and a police officer and it's as predictable as it comes.  A new character is thrown into the film at about the halfway point who feels like a different writer has suddenly taken over.  In any other film this may feel jarring, but here you just need to roll with the (fake) punches.

Like I say, this film is terrible - so terrible it's awesome.  I don't think film company Cannon hoped it would be laughably bad, but it is.  But that's what makes it so fun.  If you're looking for a film that is truly 'so-bad-it's-good' then you will definitely find it here.  I enjoyed every awful minute of it and will definitely track down all other films in the series.  Please may they be as bad as this.

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

Screamers - Fun but flawed little sci-fi film

Okay, there's probably no way I would ever have watched this, but, growing up in the eighties and being a big fan of 'Robocop,' I couldn't help but try and 'support' its leading man, Peter Weller, in whatever he chose to do after hanging up his metal suit.  Therefore, when I found 'Screamers' in the video store with his name on, I figured I'd give it a try.

I watched it the once.  Now, over twenty-five years later, I've decided to give it another go.  It would be fair to say that it left much of an impression on me.  The only thing I remember was that it was a science-fiction film set on a far away planet with metal things ('Screamers') that burrow under the ground and kill you.  Seeing as I've just watched it, I guess I can now say that there's more to it than just that.  But not an awful lot more.

The far away planet is in the midst of a civil war and there are more than just the underground little robot killing machines (which my girlfriend kept referring to as 'murderous moles!') to worry about.  So Weller must lead a rag-tag bunch of humans across the desolate planet (which is probably just a patch of desert in California) to try and discover the source of the new threat, or just escape - whichever comes first.

On my second (2021) viewing, I noticed in the opening credits that it was based on a story (which I haven't read) by the (hugely talented) Philip K Dick ('Total Recall' anyone?) and the screenplay adapted by Dan O'Bannon (the screenwriter of the almighty 'Alien').  Based on these two sci-fi heavyweights, I was surprised that it hadn't left more of an impression on me.

I won't go into any more detail as there are some elements that you might not see coming.  But at least I can see why I haven't revisited it for all this time.  It's just... okay.  It's a B-movie and, for what it is, it does it's best.  It doesn't have the budget, nor the actors (sorry, Peter, you'll always be the 'true' Robocop) and some bits don't really make sense.  There are some nice sets here and there, but the special effects seem to be very 'hit and miss.' They're either actually pretty good, or laughably bad.  Although it is nice to see a film that doesn't rely completely on computer-generated effects and greenscreens.  It's no 'Robocop, Alien, or 'Total Recall,' however, if you're in a forgiving mood and you just want a slice of B-movie, sci-fi fun - it'll kill an hour and a half of your time.  Just don't expect to remember much about it in twenty-five years time.  I sure didn't.

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

Troy (Director's Cut) - Epic swords & sorcery (just with the sorcery edited out)

I did watch the original version of 'Troy' in the cinema when it first came out and it was pretty good.  I really enjoyed it and it was definitely a film I'd watch again.  However, when it came to buying it on DVD I found the 'director's cut.' Normally, when one of these is released you get a few extra minutes added in here and there - so few that you either have to be a mega fan and know every line, or you simply just don't notice.  Not here.

The director's cut of 'Troy' contains whole epic action sequences and sub-plots which were - for some reason - not included in the theatrical release.  I can only assume that the studio behind the film assumed that it was too long and less people would want to sit through it.  Personally, I think it's much better this way.

I was always a little confused at how 'Troy' seems to have been rather overlooked and as forgotten with the sands of time as it's central character, Achilles (Brad Pitt), fears he may well become.  The movie never really got the praise I feel it deserves.  I wonder whether that was to do with most people only knowing about the theatrical cut with so much left out.  For the record, I even here that this cut could have been longer, as the original story 'Troy' is based on contains the gods watching down on what humanity is doing to each other (in a kind of 'Clash of the Titans' kind of way).  

Now, since vaguely looking up 'Troy' on the internet, I do hear that there are some purists who are well into their Greek mythology who claim that the film doesn't do the story justice.  I must confess that I have never read the source material, so I really can't compare the two.  But I know that I like this.

It's an epic tale of how Greece went to war with the - so far - unconquered city of Troy.  Greece has Achilles and Troy has Hector (Eric Bana).  And they're fighting over naughty little Orlando Bloom (Paris) and his affair with Helen of Greece (not Helen of Troy!).  That's only a few of the familiar faces you'll find among the cast.  You don't just have the sweaty biceps of Pitt and Bana, but also acting heavyweights Sean Bean, Peter O'Toole and Brian Cox.

I know it's kind of long, so I guess that may put some people off watching it.  And, if you're desperately looking for a realistic interpretation of what the original story was like, this perhaps isn't it.  However, if you're into a 'historical' tale told with a modern (and fantastic!) cast, awesome action scenes and a story that is as old as time, then definitely give this one a go.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Die Hard 2 - Surprisingly good sequel

It's terms of action films, I think it's fair to say that the original eighties 'Die Hard' was a 'classic.' It seemed to have everything from the cast, to the obligatory action, but also a great villain, snappy dialogue and a real sense of claustrophobic tension.  I doubt those who made it really had that high hopes for it, so when it performed so well a sequel was green-lit pretty quickly.  And we all know what happens when a sequel is rushed out!

But not in this case. 'Die Hard 2' (despite its uninspired name!) is actually pretty damn good.  Okay, so if I had to compare it to the original, its predecessor would win hands down every time, but it certainly is a worthy sequel and one to add to your collection.

I suppose the main aspect of the first 'Die Hard' was that it was one man, police officer John McClane (Bruce Willis) all on his own, trapped in a tower block filled with hostile terrorists.  I guess it would be a little too much of a stretch for the imagination to have that happen to him a second time.  Therefore, things do work a little bit differently here.  This time round it centres on Washington airport and a group of terrorists who have taken control of the air traffic control system and are threatening to crash one plane after another unless their demands are met.

Because McClane is now part of a 'team' (who range from inept police officers, to tech guys, janitors and special forces) - technically - he has the opportunity to simply walk away from the dangerous situation at any time.  Yes, I know his wife is on one of the planes, giving him a vested interest in seeing them land safely.  But it's this difference between the two films which removes the sense of claustrophobia which the first movie possessed.

However, like I say this doesn't make it any the less action-packed and a definite watch for anyone who can appreciate the 'excess' of actions movies back in the eighties and nineties, to fan of Bruce Willis when he actually seemed to care about the films he was in.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one