The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023) - It grew on me

I don't know whether it's a sign that Hollywood is truly out of ideas in that they've made a film - effectively - about a couple of throwaway pages from the classic horror novel 'Dracula,' but seeing as it's quite good (eventually) I'll let this one slide.

If you haven't read the book (or seen the pretty damn awesome 1992 film) then you may not know that the blood-sucking Count starts off in Eastern Europe and comes to London to continue his thirst.  He gets there via boat - the Demeter to be precise.  Although the book never really dwells on this voyage, now we see what - apparently - transpired.

What you get is a pretty standard 'monster-munching' movie.  If you didn't know it was part of the novel then you probably wouldn't really be missing much, but for those of us who knew the book, there are some nice touches here and there which keep it in line with 'cannon' so to speak.  The bunch of sailors are gradually picked off by... well, you probably know who.  Then throw in a kid plus a female stowaway who kind of plays the same part as the woman ('Anna') in 'Predator' to give the hapless men on board an insight into what lurks below deck and you have a pretty standard affair.

It was a bit slow to start with, but once the bodies started piling up (and sometimes burning up!) it was actually pretty good.  You don't see too much of the Count/monster throughout most of the film with the movie using the 'less is more' approach to showing off the creature.  The gore is nothing special, but it's a nice claustrophobic atmosphere and the fact it's set in yesteryear adds a nice touch.

If you fancy another movie about a creature ransacking its way through a cast of disposable meat sacks, you can do worse than this - especially as it seems to be available on various streaming services.

/10

The Canterville Ghost (1996) - Does this really exist?

I confess to fast forwarding the credits to this film at the very beginning, so I had no idea who was in it.  I'm a general fan of horror/supernatural tales, so I was happy to give this one a go (simply because I found it in the relevant genre on a streaming service) and I noticed it was by none other than Oscar Wilde. Besides the film of his life starring Stephen Fry, I don't really know an awful lot about him, besides he was an author/poet.  The one thing I definitely didn't know was that he wrote ghost stories!  Therefore I definitely wanted to check this one out.

Surprise number one: Neve Campbell.  Naturally, my love of horror extends to the 'Scream' franchise, yet I've barely seen her in much else.  She's the 'star' here (the quote marks are because - technically - she's the main character, if not the most well-known (at the time of filming).  And she's decent enough.  As I don't know much about the source material, I don't know how faithful this adaptation is.  It's about an American family who move into a haunted mansion in jolly ol' England.  She's the teenage daughter who longs for her home in the U.S. and yet comes to find various reasons to stay.

Surprise number two: When the (main) ghost appears I could have sworn I'd seen him somewhere before.  The long dark hair he sported fooled me for a while until the voice clearly gave him away as none other that Patrick Stewart.  As well as not knowing who was in this film, I also had forgotten which year it was made.  I had a weird feeling that it was so low budget there was no way they could afford Patrick Stewart after he became a household name in 'Star Trek: The Next Generation.' I was wrong.  I'm guessing he was looking to be known for other things apart from captaining a starship and wanted to get his teeth into this.

Overall, it's not a bad - if completely predictable - film.  Like I say, I don't know how faithful the story (and especially the dialogue - which did seem a bit cheesy at times, even when delivered by decent actors like Stewart and Campbell).  Either way, it all feels a bit 'made-for-TV' and I'm not sure how much will stick with me, other than the novelty of seeing the random pair of stars together.

5/10

Scared to Death (1980) - Yeah, it's a movie

First of all, I know it's petty - but the title.  We all know you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, so you shouldn't base your opinion on a film's title.  But 'Scared to Death' sounds more like some psychological horror or slasher film.  It's not.  It's a 'monster munching' movie, more akin to a (low budget!) 'Alien' rip-off.

Anyway, there's a monster rampaging round an American city, murdering hapless extras and the police are baffled until a local private detective teams up with the obligatory love interest to save the day.

There's not an awful lot to say about the film.  As I mentioned, it's set on Earth, therefore there are no outstanding science fiction sets to speak of.  The acting and dialogue is passable at best and there's really nothing you haven't seen before if you're a fan of the genre.

I will mention I actually quite liked the creature itself.  It reminded me of something out of the mind of HR Giger (who actually designed the xenomorph from 'Alien'), but it's ruined by budget constrains preventing it from being particularly well animated in its facial movements, making it end up like just a man in a rubber suit from a 70s 'Dr Who.'

If you really want to watch yet another 'monster movie' then there are definitely worse.  It's not offensively bad, but it's not great either, relying on long scenes of victims quietly walking around deserted places before ultimately meeting their doom.  Even fast forwarding them until the kill itself made the film drag.  Just watch 'Alien' or 'Species.'

Oh, and there's a bit which made me laugh and think they ripped off 'The Terminator.' Then I realised this film was made four years before that classic.  So, er, fair play to 'Scared to Death' for beating James Cameron to the punch on that one!

4/10

Seed People (1992) - Discount Bodysnatchers

Have you ever seen that old black and white 'Invasion of the Bodysnatchers' film?  That was a classic.  Or did you watch the seventies remake?  That was cool, too.  Or, perhaps you've seen one of the numerous clones where aliens start replacing humans with identical copies?   Well... if you've only seen one of those, I'm going to hazard a guess that any of them was better than 1992's 'Seed People.'

I've kind of already summed up what little plot there is.  Aliens, in pod form, come to Earth and start replacing the humans in a small backwater American town with emotionless clones.  

The story is kind of told in retrospect as the protagonist is hospitalised right at the beginning and recounting the events of the film to a Government official.  Besides kind of giving away much of the ending right at the start, it kind of breaks the tension when it keeps returning to the 'present' at various times during the story.

There's really not much else to say.  It has a real 'made for TV' feel - if you like this kind of science fiction then watch either the original 'Bodysnatchers' film or the seventies remake.  In fact... even that one with Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig is more worth your time than this.  

I have to confess in actually quite liking the 'monster design,' but then I grew up with seventies and eighties 'Dr Who' so I have a soft spot for silly rubbery monsters that you can practically see the seams in the costume!  Although it's hard to believe that 'special' effects can look this decidedly UNspecial a year after 'Terminator 2' with its genre-changing effects came out.

5/10

Mickey 17 (2025) - Good fun, despite its flaws

I didn't know that much about 'Mickey 17' and only really saw it because the other half has a thing for Robert Pattinson.  I've mainly only seen him in the 'Twilight' franchise, but, every other time he's popped up in something I've watched, I have to admit that he's shed his 'twinkly' former self and is actually quite a good actor.

Anyway, here we find him in a bit of a dystopian future where mankind have the option to board giant spaceships bound for far away planets where they can colonise.  And, because poor ol' Mickey doesn't have much in the way of 'skills' required for such a mission, he signs up to be an 'expendable.' This means he's the one sent on all the most deadly missions and if (or should I say when?) he dies, they simply reprint a copy of him the next day - they can do that, by the way.

Personally, I really enjoyed 'Mickey 17' as it's actually a lot funnier than I thought it would be (at first I thought it might be a horror, or at least a 'Starship Troopers-esque' action sci-fi film.  Robert Pattinson is easily the main draw and elevates the film to be more than it otherwise might as well have been.  His on screen presence carries the 'slower' portions of the story.  Which brings me on to pacing. 'Mickey 17' - like so many modern films - could probably lose about twenty minutes of their overall runtime and be all the better for it.  The movie does drag in a few places, but the major flaw is the film's villains.  Mark Ruffalo and Toni Collette are both good actors, but they're so over-the-top and comic they feel like they belong in a kids' movie.  Plus, I'm not really into politics and would rather my entertainment also didn't remind me of all the worst things in the real world, but even I picked up on the - not particularly subtle - similarities to a certain famous/infamous politician.

But, luckily, I found the film was quirky and fun enough to ignore the flaws and I could occasionally tune out when it dragged a bit.  Overall, a nice little film - probably not a classic, but definitely worth a watch (especially when it comes to streaming if you're unsure as to whether you want to pay full price at the cinema).

8/10

Robowar (1988) - Should Predator sue?

Okay, I get that there are few original stories these days and most films we see are 'inspired' by previous films.  Some even go as far as to be called 'rip-offs' and yet even those probably have more originality than 'Robowar.' Now, 'Predator' was a massive success a year before this was released in 1988 and it still holds up to this day.  After it hit the big screen there was a rise in 'monster movies' - many paying homage to Schwarzenegger's classic. 'Robowar' is something else.

Within the first few minutes I thought to myself, 'Huh, reminds me a bit of Predator.' Soon I realised the film-makers have borrowed the entire set-up of 'Predator.' Half an hour in the scenes from 'Predator' have been recreated (only with a much smaller budget) and by the halfway mark it was almost directly lifting dialogue.

It was about then that I gave up.  If the film was more 'self knowing' and played for laughs (the way 'Hot Shots' spoofed 'Top Gun' and 'Scary Movie' imitated 'Scream') then this might have worked, but it was made as if it should be taken seriously.

I would say that the studio behind 'Predator' should sue for blatantly ripping them off, only I doubt 'Robowar' made more than a few dollars at the Box Office or on DVD, so there really isn't any point.

Maybe watch it for the Dolph Lundgren lookalike who wears a crop top.  I couldn't take him seriously after that.

2/10

Grave Secrets (1989) - What a slog

Holy moly, was this hard to get through.  I have to confess to watching it in two parts and, by the time I'd got round to watching the second half, I'd pretty much forgotten what had gone on before.  I decided to start again from the beginning until I realised that nothing much of any interest had happened and I could just skip back to the midway point where I'd originally left off.

It feels like one of those 'made-for-TV' movies based off a Stephen King story that seemed to be very popular in the eighties.  Those weren't very good - and yet they were head and shoulders over this offering.  It's about a woman who's troubled by a ghost and, seeing as the 'Ghostbusters' were obviously way too busy to help out, she enlists the help of a college professor with an interest in the paranormal.

And, er, that's about it for the most part.  Almost nothing happens until about ten minutes before the end.  The characters are ugly (meow!) and they do quite dumb things.  It looks like the film-makers put everything into one make-up scene a few almost passable special effects right at the end.  But that was way too little too late to make this worth sitting through.

3/10

The Monkey (2025) - Great fun!

Stephen King's book adaptations have always been a bit of a 'hit or miss' affair (and I've watched pretty much all of them since the eighties!), but, within the first five minutes of 'The Monkey' I could tell this was going to be up there with the best of them.

The premise is simple - there's a possessed child's toy (oh, wait, I probably shouldn't refer to it as a 'toy' - it really doesn't like that!) shaped like a monkey and, if you dare wind it up, someone will end up the worse for wears - fatally.

Now, King being the horror author he's mainly known for one of your first questions may be, 'Is it scary?' My answer would be a definite 'no.' It's too much of a black comedy/horror to really be that sinister.  There is some nice gore here and there which may make your stomach turn slightly, but the film is mainly played for laughs and delights in making fun of horror tropes.

I don't really want to say too much about the film.  I heard various online film reviewers giving it 'middling' reviews, so I wasn't expecting that much.  However, I'd say it's up there with the best King movie adaptations - if you have tongue firmly in your cheek then this is definitely a great time and I'm going to be tracking it down when it comes out on DVD.

8/10

Army of One (2020) - Should have been a parody

There's nothing wrong with a good 'revenge movie.' They've been around longer than I have and I'm guessing one of the first that brought the genre into the mainstream was 'Death Wish' in the seventies.  There, a man lost his family to thugs and - you guessed it - took revenge (the fatal kind).

Here we have a man and a woman fall foul of some local hillbillies in the middle of nowhere.  Let's just say the husband doesn't last long and his wife is left for dead - big mistake.  For what the locals don't realise is that she's a trained soldier who has the skills to make their lives a lot shorter.

Now, I know that to enjoy most movies you have to 'suspend your disbelief.' No one really believes aliens exist or superheroes are really flying about the place.  For reasons that I guess are my own, I can enjoy superheroes and aliens without any bother, but the sight of a very slim young woman maiming her way through a small army of giant bodybuilders is a step too far.

The bad guys - well, they're just bad.  You've never seen a more one-dimensional bunch of nondescript flesh-bags than this lot.  If you've killed a bad guy during a video game, he was probably more 'fleshed-out' than any of this lot.' And they're dumb.  And by dumb I mean painfully dumb.  They have a hundred and one times to get rid of this - seemingly indestructible - woman and don't, only to give her back the upper hand a scene or two later.

It just gets worse.  Or better - if you look at it in terms of how much fun you can take out of its absurdity.  The skinny little woman/hero puts grown me in 'sleeper' holds and then takes out two at a time.  And so on.  If she had superpowers (ala Wonder Woman or Trinity) it wouldn't be a problem 'in universe,' but she just looks so out of her depth when the stunt men have to throw themselves about the set to try and maintain the illusion that they're getting beaten up.  

This could have worked - as a parody (or just give her superpowers), but the fact that the film-makers try and pass this off as 'realistic' is too much for me to actually believe.  It becomes so stupid it's laughable.

4/10

Death Club (2023) - Just don't bother

Oh, dear, this is pure 'content' for content's sake. A streaming service needed yet another forgettable horror film to fill the category and this one got spewed into the mix.

It's so not worth anyone's time there's not that much to say about it.  Five of the most annoying twenty-somethings decide to break into a - now long since closed - nightclub one evening to 'party.' The club was haunted - they'll not have the night they were expecting.

There you go - I've summed it up so you won't have to waste your time watching it.  You won't have to see five of the most annoying characters ever committed to film be totally unlikable and you won't have to see when things start to go bad for them.  

Some films are 'slow burners.' It was because of this I managed to stick to the end.  I wish I hadn't.  There's no pay-off.  The whole film is cheap and pointless.  

The only thing I will say is that if you decide to watch it, probably best to start it around the half hour mark.  You'll have missed nothing and will be able to pick up what's happening immediately.

Oh, it does have one 'plus point' - it's quite short.  But even though it is only just over an hour, it's still an hour of your life you won't get back.

2/10

Cocaine Bear (2023) - I wanted to like this more

I told someone I'd just watched 'Cocaine Bear' and they asked me what it was like.  I kind of pulled a face and said, 'It's okay.' I could leave it there, but I'll do my best to explain my reasons.

I love cheesy, low-brow entertainment and the title of this film should give me everything I want (i.e. it's right up there with 'Snakes on a Plane).  The premise of a wild bear, accidentally ingesting an entire block of illegal substances and then going on a murderous rampage is a recipe for sheer stupid dumb popcorn fun.  And it is... sort of.

It never seems to want to commit to its (natural?) stupidity.  There are far too many characters all pursuing their own goals and not enough bear on smack.  I get it - the budget wasn't that big and computer generating a realistic-looking animal is hard to make believable at the best of times, let along when you're trying to make it look like it's indulging in certain human vices.  So the bear probably isn't in it as much as most people would like it to be.

That's a drawback, but if the humans were funnier then that would be something.  But the writers seem to feel the need to try and weave in deeply dramatic moments with meaningful character arcs.  All well and good in more of a serious film, but here they just aren't necessary.

I've got so many black comedy horror films in my DVD collection that, if I was in the mood for something in this genre I'd put one of them on rather than watch 'Cocaine Bear' again.  But if I was on a plane and there was nothing else to watch, this definitely isn't so bad that it's impossible to sit through again - and take enjoyment in the enjoyably daft scenes.

6/10

The Russian Bride (2018) - Difficult to pigeonhole

I found 'The Russian Bride' on a streaming service among the 'horror' category and, seeing as I'm a fan of the genre, I eventually got round to watching it.  I guess the hardest part of reviewing it is trying to describe whether it is a 'true' horror or not.

A reclusive billionaire imports a Russian woman (and her daughter) to marry and then live with him in his mansion in America.  The setting definitely works with the 'horror genre' as it's a creepy mansion in the middle of nowhere, pretty much cut off from the rest of the world - and it's filled with weird and unsettling trinkets and members of staff.  So you know something bad is going to happen - and it does.

However, to go too deeply into the 'horror' element will be giving away spoilers and, although this film is hardly a classic, there was enough here to keep me interested in finding out where it was going.

It's a slow burn, but I found it worth the wait for the more 'explosive' final act and definitely thought it's better than a lot of films I've found on streaming services.  It won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I'd actually probably have enjoyed it less if I knew where it was going and the fact that I didn't know what the film's 'gimmick' was that kept me invested.

6/10

Heart Eyes (2025) - A love story (with some severed bodyparts)

'Heart Eyes' is a romantic comedy.  Fact.  It's effectively a film that follows that tried and tested formula where 'boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back again.' And it's released in mid February to capitalise on the Valentine's audience.  So, nothing new to see here, right?

Wrong.

There's a maniac serial killer on the loose who really couldn't have got enough hugs as a toddler from his mummy, as he really doesn't like seeing couples in love (through his - kind of cool - red, heart-shaped night vision eye-goggles!).  He's been moving from city to city, causing people to be too scared to go out and celebrate Valentine's Day.  Now he's in Seattle.

Which is where we meet our 'will they/won't they' couple.  And they quickly find they're due one hell of a Valentine's Date to remember when they find themselves his latest target and have to flee across the city.

So, it's really your standard 'slasher' affair?  Yes.  Well, no.  Or at least not really.  It's a rom-com which plays out for just long enough for you to lower your guard.  Because every time you do, the killer pops up.  Props to the writer as the between the two main leads is sharp and they play off each other will (an obvious positive for a couple supposed to be falling for each other).  Plus the plot has enough red herrings, so it does fit in that 'Scream' mould where you're asking yourself who's behind the mask?

I've seen so many slasher films that most blend into one.  And yet I'm sure I haven't seen one which worked a love story into a blood bath.  For that, I give it major props and it was great fun to watch.  Ending dragged just a little, but the overall experience wasn't let down by that.

7/10

Mechanic: Resurrection (2016) - Statham does the job

Some people say that the golden age of action movies was the eighties with Schwarzenegger and Stallone, but then came the nineties with the less bodybuilders and more explosions and special effects. 'Mechanic: Resurrection' sits somewhere between them.  In fact... it sits in a lot of middle ground.

Over the years Jason Statham has proved himself quite a competent leading man when it comes to crunching bad guys' heads together in stylish action scenes.  Some of his action films have become some of my favourites, while other are - even for a fan like myself - a bit 'meh.'

This time round the Stath has to kill three hard-to-reach murderers, or the big boss will execute Stath love interest (this time Jessica Alba).  The film does the job... just.  In the scale of Jason Statham action films this one sits dead centre.  There's nothing particularly wrong with it - there are beautiful locations, nice set pieces and the fight scenes are choreographed well.  Plus there's not too much greenscreen or computer-generated special effects (but a few backgrounds in - presumably - the 'pick-up' shots do stand out.

Naturally, there are plenty of disposable baddies to shoot along the way and you'll have to suspend your disbelief when he takes out hordes of faceless goons, especially when Statham uses a rubber dingy to hide behind (and it saves him from heavy machine gun fire).

Basically, if you like Jason Statham and his slightly over-the-top modern action movies then this one should be up for a watch especially if you find it on streaming services.

6/10

Fright Night Part 2 (1980) - Less of the same

Despite my love of all things 80s horror-related, I never really 'got' the original 'Fright Night.' I know it's regarded as a classic of the genre and has a massive fan-base, so who am I to say whether it's good or not.  However, despite multiple viewings, at best I'd describe it as 'okay.' So my hopes weren't really high when it came to the sequel.

And, if I had to sum it up I'd say 'stuff happens.'

It's kind of more of the same, but seemingly less so.  The original protagonist (Charlie) has grown up (slightly) and - unsurprisingly - no one believes him that he and a famous TV presenter once killed a load of suburban vampires.  Naturally, things take a turn for the worst and shake up his 'post vampire' life when the sister of the original bloodsucker decides to come after him for some revenge.

The trouble is I never found either entry scary enough to be considered 'horror' and definitely not 'funny' enough to be comedies.  Yes, they're certainly campy, but this one seems to take even longer to get going.  I was basically very bored, although the last fifteen minutes (i.e. final confrontation) was pretty fun and definitely had some creative gore/practical effects to entertain.  It just all seemed too little too late.  I guess if you really enjoyed the original (and I know plenty of people did!) you'll probably appreciate this one, as the most important cast members reprise their roles.  Still didn't work for me though.

4/10

Companion (2025) - Really good fun

I don't know whether it's just that I've been starved of good movies lately at the cinema, but I really enjoyed 'Companion.' Yeah, I know some people have said it's kind of like an extended episode of 'Black Mirror' and that it's 'message' is a bit blatant - and they could be right.  But it's still great in a pure entertaining kind of way.

Although the exact year is never revealed, it's fair to say that it's set in the near future where artificially intelligent robots and self-driving cars are commonplace.  I never saw the trailer before I watched this and I saw a couple of YouTube reviews critisising the trailer for giving away too much of what was to come.  I'm glad I never saw any of these trailers as I enjoyed not actually knowing the exact details of what was coming.  But I can basically say that the plot centres around the 'dangers' of artificial intelligence and humanity's relying on it for company - with deadly results.

Everyone plays their parts well.  I didn't know any of the actors in the leads, but they all seemed to be having fun and embracing their roles.  I guess some people might say there aren't too many characters you'll feel like rooting for, but the sheer fun/entertainment value of the film allowed me to overlook any minor flaws.  I'm sure there are probably a few plot elements you could pick apart if you wanted to be really critical, but - I say again - don't think too hard, just enjoy it for what it is.

If you don't feel like paying full price for a cinema ticket to watch it, definitely try and track it down when it comes to whatever streaming service you have - it's a black comedy/horror with some social commentary that is worth at least an hour and a half of your time.  Don't dwell on it's 'social commentary' too much, just enjoy the lively script and grisly fun as it shows us a worrying future that may not be too far away.

8/10

City of the Living Dead (1980) - Don't be fooled

As a die-hard zombie fan I'm well aware of how the '...of the living dead' part of the original film's title was no longer allowed to be used, hence the franchise kind of branched off in two different directions.  Either way, I also knew 'City of the Living Dead' was not cannon in whichever series of undead ghouls.

However, I figured that at least it would have some sort of redeeming story which - loosely - acted like it was - maybe - in the same universe as one of the other films.  Heck, I'd settle for a coherent story!

I've checked other reviews and it appears that it really is a cult classic and has many fans who love it.  I guess I just didn't 'get' it.  I found it boring and a right mess with no real story to speak of.  I gathered it was something to do with stopping the dead from rising on Halloween, or something.

If you're expecting hordes of zombies terrorising humans, you'll be disappointed.  The walkers do show up from time to time, but it's in ones and twos - no crowds.  If it had one good point it was the gore.  There are some pretty gruesome practical effects which deserve praise for their horrific realism.

But that wasn't enough for me.  I just found it boring.  Personally, I'll stick to Romero's movies (and the 'spin off' living dead series.  Oh, and was it just me or does 'City of the Living Dead' borrow some of the music from George A Romero's films?

5/10

Nosferatu (2024) - Guess it wasn't for me

There are many film reviewers on YouTube and I doubt anyone bothers to watch them all when deciding whether to go to the cinema and watch the latest movie.  Me - I have two or three 'trusted' reviewers who, over the years, I've come to find their tastes in movies align with my own pretty faithfully.  In short - I trust their opinions.  And all three gave 'Nosferatu' glowing reviews.  This, coupled with my general love of horror films, made me buy my popcorn and take my seat.

Now, you'll have to forgive me for not know too much about how this vampire story came to be, but I believe that it was a deliberate attempt to 'retell' the story of 'Dracula' but the film-makers (in the original and to this day) weren't allowed to use the character names and settings etc.

I really enjoyed 1992's 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' and, to put it bluntly, I just felt like I'd rather watch that.  I never realised that 'Nosferatu' stuck so closely to the plot of 'Dracula.' Ultimately, what you have here is a beat for beat 'remake' (with a different ending).  Therefore, nothing really took me by surprise as I knew where it was going 90% of the time.

To be fair, it's filmed well and the sets and general atmosphere are nicely creepy.  Plus the actor who plays... oh, whatever they call Dracula in this film, does a great job, so there are definitely plus points.

I just found the whole concept of this film redundant as it felt like a poor copy/remake of the 1992 classic.  I didn't hate it, but if I'd know this was all it was going to be I'd rather have just put on my DVD of 'Dracula' and saved myself the petrol.

5/10

Terror Train (1980) - Nothing new here

I know 'slasher' films were - relatively - new back in 1980 and yet 'Terror Train' seems so outdated, it's like it's copied every cliche from the genre it possibly could.

It's one of those 'who's the killer' type movies where the murderer is masked at all times to keep both the characters and audience guessing.  This time the killing spree is taking place on - you guessed it - a train with a load of drunken partying teens.

Perhaps the worst - or most annoying - thing the story does is have the killer just walk up to the soon-to-be victim and say nothing, therefore the victim just assumes the killer is just a friend in a mask and talks to them for longer than any normal person would before ultimately meeting their doom.  It's a frustrating watch.  I know we all yell at the screen from time to time in order to shout instructions to the idiots in the movie, but here everyone is just so dumb it's actually hard to watch.

There's no real gore here and you won't care about any of the characters (the lead girl annoyed me from her constant screaming!) and by the time the killer is revealed, you've probably already checked out.

If you like early eighties slasher films, the worst 'Friday 13th' entry is better than this.  Otherwise any of the 'Scream' franchise is head and shoulders over this train wreck.

4/10

Spawn of the Slithis (1978) - Could have been worse

Seen 'Jaws?' Probably.  Either way, it kind of started a (mini!) genre of where one person knows there's a monster/threat on the loose, but the authorities clash with him because they're more concerned with the monetary cost of shutting down whatever it is.  Or the authorities are just incompetent. 

Well, 'Spawn of the Slithis' follows that formula.  A journalist teams up with a fisherman to stop a mutated sea monster-thing from ripping apart the locals of Venice Beach in California.

And it's not bad.  It's not great, but it's not the worse.  The thing I enjoyed the most was the creature itself.  Yes, it was effectively just a man in a rubber suit, but it was nicely ugly!

There's some gore here and there, but nothing particularly spectacular.  The one drawback I found was when 'new' characters suddenly get introduced at sporadic parts of the movie.  They don't stick around.  They're only on screen to be victims, but the writers feels the need for us to get to know them before they end up being 'monster munch.'

If you fancy yet another film about a monster, there are worse out there.  And plenty of better ones.  It's up to you.

5/10

Puppet Master - 80s horror - at it's best (or worst?)

As a fan of 80s horror movies (and horror movies in general!) I've watched 'Puppet Master' a fair few times over the years - and yet I don't own a copy.  That probably should tell you something.  I've just watched it again and, yeah, it's okay, I guess.

I know it has quite a cult following and a lot of fans and I will admit it certainly has its charms, i.e. the puppets themselves.  It's about a group of psychics who spend the weekend in a creepy hotel to try and discover yet more powers - and end up being targeted by a group of possessed toys.

There are no real actors to speak of and the actors get most of the screen time, which is a bit of a let-down.  They do the so-so script just about enough justice, but you'll be crying out for a glimpse of those nasty, murderous little wooden killers.

I suppose the film's lack of budget meant the 'killers' can't be shown as much as most people would like them to, but the movie does pick up a lot of pace when they're actually shown.

It's a decent enough little horror film.  If your view of it isn't clouded by nostalgia and coming to the franchise (yes, there are more after this one) cold then you'll probably have to be quite forgiving when it comes to the films you watch.  If you can accept it for what it is then you'll probably find something to enjoy.

6/10

Walden (2023) - Nice little film

Just watched this one on a streaming service and, I don't know whether it's the general quality of the films on that particular service, but this one seemed a cut above the rest.  I'm not sure about this movie's production history, i.e. whether it ever got a theatrical release, or was just one more piece of content destined to go straight to DVD (or 'steaming service' these days).  But, either way, it does actually feel like it has a decent budget which can afford good actors and a tight script that does make it stand out.

It's about an unassuming court scribe who everyone overlooks and therefore would never expect that he has a tendency to 'do away with' any criminals who don't get what they deserve in the courtroom.  

I won't go into any more detail regarding the rest of the plot as I don't want to spoil it, as this one is actually worth watching if you find it online.  No, it's probably not worth paying the full price of a cinema admission, but definitely better than the sludge that you find clogging up most streaming services.

There are a few times where you have to suspend your disbelief in order to let the film continue (in real life I'm guessing the story would end much earlier!), but it's still enjoyable enough to watch.

7/10

The Shed (2019) - Some films are good dumb fun, other are just...

What would you do if you have a vampire trapped in the shed at the bottom of your garden?  Now, I can't see what you're thinking, but I'm guessing whatever it is is a million times more sensible than any decision all the characters make in this film.

Hey, I'm happy to suspend my disbelief in order to enjoy the more 'out there' stories like those containing monsters and the supernatural.  But it still has to be believable - adhering to the rules which are applicable to the source material.

Here, we have proof positive that a character is only as clever as the writer who's writing they're dialogue and actions.  Yes, there's a vampire at the bottom of the garden hiding in the shed.  At any point in time this whole story could have just been ended without a single loss of life had any character actually done whichever painfully obvious thing needed to be done at the time.  As it happens we're just treated to one absolutely crazy decision after the next.

And eventually you'll lose patience.  I did.  It got to a point where I'd quite happily line the cast up and feed them to the monster one by one - something to do with 'Darwinism' I think they call.

There are good horror movies that don't rely on wall to wall special effects, gore or an A-list cast. 'The Shed' also has none of these and is yet worse than many other B-list straight to steaming movies.  It really is a case of a story where character motivation just ruins it every time.  Frustratingly bad.

3/10

Time Chasers (1994) - Well... the kids might like it

Do you have boys of about 6-8 years old?  Do you want to keep them entertained for a couple of hours while you try to feel human again?  Well, you may want to put on 'Time Chasers' for them - if they're into general action/sci-fi/adventure type films you may get a little down time.  Otherwise, I can't see much use for this movie.

It has 'Made for TV' written all over it.  It's about a scientist (I think) who builds a time machine out of a plane and then sells it to a - blatantly evil - corporation.  What could possibly go wrong?  Cue some alternate (and cheep-looking!) dystopian futures and trips back and forth in time from one wooded area to the next.

It was made - apparently - in 1994 and yet it feels like it should have been made around 1980.  If I had to liken it to another film I'd say 'Inner Space.' Only that was great with a fast-moving and humorous pace. 'Time Chasers' is just like a - very - poor imitation of it.  There are no real familiar faces on show here and the dialogue is so cliche and mundane it's hard to tell whether the actors are good or not - they try.  The mullet-haired hero tries to be macho, but it's hard to watch a bicycle chase through a wood and actually find it entertaining, let alone thrilling.  Imagine the 'speederbike' chase from 'Return of the Jedi' only on push-bikes - yeah, they don't even compare, do they?  That's what you get here.

There really is little here to recommend.  The only 'positive' I took from watching this sluggish effort is the fact that it's reminded me how long it's been since I last watched 'Inner Space' (which I own on DVD) so I'll probably put that on soon.  If you can find it - just watch that.  It'll also entertain kids with the bonus of also being enjoyable for adults at the same time.

5/10

Civil War (2024) - I should like this more than I do

'Civil War' is a tough one for me to review.  Having seen it I'm still in two minds as to whether I liked it or not.  I'm a big fan of its writer (Alex Garland) and the story is an interesting premise, i.e. what if a civil war broke out in modern America.  The cast is solid (led by Kirsten Dunst) and the effects and atmosphere over all are very well done (with minimal - or at least not that noticeable - computer generated effects).

The movie follows a car-load of journalists who travel across the war-torn USA on their way to try and grab an interview with the President (before he's deposed?).  Before I saw the film I read online a lot of people thought it would be very 'partisan' with heavy handed political messages.  Maybe it's because I'm not American and therefore don't know that much about the country's politics, but I never really felt like it was taking sides - another plus point.

So, it had a lot going for it.  Yet I couldn't help but keep checking my phone to see the time.  It's just so damn long.  It's well over two hours (and feels more like three!) and it's a hard slog to get through.  The story doesn't really lend itself to - er - story.  It's just four people (who are pretty bland and unlikable) in a car going from one set piece to the next.

Yes, the set pieces certainly highlight what it might be like to live through the horrors of a war zone and they are good in themselves.  It's just I found the film boring.  I know people would say that the characters are 'bland' because they're hardened and embittered professionals and that might be true, but I still found them boring, bland and unlikable.

And that's the problem.  If someone asked me to sum up 'Civil War' in one word - it would be 'boring.' And that's a shame, because it had so much going for it and - individually - so many scenes were really well done.

5/10

Underground (2023) - Just.  Don't.  Bother.

Let me start off by saying that I'm no 'film snob.' I love cheesy horror movies and have quite a lot of 'found footage' films among my DVD collection.  Since the sub-genre was revived by the 'Blair Witch Project' film-makers have tried copying its success by shooting a low budget film as if it was actually shot by the characters in the story.

Most 'found footage' films don't live up to the stand-outs like the 'Blair Witch Project' and 'Paranormal Activity,' but at least they do enough to be worth a watch. 'Underground' does not.  I try to find something good in even the worst films, but it was hard to say anything positive in this case.  I guess the actresses' performances were reasonable, i.e.naturalistic and therefore befitting of the film-style.

Otherwise, steer well clear.  It's even longer than the average film and the first half hour is basically 'getting to know the characters.' Only the characters aren't that interesting.  It's like a stranger asked you to sit down and watch their holiday video.  You'd have to be really bored to oblige.

The plot is about a hen night where the women get lost in a tunnel system and - naturally - fall foul of something nasty that dwells down there.  It's a decent enough premise, but nothing really happens.  Once they do get lost of have long - and I mean looooooong - drawn out shots of the women sitting around in the darkness.  If you haven't already turned off there's about five minutes worth of 'supernatural threat' towards the end.  Then it ends.  Only it doesn't.  It sort of ends then starts up again for no real reason (or rather to offer one last 'scare' which isn't scary).

And that's its major problem - it's just not scary.  I'd say if you're in the mood for horror/found footage then any other movie in those genres would be better than this.  In fact... any movie in any genre would probably be better than this.

2/10

The Hollow (2004) - The 'Sleepy' one is better

According to everything I read online, this film was made in 2004.  However, i wouldn't surprise me if I found it was actually filmed in 1994 and then sat on the shelf in some studio for ten years, before finally being released to the public (on TV!).  I don't think I've seen another movie that looks 'so nineties' which wasn't actually made during the time period.

Now, if that isn't a drawback in itself, the fact that the plot, set-up and dialogue could all come out of a typical 'slasher' film from the eighties.  I watched 'Sleepy Hollow' over twenty years ago.  I don't know how accurate it was when dealing with the lore concerning the 'headless horseman,' but it was damn entertaining and I still watch it to this day. 'Hollow' is about the same antagonist, only set in modern times.

Seriously, adding a love triangle between 'the jock, the nerd' and 'the cheerleader' to the tale does not add anything to it.  It's about as average as any horror film can be and offers absolutely nothing new.  Just watch Tim Burton's 'Sleepy Hollow' starring Johnny Depp and a whole host of better actors.  At least the horseman didn't have a head that looked a cross between Jack Pumpkinhead and one of the halloween masks in 'Halloween 3: Season of the Witch.' Avoid.

4/10

M3gan (2022) - Hardly original, but great fun

Dolls who come alive and kill people are hardly new in the horror genre (the 'Child's Play' franchise being the 'granddaddy' of them all), so 2022's 'M3gan' (or 'Megan' to be technically correct) has no right to be as entertaining as it actually is.

A computer/robotics engineer's niece is forced upon her when the little girl's parents tragically die in a car accident.  Rather than spend all her time looking after the youngster, she creates the first lifesize doll who can interact with the child, utilising the power of artificial intelligence.

Obviously, everything starts out fine, but naturally - being the horror genre - the doll takes on a life of its own and starts warping its own programming to fit its murderous intentions.

As I say, nothing new, but the doll itself is an excellent antagonist - she's made or metal and therefore has increased strength, not to mention perfect reactions.  But also she's wired into the internet, so effectively she possesses the entire knowledge of the world wide web and can tap into anything with a wifi connection.  Then, when chaos breaks out, she can just go limp and pretend to be a toy.

Despite being the antagonist, Megan was by far the best/most entertaining part of the film and it's rare that - effectively - a doll carries the movie.

Whether you're a fan of killer doll movies, or just horror in general, this one is definitely a slice above the rest.

8/10

Cruel Jaws (1995) - Just watch Jaws

Um, yeah, where to begin with this one - okay, simply... just watch 'Jaws.' Many films rip  off movies that are far better than them, but at least they try and make a few little tweaks that attempt to stand apart from their originals.  Not here.  Not really.

There's a shake.  It's terrorizing a beach.  One human believes this and tries to get the local authorities to do the right thing and close the water area to prevent more deaths.  Oh, I guess there is one different - 'Jaws' was a great white shark.  Here we have a tiger shark.  That's about it.

If it was just a blatant, pointless rip-off that would be one thing.  Sadly, it's also a stupid, blatant, pointless rip-off as well.  The shark appears completely bulletproof.  I lost count of the amount of times humans try and shoot at it at point blank range, only for it not to take an ounce of damage.  I guess the humans could just be so stupid they miss?  That could certainly explain it.  But then if someone is so stupid that they can't hit a massive shark when up close then they deserve to end up down it's throat.

As I say... just watch 'Jaws' if you're looking for a monster movie with a shark in it.  And, is it just me, or does the first few bars of the 'Star Wars' theme keep popping up here and there?

4/10

The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (2024) - Not needed sub-plots

Guy Ritchie swaps out the gritty streets of London for World War 2's most secretive of mission in 'The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare' and delivers a bombastic, stylish wartime adventure that feels uniquely his own.  Having Henry Cavill as the lead certainly helps, as his charismatic performance steals ever scene while Ritchie's signature snappy dialogue blends an engaging tale of espionage and covert operations during World War II. 

However, its momentum falters due to a recurring subplot that struggles to justify its screen time.  Cavill shines as the suave yet steely leader of a ragtag team assembled to execute unconventional missions.   But its Ritchie’s signature rapid-fire banter and cleverly constructed exchanges that keep the dialogue sharp and engaging.  Fans of his classics like 'Snatch' and 'The Gentlemen' will recognize the familiar rhythm, which injects levity into the film’s more intense sequences without undermining the stakes.

 The action is another high point, showcasing meticulous choreography and a commitment to practical effects that lends authenticity to the set-pieces. Although the Germaas do suffer from 'Stormtrooper syndrome' where that can't hit our heroes, no matter how many bullets they spray at them.

Unfortunately, the film’s pacing takes a hit due to a subplot that repeatedly stalls the narrative. Without diving into spoilers, this thread—involving two other character on a side-quest —feels underdeveloped and overextended, detracting from the momentum built by the main plotline. Each time it resurfaces, it pulls focus away from the more compelling elements, leaving viewers eager to return to the action.  

Despite this flaw, 'The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare' is a solid entry in Ritchie’s filmography, offering plenty of thrills, laughs, and memorable performances. While the pacing issues prevent it from reaching the heights of his best work, it’s a film that delivers enough style and substance to warrant a watch—especially for fans of Cavill, Ritchie, or WWII-era adventures.  I just can't believe it was never released in cinemas in its home country, so best to find it on streaming now.

7/10

The Exterminators of the Year 3000 (1983) - Grab your 'mudda'

Rare is it that you can simply review and entire film with one sentence, but if I don't get the 'Mad Max' rip-off out of my system now I'll be just typing it over and over again.  It's a 'Mad Max' rip off.

Set in the distant future where whatever is left of humanity lives in a desert-like wasteland where water is the most valuable commodity.  Sound familiar?  Well, it doesn't end there.  A lone, scruffy road-warrior in a souped-up bruiser of a car is out to protect the innocent and punish the gang of punks who try and rule the wasteland through fear and violence.

It seems that supplies have become so scarce that the lead villain only has enough mascara and eyeliner for one eye.  Plus - and I don't know if this is because I watched a 'dubbed' version - but he repeatedly uses the phrase 'M*ther grabber.' I'm guessing this weird 'insult' or a translation replaces a slightly more 'hardcore' phrase.  Either way, every time he says it - and he says it a lot - I couldn't help but laugh.

Our (not Max at all) protagonist is a kind of cardboard cut-out, but then so is everyone else.  Probably no disrespect to the actors as they try their best, but the script really is pretty basic.  There's a kid in it quite a lot.  The film wouldn't have lost much if he wasn't in it, but he isn't as annoying as some children can be in these types of films.  Plus it's kind of funny when he gets drunk.

Is it terrible?  No.  It's perfectly watchable.  However, if you're looking for a movie like this, then I'm sure you can find one of the 'Mad Max' films lying around.  Even the worse is better than this and nowadays we have the remakes.  They're better, too.

5/10

Prophecy (1979) - What did I just watch?

When the credits rolled at the end of 'Prophecy' I literally had to think to myself what exactly I'd just watched.  I know I've sat through numerous horror films over the years, but even the worst stayed in my head while I was reading who was in it.  And, weirdly, 'Prophecy' wasn't that bad.

Trying my best to recall what I'd just witnessed, it's about a doctor and his wife who head out into the wilderness to - er - help something (or someone - like I say, details are already sketchy).  There, they come up against angry Native Americans, shady businessmen and - of course - monsters.

Yeah, so that's about all I can remember.  It's certainly not the worst horror film I've ever seen and the monster effects are passable.  They're practically (naturally, for the era/budget) and if you feel the need to see another rubbery creature then you'll find a few here - although they mainly come at the end.

Yes, the end.  It was the best part - I'm not just saying that to be deliberately harsh, but at least the final act moved a bit quicker than the rest.  As I say, this isn't the worst horror film I've ever see and I believe - from what I've read online - it does have a reasonable 'cult following.' I guess it just didn't gel with me like other similar offerings.

5/10