Ghosthouse (1988) - Nice touches, but ultimately forgettable

'Ghosthouse' is one of those many 80s horror films that tries to cash in on the success of better-known supernatural chillers but never quite finds its own way.  It generally relies on the typical haunted house tropes, ghostly children and (admittedly nice practical) gory set pieces into a package that produces nothing we haven't seen before many times in the genre.

Admittedly, there are a couple of moments where 'Ghosthouse' shows flashes of potential. As I said, some of the practical gore effects are actually quite nasty, especially during the film’s more violent opening.  Then you have the eerie children’s tune that recurs throughout the movie which is genuinely unsettling—it’s easily the most memorable thing about the film. 

Unfortunately, everything else falls flat. The characters are instantly forgettable, delivering bland dialogue that sounds like it was translated twice before filming.  I probably shouldn't be too harsh on the actors, as they're given very little to work with and it’s hard to care about anyone as they wander through the cobweb-covered sets waiting for their inevitable doom.  The story itself follows such a predictable path that even the occasional burst of violence can’t liven things up.

In the end, 'Ghosthouse' is a reminder that not every 1980s horror film deserves cult status. While there are some nice moments and that haunting tune, the dull characters, uninspired script and formulaic plot make this one an easy skip—especially when there are so many better, more memorable cult classics from the decade to choose from.

3/10

Bionic Ever After (1994) - Not even good bad cheese

It’s a shame when a reunion movie has the potential for nostalgic fun but ends up feeling more like a contractual obligation than a genuine continuation. 'Bionic Ever After' is a TV movie meant to unite The Six Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman in some sort of 'team up movie' (long before Marvel perfected the formula!) where they get married.  Sadly, the team-up doesn't even end up being charming in a “so bad it’s good” kind of way.

The biggest problem is its unmistakable 'made-for-TV' feel, which drains any chance of campy enjoyment. Instead of leaning into the silliness of bionic secret agents in love, it plays things painfully straight. The result isn’t cheesy fun — it’s just dull.  The dialogue is hampered by its unoriginal script, making the poor actors feel stiff and awkward.  Even seasoned leads Lee Majors and Lindsay Wagner struggle to inject life into their lines and you can almost see them doing their best to smile through material that’s well beneath their talents.

Then there’s the complete lack of action — or even a sense of excitement — especially during the first half of the film.  Outside of someone being pushed into a body of water (yes, that’s apparently a major stunt here), the “bionic” in 'Bionic Ever After' feels like a forgotten concept.  When things finally pick up, it’s far too little, far too late.

To make matters worse, both leads, though beloved for their iconic roles, look too unfit here to convincingly sell the idea of “superhuman” agents. It’s less “bionic power” and more “nostalgic reunion dinner” where the leading man has eaten more than his share from the 'all you can eat' buffet.

In the end, 'Bionic Ever After' fails both as a romantic finale and as a sci-fi/action adventure. It’s a limp farewell that lacks spark, energy, or purpose — a film that never finds a tone worth sustaining.

3/10

Crowhaven Farm (1970) - Low quality TV movie to avoid

'Crowhaven Farm' is one of those early 'made-for-TV' supernatural thrillers that tries to capture the eerie, rural witchcraft vibe popular in the late 60s and early 70s, but doesn’t do much to stand out. The film follows a couple who inherit an old New England farm with a dark past and, from there, you can probably guess every twist before it happens.

The story treads familiar ground with cliched mysterious locals, ominous dreams and an undercurrent of witchcraft that never feels particularly threatening.  Then add creepy children, secret covens and the usual “sins of the past revisited” elements, but it all plays out in such a predictable way that there’s little tension. The atmosphere is decent in spots, but the direction and pacing give away its made-for-TV roots with its small-scale sets and one-note dialogue.

While 'Crowhaven Farm' has some nostalgic charm as an early TV horror effort, it doesn’t bring anything new to the table - whether in its depiction of witches or its use of unsettling children. It’s watchable, but never surprising or particularly haunting.

4/10

Great Counterattack of King Kong (1976) - There's probably better

'APE' (also released as 'The Counterattack of King Kong') is one of the many low-budget knockoffs that tried to cash in on the 1976 'King Kong' remake. Unfortunately, it doesn’t bring anything memorable to the table, either as genuine monster cinema or as campy fun.

The film makes no secret of what it’s copying - a massive gorilla escapes captivity, rampages across Korea, swats at helicopters and throws rocks at plastic miniatures, shaped like tanks. On paper, that sounds like the kind of absurd spectacle that could work as a “so-bad-it’s-good” cult favorite. But in practice the film is too cheap and no real fun to leave much of an impression. The giant ape is blatantly just a man in a suit, randomly swatting at badly-designed miniatures, perforated with stilted performances which don’t inspire the kind of gleeful laughter that better 'bad' movies do.

Unlike 'King Kong,' which carried a sense of tragic scale no matter the version, 'APE' feels like a hollow copy, trying to make the audience feel sorry for the huge behemoth, but, seeing as it chooses to destroy half of Korea, it's hard to feel sorry for it, not matter how tenderly it holds a blonde woman. 

Just because it doesn’t take itself too seriously doesn't make it fun.  Instead, it ends up in the cinematic dustbin, being neither good enough to be enjoyed on its own merits nor dumb fun to be remembered as a cult classic.

In short, 'APE' (or whatever it's called in your region) isn’t much of a monster movie.  If you’re looking for giant ape entertainment, stick with 'Kong' including some of the more modern entries in the series which deliver more heart, spectacle and fun than this forgettable knockoff ever could.

3/10

Rockula (1990) - Boy, does this drag

'Rockula' has a nice enough premise on paper: a vampire cursed to watch the love of his life die every 22 years, now trying to break the cycle in the late 80s/early 90s.  Unfortunately, the execution drags it down. There are a couple of neat twists on the genre, like the way the lead vampire's reflection in the mirror seems to have a life of his own.  But what could have been a fun skit, or maybe a snappy half-hour short, is stretched into a feature-length movie that simply can’t sustain its own idea.

The acting is hardly on par, with performances that lean more toward awkward than entertaining. It’s not scary enough to qualify as horror, nor is it sharp or witty enough to leave much of a mark as one of the many 'cult comedies' of the era. Any “plot twists” which the writers try to work in can be spotted a mile away and while the film never takes itself seriously, the campy tone often works against it rather than in its favor, such as the British 'villain' who is just more annoying than threatening.

To make matters worse, the runtime feels bloated by an overabundance of unnecessary musical numbers, as if it was also trying to be a musical as well as a horror comedy.  Instead of adding energy, they pad the film and make it feel even longer than it is. By the end, Rockula comes off less like a cult oddity worth rediscovering and more like a drag-fest that overstays its welcome.

4/10

Love at First Bite (1979) - Um, yeah, it does the job

'Love at First Bite' is one of those late-70s comedies that works best if you walk in with very low expectations. It’s a vampire spoof with plenty of 'gags' (note the quote marks?) and, while the humor is often over the top and entirely predictable, it leans into its campy nature enough to stay watchable. The performances match the tone - they're very broad, extremely exaggerated and full of scene-chewing energy, so subtlety isn’t something you’ll find here.

Still, the film never really takes itself too seriously, which makes it a mostly harmless affair. It knows what it is, delivers silly laughs without much bite and then wraps up before overstaying its welcome. Not a hidden gem by any means, but if you’re in the mood for light, goofy parody, you could do worse.

5/10

The UFO Incident (1975) - Tell, don't show

During the nineties when 'The X-Files' was at its peak, I remember reading about the actual case 'The UFO Incident' was based on.  It's about Betty and Barney Hill who were driving home through the American countryside who later claimed to have been abducted by aliens back in the sixties. On the plus side, the movie has a very capable lead, i.e. James Earl Jones (not to forget Estelle Parsons as his on-screen wife) who both do their best to elevate the material. Their chemistry sure does bring an emotional weight which keeps the story from falling completely flat.

Unfortunately, the script is hampered by how it's been made (unlike the far superior 'Fire in the Sky' which came prior to 'The X-files,' but only slightly).  Much of the runtime is devoted to hypnotic regression sessions and lengthy dialogue recounting what supposedly happened.  While this may reflect the 'true' case, cinematically it creates awful pacing problems. The result is a movie that feels like it’s “all tell” with very little “show.” Suspense and atmosphere are sacrificed for endless explanation, making the film drag despite its intriguing subject matter and excellent performances.

There are a few eerie moments sprinkled throughout, but they’re too little too late to sustain the tension or deliver on the promise of the premise. The film ultimately plays more like a docudrama reenactment rather than a gripping sci-fi thriller, leaving viewers wishing the film-makers had leaned harder into the cinematic possibilities of the story.

5/10

The Godsend (1980) - Blondes really do have more fun

So, 'The Godsend' isn’t exactly dripping with budget, being about as barebones as early ‘80s horror movie gets.  In fact, it sure does fit in nicely with the late night 'made for TV' offerings of the era.  It doesn't have any flashy effects, or set pieces, just a lot of long, quiet moments and creepy stares from kids.  And, as any parent knows, kids are way more unsettling than everything all the rubber monsters Hollywood can throw at you. There’s something about a child just sitting there, watching, unblinking, that turns it into a primal kind of supernatural dread.

The story itself is predictable—you’ll see where it’s going a mile away—but once you settle in, it’s actually kind of fun in that low-key sort of way.  A family are on holiday when they meet a young pregnant woman on her own.  Before they know it, she's given birth and disappeared - forever.  Now they adopt the little girl and bring her up as their own.  Trouble is... more than a few 'coincidental' accidents start to happen once she's settled into the family.  It’s cheap, yes, but it does what it needs to and it keeps your attention with its eerie vibe more than with any real surprises.

Not a hidden gem, but definitely a solid “creepy kid” entry if you’re in the mood for something simple and atmospheric.  Even if the two parents seem to constantly want to get away from ALL their kids (not just the demonic ones) at every opportunity for a bit of that 'adult alone time.' Seriously, I've never seen an on screen could so desperate to...

6/10

Happy Death Day (2017) - A cut above the rest

'Happy Death Day' is one of those movies that doesn't try to hide where it's taken its inspiration from - in this case 'Groundhog Day,' which it finally admits near the end, so there’s no mistaking where the “repeat the same day again and again” set-up comes from. But instead of just being a lazy copy, it takes that formula and mashes it together with a slasher storyline—and it works way better than it probably should.

At first, the main character is pretty unlikable. She’s self-absorbed, snarky and the kind of horror protagonist you actually may even want to end up on the wrong end of a serial killer's knife. But soon you realise that that’s part of the fun, because as she relives her death day over and over, she actually starts to change. Watching her growth gives the story more charm than most slashers ever bother with and by the end, you find yourself rooting for her.

It’s not groundbreaking, but there's definitely enough dark comedy mixed in with the slasher element to make it a fresh spin that makes it stand out from the recent flood of horror flicks.  Add in some genuinely fun moments (courtesy of the lead actress - who makes her performance stand out from the majority of 'scream queens!') and a surprisingly heartfelt arc and you’ve got a film that’s definitely a cut above.

7/10

The Spell (1977) - TV Carrie

On the surface, it’s easy to see why 'The Spell' - 'Carrie' was a massive success just a year before at the Box Office, so the idea of a telekinetic teenage girl dealing with bullying was suddenly marketable. Because of that, this TV movie kind of starts off as little more than a cheap knockoff.  But even though the set-up is familiar, 'The Spell' actually goes in its own direction and manages to work in a few clever twists that give it some identity beyond being a "Carrie clone."

The story follows an overweight, unpopular high school girl who discovers she has psychic powers. Unlike 'Carrie' though, the focus here leans more on the whole family, rather than the girl's struggles alone.  This is where it does feel more like a TV soap opera/movie in the household. The pacing is slow at times and the TV-movie budget shows, but there’s enough intrigue to carry it through to a satisfying ending.

It's no classic and, if you have 'Carrie' in your DVD collection, you're probably better off just watching that, but even though this one is far from a classic, 'The Spell' is an interesting curiosity from the late ’70s supernatural boom. If you’re willing to lower your expectations and enjoy it on its own terms, it’s worth a watch.  Just.

5/10

Something Evil (1972) - Spielberg's 'training wheels'

Steven Spielberg may be one of the most well-known filmmakers of all time, but I must have missed his name in the credits, as I didn't know he directed this until I was writing this review and spotted his name.  This is an early made-for-TV horror outing and, at just under seventy-five minutes, it’s a short feature, yet somehow feels way too long, with very little actually happening in that entire span.

The story follows a family moving into a rural American farmhouse that—surprise, surprise—has a supernatural element dwelling there. On paper, it’s a decent enough set-up for a ghostly movie, but the execution is just totally bland. Like I say, it’s not long, but it's also not scary and it never produces a truly unsettling moment. Those hoping for creeping dread, memorable scares, or even a splash of gore will find none of that here.

Instead, the movie settles into the most restrained rhythms of 70s TV horror with soft lighting, slow pacing and basic storytelling. Spielberg’s direction shows hints of what was destined to come, but I guess he had to make films like this so that his true classics like 'Poltergeist' could run.

If you’re a fan of supernatural or possession films, there are plenty of better choices, such as 'The Exorcist, Burnt Offerings,' or, of course, Spielberg’s own 'Poltergeist.' 'Something Evil' is more curiosity than classic, of interest only to die-hard Spielberg fans. For most viewers, it’s a forgettable detour.

3/10

The Three Faces of Eve (1957) - A product of its time

'The Three Faces of Eve' is an interesting film to revisit, especially as a product of its time. While it tackles multiple personality disorder (now more commonly known as dissociative identity disorder), the portrayal comes off as a bit simplistic (and definitely melodramatic!) by today’s standards. 

Certain elements feel overblown, simply to get across the affliction for the Hollywood audience of the time, but as someone who lives with a relative suffering from a similar affliction, I can’t say the film mirrors much of what I’ve seen in real life. Still, considering it was made in the 1950s, you can forgive the filmmakers for getting a few things wrong—understanding of mental health was far less advanced back then.

The performances are what carry it. Joanne Woodward, in particular, does an excellent job differentiating the “three faces” (of the three different elements/women living inside her mind) and it’s easy to see why the role was considered a landmark at the time. However, the story has to have that neat, “typical Hollywood ending,” which sadly glosses over the reality that mental health struggles don’t always tie up in a bow. For those who know what living with such a condition really looks like, that final note rings hollow.

Despite its shortcomings, The Three Faces of Eve is a decent enough attempt for the time of how the era perceived psychology and mental illness. Not perfect by any means, but worth a watch for its historical value and decent acting.

6/10

Edge of the Axe (1988) - I've forgotten it already

It’s only been a few days since I watched 'Edge of the Axe' and, believe it or not, I’ve already forgotten most of it.  Not that there was much of a plot to begin with - it's effectively a cheap 'Friday 13th' rip-off, complete with masked serial killer.  The fact that I had to look up a plot summary just to write this says a lot about just how unremarkable this late 80s slasher really is. On paper, it has adequate ingredients: a masked killer, small-town characters who are oblivious to the menace among them and a - semi - mystery whodunit element. But in practice, it never sticks.

It just feels so dated, even for 1988.  By this point, slashers had been around for nearly a decade, yet this one feels like it’s some sort of cheap prototype for the 'Jason' movies.  There are better in the eighties and many even made during the seventies.  Even lower tier slasher films like 'Black Christmas'  is better, let alone the classics like 'Halloween.' Any of them give us more atmosphere, more gore and more well-rounded, even likable characters. Compared to that, 'Edge of the Axe' feels flat, with its characters mostly existing as completely unlikable fodder for the killer.

The kills themselves are nothing special, so if you're hoping for either some creative or gory deaths, you won't find any here.  Plus the pacing drags and the reveal of the murderer doesn’t add much weight. It’s not terrible, but it’s the kind of slasher you watch once, shrug then forget about almost immediately—which is exactly what happened to me.

4/10

Mr. Majestyk (1974) - Standard Bronson

Despite being a huge fan of Charles Bronson in his - obviously - most famous role of Paul Kersey in the 'Death Wish' films, I found 'Mr. Majestyk' on a streaming site and thought I'd give it a watch.  Um, basically it's like 'Death Wish' in terms of plots, just not so... er. 'Deathwishy.' Maybe 'Death Wish lite?'

I was curious as to whether this or 'Death Wish' came out first, so I looked them both up on IMDb and, apparently, this one came out a week before 'Death Wish' from what I can tell.  Strange, because they basically have similar plot beats, only 'Death Wish' went on to become iconic and this one was pretty much forgotten.  

Here, Bronson plays a melon farmer who falls foul of a group of local thugs which ultimately makes him the target of a hitman on the run.  The police are of little help, so, like Paul Kersey, it's up for Bronson to take matters into his hands in his own - lethal - way.

And, it's okay really.

There's not that much action and not much killing (believe it or not), but then I guess when it's up against 'Death Wish' it will always come across as a poor imitation.  It's certainly not a bad film and it kept me entertained enough.  If you're a die hard fan of Bronson it's definitely worth a watch, or if the 'Death Wish' films are a little too violent for you then this one - sort of - offers a more 'PG' take on the same storyline.

6/10

Heads of State (2025) - Way better than it has any right to be

Over the years my expectations for 'straight to streaming' movies has become suitable lowered.  Even if they star decent, recognisable actors, there's really no guarantee that they'll be any good.  So I just kind of put 'Heads of State' on in the background and didn't even think I'd bother finishing it.  Luckily, I was (eventually) proved wrong.

The opening is a bit 'meh' - the American President (John Cena) arrives in London to meet the British Prime Minister (Idris Elba).  They don't really get on and things seem a bit awkward.  The film is billed as an 'action-comedy' and neither of these sub-genres show up early on.  However, once the action picks up, things definitely improve.

The two world leaders are forced to go on the run while hunted by hitmen and this is the point where the movie properly starts.  It's helped by not just two excellent actors as the leading men and it's fun to watch them bicker at each other in between fighting for survival.  But perhaps the film's greatest strength is that it never really takes itself seriously.

I don't think it would have worked if it had tried to be serious all the time, but it knows it's goofy enough to know when to put the laughs in and when to play it straight (some of the actions scenes are daft, but fun and reminded me of some Roger Moore Bond levels of silliness!).

As 'Heads of State' is on a streaming service and you're not paying cinema prices to watch it, if you're in the mood for a cheeky little action film with decent actors, you could do a lot worse than this one.

7/10

The Flash (2023) - Not (quite) as bad as I'd heard

I never saw 'The Flash' at the cinema.  It was - originally - part of the 'DC Universe,' but, by the time it came out, the film project had effectively been cancelled and most of the audience this was aimed at knew that, no matter what happened in this movie's story, nothing really mattered as it was due to be rebooted by James Gunn.  Add to this the amount of internet chatter about what (leading man, Ezri Miller) was getting up to in his private life and the amount of reshoots that were going on with this project and I really didn't rush to make watching this a high priority.  So, by the time I found this on a streaming service it's fair to say my hopes weren't high.  And maybe that's the key to getting something out of it - severely lower your expectations.

It starts out strong.  Not dwelling on the actor and concentrating on the character of 'The Flash' i.e. Barry Allen, he's actually quite funny and interacts well with other superheroes in the opening action scene.  Plus the set-piece is fun and reasonably novel.  A decent enough start.

Then the opening credits roll and I realise what the film reviewers were talking about when they said the special effects seem 'unfinished.' Whoa - they are not good in the credits.  And, throughout the film, they are hit and miss in equal amounts.

Now, when this incarnation of The Flash was first introduced in 'The Justice League' he was effectively the 'comic relief' among the more serious heroes.  And, he played that part as best he could.  However, now effectively we have the comic relief as the lead role and - what's more - he travels back in time in order to save his parents, but inadvertently encounters another version of himself - one that's actually more annoying that the original.  

What follows are long scenes of exposition.  Never have a seen a film that has so many instances of two (sometimes three) people sitting around talking about things that have happened, things that are happening, things that are going to happen and a mixture of the three versions - played out in alternate universes.

Now, you can't talk about 'The Flash' without mentioning Michael Keaton, as he reprises his  - arguably most famous - role of Bruce Wayne/Batman.  And, yes, he's as good as you might expect doing this.  For those of us who geeked out in the late eighties when 'Batman' was first brought to the big screen and given a Tim Burton-esque darker edge, it's a joy to see him back again.

Then you have further action scenes with both Flashes, Batman and even a Supergirl (who, although should have been Superman, is actually a decent addition).  And these too are pretty good.  I guess the main drawback is that, if you've already seen the preceding films in the franchise (i.e. 'Man of Steel' and 'Justice League') then you kind of know where all this goes, as you're really just seeing what you've already seen, only played out slightly differently in an alternate plain of existance.

Overall, I found definite enjoyment in parts of this film.  I just wish that I could trim down some of the talking scenes, delete at least one of the Barry Allens and polish up some of the special effects.  Shame Michael Keaton's return to the role was wasted on a project that wasn't up to his talents.

6/10

The Accountant 2 (2025) - Just stick with the leads

I don't know why modern films are just sooooo long.  Maybe it's because they see how well dramas do on streaming services and think that more means better?  Either way, a movie like 'The Accountant 2' should really be no more than an hour and a half (a hundred minutes, tops).  Back in the eighties, an action film (let's say 'Commando') could easily fit everything it had to say in ninety minutes and was simple great fun. 'The Accountant 2' has all the elements in it to make it great fun, but it's just so full of 'bloat' that it makes it a real slog to get through.

But, there is good contained within - namely the two leads: Ben Affleck and Jon Bernthal.  They play a pair of brothers who, as well as having the usual grating relationship siblings tend to have on each other anyway, also happen to be trained assassins.  The back and forth between them is great to watch and you get a real sense of the love-hate relationship between them.

Then there's the rest of the cast.  Um, I can't remember much about them - mainly because all their characters are so wafer thin that you won't remember anything about them either once the credits (finally!) roll.

There are also a couple of good punch-ups and action scenes, but - again - these feel too sparse, due to all the sub-plots with the duller characters who take up way too much of this film's runtime.

If there was some way of releasing a 'director's cut' of 'The Accountant 2' which just keeps the two leads and any action scenes they're involved in, it would be pretty good.  I guess that's why there's always a 'skip' function on DVDs and streaming services - you can just not bother with any scenes that don't include Affleck or Bernthal - you'll enjoy the film much more (and save yourself an hour or so of time).

5/10

Heretic (2024) - Hugh steals it

I was never a massive Hugh Grant fan back in his heyday - he always popped up as the annoying British fop in a predictable rom-com.  However, I'm pleased to say he's moved on from all that (or rather his looks have left him, so he's been forced to move on - meow!) and his more recent (darker?) roles have really showed that he's more than just a lovable, floppy-haired book store owner.

Here we meet two young, female Mormons who call at the door of an elderly (sorry, Hugh, but you're officially 'elderly' now!) man's remote cabin, in order spread the 'good word.' What follows is a kind of spiritual cat and mouse, or at least that's the main set-up - and it's really good fun.

The two female leads hold their own and are really strong at what they do, but it's Hugh every time who has the better lines and the more charismatic delivery.  There's some real moments of dark levity and even a few moments that will genuinely make you think how religion in general is thought of (don't get me started on how the script managed to get both Radiohead and Jar Jar Binks into a theological debate!).

However, the movie does tend to lose its way a bit and, despite a very strong start, does go in some unexpected directions which may sadly disappoint some of its audience, ending with a bit of an anticlimax which feels a little too 'traditional' and 'safe' after what's come before.

Personally, I was already having too much fun with the film and was happy to let those aspects slide.  I'd recommend you just enjoy Hugh's transformation and not think too deeply into the hows and whys of what eventually follows.

8/10

Knock at the Cabin (2023) - Good.  Mostly

I read somewhere that the definition of a 'slow burn' is a film which isn't faced paced (for the most part), but has a pay-off which makes the lack of speed worthwhile.  The opposite is a film that is just slow and ends up being a complete waste of time.  I guess 'Knock at the Cabin' falls into the former, as - for whatever reason - I stuck with it until the end just to see how it all turned out.

It's about a couple who take their adopted daughter to a remote cabin for a break, only for four strangers (led by Dave Bautisda - who's actually becoming a better actor than most people ever thought he could be!) to break in and hold them hostage.  The catch being that these 'home invaders' don't want to hurt or steal from them.  They just want one of them to kill themselves in order to prevent the apocalypse (which is taking place within an hour or so).

So what follows is a kind of cat and mouse game where the captives try to deal with whether they should simply escape, fight back, or believe their captors and do the unthinkable.

Like I say, I stuck with it.  Once it finished I realised it was an M Night Shyamalan film and it kind of made sense.  That kind of explained the slightly stilted dialogue and I just kept thinking back to a YouTube reviewer who said of Shyamalan's dialogue 'That almost sounds like how a real person would talk!' and I can't help but agree.

Now, if you know anything about Shyamalan's (mainly early) work, you'll know he's well known for his plot twists.  So, if you're expecting something out of 'left field' to blow your mind at the end, you won't find it here.  Everything is - uncharacteristically - well wrapped up here, so there won't be much left to debate once the credits roll.

Overall, this is a decent enough film which should keep most people entertained, but I'm not sure it'll be remembered along with his classics like 'Sixth Sense' and 'Unbreakable.'

6/10

A Working Man (2025) - Okay, but not 'vintage' Stath

I confess - I didn't get round to watching this in the cinema.  I'm a pretty big fan of Jason Statham's output - yes, I know it's hardly Shakespeare, but if I'm in the mood for some good ol' fashioned action silliness, 'The Stath' normally provides.  However, in between the theatrical release and me finding it on streaming, I did see a fair few YouTube reviews of it.  Most said that it was 'Okay, but with flaws.' Then they went on to list what was wrong with it, so perhaps by the time I got round to viewing it myself, I was kind of on the look out for what was mentioned.

The plot revolves around Statham as the titular 'working man' who has traded in his special forces military background for a life on a construction site.  That's until his employers' daughter gets kidnapped and it turns into a kind of 'Taken' affair with him using his 'skill-set' to get her back.

Now I find myself listing the problems I heard about on YouTube regarding the film.  Yes, it's a bit too long.  Yes, it feels a bit unfocused with the fact that there really doesn't seem to be a 'real antagonist' for Jason Statham to fight.  He just goes from place to place, beating up henchmen until he gets to the 'lead gangster' of that area, deals with him and then moves on to the next setting (yes, a bit like a videogame beat 'em up!).  Then there are the secondary characters.  Each is brought on like they're going to have a major impact in the story, only for them to either be killed or simply abandoned as the story progresses.

Overall, I got my action.  I got my silliness and so I got my money's worth out of 'A Working Man' so I can't really complain too much.  But, seeing as I have the 'Transporter' trilogy and 'Crank' films on DVD, I'd rather watch any of them instead of this one again.  I wonder if the 'sequel bait' at the end will pay off?

6/10

She (1984) - Cheap and full of cheese

'She' is one of those eighties 'sword and sorcery' films that tried to ride the success of the 'Conan' films.  There were quite a lot of 'Conan imitations' around that time - some played it straight while others embraced the silliness of it all. 'She' definitely falls into the latter.  Although there aren't too many 'jokes' it seems to be self-aware of how daft it really is.

It's set in your typical 'post apocalyptic' world where what little there is left of humanity seem to live in various tribes.  One tribe (the bad ones!) raid a community and kidnap a woman.  Her brother and his friend set out to get her back and, in doing so, come into contact with the leader/Goddess of another faction, known as 'She.' Together they all team up and... well, much of the film consists of them getting captured by one crazy gaggle of weirdos after another - each lot having more bizarre costumes which seems to come right out of a charity shop or thrift store.  My favourite lot were the ones who looked like a team of 'Dengars' (if you know your random 'Empire Strikes Back' trivia).

To pad out the runtime there's plenty of - seemingly random - rock music to crank up the tension, even when it's not really applicable.  Perhaps the weirdest scene was the 'bridge crossing' which arrives about three quarters of the way through.  Here we stray off into something akin to 'Monty Python,' only with possibly the most annoying character I've ever seen (think worse than Jar Jar Binks and that bloke out of 'The Fifth Element' who's name currently escapes me, but he was a space DJ or something).

It's a little on the long side, but it's silly enough to make it entertaining, even if it's only from the sheer randomness of the ride.  One you can have on in the background and still not really miss anything.

5/10

Rebel Moon (2023) - Why isn't this better?

Damn-it Zack Snyder, why do you keep doing this to me?  For anyone who doesn't know, Snyder is (or should I say 'was?') a great director with a real flare for stylish film-making and some of my modern day favourite films have his name on them (300, Dawn of the Dead remake and Watchman - and, for the record, I actually liked Man of Steel).  And yet, in recent years, he seems to have been given more and more control over his output and with it, the quality has dipped.

If you believe the internet rumours, 'Rebel Moon' was pitched to Disney as a potential 'Star Wars' project and they turned it down, so Snyder turned it into an original science fiction/action project due for Netflix.  At first it was two hours long, before an 'extended cut' was released which is roughly three and a half hours long.  I decided to watch this.

It's hard not to compare it to 'Star Wars' as a protagonist on a farming planet has to step up and confront an evil empire who is threatening their world and the universe in general.  This time we have a female lead who has to go on a 'Magnificent Seven' style quest to find a band of powerful warriors capable of saving the planet.

Now, if you overlook how a handful of good fighters can defeat an entire empire of enemy ships, there's simply not much here.  Yes, some of it looks good and the fight scenes are pretty cool and well shot, but, all this film involves is the central character recruiting one helper after the next.  We never get to really know anyone (if you don't include the massive long exposition dumps/flashbacks) and, before we know it, the film is at its 'climactic' end battle and the credits are - finally - rolling.

And you've just invested over three hours of your life in a film where the only real stand-out is Anthony Hopkins' interesting droid character (who's hardly in it!).  Practically the whole of this story could be told in a flashback or prologue to whatever comes next.  I'm still interested in Snyder's work as I do feel he's got more to offer than his recent output, but this one is just too long and rambling and takes itself way too seriously to be classed as 'enjoyable.' Sorry, Zack.

5/10

Terror at London Bridge (1985) - Soooo much cheese

Oh, dear, this one is - kind of - painful.  No, it's not so bad that I turned it off, but it sure as hell doesn't match up with anything in the genre that it's trying for.  If you think of the - classic - 'slasher' films then you'll probably at least hope they'll creep you out a bit (or just indulge in some over the top gory fun). 'Terror at London Bridge' is - technically - a 'slasher' movie, only it just isn't really anything to write home about.

We begin in London a hundred years ago when none other than Jack the Ripper is shot and 'killed' over London Bridge.  Fast Forward a hundred years later and the bridge has been moved, brick by brick, to America (yeah, don't ask too many questions - just go with it!).  And, guess what, Jack's come along for the ride and is back to his old tricks with the local women.  Only one man stands in his way - and he's going to do it without his talking car, none other than David Hasselhoff.

It's a kind of 'Jaws-esque' affair from then on, with 'the Hoff' guessing that the real Jack the Ripper is behind the killings and wanting to close public events, while the profit-hungry council bosses not wanting to admit there's a problem due to the financial tourism cost such an admission would cause.

There's nothing offensively bad about this film.  I almost like the premise, but there's just not that much that's good either.  It's not funny, i.e. it plays it straight and it's not gory with inventive kills either.  The British characters are almost cliches of what English people are like and are laughably funny, but for all the wrong reasons.

If you're a fan of 'the Hoff' you'll probably enjoy this, although, despite being the only real name on the cast list you'll recognise, he's not in it as much as you'd think he would be.  Otherwise, it's just a basic 'made-for-TV' affair that's pretty forgettable, as it doesn't offer anything new to the genre.

4/10

The Exterminator (1980) - Not much to see here

I don't know why, but watching 'The Exterminator' made me think that someone in the production team must have watched one or two of the seventies' 'Death Wish' films and tried their best to copy that.  It has the same gritty seventies vibe (despite being made in 1980), but just doesn't really seem to go anywhere.

It's about an American ex army veteran whose best friend is murdered by a street gang once they have returned to civilian life now back in New York.  And he goes out for revenge.  Nothing particularly new in terms of plot, but there have been plenty of 'revenge' films which have worked, despite a lack of originality.  There's a cop who suspects who's the killer and is on his trail, plus the Government are sniffing around, but neither plot element really adds that much to the proceeding.

There are no major actors involved here, the script is just so-so and there's no real 'action' besides the odd killing here and there.  If you're looking for any 'interesting' kills or gore - again, none here.  Everything's as vanilla as it comes.  As I say, there are plenty of 'revenge' films - made around the time like 'Death Wish' and right up until today - which are better than this.  It's not terrible, but there's just nothing here that's original enough to make it stand out.

4/10

Infinity Pool (2023) - What was that all about?

I was always a big fan of David Cronenberg's films.  I don't always claim to know what the hell they were all about, but - being the horror fan I am - I seemed to find something enjoyable about them. 'Infinity Pool' is directed by David's son, Brandon, so I figured the apple wouldn't fall too far from the tree.  And I was right.

In a fictional country - let's pretend it's some sort of offbeat island around the equator - rich Western holidaymakers lie around by the pool in luxury while the general population tend to be living in relative poverty.  Nothing particularly out of the ordinary there!  But the island - or rather those who pull the strings behind it - hold a dark secret that our rich protagonists are about to find out - to their peril.

I'm not sure how much about 'the secret' has been made clear through the film's marketing, so I'm going to remain vague about what it is for fear of spoilers.  On the surface, it's a neat idea - and even one I can understand from the islanders' point of view.  So that's good - as is the acting (even if some of the main characters are particularly annoying/unlikable).  Plus there's the inevitable 'gross-out' body horror that seems to go hand in hand with the name 'Cronenberg.' 

And yet there was something missing.  I did stick with the film all the way to the end.  And I'm glad I did.  It was certainly unique, even just for the premise, but perhaps the premise was also the problem.  Although I'm willing to believe in a 'supernatural' element in a story to further my enjoyment of the fictional genre, it just didn't really hold up in terms of logic once you thought about it.  Or rather, this supernatural element could work once in terms of the characters, but once it happens again and again, you wonder why the people behind it are so bothered by this seemingly repeated annoyance (or rather annoying tourists!) and there must be a better way to deal with rich idiots, rather than expose them to something that they could go home and tell the world about.

Again, sorry if all that sounds a bit cryptic.  Like I say, nice idea and definitely a dark horror if you're into that, but if you can explain all the implications and unanswered questions the premise brings up then you must have been watching it more closely than me!

6/10 

Lord of Illusions (1995) - Hellraiser's long lost cousin

I'm a big fan of Clive Barker's 'Hellraiser' series (and even the not so well respected 'Nightbreed'), so I was only too happy to check out 'Lord of Illusions.' And, pretty much from the off, you can tell it's got Barker's fingerprints all over it.  If it was made today you'd probably be forgiven for thinking that there's some sort of 'Marvel-esque' shared universe of Barker films and 'Lord of Illusions' is happening roughly at the same time as 'Hellraiser.' Sadly, it's not as good.

It's about... er, well, it took me a while to work out exactly what it was about.  And that's one of the drawbacks - its lack of focus.  You think you have a pretty normal set-up, i.e. a private investigator (Scott Bakula) looks into a case which involves, er, stuff.  Yeah, by the time the film got going I kind of forgot how our protagonist got involved.  There's someone practicing 'dark arts' kind of stuff and he's the antagonist.  Or is he?  There's a fake-out and another 'proper' threat that has to be dealt with before the credits roll and the overall feeling of the film is that it's a bit all over the place (a criticism also leveled at 'Nightbreed,' but I wasn't bothered with that!).

In short... I wasn't really enjoying it.  Although the practical make-up effects are good and, if you're into your Clive Barker movies, then you'll be expecting some pretty gory stuff.  This doesn't disappoint.  However, as much as it's all over the place, the final act was actually pretty entertaining.  There's action, tension, good gore and a general feeling of a conclusion.

Because of the ending I couldn't totally feel that I wasted my time with this film.  If only the pace of the ending could have been maintained throughout the whole story this may well be up there with Pinhead's exploits.

6/10

The Strangeness (1985) - When does it start?

I like to think that I'm no 'cinema snob' when it comes to films.  I love a good 'monster movie' - everything from the (more well respected classics) like 'Alien' and 'Predator' to the more cheesy and lighthearted silliness such as 'Deep Rising.' If the creature is inventive or it's simply paced right, any type of story of that nature can be enjoyable.  Sadly, 'The Strangeness' doesn't quite live up to its potential.

A group of explorers investigates an old gold mine and - guess what - there's something big, slimy and likes to pick off unsuspecting B-list actors in gruesome ways.  The premise is totally passable for a monster-munching movie ('The Descent' anyone?), but it just doesn't do enough.  I confess to watching it on a streaming service and therefore I had to pause it at one stage.  I was amazed to find that just over half an hour had passed and I couldn't think of anything that had actually happened!

And that's kind of how it continues.  Nothing happens.  I only stuck with it simply to see how long it goes on without a single thing of any real interest (or scary!) happening.  It's not a long film (roughly ninety minutes) and I checked the time again when the creature actually shows up (it's one hour and four minutes, if you're interested).

Besides that you have 'highlights' such as one of the longest single conversations I've ever seen in a film where two characters just talk to each other for what seemed like most of the movie.  Apart from the you get to see a few lights bobbing around in the dark for the rest of the story.  I really wouldn't bother with this one.

4/10

Deadly Messages (1985) - Probably better than it ought to be

Now I'm looking this film up online to review I find that it was indeed 'made for TV' back 1985 (I had guessed that within the first few minutes of watching it!).  That's normally a sign that you're not going to be getting much for your money - cheap sets, unknown actors and a lot of suspension of disbelief required to properly enjoy it.  And, yes, it is all those things.  But it's also got its charms!

It's about a young woman who finds an old ouija board and ends up getting the titular 'deadly' messages, which warn her of foreboding and lethal events ahead.

I haven't heard of anyone in the cast (I doubt the main villain from 'Robocop' counts as an 'A-lister'), the script is so-so and do be expecting anything in the way of special effects - there's both no need or budget for that.  And yet I kept watching.  I suppose this is an instance when you can tell the difference between a 'slow burning' story and a boring one.  If this movie was just outright dull then the slow pace wouldn't lead to anything, whereas there was at least a decent attempt at crafting a genuine sense of mystery around the central character.

I actually wanted to know what was going on in her life and her past and I was glad I stuck with it to find out.  You can't really judge 'Deadly Messages' against massive Hollywood productions - it's not in their league.  But in terms of nice, easy-going little supernatural mysteries than you might happen to come across late night on TV, I have sat through much worse!

6/10

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