Feast - To appreciate this film you must...

(a) Find somewhere comfy to watch this

(b) Take your brain out and put it somewhere where it won’t have to think much

(c) Crack open the popcorn (or ‘comfort food’ substitute)

(d) Enjoy

‘Feast’ is just about the most low-brow film you’re ever likely to see. It’s also one of the best. The plot is simple... monsters attack a bar at night. Those inside must fight for their life.

Nothing new there, but it’s still fun. Every movie should know what it is before it’s filmed. If it’s a drama, it should stay a drama. Same goes for comedy, sci-fi and the rest. This film knows it’s not serious and it plays to its (black humour) strengths.

It takes great pride in defying the usual horror/monster movie conventions and breaks them in the most grisly and bl00dy fashion.

It’s totally dumb fun and should become any horror fan’s guilty pleasure movies. If you’re looking for ‘deep and meaningful’ you won’t find it here, so move on. I refer to my opening statements – remove brain and enjoy it as much as I did (I’m now off to find where I left my brain now it’s over... or I could leave it where it is and watch Feast 2 and 3 while I’m at it?).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

S. Darko - Not terrible, just unnecessary

The original 'Donnie Darko' movie turned out to be a 'cult classic' and slowly gathered more and more momentum as the years went by.  It's still totally watchable, even if you don't entirely understand it!  It's weird, twisted and totally surreal science fiction about time travel and a revolting bunnysuit-clad man who warns a teenager in the eighties that the world is about to come to an end in a few days time.  Yeah, I never said it was an easy watch and, if you're a fan of David Lynch's films, this should be for you.

However... and it's a BIG however, it's 'sequel' (in name only) just doesn't deliver.  Its biggest problem is that it doesn't add anything new.  In fact, you could almost consider it a 'remake.' It's story follows the original beat for beat, only with a sense of hollowness about it.  Despite the actress who played Donnie's younger sister 'Samantha' (hence the 'S. Darko' title) returning, now much older, and experiencing the weird and sinister world her older brother once did, this one just didn't capture the same magic.

It's certainly not the actors' fault this film doesn't succeed.  They do their best with what's given to them.  It's worth noting that this isn't written or directed by the man (Richard Kelly) who did the first one.  Therefore it lacks the original's sense of visual style and flair, meaning the whole atmosphere just isn't there, along with the classic eighties soundtrack that 'Donnie Darko' possessed.

All the 'weirdness' is just copied - seemingly - for the sake of it, as if it's desperately trying to be 'out there' and 'deep and meaningful,' but really just coming off as bland and incomprehensible.  Yes, the original was odd and many people ended up wondering what it was all about, but even if you didn't understand 'Donnie Darko' you felt like it was an experience worth investing your time in and it was definitely entertaining.  My advice: just stick to the original.

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

The Last Witch Hunter - The generic bad-thing hunter

‘The Last Witch Hunter’ is Van Diesel’s latest action flick – and it’s pretty by-the-numbers.  It’s one of those films that you can sort of have on in the background and still know exactly what’s happening at all times.  I’m not saying that it’s bad, just that you probably won’t remember it and that you’ve seen it all before – namely in films like Van Helsing, Constantine and I Frankenstein. 

As with the other films I’ve just mentioned, you have a secret society (funded by the church in most cases) who employs a single person to despatch whatever evil is threatening humanity.  You could pretty much take out ‘witches’ from the title and replace the baddie with any other movie monster, i.e. werewolves and you’ve sort of have the same film.

Vin Diesel plays himself – a wise-cracking bad-ass that you’ve seen in almost all his other films.  And, if you’re a fan, you’ll be happy enough with his performance.  He goes about his business incarcerating computer generated witches who cast computer generated magic against computer generated backdrops with the help of one sidekick after the next.  He sort of starts off with Michael Caine, the goes through Elijah Wood and ends up with Rose Leslie (although Michael Caine’s input is little more than just an extended cameo).

Sadly, the film’s plot is pretty basic with predictable twists and not great dialogue.  There are a few good one liners to keep it amusing and not too serious, but a handful of good lines don’t really elevate the film enough to make it even into a cult classic.

The baddies themselves are equally forgettable.  I remember when Terminator 2 was released, they made sure that the evil T-1000 robot frequently morphed back into its initial character.  This was to give audiences a recognisable face of the villain.  Here the witch does a lot of morphing, but you don’t really see her much besides the beginning and the end.

I get the feeling the film-makers were hoping to make a franchise out of The Last Witch Hunter.  I could sort of see that happening, but, if by some miracle (or black magic?) it did, I think all sequels would be sent straight to DVD.  It’s not a bad film, just one that you’ve probably seen before – and better.  For Vin Diesel fans only.

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

Red Lights - Worth it, just for the actors

Red Lights is about a team of professional sceptics, aka Cillian Murphy and Sigourney Weaver, who go around `debunking' supposed psychic and supernatural occurances (think Sculley from the X-files, but without the oversize flashlight and shoulderpads).

They seem to be making a good living off picking holes in séances and mediums when along comes our friend Robert DeNiro, who appears to be the `real deal.' Cue a battle played out in the media as they do their best to try and disprove his act.

Red Lights is certainly not the best film in the world, but it's different. I can't think of many other films that cover similar topics. And, of course you have the three big leads who elevate it to something higher than just a B-movie.

There are some twists and turns in the plot (one of which I saw coming, one I didn't) and I won't give those away. However, based on what I've read from other people on the internet after watching it, whether you approve of the `twists' will ultimately determine your enjoyment of the film. I guess it's a case of you have to watch the film to find out whether you'll like it or not.

I thought it was good. Not great, but solid enough to be enjoyable.

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

Crash – As contrived as it is a classic

‘Crash’ is about the tensions between various races in Los Angeles.  Yes, hardly a topic for a light-hearted romp through the city.  You’ll probably have to be in the mood for something a lot darker (and at times poignant) which will make you think (just don’t think too hard... but I’ll get to that).

The first thing you’ll notice is the wide range of A-list actors on display here.  Yes, it’s one of those ‘ensemble’ casts and even those who don’t have their own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame are definitely also ‘recognisable faces’ meaning that even those who don’t have quite as much screen time as the major stars are all capable of turning in a strong performance.

Sandra Bullock may be the ‘biggest’ star on the cast list, but, in my opinion, it’s Matt Dillon who steals the show.  What you get is a selection of random – some average, some more privileged – people in L.A. whose lives are all due to ‘crash’ into each other in one way or another.  Yes, that’s where the title comes from, but, just in case you miss this meaning, there are also at least a couple of literal car crashes in there as well!

Personally, I loved the film.  It shows good and bad people of many different races and gives you a bit of a ‘whistle-stop’ tour of what it’s like to be them.  You could be expecting one hell of an epic film with so many people on the cast list.  Surprisingly, it’s not overly-long and, although this is good that it never drags, many of the characters never really get ‘fleshed out’ as they probably could have done (had this be made today and given its own Netflix TV series, or something).

I don’t see that as a gripe, but those who didn’t enjoy ‘Crash’ as much as me do tend to dwell on how it’s all a little too contrived.  They ask, ‘Would all these life-changing events really happen in such a short space of time?’ The answer: probably not.  But who cares?  Do we stop watching ‘Eastenders’ because too much happens in such a small area?

It’s a film.  It’s making a point – and quite a brave one.  It shows that no one race is all good and always right, possessing the ‘correct’ way to live their lives.  We all have flaws and we all have people of our own ‘kind’ who are good and bad.  I remember it even won some awards when it was first released.  I agreed with that decision, but I also recall people disagreeing.  However, if you want to see something that is as dark and tragic as it is funny and poignant then definitely give ‘Crash’ a go.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Cherry 2000 - It has to be seen to be believed

I watch a lot of ‘so-bad-they’re-good’ films, but ‘Cherry 2000’ was actually quite different.  It was a ‘so-bad-I-don’t-know-if-it’s-real’ kind of film.  I literally sat there unable to believe my eyes at what I was witnessing.  It’s set in some sort of weird future where men can buy robots shaped like beautiful women who will wait on their every needs.  However, what one such man obviously never read in his ‘wife’s’ instruction manual was that you should probably never get them wet.

I won’t go into the hows and whys of how he gets his ‘Cherry 2000’ model wet (there’s a treat in store for you), but it totally blows a fuse and the local dealer seems to be out of stock in that particular make.  Therefore, the only thing he can do is set out into a forbidden wasteland where there’s – apparently – a robot graveyard full of perfectly-kept Cherrys waiting to be taken back to some lucky man’s kitchen. 

So he does.  Only he doesn’t do it alone.  He enlists the help of a ‘tracker’ – someone who’s familiar with the dangerous world they’re about to explore.  This particular tracker is played by Melanie Griffith.  And this is where the ‘fun’ starts.  That is if you call ‘fun’ really bad acting.  Melanie Griffith can’t act.  Or, to be fair, she can’t act back in this particular film.  I read online that she had just given birth weeks before filming, so perhaps I should cut her a bit of slack.  But she really is bad.  Every line is delivered like she’s reading if from a children’s comic (and not a very well-written comic either).

You could almost say that she ruins the movie, but that would be a little unfair.  The guy who’s hired her tries to ‘out-ruin’ the movie, too.  He’s possibly the least charismatic leading man ever.  Plus he doesn’t seem able to close his mouth – ever.  Therefore, with two such awful leads, you could imagine many people would have turned it off as soon as possible.  But that’s where its appeal lies – you have to watch it to see just how bad it gets.

Plus there’s the script itself.  Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino would struggle to act well delivering these lines.  It’s like the writers were students who had a good idea for a film, but none of the talent to bring it to the big screen.  The action scenes don’t make sense.  The dialogue doesn’t make sense.  The progression of the story from scene to scene doesn’t make sense and, finally, the character motivation doesn’t make sense either.

Cherry 2000 is a disaster, but one of those car crash type disasters that you just have to watch.  You need to know you are in for a bad experience when you sit down to watch this.  It is bad, but it is so bad you really do have to see it to believe it.

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

30 Minutes or Less - Was this meant to be a comedy? 

I seem to recall seeing the trailer for this and thinking it looked kind of funny. Jesse Eisenberg plays his typically geeky and hard done by character once again; this time he's a pizza delivery boy who gets tricked into robbing a bank by two local idiots who somehow know how to strap a bomb-vest around him and give him ten hours to get them one hundred thousand dollars.

I quite liked the idea, but the story didn't seem to know what it was or where it was going. I think the main problem I had with it was the script. In the absence of anything either funny or clever to say, the writers went for volume. There was barely a line delivered at a normal pitch. People just yelled at each other to make up for the fact that no witty dialogue was available at the time.

I guess if you look at this film as more of a tongue-in-cheek thriller, you may get something out of it. However, it's not serious enough to be a thriller and it's definitely not funny enough to be a comedy. Drama maybe? I can hardly see it cropping up on many Academy Award nomination lists.

I did laugh once - about midway through the film and thanks to some unexpected blue stuff.

I guess Jesse's laughs are being stored for Zombieland 2 or something.

Disappointing. It was a nice idea that had no idea. 

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