Jeepers Creepers 3 - Should have stopped at 2

I have mixed feelings towards the 'Jeepers Creepers' franchise.  I didn't actually enjoy the first outing, finding it all a little frustrating that the heroes never really did enough to escape their monstrous, winged tormentor.The second one was more fun (if a little 'all over the place') and I remember the film-makers stating at the time, that the reason the 'Creeper' only attacked every 25 years was to prevent sequels from being made.  Apparently, we're now '25 years later' since part 2.

Yes, the big ugly bat-man, monster-thing is back after another 25 years and looking to kill and generally murder his way through anyone the plot dictates.  And, this time he has a whole new load of powers.  In fact, if he can kill you with his spear and various weapons, he will.  If the way he kills you defies all known physics, it just happens that way.  I guess the writers figured that because it's a 'straight-to-DVD' horror, no one would really care.  I certainly didn't care... about the whole film.

Like I said, I liked the second instalment even though it had multiple stories and themes which didn't always blend as well as they could.  However, Part II is a work of story-telling genius when compared to what follows.  You have characters - you won't remember any of their names, so I won't bother to try and list them.  Each is either hunting the monster or destined to be a victim of it.  The characters aren't given any real traits more than the one-dimensional types they start the first scene you'll meet them in.

So, the characters you won't care about.  The deaths are vaguly gory, if that's what you're looking for, but the Creeper himself just seems so overpowered that you know there's nothing anyone can do about him (until the end where the human-cattle at least have a shot at stopping him).  Plus you see the monster from the beginning.  I know that - by any third instalment - the audience is probably well aware of what the creature looks like.  It's just that at least NOT showing him all the time gives him an air of mystery.  Now he's just another man in a rubber suit.

As you can guess, I really didn't care for this one and struggled to get through it.  I know that the first one was popular so, even if I didn't 'get' it, there must be plenty of horror-buffs who did.  From what I understand people - like me - did like the second part, so my advice would be to forget this one completely and stick to one or both of those two.

2/10 Scuzzier than the leftover goo from a Queen alien's egg sack

Aftermath - Short and sweet (well… sort of)

Anyone who's familiar with Schwarzenegger's career over the years will be well accustomed to him losing one family member to some big bad guy with an indeterminate accent and therefore Arnie having to go on a rampage of revenge, involving many machine guns and flexing of biceps.  Here, the big man loses his family to a plane crash and… doesn't pick up so much a handgun and shoot the airline's smarmy lawyer in the head during a victim-compensation office meeting.  Yes, it's fair to say that Arnie is showing off his (seldom-used) 'sensitive side.'

The film is actually the tale of two people: Arnie's character, Roman, and the man in charge of the flight control during the fatal plane crash, Jacob.  Now, no disrespect to the actor playing Jacob, but I'd never heard of him, meaning - for me - it seemed like they'd cast a nobody next to one of the most highly-recognisable actors of the modern age for 50% of the movie.  However, that's not really a gripe, more a comment.  Scoot McNairy plays the part well of the 'everyman' who's life changes one fateful day.

We see how the event effects the two central characters and I have to talk about Schwarzenegger more because this film is all about him moving out of his 'comfort zone,' rather than Scoot.  Does he pull it off?  Surprisingly, yes.  Maybe it's because he's older now and less imposing, but his large frame, shuffling around with his head stooped does give us the impression of a man crushed by tragic events.

Apparently this film is based on true events.  I never knew that going into the movie so I can't say how accurately it portrays whatever event it was based on.  However, it does show both sides of how one event can effect different people.

It's hard to recommend 'Aftermath' to anyone who isn't massive fan of Schwarzenegger and who wants to see him in a radically-different role.  It's certainly not a 'feel-good film' and you need to know that (a) you're not going to get your typical Schwarzenegger action movie and (b) it's pretty grim subject matter.  However, it is short and perhaps one of the most shocking moments (for me!) was when/how it ended.  It just seemed to come out of nowhere.  Still... I think it's a good additional to Arnie's C.V. (like he needs one!).

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

Commando - So simple.  So perfect.

The word 'perfect' may be an odd one to describe an eighties action film where one man effectively takes on an entire army while making wry puns and flexing his biceps.  No, I'm not saying that 'Commando' is a perfect film when compared to true cinematic greats, such as the ones we all know and respect like 'Citizen Kane, The Godfather and Empire Strikes Back.'

No, I'm saying that 'Commando' is 'perfect' in a different way.  As I've already mentioned, it was made in the eighties.  And you have to appreciate that, back then, it was a different time period.  Women were not always portrayed as strong, independent and many of them needed rescuing from evil bad-guys with odd Anglo-Aussie accents.  It is a 'perfect' action film and shouldn't be judged against clearly more 'high-brow' movies.

Great films make you think and make you enjoy the character arcs and journeys.  Then again, as with 'Commando,' it can also be said that 'great' films can also be sheer entertainment where you can escape 'real life' and simply enjoy the over-the-topness of the action. 'Commando' is definitely 'great' in this category.

It could also be classed as Arnold Schwarzenegger's 'first' film.  Previously he didn't say too much as the iconic 'Terminator' and the 'Conan' film, he wasn't the wise-cracking action hunk he was destined to become.  There is very little back-story to this film.  It's about an ex-army soldier (Arnie) who, despite retiring, has his daughter kidnapped by baddies who want him to assassinate a politician.  Naturally, he decides on a different method of handling the situation.  He wipes out pretty much everyone he comes across with a hail-storm of bullets and bazookas.  The film rests firmly on Arnie's broad shoulders and he carries it perfectly.  You probably won't remember too many of the supporting cast, apart from the primary antagonist 'Bennett' who I can never work out whether he's trying to be British or Australian and who is as over-the-top as this film would make you expect.

Therefore, expect shoot-outs (obviously), car chases, punch-ups and plenty of action.  This is an 'action film' through and through.  And, like I've said, it's a perfect example of a simple action epic.  If you're a Schwarzenegger fan then you probably already own this, but if you like your action films a little over-the-top and a lot tongue-in-cheek, then you should definitely check this one out.  It's the ultimate daft popcorn flick totally designed to entertain.  Watch it before they remake it.

10/10 The Monty Python Knights of Camelot are currently looking for this 

Jumper - C'mon… it's not THAT bad

Since the 'Star Wars' prequels, it's seemingly been officially acceptable to 'bash' Hayden Christensen.  Okay, so maybe he's never destined to be an A-list star who will be remembered forever, but it's not like he's so awful that everything he's in should be tainted by the general feeling of disappointment that came with those first (infamous) three films.

'Jumper' is Haydensen's first (and ONLY to my knowledge!) attempt at shouldering a film himself.  And it bombed.  I'm guessing it was probably supposed to start a franchise, but that will never happen.  However, despite how it was received, I think I've watched it about three times over the years and enjoyed it every time.

Apparently, a 'jumper' is basically someone with the power to teleport.  Christiensen is one such individual.  However, just because he can pop in and out of bank's vaults with impunity, doesn't mean his life is going to be one long party - that's where Samuel L Jackson comes in.  These 'Paladins' have dedicated their lives to tracking down these 'freaks of nature' and generally stabbing them to death.

What you have is a - sort of - chase movie where Samuel L Jackson generally hunts down Hayden Christensen, intertwined with some genuinely cool action set-pieces involving fighting while teleporting and utilising all the perks that come with this power.  Yes, there's the obligatory 'love interest' thrown in there (possibly trying to capture a little of that 'teen magic' the 'Twilight' franchise capitalised on), but that's secondary.  The fun is the action - and Jamie Bell, who also pops up (and, in my opinion, steals every scene!).

I'm not saying that 'Jumper' is the greatest film ever.  But I think it deserves just a little more love than it got on its release.  It's got sci-fi, action and, of course, effectively an evil version of Samuel L Jackson's 'Nick Fury' character (and with blond hair for some reason!).  You won't need to use many brain cells to understand the plot, but it's reasonably harmless fun.  And, with so many films trying for that 'Twilight' teens-meet-supernatural vibe, this is actually one of the better ones.

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

Carry On Follow That Camel - Not what I remembered

Despite growing up slightly after the 'Carry On' films heyday, I watched many of them on TV when I was a child and 'Follow That Camel' always stuck in my mind as my favourite of them all.  Therefore, when I rewatched it, I was certainly expecting a lot more laughs than I got.  I don't want to harp on about how 'times have changed,' but even I cringed sometimes at some of the 'jokes' which, nowadays, could be borderline criminal offenses.  However, I could probably just chalk these up to a 'sign of the times' and ignore them if the rest of the film could hold up.  And it didn't.

The film charts the loose story of a disgraced Englishman who joins the French foreign legion to escape his social embaressement.  The film is therefore set in a desert (or rather a part of southern England where the film-makers have put sand on the set!) and there are plenty of colourful characters, just not many gags that still land today.

Yes, many of the 'usual suspects' from 'Carry On' films are there - Kenneth Williams for example, hams it up and is still entertaining to watch.  But the rest of them just seem to be retreading the same old ground.  I guess the franchise was getting a little tired by this point and generally running out of steam.  I wanted to love it like I used to.  Maybe it's more suited to a child's humour?  Maybe times have changed so much that this sort of humour will never be able to be appreciated?  Or maybe I'm just losing my sense of humour as I'm getting older.  Either way, I was disappointed.  There are plenty of other 'Carry On' films I used to watch (and love!) back in the day.  Now I'm scared to watch them again in case I they don't live up to what I remember!

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

Bulletproof Monk - So dumb.  So fun.

There's absolutely nothing special about the (not so subtly-titled) 'Bulletproof Monk.' In fact, the title should tell you everything you need to know about the film.  However, just because it's nothing out of the ordinary, doesn't make it a bad film.  In fact... it's rather good fun (if you're not expecting too much).

Sean William Scott - better known as 'Who?' unless you're watching an 'American Pie' movie, where he is - of course - 'Stiffler.' He is playing, er, 'Stiffler' basically, only he's really good at martial arts and pickpocketing people.  He ends up getting caught up in a plot by Nazis seeking immortality and has to help the titular 'Bulletproof Monk' (Chow Yun Fat) save the world from these out of time creeps.

This film was made back in 2003 and I'd love to say that, because of the time it was made, there was less CGI and more 'practical' effects.  Yes, there are some practical effects (or should I say well-choreographed fight scenes), however a lot of the more 'fantastical' martial arts moves are all - very blatantly - filmed up against a blue screen.  You may just have to forgive them for that.

So, you have plucky, wise-cracking hero, wise mentor, evil baddies and obligatory love interest (Jamie King).  So, like I say, nothing you haven't seen a hundred times before.  It's so run-of-the-mill that there's not an awful lot else I can say about it.  However, just because it doesn't set the film-world alight in terms of originality, doesn't mean that it isn't enormous fun.  But, if you like your modern martial arts films, or just need a relaxing little action flick to rest your brain to after a hard day's work, then this should fit the bill.

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

Avengers: Infinity War - What we've all been waiting for

I can't help but think of 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' after watching 'Avengers: Infinity War.' The two of them may have been made by Disney, but they are worlds apart when it comes to giving the fans what they were after.  The latest 'Star Wars' may have been okay, but it was generally disregarded by many die-hards.  However, despite the Avengers - technically - pumping out more films in its franchise and therefore potentially suffering from fatigue regarding its premise, it's been hailed as a classic - and for good reason.  It shows that, despite having numerous previous (and dare I say similar?) outings, a sequel doesn't have to be stale.

I suppose there must be some people out there who have never seen an 'Avengers' movie before (or even one from the Marvel Cinematic Universe), so, for the two of you, this is the third outing where Earth's mightiest superheroes are forced to come together to defend the planet from an alien, hell-bent on wiping out 50% of the universe.

You may be thinking that this is just another modern action film, filled with computer-generated special effects and scripted one-liners.  And you'd be right.  However, I always find that computer-generated battles are only bad if the effects are bad and they drag on and scripted one-liners only don't work if they're forced and there's no chemistry between the actors.  I'm pleased to say that, although 'Avengers: Infinity War' has both, they only add to the proceedings.

With a cast as big as is needed to bring characters from every Marvel movie together, there's always going to be a couple who don't get quite as much screen time as some of us would like.  However, you should really expect that and realise it was going to be difficult for the writers to please everyone.  Personally, I've always been a fan of Robert Downey Jr's portrayal of 'Iron Man' (I don't think I'm alone on that one), so I was happy to see that he was - possibly - given the most screen time out of anyone.

However, no matter how good the goodies are, they need a good bad-guy to fight.  The Marvel movies have often been criticised for a lack of real threatening baddies (Loki excluded), so we finally get to see he who has been in the background for so long, Thanos.  And he's worth the wait.  He's a bad guy we can not only love to hate, but also - in a strange way - see that he has a point, or at least a point of view from his own perspective.  Josh Brolin portrays him brilliantly and you'll forget that most of him is computer-generated after a while.

Yes, 'Infinity War' is part of the overall franchise, but you don't really have to have seen every previous movie to 'get' everything that's happening here (obviously, the more Marvel movies you've seen the more you'll get out of this one, but it's not essential).  I suppose if there is one complaint of mine it's that I know which characters are truly in danger here, due to the actors' contracts either due to expire, or only just being picked up.  Either way, it's a definite improvement on the previous 'Avengers' movie, as the 'Age of Ultron' felt strangely 'meh' for one that should have been so much more.

If you like the MCU, you'll like this.  If you like action film, you'll also love it.  It's - sort of - a family movie in that a lot of families will go to see it, but, either way, it's so epic in scale that most should appreciate it for the sheer spectacle it is.  Poor Justice League - it never really stood a chance.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather