The Babadook - Functional little horror

‘Babadook’ has come in for some ‘high praise’ from a lot of the people who have seen it.  I’m not sure that I’d go as far as to praise it highly here, but it’s not that bad.  I think that the reason it’s been so well received is because it is slightly better than the average horror movie.  Let’s face it... just because there are load of horror films around right now, that doesn’t mean that most of them are totally forgettable.

The ‘Babadook’ is vaguely better than the average modern horror film.  It’s dark and moody, yet at the same never really reveals the ‘time period’ it’s supposed to be set in – people dress and speak like they’re from the nineteen forties then use a mobile phone (couldn’t spot an iphone though). 

It’s about a single mother and her son.  The youngster clearly suffers from various ‘behavioural problems’ – many of which stem from his father’s untimely demise on the day of his birth.  He’s expelled from school and his mother does her best to raise him.  Only there’s a bad book (or anagram of ‘Babadook’ if you noticed?) in their house that seems to bring on an equally bad presence in the house.

And the ‘bad presence’ is pretty eerie and nicely done.  That’s another plus point.  Then you also have the child actor.  Now, ninety per cent of kids in films deserve to be eaten by monsters and, despite this young boy spending much of the early part of the film screaming, he just about does enough to stop you from completely hating him.

There’s nothing new here.  It could almost be ‘The Ring’ under another name.  If you don’t watch much horror, you may enjoy it more as you probably won’t have seen as much like it before.  However, if – like me – you’ve seen a hundred and one different spooks tormenting a hundred and one different families, then there’s a certain amount of de ja vu going on here.  It’s not bad.  I didn’t resent sitting through it.  I just can’t promise not to forget it totally in a few months time.

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

Conan the Barbarian (2011) – In a world without Arnie

Long ago in a magical land, nine rings were forged - some for the elves, some for men and some for dwarves, but then a dark lord came along and... oh, wait, wrong film.  However, the opening recap that Morgan Freeman so stoically narrates could be mistaken for the opening to ‘Fellowship of the Ring’ (albeit without the drama).

Yes, it had to happen - even a Schwarzenegger film can be remade.  Although Arnie's Conan outing is looking a bit dated these days and can hardly be described as his finest hour, do we really need an updated version?  Hollywood says yes.

So, `Not Arnie' is now Jason Momoa - a skirt-wearing barbarian in `Not Middle Earth' whose father dies at the hand of some of the world's ugliest baddies who wear menacing black armour (and a witch who is the coolest of the lot).  A fair bit of the film is dedicated to Conan as a child and his interaction/training from his father (Ron Perlman).  Okay, so obviously most of it is with Momoa, but I’m mentioning the bit when he was a child because there was so little of this ‘backstory’ in Arnie’s version.  Anyway, the nasties who destroy his village when he was a boy happen to spare his life and roll off into the sunset while dragging a massive galleon around with them through whatever part of the so-so 3D computer-generated `Not Middle Earth.' Why?  I don't know, but they seem to like having their own ship with them while on land.  It also made me wonder why, in the time period between him being a boy and growing into a man, apparently this group of baddies was so hard to find!

Anyway, `Not Arnie' (sorry, Jason – I can’t help it!) then meets the last attractive female left in `Not Middle Earth' and protects her from the leader of the ugly baddies, whose sole motivation is to ‘be bad and take over the world’ (about as well-developed as your average MCU villain!) by getting pieces of what looks like a burned computer-generated Facehugger (from ‘Alien’) on his face and sacrificing the female lead to pay homage to ‘Willie’s near demise in ‘Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.’ She, in turn, from being a priestess becomes almost as good a swordsman as Conan within the hour (how much do you want to bet that she gets captured in the final act?).

Yes, the special effects are an improvement on the original, the 3D didn't do much for me, but the story is nothing new.  Everything is pretty run-of-the-mill when it comes to the narrative.  You could almost write it yourself, so don't expect any dramatic plot twists.  The blood flows quite freely for gore-hounds, but is a little darker than the real stuff.

Verdict: occasional use of slow-motion special effects doth not make a remake (even if part of it does try to emulate Pirates of the Caribbean midway through the film).  It’s just yet another pointless remake that relies on the name to sell the film, rather than trying to produce anything new.  I know I’m sounding pretty down on the whole thing, but – believe it or not – it’s not actually that bad.  It does the job if you’re looking for a ‘sword and sorcery’ type action film.  It’s just a shame it really needed to be made.

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

12 Strong - Thor vs the Taliban

When I watch a film like '12 Strong,' i.e. one that's 'based on true events,' I always feel like I should research the true story before deciding on how good the film is.  It tells the tale of the first group of American soldiers sent into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks who paved the way for the Allied invasion and subsequent regime change for the Middle Eastern country.  Naturally, it's all told from America's perspective, but with any Hollywood war movie, what did you expect?  Anyway, it's naturally very patriotic and, although I can't confirm or deny on how close to the actual story this depiction is, it's still pretty good fun.  And, dare I say that's mainly to do with its leading man, Chris 'Thor' Hemsworth.

Hemsworth plays 'Captain Mitch Nelson' - the squad leader of the twelve special forces operatives sent in to meet up with various local tribes, all of which only too willing to help overthrow the Taliban.  There are a couple of familiar faces thrown in there as well - the ones I recognised were Michael Shannon and William Fichtner, but, in my opinion, it's Hemsworth's show all the way.  It's hardly controversial to say that he can carry a franchise with ease and here is an example of how he can generally take what is probably a bit of a mediocre and predictable film into something very watchable.  He's just so damn easy to watch and somehow doesn't let his (annoyingly, in my bitter opinion!) good looks get in the way of him portraying a kind of 'everyman' soldier who you could just imagine leading a platoon of troops into battle.

As you can probably imagine, the film centres around Hemsworth and his men.  There is some attempt to show what's going on in the country at the time, but I did get the feeling that this was there for the added effect of showing how bad it was and therefore doubling down on justifying America's invasion of the region.  They try to show the 'villain' of the film (i.e. the leader of the Taliban in the area they're attacking) and what he's up to, but the fact that the story dictates the fact that he's obviously never going to interact with our heroes, he's about as effective as a villain as a bad guy in the Marvel Cinema Universe (excluding Loki, of course!).

Besides Hemsworth, I thought the other stand-out performance came from Navid Negahban as local warlord/American ally, 'General Dostum.' He actually gets enough screen time to show us that not all residents of the country are our enemies and its good to see the bond develop between him and Hemsworth's characters.  Naturally, there are also the obvious battles that you're going to get in any war film.  Most of them seem pretty well done and realistic, but I think there were a few CGI explosions thrown in there as well.  Like I say, I'm not sure how historically accurate this film is, but there is some text at the end (which I always go by!) that tells us a few facts and it does seem that the film-makers have done their best to tell the actual story, rather than just throwing out some US propaganda.  So, if you're interested in the early days of the 'War on Terror,' like war movies, or are just a fan of Chris Hemsworth, this is actually a film that's better than I expected it to be.

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

The Lawnmower Man - Playstation 2 with superpowers

In the early nineties, special effects were coming along in leaps and bounds: 'Jurassic Park' and 'Terminator 2' led the way seamlessly incorporating computer effects into live action films.  However, 'The Lawnmower Man' simply chose to show off its computer SFX as computer graphics in its own live action horror film.  It's also worth noting that, although the film is billed as 'Stephen King's' it isn't really much to do with him, only using the title of one of his short stories and about one scene in the entire movie is based on his work (I believe there were rumours that King himself wanted his name removed from the project - which is a little unfair, as it's not that bad really!).

Pierce Brosnan plays Dr. Lawrence Angelo who's merrily experimenting with chimps in order to increase their learning capacity through virtual reality.  When one of his subjects goes crazy and starts killing people, Brosnan loses his job and is forced to take his work home and look for other 'lab rats' to play with.  He therefore choses a local gardener (yes, the titular 'Lawnmower Man' so to speak) 'Jobe Smith' (played by Jeff Fahey) and continues his work.  And, in true 'Frankenstein' fashion, Dr Angelo soon discovers that he's created one hell of a (virtual?) monster.

Back in 1992 when this film was released, all people could talk about were the special effects. 'The Lawnmower Man' was a huge hit, simply because it was basically one of the first films to use such effects to such good use.  Nowadays, anyone who watches it would think that these 'cutting edge' special effects look more like the cut scenes from a cheap Playstation 2 game than something Hollywood would have churned out.  However, it's worth noting that they were pretty state-of-the-art for the time and they don't feel at all out of place here.

I've never read King's original short story, so I can't compare the two, however, I do think that once you take away all the glossy effects, the story if pretty much just a glorified B-movie.  Obviously Pierce Brosnan can carry a franchise and yet he struggles to  make much with the dialogue and his ear ring just looks laughable (plus his major 'character development' appears to be how his haircut changes so radically at the end of the film when compared to the beginning.

Jeff Fahey also does his best playing the 'learning impaired' young man with a haircut even worse than Brosnan's (think Lloyd from 'Dumb and Dumber' meets an early Trey Parker or Owen Wilson cut).  I never did buy his performance when he's trying to be dumb; personally I much preferred him once virtual reality had cranked up his mind and he was doing 'threatening' instead of 'confused.' You also have the kid from 'Last Action Hero' (proving why he never really made it past 1993 with anyone hearing of him) and Dean Norris' ('Hank' from 'Breaking Bad') head, putting on some sort of weird semi-British accent (possibly worth watching the film for this alone!).

The whole thing feels a bit like an extended episode of 'The Outer Limits,' only with a bigger budget.  However, for all its flaws, it's still reasonable fun.  I hadn't watched it in a while and I definitely think it's one of those films where you need to know what you're getting before you sit down.  Don't expect amazing acting, script or special effects, but just view it as a quirky bit of sci-fi.  Besides, the one thing that always stuck with me through the years was the ending.  But I won't spoil that.  I've never watched the sequel and I hear from what I've read online that I'm not missing much!

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

I Spit on Your Grave (2010) – Certainly simple, but not necessarily effective

I normally berate people for watching films where the subject matter is blatantly obvious from the title (such as ‘Snakes on a Plane’) and who then go on to say they didn’t like it.  I mean… what were these people expecting from a film with such an obvious giveaway as a title?  Anyway, when I sat down to watch (the remake of) ‘I Spit on Your Grave’ (2010), I was hardly expecting Shakespeare.  From what I knew of the original it was a revenge tale of a woman getting attacked, only to later return and take vengeance on those who had wronged her.  And, to be fair, I did get just that.  However, there’s a ‘however…’

I was indeed treated to a woman.  A gang of despicable hoodlums.  And a revenge segment.  So, I guess I got what I expected.  So why do I feel a little aggrieved?  Basically, this is one film that could have done with a little more in the way of ‘character development.’ Yes, I know that term is hardly widely-used in the horror genre and most of the time the only ‘development’ you get is when a character transitions from being alive and engaging in pre-marital s3x to sliced to pieces by a chainsaw. 

In ‘I Spit on Your Grave’ we have the woman – who is our protagonist and therefore good.  We know she’s good because, er, she’s our protagonist and so has to be, right?  Then we have the gang and they’re bad because  - yes, you guessed it – they’re just bad.  Thus conflict ensues.  And that’s about that in terms of plot.  Yes, if you’re looking for good gory revenge, you’ll certainly find it here.  Of course you’ll support our good-looking young heroine, but only because she gets involved in a horrible incident.  And, because of this, you’ll automatically hate the gang because they were the sickos who perpetrated it.

However, I just couldn’t help but cry out for a little bit more in the way of backstory for our protagonist and ‘motivation’ for our hideous antagonists.  Maybe what the film is saying is that some people are just bad and therefore beyond any deeper thought than that.  If that’s the case, this lot are totally bad through and through and deserve everything they get.

It's a bit of a 'film of two halves.' The first centres around our woman and shows the horrors she's subjected to.  However, once this is over she's - almost - written out of the story where we see the lives of those who did it to her.  Then she kind of stalks them in the background a bit like Jason Vorhees might.  It's never really made clear how, in the space of a seemingly short period of time, she becomes adept at trap-setting and ninja-style killing.  I guess that's something that's left up to the imagination.

Basically, I did know what I was getting when I sat down to watch this and I got what I knew was coming.  However, with just a little bit more writing and plot (maybe an additional scene here and there), this could have been turned from a – pretty forgettable – gory revenge tale into something that was actually more memorable for something other than being a deliberately disgusting remake of an old film that – also – was deliberately disgusting enough to shock many a cinema-goer.

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

47 Ronin - Stylish and interesting, but also slightly odd

’47 Ronin’ is actually based on an old Japanese historical event when 47 samurai avenged the death and disgrace of their master, even if it marked them as ‘criminals.’ This tale is very well known and documented in Japan and people still visit the graves of the deceased in order to remember their commitment to their cause.

It’s been made into a film at least six times before, but this is the most ‘Hollywood’ version to date.  For a start, we have Keanu Reeves as the lead character and it’s fair to say that no westerners took part in the actual event.  Therefore, it’s safe to say that many liberties have been taken in this retelling.  This point is hammered home by the inclusion of various mythological creatures our valiant exiled samurai encounter.  And, I’m just guessing, but I’m pretty sure there weren’t any dragon-witches or giant ogres in Japan back then.

So, don’t expect a faithful re-telling of the historical event.  But, do expect entertainment.  I don’t know why, but ‘The Pirates of the Caribbean’ kept going through my mind while I was watching this.  The whole affair sort of reminded me of Captain Jack Sparrow in the Far East.  Every so often there’s a chase scene or a monster to fight and there are plenty of CGI backdrops for us to pretend are real.  Perhaps the one thing that isn’t really included is an awful lot of fight scenes.  I expected more ‘martial arts’ from a film about samurai, but there’s only a couple of swordplay scenes included.

All in all, it’s not a bad adventure film, but it’s kind of hard to think who its primary audience is.  Like I said, it doesn’t have enough fights to be a martial arts film.  It’s not ‘fun for all the family’ like Pirates of the Caribbean, so it’s more serious.  If you like supernatural action/adventure movies which have had all the major gore and adult-stuff edited out, then you might like this.  Keanu Reeves is ‘the star,’ but it’s the supporting Japanese cast that really hold it together.

I didn’t regret watching it, but I doubt I’d ever watch it again.  I’ve got a hundred better action adventure films already in my collection.

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

Gambit - High on talent, but a bit short on laughs

Gambit is a remake of an old Michael Caine film, where an art dealer (Firth) attempts to con his unbearable boss (Rickman) by enlisting the help of a beautiful, but slightly naïve, American cowgirl (Diaz). With those three names on the cast list, you know it's going to be good, especially when it's written by the - critically-acclaimed - Coen brothers. However, you may be wrong.

And it's not the fault of the actors. To put it simply, they're given very little to work with, script-wise. Cameron Diaz does what she does best, i.e. she's cute, a bit dippy, but thoroughly endearing nonetheless. Alan Rickman is...well, Alan Rickman - he's devious, cold-hearted and charming. Still, so far, so good, but then we come to Colin Firth - an actor who's proved his excellent credentials in numerous films. However, he's the protagonist here - attempting to basically rip-off his boss by foul means. Therefore, for us to feel sympathy towards him, we need to see him as more of a good-guy. Yet, he does very little to warm the audience towards him. He's spineless, a bit too weedy and, just because his boss isn't very nice, thinks he can take him for all he's worth. He doesn't even give us that many laughs (a few, but certainly not many). Unfortunately for him, Rickman steals the show and - despite obviously being the baddie - seems to charm the audience more than Firth can.

I know Gambit is supposed to be an addition to the long line of British `farce' films, but it does tend to rely a little too much on low-brow humour, rather than utilising the cast's natural talent. Also, because it's rated 12A, it can never really descend into the `gross-out' territory and do anything too risky.

Unfortunately, what you're left with is a very capable cast, being reduced to simply one of a number of stereotypes (the English are VERY English, Cameron Diaz is VERY Texan and the Japanese are VERY Japanese).

It's not a bad film. I quite enjoyed it, plus it doesn't drag itself out for too long. It's charming enough in its own way, only with the heavyweight names that go with it, it could have been so much more than just an excuse to watch Cameron Diaz in hotpants.

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