Zombieland - Still don’t (quite) get it

Okay, so I’ve pretty much seen and enjoyed most zombie films – everything from George A Romero’s offerings to the general silly B-movies featuring shuffling corpses eating people’s brains.  So I was always going to put ‘Zombieland’ on my ‘to watch’ list.  As soon as I heard it pretty much had A-list actors in it and a theatrical release, I was definitely looking forward to it.  Plus it’s worth noting that most people who saw it loved it.

I didn’t love it.

Granted, I didn’t hate it.  It kind of left little impression on me – neither good nor bad.  Yeah, there were some humorous moments where I giggled, but, generally, I found it a bit forgettable.  As the title would suggest, the world has been overrun by the living dead and there are few humans left, desperately trying to survive.  Jessie Eisenberg is our ‘hero’ who talks us through the ‘rules’ of how to live in a world where most of the population is trying to eat you.  His voiceover is pretty funny, but after the first act it kind of drops off when he meets his ‘love interest’ and they head to a theme park.

I think the biggest flaw in it comes near the end.  I’m not sure I can mention it as it probably constitutes a ‘spoiler,’ but it’s generally to do with a weird (and rather stupid) decision made by the two girls which totally goes against anything a sane person would do in a world infested by zombies.

For some reason I just couldn’t really get over that and no matter how good the rest of the film was, that one moment of madness (involving doing something that literally drew the attention of every flesh-eater in Los Angeles to them).

After a second viewing I do like it a little more.  It’s not a bad film.  It has gore.  It has laughs and it has a good celebrity cameo from Bill Murray.  I just wish they’d changed that one (theme park-related) aspect towards the end.  It really bugs me.

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

Daleks - Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. - Not exactly Dr Who, but not exactly bad either

The only two big-screen outings for Dr Who have always been met with scepticism and mixed reactions from fans and public alike. People seem to either love them or hate them. They're not considered as `cannon' therefore they have no links to the TV series.

This is the second and last Dr Who film to date and sees the Doctor travel into Earth's future, only to discover the Daleks have only gone and taken over the planet, turning the population into leather-clad slaves (like something out of 50 Shades of Grey!). However, the Doctor is on hand to sort them out. But there are some differences with the official series. For a start, the Doctor is human and has a family. So, if you can get over that (quite major) change, you may just enjoy what follows.

If you're used to the current Dr Who series, you may be a bit disappointed with what goes on here. The budget is small and the effects slightly corny. It's unlikely to win over any new fans here, most of which will probably find it a bit too cheesy to be watched. But, if you've watched sci-fi that was made in the sixties, you'll probably know what to expect - bright, garish colours, wooden sets and some of the least futuristic gadgets known to aliens across the galaxy.

If you've already seen it, you'll know what to expect and will probably still love it for its sheer nostalgia value. If you haven't, don't expect an alien invasion movie on the scale of anything made today. Lower your expectations and enjoy.

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

The Echo - The very definition of `slow burner'

Actually, a `slow burner' denotes something that takes a while to get going. Sadly, `The Echo' goes so slowly through most of the film, that you're probably asleep by the time the last act (and by `last act' I mean `last few minutes') comes along (either that or turned it off).

The film follows a man recently released from prison, who returns home to find all sorts of spooky goings on in his apartment. The film start predominantly with him wandering from room to room, trying to work out where various noises are coming from. It is nicely shot, which does give it a suitable creepy atmosphere and, every now and again, there is the odd eerie scene.

However, it's all too little and not often enough. Whatever spookiness is too sparse to really be bothered about. The ending isn't bad. There's the obligatory `twist' (or should I say `explanation'?) regarding what's going on, but, by the time it happens, will you care?

4/10 You can watch this film while you're doing the ironing (you'll still get the general gist of it)

The ABCs of Death - Something for everyone (if you like murder)

`The ABCs of Death' is a hard film to review. Largely because it's not really a film. It's a two hour set of twenty-six different short films, each dealing with a different way of death (normally pretty horrific ones).

I can't imagine there are many people who will love EVERY single segment. I certainly didn't. Because each part is written/directed by a different person, you have every type of interpretation of a death, ranging from humorous types, to sadistic types, to gory types and generally just surreal types.
Yes, any horror fan is bound to love a percentage of them, you're also bound to find a few that leave you absolutely cold.

I would say - as a horror fan - I `got' about half of them. The other half I could quite happily have skipped. At least each part is only about five minutes long, so, when you encounter one that just doesn't do it, you don't have to endure it for long.

One for horror buffs only (just keep your thumb on the DVD remote's `skip' button - you'll quickly get the measure of each one and probably know if you're going to see it through to the end. If not... on to the next).

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

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