Octopussy - Moore of the same

Growing up in the late seventies and early eighties, it’s fair to say that (despite the numerous amounts of evidence to the contrary supporting Connery) Roger Moore is my favourite Bond.  I watched (the absurdly-titled) ‘Octopussy’ when it came out in 1983.  I was six at the time and I loved it.  However, now many decades later I can saw that there are Bond films that stand the test of time and will be enjoyed by future generations just as much and there ae Bond films that only appeal to you as a child.  Now, I can see that Octopussy is probably the latter.  Even as a cynical adult I still watch it and enjoy it for what it is (plus the nostalgia it induces in me), however, it’s probably the (first) best example that those who like to criticise Moore’s interpretation of Bond use when they say how much better Connery was as the superspy.

Many liked Connery because of his darker take on Bond.  People felt that Moore was often too silly and self-knowing to be taken seriously.  As I said, I personally liked Moore best and he probably peaked during ‘The Spy Who Loved Me,’ after that it was a slow descent into a little too much reliance on glib one-liners and parodies that would make Austin Powers blush.  It focuses on a Soviet General who is trying to finance a new European war via purchasing rare jewellery.  Naturally, Bond must stop a few bombs going off along the way.

Along with the obligatory car chases and punch-ups we see the first ever instance of a Bond girl returning for a new film. Maud Adams plays a different role than the one in ‘The Man With the Golden Gun,’ but I’m not really sure why she was chosen as she’s hardly the most memorable Bond girl of the franchise.  Plus the villain is kind of weak, too.  Gone are the days of ‘Jaws’ or ‘Blofeld’ and in their place are a forgettable Indian bad guy and the generic Russian general who’s always out to crush the decadent West.

Overall, I enjoy the film because I pretty much will watch anything Bond-related and I have a soft spot for the campiness of the Roger Moore era (even when it does come across more like a Flash Gordon movie during some of the climactic fight scenes!).  However, I do appreciate that ‘Octopussy’ will not be for everyone.  If you lean towards liking ‘dark and gritty’ Bond then you’re really going to have a hard time taking Bond seriously when he’s swinging through the jungle while they overlay a ‘Tarzan-like’ noise over him.

Perhaps the most pertinent thing to point out is that Bond has to infiltrate a circus and, in doing so, decides to (perfectly) disguise himself as a clown.  He then flaps and waddles in his oversize shoes past all manner of guards in order to stop mass genocide.  It’s a daft sight, but then it’s a pretty daft film.  If you’re okay with that, then you’ll hopefully get some enjoyment in this over-the-top spy film (and not think that it’s a complete horse’s a$$ - as depicted in the opening stunt!)

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

Poltergeist II: The Other Side - Not a bad sequel

I can't imagine many people will watch 'Poltergeist II: The Other Side' without seeing the original first, but, just in case you decide to do that, the first film deals with a family whose daughter is abducted by a very nasty ghostly spirit who infests their suburban home, forcing them to enlist a team of psychics to travel to 'the other side' to get her back.  Apart from the fact that the original tied things up quite nice, 'Part II' carries on reasonably smoothly (making me wonder whether the film-makers ever expected that there would be that much of an appetite for a sequel).

First of all, all the original cast return (with the exception of the family's older daughter who gets a brief mention as to why she's not appearing) and it carries on nicely, pointing out how their life has progressed in the event of their house - literally - disappearing and the effects it's had on the family.  Naturally, things don't go smoothly and the spirits haven't finished with them quite yet.

While I'm on the subject of the cast, besides the young actress, Heather O'Rourke, playing Carol Anne and her iconic delivery of the line "They're here…" the other most memorable character from the first outing was loveably mini psychic Tangina Barrons (Zelda Rubinstein).  And, although I was pleased to see her also return, I couldn't quite help but think that her part had kind of got (partially) given away to a new character (Will Sampson, as the Native American, 'Taylor') who turns up and basically does what Tangina did in the first, only in not such a memorable way.

Anyway, as I've eluded to, much supernatural shenanigans ensue and it's nice to see the more 'practical' effects in action, as opposed to today's overuse of computer effects.  Plus, in terms of sheer scares and creepiness, the stand-out performance is from Julian Beck as the 'human face' of the unseen poltergeist, 'Kane.' I couldn't look at him without getting severely 'weirded out!' I doubt any parent would let him happily approach their children in a shopping mall without getting Security on to him!

If you liked the first film then you should enjoy this one, too.  Arguably, because it's a sequel, it's inferior, but there's enough here that's different and adds to the overall mythology to make it a welcome addition to the franchise, plus it doesn't go back on what's come before it.  Of course, if you know your film history (or just do a Google search on these films) you'll find out that much of the 'true horror' surrounding the ‘'Poltergeist’ franchise happened OFF screen, but enough said about that the better.

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

Madison County - Squeal piggy, squeal! (in boredom)

When will American college students ever learn? All they seem to do is constantly drive off to remote towns in the mid-west in groups of four or five and get killed.

The five of this batch of kids has obviously never seen a slasher film (as perhaps has the writer, otherwise he might realise how `borrowed' every element of this movie actually is) as they stop at an out-of-the-way diner where every snaggle-toothed yokel stares at them menacingly. They pay for food, but never eat (I didn't get that bit!) then leave, only to be threatened by another knife-wielding nut-job.

So, what do they do? All decide to split up. No sooner does this happen than a psycho in a pig mask hunts them down one by one as they run, screaming through the woods in random directions. Sometimes one of the teenagers manages to fight back and knock out the killer, but they never bother finishing him off - only knocking him to the floor so he gets straight back up to chase them down again. Oh, and they never bother finding or keeping a weapon.

What you have here is nothing you haven't seen a hundred times before in the slasher genre. The only way this film would be any good is if you invented a time machine, sent it back to the early seventies and showed it to people then. Therefore, Madison County would be the `film that started it all' and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre would just be a poor imitation. Sadly, in the real world, it's the other way around.

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

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