The Neon Demon – I obviously didn’t get it

Sometimes when I watch a film and totally dislike it, I feel really bad. ‘The Neon Demon’ is one such example.  I’ve checked out other people’s reviews and there are those out there who clearly loved it.  And I can see why.  It’s visually amazingly and disturbingly creepy.  And yet I still found it a chore to sit through.  In short… I found it dull.

It’s about a young girl getting into the seedy underbelly of the modelling industry and encountering the sleazy men who dominate it and the catty women who already exist in it.  I know a deliberately slow pace can be used to great effect in order to create tension, mood and atmosphere.  However, as I said above, I just wanted something to come along and ‘properly’ move the story along.

So, I sat through it and berated myself for not liking it more.  It’s very tempting to have a go at modern cinema audiences for only wanting ‘simple’ films with plots that involve car chases, punch-ups and a damsel in distress.  I like to think my taste does incorporate a little more than the next Michael Bay disaster film.  However, there are times when a more ‘linier’ story is needed.  I felt that this is one of those times.  And, it’s a shame.  I’ll say again how much I enjoyed watching the shots.  They truly are well crafted to perfection and intensely creepy.  It’s just not much happens quickly enough.

There are nice moments of satire in the dialogue between the models, but it wasn’t enough for me. Basically, if you’re thinking of watching this, you need to be aware that it’s very ‘feel’ over story.  It’s like an ‘art movie’ where it leaves you to fill in a lot of the action yourself and interpret characters’ actions as you will.  It does look great though and should be shown to anyone looking to get into film and create artistically-awesome shots which create mood and atmosphere.

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

The Hamiltons - It's like Twilight, but with less twinkling

The Hamiltons are a nice, ordinary middle class family in America. Apart from the fact they like to trap people in their basement and then eat them.

The film does its best to try and inject some new life into the current obsession the cinematic public has with vampires, as it tries to portray them as basically a normal family (i.e. they don't fear Peter Cushine's crucifix, throw up when you try and feed them garlic bread, or sparkle in the sunlight - like any self-respecting vampire would actually sparkle in sunlight!). Their only weakness is their blood lust.

It's pretty low budget, so don't expect A-list actors staring longingly into each other's eyes, nor any amazing transformations when neighbouring werewolves steam in to save the day. It seems to be filmed on video, giving it quite a student-feel.

Is it any good?

A lot of people say no, but I think that's a little unfair. Because the main character looks suspiciously like a `Cullen' I suspect that a lot of people thought this might be in some way like the Twilight films. It isn't. It's more pure horror and horror without an awful lot of gore.

If you're looking for Twilight then look elsewhere. If you don't mind a low-budget, slow-burning horror flick with characters who you probably won't really care much for, then you might be able to get something out of it.

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

Sabotage - Come on... it’s not THAT bad!

I’ve read a lot of reviews for ‘Sabotage’ and, judging by what I read, I was getting ready to endure the worst film I was going to watch all year.  Seriously... I know Arnie isn’t famous for making deep and meaningful pieces of cinematic art, but I’ve never seen one of his films get so many one star ratings.

I should point out that I’m a big fan of the ‘Governator.’ I spent a lot of the late eighties/early nineties watching Predator, T2 and Total Recall.  However, as he got older, his star lost its shine and his movies failed to capture the public’s attention the way they used to.  However, I still found something in each of his later outings.  Granted, they were not up to his ‘glory days,’ but they were still fun action romps.  And that was all I was hoping for with Sabotage.

Here, the big man plays the leader of a drug enforcement unit who is accused of stealing money from a cartel and find themselves being picked off one by one.  And, based on that brief summary, you’ll get whatever you expect from it.  I think a lot of people didn’t like how serious it was.  If you watched Arnie in Running Man or Commando then you may be expecting a wry pun thrown into the carnage to lighten the mood.  Here, there is no lightening of the mood.  It’s dark.  And bleak.  Arnie is not a happy man, but then his whole family were killed by drug lords, so I’d be surprised if he was constantly doing cartwheels of joy all over the place.

Also, a lot of people have criticised the film for having no likable characters.  Yeah, that’s probably a fait comment, but then I didn’t see much of a problem.  Most of them are there to be killed until Arnie and his cop lady-friend can work out who’s behind it.

Apparently, if you read the trivia behind the production, you’ll see it was originally meant to run for a massive three hours and be a murder-mystery.  However, the studio wanted an action flick, so it was cut down to highlight its shootouts etc.  So, if you’re looking for a dark, brooding gun fight with characters who don’t really appeal much, then you’ll get it here.  However, if you’re looking for your ‘traditional’ Arnie film with silly puns and over-the-top action, then you may feel a little short-changed.

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

Zombeavers - If you don’t like this it’s kind of your fault

This film is entitled ‘Zombeavers.’ Think about that for a moment.  Cute little woodland animals turned into bloodthirsty undead beasts (who then go on to plague the living hell out of three scantily-clad young maidens).  If you think that sounds like possibly the worst idea since sharks caught in a tornado then it’s best you never ever think of watching this film.  If, however, you can lower your mind significantly to appreciate it, you may just get something out of it.

I had had a long day and I needed something totally un-intellectual to relax my mind.  This fitted the bill just perfectly.  Believe it or not, I do watch somewhat deeper films, but I totally wasn’t in the mood for something deep and meaningful.  About the level of my IQ was laughing at badly animated puppets with glowing eyes chasing girls in bikinis.

This film is daft and, most importantly, it knows it is.  It never tries to be serious and never tries to be anything but what it is – daft, silly fun.

It has no budget.  The special effects are anything but special.  It has no big name actors.  Those who have turned up are largely there for their good looks.  And the dialogue isn’t great at the best of times.  And yet, with all these down-points, I still can’t bring myself to hate it.

So, if you’ve had a long day and want to relax in front of a film where you can totally put your brain ‘on hold’ for an hour and half, then this is the one for you.  If you think you’re going to be in for a story filled with excellent character development and broad story arcs the you may need to skip this one.

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

Van Helsing - Good, but somehow not as great as it should be

`Van Helsing' has always been a bit of an enigma to me. I own it and have watched it every so often and I can never quite put my finger on what exactly is wrong with it. Obviously, I quite like it, but it always leaves me with the feeling that it should have - somehow - been so much better.

The film was practically made for me - I love Hugh Jackman and he makes a great `monster hunter.' Kate Beckinsale is naturally sexy as his kick-a$$ love interest. David Wenham adds some comic relief as Van Helsing and Richard Roxborough is brilliantly campy as Count Dracula. Then there are more monsters crammed into this film than Jabba the Hutt's palace. What more could I want?

Um, I don't exactly know, but I'm not alone in my confusion. Van Helsing was supposed to be the start of some sort of action/horror franchise. It was certainly given the budget and star-power to launch such a venture. However, it was - almost - a financial flop. It was sort of successful, but not enough to get a proper sequel (there is a lower budget animated one, but that wasn't the original intention).

Perhaps it's the overuse of CGI? Sometimes everything on screen starts to blur into one mass of animation. Perhaps it's that the characters are a little too indestructible to be believable. Seriously... these (supposedly totally human) characters get dropped from great heights again and again and just get up like nothing has happened - a minor gripe, but it always bugged me.

If you're a fan of `old school' horror, i.e. you know about the Dracula/Frankenstein myths then you might like this, because it certainly pays homage to the classics. It has a lot of charm (kudos to Frankenstein's monster and Drac himself), but somehow falls slightly short of being the modern day classic it was meant to be.

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

Mortal Kombat - It may be a computer game-based movie, but it's fun!

I feel kind of bad giving 1995's 'Mortal Kombat' 5/5.  I mean… that's the top rating possible and basically makes it sound like it's up there with 'The Godfather' and 'Empire Strikes Back.' Spoiler: it isn't.  But it is good fun.  Video games have a bad (no, make that TERRIBLE) reputation for their transfers from pixels to film.  However, I dare to argue that 'Mortal Kombat' is one of the - very few - exceptions.

In case you weren't around in the early to mid nineties and didn't play the game in the arcade (or 'Mortal Monday' as it was known when the game came to the home consoles of the era), it simply centres on a supernatural fighting tournament where you had to select one of a handful of fighters and beat the rest into a bl00dy submission.  Hardly an inspiring 'story,' but at least that allowed the film-makers some creative liberties to build a narrative around it.

There are no real 'stars' attached to the project.  Our plucky trio of human heroes who enter the 'Mortal Kombat' tournament to defend our 'Earth Realm' against the evil forces of 'Outworld' are Robin Shou as Liu Kang, Linden Ashby (as the 'comic relief') Johnny Cage and Bridgette Wilson-Sampras as Sonya Blade (no, I've never heard of them either - not before and barely after!).  The only real 'name' attached was Christopher Lambert, as their Thunder God guide, Lord Raiden and, although he's pretty amusing, his screen-time amounts to little more than an extended cameo.  They all look the part (i.e. like their computer-generated source characters), however they seem to have been chosen on their looks (and vague martial arts fighting ability), as what they have in looks, they kind of lack in the acting department.  However, if there's one bright spark in terms of casting, it's the villain 'Shang Tsung' (played by Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa).  I've never seen him in anything before or after, but, based on his performance here, I kind of wish I had!

I think if you're sitting down to watch 'Mortal Kombat' nowadays, you need to be aware that special effects weren't quite as, er, 'special' back then.  The sets are nice and resemble the computer game's levels, plus the fight scenes are well-choreographed, however when computer generated effects are used, they do look a little dated.  Plus, if you're hoping that what was arguably one of the most gore-laden computer games ever made at the time will be filled with heads being ripped off and hearts being pulled out (if you're aware of the games infamous 'Finishing Movies' then you'll get my references) then you won't find them here.  I think it was classified as a '15' here in the UK at the time.  Watching it now it would probably be a PG.  I can't remember a single moment of 'real' gore and next to no bad language.  I guess a couple of the baddies are a bit creepy and intimidating, but nothing worse than you'd find in any of today's Marvel movies.

Also, if you're sitting down to the film 'cold' today and know very little of the game, all the 'in-game references' will pass well over your head.  The film-makers have done their best to include plenty of subtle (and not so subtle) nods and winks to fans.  I'm guessing anyone who hasn't played 'Mortal Kombat II' and performed Johnny Cage's 'Friendship' finishing move will be at a loss as to where that signed photo comes from!

My main criticism came that there were no (or hardly any 'proper' in my opinion) 'special moves' performed by the (human) fighters.  In the game you can shoot streams of fireballs from your fingertips etc and I expected those to be replicated on screen.  They - sort of - are, but I just think the producers missed a trick on that one.

Ultimately, 'Mortal Kombat' certainly isn't the best film ever made (although there can be an argument made for it being the best VIDEO GAME film ever made!).  It's more of a 'guilty pleasure' movie and definitely a B-movie with just enough of a budget (and a cult following) to justify its theatrical release in the cinemas.  I have to say that it's held up pretty well over the years.  Fans of the nineties games/arcades should love it and anyone who likes 'good bad' movies should also find it a fun little offering.  Just don't mention that absolutely awful sequel that was just 'bad-bad.' Oh, and the soundtrack to 'Mortal Kombat' is worth listening to as well!

Just don’t expect the film to answer the question, ‘Why does ‘Kombat’ start with a K?’

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Rage - Carrie 2 - it's all the rage

The first film was a classic. How it remained `stand-alone' for so long is a mystery to me. I can't believe so bright Hollywood money-man didn't think of doing a sequel waaay sooner than twenty-three years later. And, as we all know, how many times are sequels even nearly as good as the original? Not many. But Carrie 2 doesn't totally disgrace itself.

 Carrie 2 felt a bit like a `part remake/part sequel.' It was certainly good to see the one of the main actresses come back for the sequel - it helped bridge the gap quite nicely. The `new' plot basically recycles the old one. If you don't know what happens - basically, bullied girl gets revenge on her tormentors through her uncontrollable telekinetic powers.

 Anyway, the film is actually pretty good. No, it'll never recapture the `shock value' of the original as you basically know what's coming, but it's an enjoyable horror-yarn nonetheless. If you liked the original, you shouldn't feel too aggrieved at someone cashing in on the Carrie-name after two decades. And, if you haven't seen the first one, you should get what's going on without feeling you've missed out.

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