Pacific Rim: Uprising – Junior mechs

I was a massive fan of the first ‘Pacific Rim’ film.  It was loud, dumb and yet strangely well-shot for an out and out B-movie (something to do with its very-talented director, Guillermo Del Toro).  It had its flaws, but it was still enormous fun.  So my hopes were high for ‘part II.’ However, the reviews came in and they weren’t overly-positive.  And yet, my hopes remained high.  I shouldn’t have got excited.

The original told the tale of a breach in the ocean floor which allowed giant monsters to enter our world.  The humans’ response was to – believe it or not – create giant robots to beat them into submission (please ignore the fact that our military apparently couldn’t defeat the monsters on their own, but never mind).  Part II starts showing the devastation caused by the battles along coastal cities.  A young girl (no more than 13?) has lived all her life among the ruins and has – somehow – managed to scavenge enough parts to build herself a fully-functional giant robot.  She can pilot this on her own and out manoeuvre full-trained soldiers in their own mechs.

This all occurs within about the first ten minutes and I found this whole situation just a little hard to suspend my disbelief for.  Unfortunately, this small nugget of the plot basically sums up the entire film.  I could spend quite a long time listing one totally unbelievable plot point after the next.  I know the whole story is over-the-top, but the fact that it turns out that soldiers are no longer used to pilot the robots; instead a bunch of kids are trained up.  Why?  Who knows.  You just have a teen-kid movie where they fight in robots and has one unbelievable story element after the next.

It’s not all bad.  John Boyega is very watchable as the lead.  It’s just who’s around him that brings the whole thing down.  The film does its best to expand on the original idea and, for that, it succeeds.  Plus the battles are as fun (and the final fight is truly awesome!).  However, my main gripe is that just this film is probably going to be appreciated more by youngsters than hardened cynical cinema veterans such as myself.  I’m sure I’d have loved this if I was a twelve-year-old boy and then gone out and bought the toy.  Oh, yeah, that girl’s ‘build-your-own-robot’ is annoyingly cute and looks a bit like ‘Bumblebee’ from the ‘Transformers’ franchise.  I think they want you to not just watch the film, but also buy the toys.  I won’t be doing that.  And, if Part III does get made (maybe) I’ll wait for this one to appear on Netflix.

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

Die Hard - The greatest action movie (not to star Arnie)

I've decided to leave a review for 'Die Hard' exactly thirty years since its release in 1988.  Partly because it still holds up after all that time as one of the greatest action movies ever made and, secondly, because it has just (officially?) been classified as a 'Christmas movie.'  So, does it promote festive cheer and goodwill to all men?  Or does it just give you the manual on how to kill unlimited bad guys with a machine gun, a witty quip or two and dirty feet.  Probably the latter really, but, for the record, it is SET at Christmas and a famous Christmas song even plays it out.  What more do you need to pull a cracker and eat Xmas pudding to?

For anyone that doesn't know, the plot to 'Die Hard' involves a cop getting stuck in a giant building during a terrorist takeover.  Guess what?  He fights back.  It's a simple plot and that's its main strength.  It never really tries to be anything that its not.  Bruce Willis may have been around before 1988, but it was no doubt that it was 'Die Hard' that cemented him as an 'A-list' star.  Granted he's reprised his role as John McClane numerous times since, however one (of the many!) criticisms thrown at the sequels is that he's become a 'superhero' in human form, i.e. he can do anything and is completely invulnerable.  But, back in the first outing, we really do feel his pain as he limps, crawls and drags his way through the building's air ducts in order to simply survive the night, let alone take out the entire squad.

In short, Bruce Willis was actually 'relatable' back then.  But, what is a hero without a good villain?  Not much.  But luckily, as 'Die Hard' cemented Willis as an A-list protagonist, it also did the same for Alan Rickman as the dastardly terrorist leader, Hans Gruber.  I read somewhere that the best films involving a clearly defined hero and villain explore the relationship between them (test it out - the movies that don't really work almost always have the hero and villain never meeting/interacting until the final showdown where the hero inevitably kills the villain).  Here, the two spar not just physically, but mentally thanks to McClane stealing one of the terrorist's radios and mercilessly taunting Gruber as he dispatches one henchman after the next.

So, you have the relatable hero, the evil villain and the simple plot.  What more could you want from an action movie?  Well… action, maybe?  And it's here tenfold.  The wonderful thing about eighties action movies was that they were real.  Or rather the special effects were really there on screen, rather than the actors filming up against a green screen and the explosions added later.  All the fights here actually look like they could really happen.  Yes, we always have to suspend our disbelief that one man shooting at a hundred has a better chance of killing them than the other way round (but then we've been doing that since James Bond first sipped his Martini!).  But the action looks real and it's the final icing on this most unexpected Christmas cake.

Die Hard' may now be a Christmas movie, but you really can watch it any time you want a simple, yet excellent action film that really doesn't have many flaws (or at least none that detract from its brilliance).  It really has been the template for many an inferior action movie to come.  Yippie-kay-yah Christmas to you all!

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

King Kong - Sometimes bigger isn't better

I'm always kind of in two minds about Peter Jackson's take on the whole 'King Kong' story.  He wrote/directed this fresh off the back of his (excellent!) 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy and yet, although certainly epic, 'King Kong' seems a little too epic for its own good.  I haven't seen the original film and I don't even know how far back the tale goes, so I can't compare this film to any form of source material.  All I know is that it's kind of long.  Yes, all 'Lord of the Rings' movies weighed in around a similar run-time and yet they seemed to be able to warrant that kind of audience commitment.  It just seems that in Kong's case, there wasn't enough of a story to justify that kind of length.

However, no matter how long it is, doesn't mean that it's bad, or in any way unwatchable.  You just need to know what you're getting and be prepared to put in the time!  Despite the film being named after the titular giant ape, Kong doesn't show up until about halfway through the movie.  The first hour and a half (roughly) is about a film-maker (Jack Black) in the 1930s trying to assemble a crew and cast to take a boat ride to a mysterious island in order to film whatever wonders are out there.  For this feat he needs a leading lady (Naomi Watts), a script writer (Adrien Brody), some other memorable faces including Colin Hanks, Jamie Bell and (Jackson favourite) Andy Serkis.  So it's a great ensemble cast and, despite the lack of monsters, the film trots along at a nice pace.

In fact, this first half of the film does tend to feel a little like a 'Carry On…' film with its whimsical approach to life in the time period and occasional slapstick humour.  Therefore, when they arrive at 'Skull Island' and start getting chased by all manner of giant beasties (Kong isn't the only 'monster' on the island!) and characters we've got to know start getting chomped on left and right, it suddenly feels like quite a 'tonal shift.'

And, if you came here for the monsters and have been crying out for something slimy and hideous during the first half, you'll certainly get you wish.  However, after the fifth chase between human and giant [insert random monster here] you may find your eyes start blurring over and waiting for the plot to start up again.  Not wanting to talk too much about 'Lord of the Rings,' the it's widely regarded as having some excellent special effects, being one of those movies that blends computer-generated effects with live action *almost* seamlessly.  However, despite Kong himself looking pretty perfect, much of the other effects look a little blurry and you can tell when actors are simply standing up against a green screen.  In fact, sometimes it's like you're almost watching a 'live action cartoon' with humans interacting with a make-believe backdrop and it does tend to pull you out of the moment.

But, like I say, 'King Kong' is overall quite enjoyable to watch.  I've seen it twice now and the first time I found the first half a little boring, but this time round I knew what I was getting and was more prepared for it.  Perhaps its biggest flaw is its lack of 're-watchability.' I can happily re-watch 'Lord of the Rings' quite often whereas I doubt Kong will be getting a third viewing from me for a decade or so to come (and by that time it looks like he'll be fighting the Predator or something, if Godzilla isn't available for Round Two).

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

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

Bird Box - Nearly a classic

Ever since 'Demolition Man' I've been a fan of Sandra Bullock (I'm ashamed to say).  I actually think she's a far more versatile actress than many give her credit for.  She's been in many different movie genres over the years, but - to my knowledge - she hasn't done too much in the way of 'horror' (or at least memorable horror films!  I seem to recall that 'Premonition' didn't do that well).  So, when I saw her in a new horror movie on Netflix that I could watch from the comfort of my own home that was picking up a lot of praise from audiences, I definitely thought I'd give it a go.  Overall, when the credits finally rolled, my initial thought was, 'That was pretty good.' I only had one major problem with the film throughout its runtime (I'll get to that later).  It's now been a few days since I watched 'Bird Box' and, the more I've thought about the film, the more additional flaws I seem to keep coming up with.

Sandra Bullock plays 'Malorie' - a woman who's heavily pregnant when something very strange/bad happens to the world.  Basically, everyone starts committing suicide in very gruesome ways.  I've seen this film compared to a couple others, but no one seems to mention the similarity in premise to 'The Happening' (perhaps because many are still trying to forget that film?).  Anyway, she seeks shelter in a large house with a group of random people and there, they try to wait out, or at least survive whatever is causing this.

The only gripe I came up with while watching this film was that the 'time period' isn't just the goings on at the house with the group.  It's split with a segment four years later where Malorie is trying to get two children down a river and the story keeps flicking back and forth between the two time periods.  The reason I didn't really go for this method of story-telling was for the same reason I don't like most prequels, i.e. you know what's coming.  Because she's on her own (besides the kids), we basically know that no one in the house is going to make it this far for whatever reason and so it removes all tension as I found myself just waiting for other characters to die.

You may see a lot of the marketing behind 'Bird Box' depicting people wearing blindfolds.  Hopefully it's not too much of a 'spoiler' to say that the story revolves around the fact that if you look at the monster then you'll kill yourself.  What monster you say?  Yeah, well, there's a monster - apparently.  I read another critic's review online after watching the film and I'm going to blatantly steal their phrase when I say that 'Bird Box' is a monster film without a monster.  If you've seen any of the 'Evil Dead' films then you'll know there's that thing that flies through the woods and chases Bruce Campbell.  You never see it right?  But you see a hell of a lot of other nasties along the way.  Here, you just have the thing you never see.  It rustles bushes, moves trees and if it gets you... er, well, I'm not sure.  Apparently, if you close your eyes you'll be okay.  Apart from the times when characters just don't and aren't.  In short, there seemed to be a few discrepancies about how the 'world' worked and the rules people had to follow for survival.

Bird Box' clocks in at around two hours and about an hour and a half of the film is set in the house, compared to the final half hour showing how Malorie got to the river and why.  Personally, I preferred the stuff in the house.  Yes, I had a fair idea regarding what was going to happen to everyone else around her, but I felt there was more conflict within the humans than there was with whatever this thing was that we couldn't see or understand.  In specific John Malkovich is about the most famous 'housemate' to share the screen with Sandra Bullock in the house and he's definitely the best to watch.  Yes, he's a bit of an idiot, but he's an entertaining idiot and that's what we want to see in our films!  The rest of the group seem to have been hand-picked to be as 'diverse' as possible, meaning all races and s3xualities are accounted for and, of course, portrayed favourable - besides John Malkovich and later Tom Hollander - go figure.

I also mentioned that other people have compared it to other films, namely the (really awesome!) 'A Quiet Place.' Yes, I can see there's similar themes here and there and I read somewhere that 'Bird Box' is based on a book that was written well before 'A Quiet Place,' meaning that it couldn't possibly have lifted anything from John Krasinski's surprise hit.  Perhaps if 'Bird Box' had have been released first then it would have been considered the better of the two, but, despite my enjoyment of Bullock's performance, if you asked me which one was better, I'd pick 'A Quiet Place' every time.

Overall, weighing up the pros and cons of the film, I can see that it's definitely up there with some of the best Netflix has come up with.  However, it does feel sometimes like a little bit tighter writing and shuffling the order of the scenes could have made it into a film that explained a little more about what was going on and didn't leave so much up in the air, or the situations generally to chance as to whether the rules of the phenomenon actually applied at that time or not.  If you have Netflix and like horror, give it a watch.  It's like the 'Quiet Place' of online streaming services.

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

Stake Land II - Steak served raw

It was widely regarded that, for a 'B-movie' at least, the original 'Stake Land' was actually pretty good.  Yes, it didn't offer much that was new when it came to post apocalyptic tales with one monster or another having wiped out of 90% of humanity (in this case vampires), but the characters were enjoyable to watch and it certainly seemed like a step above the rest.  I guess even this small cult following meant that it was destined to spawn a sequel.  You may think that, by my tone, that I absolutely hated 'Stake Land II.' I didn't.  In fact, I can hardly think of a bad thing to say about it.  However, I also can't think of anything good to say about it either.

Basically, the world has been overrun by vampires and what's left of humanity is huddled together in make-shift communities, trying to survive the best they can.  In short, think 'The Walking Dead,' but with vamps (who don't 'sparkle' in sunlight, fortunately!).  In the first outing we met Martin (Connor Paolo) - a young man who's trained to hunt the vampires by the mysterious old man only known as 'Mister' (Nick Damici).  It's rare in horror movie sequels to get the main cast back, but fortunately here both actors return, only Martin's new family gets murdered and Mister is nowhere to be found, hence Martin goes on a journey to track his former mentor down.

The first thing I noticed in the sequel was that now the vampires also come out during the day (yes, I know this was also a 'thing' during Bram Stoker's 'Dracula,' but it's still quite rare in vampire lore).  There's a line about how they're now getting more desperate for food with the ever-diminishing supply of humans.  But the fact that the creatures came out during the day only went yet further to make this whole film feel like merely just a feature-length episode of The Walking Dead.

Then there was what was basically the whole first half of the movie where our characters go from one group of humans to the next, only to discover that people are far more dangerous than the bloodthirsty monsters that actually destroyed human society to begin with.  I hate to bang on about 'The Walking Dead,' but - again - I felt like I was watching an episode of the show I'd somehow missed during its run-time.  This all gets a little stale pretty soon.  Granted the film does pick up in the second half and there's more action, but it's just so run-of-the-mill and generic that anyone who has watching anything even similar will have already seen better.  Did I mention a popular zombie-related TV show does it better?

I watched the original 'Stake Land' many years ago and I can remember a lot about it.  I watched 'Part II' a couple of days ago and I'm seriously struggling to recall much more about it.  Oh, yes, there was a moment near the end involving a kiss which made me smile, but you'll have to actually watch the film to see what I mean.  Apart from that, 'Stake Land II' was very forgettable.  Definitely stick to the original.  If there is a 'Part III' I probably won't bother.

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

Damned By Dawn - Someone forgot to turn off the smoke machine

One factor for any good horror movie is that is must be atmospheric. However, the makers of Damned by Dawn take the word `atmospheric' to mean `foggy.'

The film is about a young couple who return to their family home in the foggiest part of Australia to see a dying relative. However, a banshee pops out of the fog and causes brutal havoc.

Now, I read some of the other reviews before I watched this and, I have to say, they kind of lower your expectations. But, for the first third of the movie, I had to wonder whether they were talking about the same film. I thought it was actually quite good. It had a nice (foggy) set-up and some potential.

Then came the CGI. Not only are CGI baddies imposed on us, but also, if the cast happen to be running through a non-foggy area, CGI fog is added (and it's really bad CGI fog too!).

The one dimensional characters just about manage to act their parts and the banshee's screaming is pretty creepy, plus there's some good gore (when you can see it through the fog), but, overall, I found myself eventually agreeing with the other reviews.

It may not be the worst film ever made (not while Michael Bay's Transformers franchise is still on a roll), but it's definitely not the best. Unless it happens to be on and you feel like a so-so horror flick, don't bother paying to watch this.

4/10 Dumb and Dumber could understand this film