Scanners II - The New Order - Not a patch on the original

I know, from looking at other people's reviews, that there are some who feel that this is an `okay' sequel to David Cronenberg's classic eighties horror flick `Scanners.' And, maybe it was... once upon a time. However, there are those films that stand the test of time and then there are those who do not age well. I feel this is the latter.

It's about more of those psychics (or `scanners' as they call them here). A corrupt police chief wants to harness their unnatural power to end crime (and generally make himself equally powerful). But, after years of experimenting on boring scanners who no one cares about, he finds lovely, nice scanner `David' to exploit. But, luckily for all that is good, David is too nice to be used and sets about ending this corrupt cop's regime before it really starts.

Whereas you can watch Star Wars and not be bothered by the `seventies haircuts' Han and Luke are sporting, here, everything just seems waaaay too eighties (which is doubly ironic as it's made in 1990).

But it's not just the look of the film I disliked - it's also the story. Everything just happens to fit together waaay too well to be believable. It's one coincidence and obvious plot-motivating device after the next. The (seemingly-mandatory) love story is quite unnecessary and forced, plus the characters either under-act or overact (and I'm thinking about the `bad scanner' when I mention overacting - he's practically a pantomime villain he's that nasty!). Yes, there's the odd bit of decent gore, but that's a small part of an 1 hour 40 minute film.

Maybe this was an okay film in the eighties, or if you've never seen the original, but, if you're looking for dark and nasty horror, stick to the first Scanners - it's head and shoulders over this one.

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

Outcast - Attack of the pigeon plunderers 

I guess Scottish cinema has gone downhill in the last fifteen years. In the mid nineties we had Shallow Grave and Trainspotting. Today, we get Outcast - a story about... actually, I'm not that sure.

A really annoying paranoid witch and her charisma-free son are on the run from... er, two blokes who kill pigeons. I don't quite know why, but, worse still, I don't care. These pigeon killers (who overact and come out with a script-full of `creepy' lines) may be monsters, as there's one in there somewhere, but you only see it when it's dark.

I mentioned that the witch's son is pretty charm-free, however, this doesn't stop a beautiful local girl to pursue him relentlessly. I can only assume that the way to chat up a Scottish girl is to completely ignore them, barely look at them and follow them at a distance of about ten paces - apparently, according to this film, they love it.

Throw in the typical stuck-up English baddie and a mix of generally unlikeable stereotypes and you don't have an awful lot of fun in this slow-paced `shocker' - if you want werewolves, go for Dog Soldiers every time.

On the plus side, fair play to the director for using some really bleak settings and shots to create a sombre atmosphere. Bleak settings = atmospheric, bleak pace = bad.

I just hope not that many innocent pigeons died to make this film.

2/10 Scuzzier than the leftover goo from a Queen alien's egg sack

Deadgirl - Dead serious

Yup, it’s another ‘zombie film.’ In a market saturated by the undead, is there really room for one more?  Actually... in this case, yes.

‘Deadgirl’ may – unsurprisingly – be about a dead girl (who, for all intents and purposes, is indeed a 'zombie'), but it’s not just another story about a plague of flesh-eating ghouls overrunning a small town, village, college, whatever while the humans spend at least half the movie working out that it takes a 'head-shot' to kill one of these creatures.  In fact, there’s quite a lot left up to the viewers’ imagination (at least in terms of plot, certainly not nudity-wise).

Two high school guys hang out in the local (abandoned) mental hospital, only to find an area with an attractive woman tied up and, presumably, left to rot.  She doesn’t talk much.  In fact, the only things that indicate she’s alive is the fact that she moves a bit (and occasionally tries to take a bite out of you).  Therefore, one of the guy’s first instincts is to have sex with her.  Yes, he’s not that likeable – we’re not expected to root for him throughout the film’s run-time!

His friend has other ideas and sees the distaste in all of this, yet he does nothing to really stop this and, before long, guys are queuing up to have a go on ‘Deadgirl.’

We never find out who she is, why she’s there or who left her.  It’s not really about her.  It’s about the boys and the choices they make.  Plus we have aspects of peer pressure and bullying, driving those victimised to extreme courses of action that they wouldn’t normally take.

I mentioned the nudity.  The deadgirl is nude at all times, so be prepared for ‘rape’ to play a major part in this film.  However, there’s not an awful lot of violence and, much of what there is, happens off camera.  It’s not an action film by any standards.  Don’t expect a fast-paced thriller.  It’s character-driven.  Sometimes you’ll agree with some of them, other times you’ll be crying out for retribution to befall them.  Some people have criticised the film over the fact that it just so happens that five high school boys all are rapists, but you’ll have to gloss over that fact to watch the film.

Just because there isn’t much action or gore, don’t be lulled in thinking that this film isn’t a horror movie.  Its horror is in the situation and the human actions to an inhuman experience.

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

Charlie's Angels 2: Full Throttle - Warning: not to be taken seriously

The first 'Charlie's Angels' film, starring Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Lui, was a success, therefore it got the inevitable sequel. However, despite much promotion from the studio, it picked up more than its fair share of harsh criticism, turning it into a bit of a `flop.'

Personally, I really enjoyed it. In fact, I actually preferred it to the original!  Making it technically - at least in my case, anyway - up there with sequel-that-are-better-than-the-original such as 'Aliens' and 'Terminator 2' (but even I wouldn't say the quality is up there with those two!).  Yes, 'Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle' is daft. Yes, it's cheesy. And, yes, some scenes look more like they belong in an advert for shampoo that was converted to be shown on a Playstation 2. But, at the end of the day, it's pretty harmless fun. Before you watch it, you just have to sit down with the biggest pinch of salt you've ever taken to get the most out of it.

This time round the ladies have to retrieve a pair of rings which, when combined, contain the names of spies.  Or something.  I've already forgotten.  It's probably not important.  I'd be lying if I claimed I watched the film for its deep and complex plot and storytelling.  The phrase `in real life' isn't needed when watching this big screen adaptation of the seventies TV show. Nothing here is applicable to real life. Three wafer thin women kick the hell out of numerous muscular men (and Demi Moore) without coming away with a scratch, despite being hurled across rooms and being bounced off solid objects like tank-top wearing crash test dummies. Yes, it's stupid. But - and more importantly - it's stupid fun. It never tries to take itself seriously, with its playful use of daft sound effects and numerous sexual innuendos. It's about as true to life as a Roger Moore James Bond film (of which I'm also a huge fan!).

Men will doubtless have the added bonus of watching three Hollywood women in a range of `flattering' and most revealing costumes. Maybe the producers of the film will try to make us believe that this is some sort of `feminist' movie with powerful women beating up men. Hmm, that's one I won't dare to even try to debate!

Ultimately, think of 'Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle' as a life-action cartoon, as it's more cartoonish than real - especially when you take into consideration the colourful shots/pallet used here.  Everything is 'primary coloured' and looks like its been coloured in. If you think you can enjoy a film like this then you'll probably enjoy it. If you're all for realistic, gritty, dark action, then you're probably better off with something like 'The Bourne Identity,' Christopher Nolan's 'Batman' trilogy, or Daniel Craig's 'Bond' reboot.  Or, seeing as the film is about to be rebooted in a more 'gritty' and realistic take (based on from what I've seen in the trailer) then maybe that would be more for you?

Note: added kudos for the film-makers for getting Bruce Willis assassinated by his ex wife - made me chuckle anyway!

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

Red Dawn (remake) - Pretty much what I expected

I have to confess... I missed the eighties original, so I can't compare this remake to its predecessor. However, I knew the story - America is invaded by a hostile force and its up to some good looking teens to turn into `the resistance' and fight back.

How much you enjoy this movie will depend on how much you can suspend your disbelief. The whole movie is pretty farfetched from start to finish. If you can believe that America is that easy to overtake and that a small town seems to be of real importance to an invading force, then you can probably believe that the country's armed forces seem pretty powerless to do anything about it, leaving it to the kids to save the day.

The transmission between ordinary high school kids and urban guerrillas is handled in a short montage soon after the invasion, showing us how they're now a considerable force to be reckoned with. However, this can probably be explained away by the fact that they are led by `Thor' (also apparently known as Chris Hemsworth) who has a near indestructible pick-up truck. He gives them motivational speeches which make you want to thank your lucky stars that you live in a land of freedom.

It's all pretty cheesy and, although I may be being a bit flippant about it all, I actually quite enjoyed it. There are some pretty intense and dramatic scenes, mainly involving the carnage the invasion brings.

Ultimately, don't take it too seriously. It's daft, cheesy, over-the-top and desperately trying to get a sequel made, but if you can excuse and overlook its one hundred and one faults, then you might be able to get something out of it. At least it's short, so it won't take up too much of your time!

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

You Can't Kill Stephen King - Good effort, but could have done better

I appreciate that ‘slasher’ films have become a bit ‘old hat’ these days. Most B-movies in the genre don’t even try to come up with anything more original than some masked loon stalking and murdering a bunch of over-sexed teenagers. However, with ‘You Can’t Kill Stephen King’ at least the makers tried to do something a little different.

For a start, they injected a little humour into the film. If you’re looking for a straight horror, you won’t find it here. It’s definitely black comedy-horror all the way. They also try and play on the obviously clichés and conventions you’d expect to find within this type of film and go some way to turn them on their heads and exploit them.

For all that, the film is actually quite enjoyable, as a group of teens travel off the beaten path in small-town America in an attempt to track down their icon, none other than Stephen King himself. However, as you might expect, they start falling victim to an unseen assailant. And here lies the main problem... you can subvert a few clichés and add a bit of humour, but what you’re left with is a pretty run-of-the-mill slasher film. Although some parts of it are fun, it still doesn’t succeed in being different enough to really raise it above the thousands of similar movies (some of which are played straight, others not).

So, despite all the good intentions, all you have is an average slasher movie. If you’re really desperate to see what is little more than a ‘modern Friday 13th type film’ then give this one a go, or if you’re a die-hard fan of Stephen King you should enjoy all the homages to him. But, ultimately, there’s not enough that’s new here to really recommend this film over the countless others like it.

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

Baseketball - Live action ‘South Park’

Okay, so ‘Baseketball’ hasn’t really got anything to do with the adult cult animated TV show, but it stars both its writers/creators and is basically the same sense of humour, i.e. adult.  In short… if you like South Park, you should like ‘Baseketball.’

It’s about two losers (Trey and Matt – the men behind South Park) who invent a new game which is basically a cross between basketball and baseball in their driveway.  Before long it becomes a national pastime.  As with South Park, a lot of the humour is vulgar, crude, disgusting and totally ‘adult’ in nature.  You could be forgiven for thinking that Baseketball is nothing more than a low-brow gross-out comedy (and you may have a point!), but, also like South Park, it has its moments of satire and social commentary that raise it to more than just Trey and Matt’s version of ‘American Pie.’

The jokes come thick and fast and, if you’ve seen Trey and Matt in action, you’ll realise that they’re basically playing themselves.  Yes, there is some character development (believe it or not!), but the film is geared towards laughs over story and plot.  And, because of this, it totally succeeds.  As soon as you sit down to watch it, you’ll be able to predict where exactly it’s going, but don’t let that put you off.  So I’ll end where I basically began by saying that if you like South Park (and I do!), you’ll enjoy this.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather