Warrior - A bit like Rocky, but with kicks as well 

Warrior tells the story of two brothers who, throughout a turbulent period of growing up, no longer get on. One is a marine, the other a school teacher. And, they both happen to be extraordinarily good at cage fighting. They enter a tournament. Who will win?

I don't normally like these sorts of fighting films (I'm about the only child of the 80s not to like the Rocky saga!), but I have to say this one kept me watching. It does follow the `Rocky-style' ideal of the underdog working his way up and winning against the odds.

It's a bit long. There were a few scenes that I felt could have been cut, but, for some reason, overall I found it compelling. I wasn't that drawn in to the characters, but the feel was something pretty epic about the whole affair.

I'm not sure whether I'd want to watch it again, but I'm certainly glad I saw it. Maybe if you're into these sorts of fight movies, you'll appreciate it more than me?

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

No Escape - A hidden gem of a B-movie

‘No Escape’ is a B-movie.  Fact.  It has B-movie written all over it.  And that’s no bad thing.  It never really tries to be anything else.  It’s about a futuristic world where prisoners are big business for corporations.  Unless they don’t work.  Then they get shipped off to this out of the way island where they can kill each other as much as they like.

One such prisoner is Ray Liotta.  He may be a convicted murderer, but he did it for just motives, therefore we can root for him.  And he bands together with a load of equally supportable prisoners on the island, compared to the other lot – who are basically barbarians.  Thus we have our movie – the ‘good’ (well, just) prisoners, fighting off the ‘bad’ prisoners on a little island paradise.

Our boy Ray’s helped out by a variety of other B-movie actors.  You’ll recognise him from what’s-it-called and that bloke out of Aliens, plus the Ghostbuster who joined last.  Anyway, it doesn’t matter.  It’s a fun film with plenty of action and rolls along nicely, helped no small part by the baddie.  He’s great fun – naturally psychotic, but great fun.  In than annals of B-movie baddies, Stuart Wilson deserves a mention – sometimes camp, always bonkers and ready to slaughter anyone just to keep control of the psychos under him.

Despite its ‘B-movie’ status, it’s actually a little longer than your average ‘straight to DVD’ flick. Yet it never seems to drag.  Basically, if you like action, B-movies with a touch of sci-fi and want something to eat popcorn to, give this one a try.  You can pick it up pretty cheaply or even stream it from many a website.

Plus, is it just me, or are all the computer terminals straight out of ‘Aliens?’ It’s like No Escape is set in the same universe.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Hell - Hell of a split movie

Check on any review of the German film `Hell' and it'll tell you that it's a film `of two halves.' I can't really add much to that.

Set in the near future when the sun has scorched the Earth, leaving only a few survivors to scour the land for what they need most - in this case, water. We meet four of them as they travel across Germany, unable to set foot in the sunlight and doing much of the travelling at night, as they desperately look for the fabled mountain range where it still rains.

The first half is pretty good. It takes the whole `can't go out in the sunlight' idea and introduces many nice touches, i.e. how the characters have developed new patterns of living, plus how they ingeniously find various ways of getting more water (out of pipes, using cloths to soak moisture off cave walls and so on). Plus the acting is good. Everyone plays their part well and there isn't a Jar-Jar Binks among them (in other words, hideously annoying and unbearable to watch).

However, the second half kind of slips up on itself and turns the whole thing into a simple `escape from the baddies' movie. It even comes complete with `running through the woods' scene. Plus the idea of being unable to go out in the sunlight kind of gets forgotten about. The sunlight suddenly plays no real part in the second act, even to the extent that the characters are somehow able to run about it in with no real side effects.

What starts off excellent, just ends up being okay-ish. It's definitely worth watching, even if it's just for the nice atmosphere created and decent first half. If you fancy a German subtitled version of The Road, give it a try.

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

Insomnia - Nolan's `training wheels' film

Right now, most people know Christopher Nolan for his critically-acclaimed 'Batman' trilogy. Others who know a little more about his work link him with some pretty intense science fiction, fantasy or generally twisted movies like 'Inception, The Prestige and Memento.'

However, before all of those classics, he did a remake of a Scandinavian film, 'Insomnia.' I haven't seen the original, so I can't compare to that. Although, as it wasn't originally his story, he didn't have as much input on the screenplay as he normally does. It's about a couple of cops from LA (one being the strung-out Al Pacino) who come to a small town in Alaska where it doesn't get dark for six months of the year, to investigate a murdered girl. Enter Robin Williams - the main suspect and Al's nemesis.

With those two acting heavyweights, you can never really say that 'Insomnia' is a bad film. It ticks all the boxes. Everyone puts in a decent performance and I can't really see anyone who likes detective-type movies being disappointed. The scenery deserves a mention, as it's almost a 'character' in its own right.  Nolan uses the landscape perfectly to convey the sleepy mood of the town and surrounding area.  In fact, it's as if he watched David Lynch's 'Twin Peaks' and used many of the establishing shots (and even some subtle plot nods?) for 'Insomna.' However, when you compare it to Nolan's other work, it does seem like a step down in quality. I can only think he prefers working on his own screenplays. Either way, don't let that put you off. It does the job and it's definitely worth a watch (as are most of Al Pacino's films!)

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Dawn Of The Dead [2004] - A remake they actually got right

It's become very fashionable to knock every single remake/reboot/re-envisioning that Hollywood comes up with. The idea it that they basically take a film that was popular a few years ago and film it again. Although what's churned out has very little to do with the source material apart from the name. It normally ends up being a soulless attempt at cashing in on the original's success via its name.

Dawn of the Dead is one of the (few) exceptions to the rule.

The original George Romero version is largely considered as the best zombie film going. It is indeed epic in length and has a smattering of social commentary regarding people's obsession with consumerism and spending all their time in shopping malls. The 2004 remake still has the zombies and the mall and, although some Romero die-hards will lament the lack of social commentary, most will appreciate it as a truly modern re-telling of the story. At least quite a few of the old 1979 version's cast make cameo appearances in the new version (playing new parts) which give us `old school fanatics' a few in jokes to pick up on.

Perhaps the 2004 version has its roots in the English film 28 Days Later which took the concept of zombies (or `infected' as they were technically known) and made them run. Gone are the 1979 slow-moving `shufflers' and here are some really nasty zombies who will even chase down a fast-moving car in order to rip apart their human prey.

The 2004 version also has more characters. Granted some are a bit under-developed, but the majority play their parts well. The director, Zack Snyder, also deserves some credit at putting his own stylish spin on the direction, giving it a distinctive `look' about it which elevates it over its numerous competitors.

Granted Dawn of the Dead 2004 is not perfect. There are a few moments where daft things happen which are purely there to move along the plot and not really based on what would actually happen in such a situation. These faults I believe lie with the screenwriter. If you listen to the director's commentary, even he questions the characters' (and even zombies') motives for doing what they do. However, Dawn of the Dead 2004 is a case of there is so much good and right about it, that I think most people should be able to see past the few flaws and just enjoy it for simply being a decent action/horror film.

If you only want to see one modern zombie film, I'd watch this one (or 28 Days Later, but, as any zombie enthusiast will tell you, there's NO zombies in 28 Days Later... technically).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Red Sonja - So bad.  So bad.  So bad.  I love it

'Red Sonja' is awful.  Simple as that.  But then that doesn’t explain why I’ve been watching it for around thirty years and loving it more and more every time.  It’s a Schwarzenegger film.  Only it isn’t.  It isn’t because he’s neither the titular character, nor is he in it enough to really be classed as so.  Brigitte Nielsen is ‘Red Sonja’ and therefore the star.  Only she was even less well-known at the time than our Austrian friend.  He had at least played Conan and, believe it or not, was also supposed to reprise the barbarian’s role here (only something to do with the film-makers not having the rights meant that his character had to be changed to ‘Calador’). Arnie is basically the big name to sell the film on while his role extends to little more than an extended cameo.

Anyway, the film follows Sonja and her quest to avenge the death of her family in a 'Lord of the Rings' style world of magic and wizards (only with a hell of a smaller budget than Peter Jackson had when he made his saga).  And she’s pretty good.  Or at least she’s pretty.  If you look closely at her she’s actually not that muscular, so dispatching numerous bad guys with her sword is kind of a little far-fetched (but hardly the most far-fetched aspect of the story!).  Plus every time she gets in danger, Conan (sorry – Calador), turns up and saves her, or at least someone else does.  Like I said, Arnie pops up to help her, plus an annoying kid and his submissive wet blanket of a ‘protector’ (basically a fat servant  who fights with a bone for some reason) also lend a hand every time she’s about to get stabbed in the back (which happens more than you may imagine).

The two leads may look the part, but the fact that neither are born to speak English and this film was made early in their careers, makes their dialogue extremely clunky and laughable.  You can practically see them thinking of their next line before they deliver it.  There's a baddie.  And you can tell that she's a baddie because she has all of those cliched bad-guy traits you've seen in movies.  She has a facial disfigurement, dresses all in black and keeps pet giant spiders in her throne room.  And, all that is about all the 'character development' you're going to get for her.  She's just there to be evil and someone that needs killing in the final act.

So, acting is poor, the dialogue is laughable and the characters are pretty wooden.  And yet I love it.  It’s one of those so-bad-it’s-good kind of films.  It has to be seen to be believed.  If you like Conan (the original!) then you should like this.  And, believe it or not, there are actually some attempts at ‘character arcs’ involved here.  Sonja must learn to trust men (and do other things with them) while the young kid must learn to actually be nice and not be such an insufferable brat.

Even Arnold was quoted as saying that 'Red Sonja' is so bad that he uses it as a threat to discipline his children – if they misbehave they have to watch it ten times in a row, resulting in his kids never really giving him much bother.  I must remember than when my own daughter wants to stay out late.  Either way, it’s so bad that I love it.  Sorry, Arnold, but I disagree!

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

Scarecrows - An enjoyable eighties horror show

If you like horror films, the first thing you should check out is the year this was made: 1988. Therefore, don't go expecting the more `modern' look and feel of the horror genre. What you have here is a typical eighties supernatural slasher/horror film. There's big hair, poor dialogue and cheesy special effects (by today's standards, anyway - chances are they were thought to be pretty terrific in their day).

The film is about a group of robbers who steal a few million dollars then hijack a plane, taking the pilot and his daughter hostage in the process. However, one of the dastardly criminals (the British one, to be precise) doublecrosses his gang and parachutes out of the plane with all the money. Therefore the others force the pilot to land the plane and search for him. Guess who they meet? Some pretty nasty scarecrows who have first dibs on this particular field.

I have to say that I wasn't particularly taken with the acting on display, but the story (of what there is) rolls along quite nicely. Soon we have a `Night of the Living Dead style' standoff between the robbers and the scarecrows.

I think Scarecrows will always have an audience - mainly those who watched it first time round in the eighties and still have a feeling of nostalgia for it. By today's standards it's a bit tame, but still quite watchable if you're into that sort of thing (and can put up with some of the silly decisions the characters make in the third act).

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