Mask Maker - Jason Voorhees' long lost cousin

I know they remade Friday 13th, but Mask Maker feels almost like they've remade the remake. Seriously, `modern' slasher films, i.e. those with a - seemingly - indestructible undead serial killer have been around for nearly forty years, yet, in that time, film-makers don't seem to have been able to come up with anything more inspiring that `teenage couples have sex and die.' If any couple partakes in pre-marital sex, you can write them off the cast list (same goes for any nudity at all).

Mask Maker is about your average undead serial killer, stalking a load of annoyingly-attractive American teens in a big house two of them have recently bought. There are attempts at explaining why he's undead, but it doesn't really matter. His `gimmick' is that he doesn't really have a face and he rips off victims' faces and uses them as his own (didn't they do that in Texas Chainsaw?). It's worth noting that if you're wearing an ill-fitting, blood-soaked, torn-off mask of someone, all your friends will instantly think you're really them and not bother asking questions until you've hacked them to bits.

Talking about hacking people to bits, the death scenes are particularly uninspiring. Yes, there's a bit of blood, but nothing very original.

It's predictable too. No major plot surprises here. The clichés come thick and fast, especially with the `locals who always know something' about the horror that is to come.

Basically, if you're into films with undead killers stalking dumb teens, just stick to Friday 13th. It may be a little old by now, but it's still better than this.

Oh, and if you're thinking of buying a property, get your solicitor to check that no psychotic undead serial killers aren't buried somewhere on the premises. If you find out there are, I recommend returning to the estate agents and looking for somewhere else.

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

The Battle of the Bulge - Bulging with action

‘Battle of the Bulge’ tells the story of the American army’s final months of World War II.  Just when they think that they’ve got the Germans beat and are trying to rest before the final attack on Germany and Berlin, a warmongering Panza tank commander is given an entire battalion of the formidable machines with which to wage a counter attack on the Americans.

The first thing you’ll notice about ‘The Battle of the Bulge’ is that a substantial amount of screen time is dedicated to the Germans, namely the tank commander Colonel Hessler.  We see a lot of the film from his point of view, not that many people will be able to relate to the way that he only wants to keep the war going forever, simply so he can continue to fight forever.  However, it’s nice to have a ‘face of the enemy’ in a World War II film, rather than just having the Allies fighting endless waves of faceless Germans.

However, even with Colonel Hessler occupying one of the main roles, the bulk of the film is – obviously – about the Americans and an (equally idealistic) Colonel Kiley, who is the only person who predicts the impending German counterattack.  Unfortunately for his colleagues, he’s labelled ‘paranoid’ and no one heeds his warnings until they’re too late.  These are the two main performances and they’re played as well as you’d expect.  Hessler is the more memorable character, but then that’s because we always remember the ‘baddie!’ But, besides them, Telly Savalis and Charles Bronson are also worth a mention.

What follows are some pretty epic – and memorable – tank battles between the Americans and German battalions.  And the battles are particularly memorable, not to mention the general carnage to the local population caused by the constant battles.

It’s worth noting that the film shouldn’t be taken as a ‘historical document’ – the closing statement on screen states that to condense as much information as possible, places and characters have been 'generalised.' But, the bottom line is that if you’re into your war movies, you should enjoy this.  If you’re not, it probably won’t change your mind on the subject matter. 

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Left Behind - Alas poor Nicholas, I knew him well

Once upon a time there was a great actor who could set the silver screen alight with his presence.  Whether he was a burnt out alcoholic in Vegas, or a chemical weapons expert sent into a disused prison to take on terrorist ex soldiers, he was still great fun to watch and a guaranteed draw at the Box Office.

Where did it all go wrong for Nicholas Cage?

It seemed that, despite being popular with the fans, he seemed to give up on the cinema and be banished to straight-to-DVD releases.  I’ve forgotten how many times I’ve been browsing ‘New Release’ films online and come across one of Cage’s film that I’d never heard of.  Our of my love for his nineties work, I watch it faithfully.  Then I wish I hadn’t. ‘Left Behind’ is one such film.

Cage plays a pilot who’s flying his jumbo jet around the world when most of the world’s population disappears.  It’s a sort of supernatural event, but it could also be looked upon like most of the world’s population would rather inexplicably disappear than star in such a film.

Those ‘left behind’ are all pretty unlikeable sorts, none of which you’ll really care about.  Much of my viewing time was spent wondering which shade of ‘dark’ Cage has started dying his hair.

Without wishing to give away too much about the plot, I’ve looked at various internet message boards about this film and found that it has stirred up some online debate between those who believe in a –primarily Christian – God and those who generally don’t believe in anything.  Personally, I don’t find anything wrong with a film which is based on religious principals.  You don’t need to ‘believe’ to like the film, although I find it hard to believe that anyone – religious or otherwise – will find anything particularly entertaining about this film.

It’s just poor.  There’s little to say about this, other than to avoid it.  If you like Cage (and many of us still do), watch one of his old films.  If you like supernatural films then you probably own plenty which are a million times better than this.  It will only ever be remembered as – yet another – of Cage’s misfires.  But, just because I may not have faith in this film, I still have faith that he’ll one day star in a great film which will remind us of what he’s capable of.  I wonder if Stallone can get him on board for the Expendables 4?  It might be a stepping stone to re-launch his career.

3/10 Jabba the Hutt wipes himself down with this film

Return to Oz - A classic in its own right

Yes, we all know the first film - The Wizard of Oz - it was big all that time ago in 1939 and it's still as enjoyable today. Yet, somehow the long awaited (well 1985) sequel `Return to Oz' never real set the box office alight. It could be thought that that makes it a bad film, however, that couldn't be further from the truth.

It's about Dorothy (not Judy Garland, obviously) and her adventures as she's drawn back a second time to the magical land of Oz. Perhaps the main difference is the tone of the film. The 1939 epic was all blatantly filmed in a studio. It could have been a stage show, simply converted to film for all we knew, whereas the sequel is all filmed on location, automatically giving it a more realistic feel.

It also drew criticism for NOT having any of the other cast members back. Yes, the Scarecrow, Cowardly Lion and Tin Man are all in it (technically), but their screen time amounts to little more than extended cameos. Instead, we're treated to a new set of weird and wonderful helpers, who go about aiding Dorothy in her quest to defeat a new baddie (the Gnome King).

Apart from the fact that it's Oz and the central character is Dorothy, there are few similarities between the two films, leaving some to wonder what sort of sequel this is.

But don't be put off. It may be a different type of magical adventure, but it's still a very good one. Fairuza Balk has the difficult task of being the new Judy Garland, but she puts on a good performance as the small, vulnerable girl, lost in a much more nasty place than (the slightly older) Judy Garland had to survive in.

If you're a fan of fantasy films (and of course the original) then you should enjoy this. Just don't expect the happy-go-lucky feel of Oz's predecessor. It's worth returning to Oz, just to see this.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Ex Machina – It gets better

‘Ex Machina’ is one of those films where, upon watching the whole thing, I’m glad I stuck with it.  It tells the – slightly slow-moving – tale of a young computer programmer who works for a huge, multinational tech company and is then apparently picked at random by his reclusive billionaire boss and asked to join him in his mountain retreat for ‘special duties.’ Of course that slightly sounds like he’s got a case to sue for sexual harassment, but it’s not like that.  His Bill Gate-likes founder has only gone and created the first ever artificially intelligent robot/android/cyborg (call it what you will) and wants an independent source to witness this feat.

Luckily, for our hero – Caleb – this artificial life form isn’t the kind of muscle-bound cyborg who typically comes back in time to kill your mother.  Instead, she – or ‘Ava’ – is more designed around the ‘female form’ (well… most of her, anyway – there are still parts of her on show that are blatantly wires and circuit boards).  Anyway, this makes their interaction a little more ‘complicated’ – if that’s the right word to describe getting a crush on what is technically an iphone with eyes.  So, will our hero fall head over heels for her, or declare her simply just a toaster who looks good in a mini-dress?

The majority of the film is basically conversations between either Caleb and Ava or Caleb and his boss, Nathan (Oscar Isaac).  Now, there’s nothing wrong with a film based mainly around dialogue.  It does bring the characters and their motivations out and you really feel like you’re getting to know them.  However, I just found the first half of the movie a little slow.  I ‘got’ the characters pretty early and it was clear to see that there was more going on here than meets the eye.  Perhaps the film did too good a job in setting up the unsettling feeling as to what was going to come?  I was basically dying for something to happen – or someone to die – whatever.  But, like I said, when it all goes down it’s worth the wait.  The second half of the film changes from simply ‘unsettling’ to downright dark!

Despite the film having little action, it does maintain a real ’28 Days Later’ feel.  And probably for the reason that it was written by the same writer.  The lingering shots and music make it possible that it’s set somewhere in the same universe (assuming there’s still some of the world left after the ‘infected’ had their way with it!

Normally, like to mention one of the actors who stood out.  I feel that I should say that Oscar Isaac gave a great performance, but I’m not entirely sure he does.  One of my annoyances with the first half of the film came from him.  I just felt he was so fundamentally unlikeable.  Maybe that was supposed to be how he was, but when a character makes up basically one third of the cast and is so downright awful, it left it a bit hard to take.

Still, despite all my minor gripes, I did enjoy the film (as I say, mainly the second half where I felt it sped up a bit!) and so if you’re in the mood for something with no car chases or giant robots stomping through New York then give this one a go.  It’s got good performances and is more of a subtle thriller than Hollywood’s average crop.

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

Fido - Could almost be a sequel to ‘Shaun of the Dead’

If you’re a zombie-movie fan, you’ve probably seen the brilliant ‘Shaun of the Dead’ (and if you haven’t – stop reading and watch it now!).  On the off chance you haven’t caught it yet, I won’t go into how it ends, but if you know, you could almost look at ‘Fido’ as a semi-sequel.  Okay, not really, but in principal it’s like a continuation.

In Fido’s world, we appear to still be living in 1950s America.  We’re never told we are, but everyone still dresses and behaves like they are (plus there isn’t an iphone or Twitter account in sight).  And, at the beginning of the film, we’re treated to some brief (but very funny) black and white newsreel footage informing us that, ten years after the ‘zombie wars,’ we’re now living in a safe society, happily using the undead as servants (courtesy of collars which control their flesh-eating impulses).

It’s almost an ideal world.  You never have to do your own laundry again, thanks to a kindly rotting corpse who will do it all for you (assuming you don’t mind your laundry slightly torn and hideously unfolded).  If truth be told, the undead, while willing/forced to comply, they aren’t that good yet at the tasks they’ve been assigned.

And then we’re introduced to the Robinsons – the perfect ‘nuclear’ American family, living a perfect life – zombie free.  However, pressure on society dictates that every good house needs its own undead butler, therefore they bow to public pressure and purchase the zombiefied form of Billy Connolly.  What follows is a tale of friendship between the family (or most of them) and their ‘pet zombie’ who little Timmy Robinson christens ‘Fido.’ Of course no relationship ever runs smoothly and it’s never easy when one party has to wear a collar that prevents him from tearing innocent old ladies apart every time the collar fails.

Basically, if you’re a zombie fan, not only should you have watched ‘Shaun of the Dead,’ but you’re also probably aware of George Romero’s classic ‘Dawn of the Dead.’ Apart from the cool action sequences, a lot of people admired the social satire he wove in, commenting on a consumer society.  Well, if you’re in the mood for more than just gore (of which Fido also delivers on), you may enjoy the numerous swipes the film takes at peer pressure, people’s frailties about not being good enough and even some touching moments (partially played out by a character that can only groan).

I read online that Billy Connolly watched to play the titular role because he was intrigued by the opportunity to portray a sympathetic character with only expressions and movements, i.e. no dialogue.  I’m not normally a fan of Billy’s acting (I thought he should have stuck to stand-up comedy!), but here he hits every note, as does every one of the cast.  A fair proportion of the film is taken up with children and their relationships and it’s easy to hate child actors, but here their presence never detracts from the story.

What you have here is a refreshing take on a (currently overused) genre with gore, heart and, above all, enough laughs to put it up there with the great ‘Shaun.’

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Disappearance of Alice Creed - A stage play adaptation that works

As far as I'm aware 'The Disappearance of Alice Creed' started out life as a stage play and was adapted for the big screen.  I know that this sort of adaptation can sometimes be hit and miss, but here I'm pleased to say that everything works perfectly.

Now that you know it was once a play it's easy to see how it probably worked in a theatre.  There aren't many sets or changes of location and even less characters.  Two men (Eddie Marsan and Martin Compston) kidnap a young woman (Gemma Arterton) and plan to threaten to kill her unless her rich father pays up.  It's a simple enough premise and a simple enough film.  However, what really sells it is the performances from the trio and the amount of twists and turns the plot takes.

I won't go into what happens, but expect some things that you probably didn't see coming.  Instead, I'll point out that the three actors front and centre all give stellar performances and you'll really be on the edge of your seat to see what happens next.

It's even longer than you might expect (and hour and forty minutes), but it certainly doesn't feel that long.  All characters make competent decisions and you shouldn't find yourself shouting at the screen and rolling your eyes because the characters have done something daft - not including the kidnapping of another person - that's pretty daft!).  The direction and soundtrack are both functional and nothing to write home about, but if there was too much fancy direction then it might take away from the seriousness and tension being built up.

A simple review for a simple film, but one that definitely deserves to be seen.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one