Reservoir Dogs - Rugged, raw and riotous

Somewhere along the way, opinions on Quentin Tarantino have become divided - some still loving his work, others calling it bloated and unnecessarily inflated. However, those are two criticisms that cannot be levelled at his first (major) film, Reservoir Dogs. It's the very definition of `minimalist,' focusing on the aftermath of a bank robbery gone wrong and it's shot (in some places) in `real time.'

The story is simple: a gang of bank robbers thinks that one of their number is a `rat' and has tipped off the police. How do they deal with this? Watch the film and find out.

It's hard to choose a `stand-out' performance among so many great actors. Everyone from the stoic Harvey Keitel, to the psychotic Michael Madsen plays their roles to perfection (and let's not leave out Tim Roth and Steve Buscemi).

Basically, if you like gangster or crime films then you probably should have already seen it. However, even if you're not a fan of the genre and simply enjoy cinema then this one is worth a watch because it is very arty in its approach and the performances alone should make up for the fact that some may consider it to be a little over the top on the violence (not to mention explicit language).

Tarantino's next film, Pulp Fiction, may have been cleverer and more stylish, but Reservoir Dogs has all the raw appeal of a real cult classic that will definitely stand the test of time.

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

Kill Bill, Volume 2 - Slow and steady wins the race

I’m guessing that most people won’t have decided to watch ‘Kill Bill Volume 2’ without watching the first instalment. So, if you’ve already seen the first half, you may be expecting something similar from the final act. However, whereas the first half was a blood-soaked massacre of bodies and mayhem, this one is anything but.

I won’t say exactly how many people ‘The Bride’ kills in this one (and it’s nowhere near the seemingly infinite number of ninjas she chopped up in Part 1), but there’s a big clue in the title!

Yes, ‘Volume 2’ is a very slow film. In many ways it’s more like a Tarantino film that its predecessor. It’s very ‘talkie’ – there are tonnes of long, drawn-out scenes where characters natter to each other, seemingly going nowhere. It just is. It’s there to build character. However, if you’re not partial to that sort of scene, then you probably won’t enjoy this part.

As with the first half, there are a handful of scenes that you probably feel could have been left on the cutting room floor, but, all in all, it’s a pretty solid film. Yes, it’s not fast-paced; it’s almost deliberately slow – like the ‘ying’ to Part 1’s ‘yang.’

Fans of Tarantino will probably love it anyway, but anyone who likes broodingly slow film with clever dialogue should enjoy it, too.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Alex Cross - A tough act to follow

In `Alex Cross' Tyler Perry steps up to try and fill the shoes of Morgan Freeman, who played the titular character in both Kiss the Girls and Along Came a Spider. Unfortunately, although he gives it his best shot, he does seem to fall a little short of the mark. When Freeman played the role, he gave it an air of quiet dignity where he was always ready to outwit his opponent. Perry is a big man, therefore a big gun suits him and he comes across more like he's ready to star in an action movie.

However, the lead role aside, the film chugs along quite nicely. It's based on the book of the same name and is quite tense and thrilling (if a little far-fetched in places). It's a buddy-cop film where the law enforcement are on the hunt of a killer/hitman known by the alias `Picasso.'

There's nothing new to see here, but if you're a fan of the genre, you can certainly do worse. However, you could probably read a newspaper while watching it and still completely understand everything that goes on.

Worth a watch if there's nothing else.

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

The Expendables 3 - Fun... Mostly

If you’re thinking of watching ‘The Expendables 3,’ then ‘part 3’ is a kind of odd place to start any franchise.  Therefore, I would generally recommend starting with part 1 and going from there.  However, in case you’re in any wonder as to what it’s all about, it’s basically an ensemble cast (led by Sly Stallone) of all the biggest (and best?) action stars of the eighties (plus Jason Statham thrown in for good measure).

What you have is a bunch of old men who really should be playing golf and yet we suspend our disbelief long enough to believe that they can really run, jump, punch and generally take on wave after wave of insignificant bad guys without so much as getting shot.  So, if you generally like (or can at least remember) some of these faces from yesteryear and the epic on-screen battles they fought then you’ll probably enjoy the nostalgia trip which this film basically is.  It never takes itself seriously, so don’t expect anything dark and moody, just fun.

The first Expendables outing was definitely fun.  And, for the record, I enjoyed part 2 even more.  Therefore, I was really expecting to LOVE the third instalment.  Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed it, but there was one thing I didn’t approve of.  Namely the fact to interject some ‘fresh blood’ into Sly’s team.  Basically, it wasn’t necessary.  Sly chooses youngsters over the established faces who we actually care about.  Therefore, we don’t really know them as well as the older action stars and these youngsters take up a reasonable proportion of the first third of the film.  Then they end up getting captured and the old team has to be assembled to get them back.  Basically, they could have left out the whole ‘youngsters subplot’ and got on with our aging heroes hunting down rogue expendable baddie, played by Mel Gibson.

I think if I was going to watch this again (and I probably will!), I’ll skip the first third with the ‘kids’ and go straight on to the rescue mission.  Plus I thought there was too much CGI explosions for my liking – but I’m no fan of computer added trickery, unless it’s really seamlessly intertwined with the film.  Half the time you could tell the explosions were added post production.

Anyway, if you like the first two films, or any of the stars, you should get something out of this.  Just don’t be too misled by the advertising posters – not all the stars featured play a major part.  Some are only in the film for literally a few minutes.

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

Cat’s Eye – I thought I saw a pussycat (in the final act)


I’ve always enjoyed Stephen King’s ‘Cat’s Eye.’ It’s a fun little anthology of stories which chart the journey of a stray cat as it searches for its ‘true purpose’ (and you’ll have to watch the film to find out what that is).  Now, it’s worth noting from the off that the film is made up of three separate stories (only with the cat vaguely linking them as it travels) and, if you’re expecting ‘horror’ from the master of terror himself, i.e. Stephen King, you may feel a little short-changed.

The first two stories are definitely not horror (in the true sense), focusing on simple human cruelty and general failings.  Not only that, but the cat is barely in either tale.  With a couple of rewrites of the script you could take the animal out of 66% of the movie and it would be exactly the same.


I didn’t hate the first two stories (James Woods in the first one is – as usual – excellent) and, although the story is not typical horror, it is good.  The middle story is the most forgettable, but it’s the third and final act which makes the film so good.  I won’t go into why too much, only to say that it’s the one which has the most to do with horror, plus the cat actually gets to do something!  Also, you even have – a practically unrecognisable these days – Drew Barrymore as the youngster in the third tale.


‘Cat’s Eye’ is certainly not just for cat lovers (as the cat’s hardly in two thirds!), but if you like kooky/creepy little tales then this one is worth a watch.  I may be a little biased because I used to watch it when I was young (yes, the ‘horror’ aspect really didn’t faze me when I was a small boy in the eighties!) so there’s the whole nostalgia thing going for me.  Probably one to catch on a streaming service if you’re in the mood.  And I will confess to sometimes skipping the middle story when I watch this film.


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

Circle - Public speaking has never been this much fun (to watch!)

‘Circle.’ It’s a pretty tight little film, basically filmed only in the one location for an hour and a half – the location being a completely pitch black room with fifty red spots on the floor.  In each, stands a random stranger and every couple of minutes one of which gets zapped by – er – something and brutally killed before their body is dragged off into the gloom.  Confused?  How do you think the fifty people feel?!

And that’s that – fifty people turns to forty.  Forty turns to thirty and so on.  It’s a tough sell and it’s probably never going to be a mainstream hit (especially as about the most well-known face is Dexter’s wife from the TV series of the same name).  Anyway, I think it deserves a cult following as I’m sure it will find an audience out there somewhere.

Its simple premise and delivery kind of reminded me of other (rather fun films) such as The Human race and Cube.  Yes, it’s hardly action-packed.  The fifty people can’t even move off their little red spot on the floor – if they do, that nasty zapper comes back for them again and that’s that for them.  What you have is a kind of morality tale about what people would do in this situation.  Would they vote to kill people they don’t know just to save themselves, or would they try and save everyone?

It’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea.  I can see plenty of people finding it boring, or being annoyed at the ending (I won’t say why – you’ll have to check out the internet message boards!), but if you’re in the mood for something a little different and without any major car chases or Marvel superheroes destroying entire cities then give this one a go.  I found it on Netflix and was glad I did – definitely worth seeing if you’re in the mood for something dark, talky and that will make you question what you’d do in this most of weird and extreme of situations.

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

Blood Creek - Not as bad as others are making out

I do love a good horror film, which is a shame, seeing as there's so few about. Nowadays, I judge a film with how long it can hold my attention before I start logging onto the net and only half-watching.

However, 'Blood Creek' actually held my attention until the end. Not that I'm saying it's a masterpiece, but it seemed to at least hold a shred of originally in its matrix.

 There is some bad though - lack of character development, rushed beginning (normally you have to wait ages to get into the story, but it seemed that the viewer got thrown in there pretty quick) and jerky/dark fight scenes where you can't tell who's who.

And yet I felt it was slightly original and you didn't quite know where it was going. It's about a man who's haunted by the loss of his brother (who disappeared during a fishing trip). The brother returns late one night and they embark on a quest for revenge that takes them up against those most dastardly of villains - Nazis (and supernatural ones at that - and, let me tell you, they're the worst kind!).  The main character is a (pre-DC Universe) Henry Cavill and the chief Nazi is Michael Fassbender, which technically means that, if nothing else, you're getting a film where Superman takes on Magneto.

The gore was good (you may have to squint a bit to ignore the slightly bad `horse on fire' scene), but, apart from that, it has enough twists and turns to hopefully keep you interested to the end.  It was probably hoping for a sequel, but seeing as two of the main stars are now way above the film's budget, I'm guessing this will be a one off.

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