Showgirls - Liking this makes you more guilty than eating After Eight mints for breakfast

How I wish I could write this review anonymously. No one should publicly admit to liking Showgirls. There's very little to like about it. Yet I still do. And, looking at some of the other comments on here, I'm not the only one (perhaps there's a secret `Fight Club-like' organisation out there somewhere for people like us?).

It's about a young woman who drifts into Las Vegas with dreams of being a dancer. She ends up being a stripper. However, her fortunes don't stay that way for long, as she's offered a role in a top Vegas casino's show... which involves taking her clothes off.

In case you've never heard of this film, it does involve a lot of female nudity. Now, this naturally attracted a lot of criticism of the film being sexist. And, in short, it is. However, isn't that the point? We're getting a look into an industry (whether it be the stripping industry, the showgirl industry, or even the film industry) which is heavily male-dominated. It's run by rich middle-aged men who get to decide which young 18-21 year old females get the parts. Of course there's going to be a heavy element of sexism and quite a fair share of sleaze involved.

I won't try to defend Showgirls and say things like `the nudity empowers the women,' because that would probably be untrue (and rather pretentious). But I will say that the nudity is at least valid. Making a film without nudity about a subject involving strippers and erotic dancers would be like making a film about the Second World War without soldiers.

It's all pretty cheesy stuff. I don't know whether that was the film-makers' intentions when they made it, but that's the end result. Everything is very dramatic. The lead characters dances overly-dramatically, walks overly-dramatically and, if you look closely, even eats a hamburger overly-dramatically. It's kind of like the acting quality you'd expect from an afternoon soap (but with more nudity, obviously).

However, if there's one redeeming feature that can genuinely be talked about, it's Gina Gershon, who plays the femme fatale `Cristal Connors.' She seems to revel in flitting between evil and seductively charming and is a joy to watch when it comes to baddies.

I don't think anyone should recommend Showgirls to anyone, without knowing what sort of films they're into. You'll either love it or throw a brick at the TV. Best to just tell people you hate it until you meet up with them in some underground car park with the rest of the Showgirls fans. Remember, the first rule about liking Showgirls is that you DO NOT admit to liking Showgirls.

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

The Rover - I’m guessing people will either love or hate it

‘The Rover’ is one of many ‘post apocalyptic’ films, offering us its vision of ‘life after society.’ This time they don’t bother adding zombies to the bleakness, choosing instead to do something dark, gritty and hopefully realistic (think ‘The Road’ if you’ve seen that).

We’re introduced to Australia, a few years after ‘the collapse’ (whatever that might be).  Either way, it’s left people basically to fend for themselves and the Outback is a dangerous place to be.  We meet Guy Pearce (who, despite numerous Hollywood films under his belt, I still think of him as ‘Mike’ from Neighbours) who has his car stolen by a gang of wasters who are on the run.  This seems to tip him over the edge and he goes on a crusade to get it back... no matter who or what stands in his way.

I’ve seen plenty of ‘revenge films’ where the hero must go on a rampage in order to avenge something.  However, this is the first one I’ve seen the hero base his sole purpose in life in order to take back a set of wheels.  Unrealistic as that may sound for a plot, I suppose it’s give some added credence by the fact that he doesn’t seem that stable to begin with.  And here’s my first problem with the film.  I didn’t like Guy Pearce’s character.  I’m okay with ‘anti-heroes’ who have to bend and break the rules in order to bring about justice.  However, he seems to be pretty much without morals.  I won’t go into the exact details, but, soon after meeting our ‘hero’ he doesn’t something pretty dark which doesn’t really make you identify with him.  He then meets a guy who looks a bit like a fat version of Robert Pattinson.  I later looked on the internet and was shocked when I realised it WAS Robert Pattinson!  I’m guessing he wanted to ‘bulk up’ and look as different to his sparkly vampire persona as he could.  And he succeeded.

Then the two of them generally continue their quest for a car (and stuff).  Now, seeing as The Rover has already been in cinemas, I’m guessing that most people will now watch it on DVD.  And here’s the thing... because the ‘story’ is basically either or both Mike from Neighbours and Edward Cullen travelling through the Outback and meeting one dodgy person after the next – then ‘rinse and repeat,’ you can actually use the DVD’s ‘chapter skip’ option to take you through the story and not actually miss anything.  Seriously, if you tried pressing the button a few times you wouldn’t miss a single pertinent plot detail.  It’s just ‘meet the next grubby character and keep going.

Now, I know I’m being a bit negative about it all, but it does have its good points... namely its look and feel.  I mentioned earlier about how it looked like ‘The Road’ (only in the sunnier Outback, obviously).  It too is dark in tone, depressing and does a pretty good job at showing how life might be if society fell apart at the seams.

Most people will either love or hate it.  And I can see both arguments.  You’ll either love how dark and moody it is (dialogue is often pretty light and well spaced-out!), or simply find it dull.  There certainly isn’t enough action in it to call it a thrilling action movie.  Basically, if you’re in the mood for ‘bleak and slow’ then you’ll get something out of this.  An rollercoaster ride-explosion-fest it is not.

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

The Terror Within - Could have done better

I'm quite partial to cheesy sci-fi B-movies.  I don't expect too much and am quite happy with a rubbery monster, chomping his way through a cast of unknowns.  To be fair, I got all that with 1989's 'The Terror Within,' but, just because it was cheesy, didn't really mean it was that good.

Earth has succumbed to some sort of plague (don't dwell on it too much - it's just an excuse for the remaining humans to live underground) and those who have survived now dwell in a bunker while mutated monsters (known as 'gargoyles' roam the land).

George Kennedy is about the only cast member you may have seen before.  And he leads the rag-tag bunch of survivors as they try and stay alive when one of the dastardly gargoyles finds its way down below.

The creature got in about a third of the way into the film and, up until that point, I was quite happily enjoying the story (despite its lack of originality).  However, no sooner did the monster make its appearance, did the film show itself for what it was - a shameless rip-off of 'Alien.'

Now, I've seen plenty of 'Alien' clones, none of which lived up to the 1979 classic, but many that were entertaining in their own way.  However, this one just comes across as a bit on the cheap side. 'Alien' was dark and claustrophobic with a truly memorable xenomorph that had never been seen before on screen.  The monster in 'The Terror Within' is truly laughable.  It's just a (fat?) man in a rubber costume.  It really isn't scary at all and is quite cringeworthy.

The characters are pretty one dimensional and make every classic horror movie mistake when dealing with something that's trying to kill them.  They split up often and run into dangerous situations without really thinking things through.

Overall, if you like cheap rip-offs of 'Alien,' then there are plenty out there that are better than this.  There isn't much in the way of gore, but if there was a 'high-point' it was the 'birthing' scene of the creature - it may be a complete rip-off of John Hurt's classic scene in 'Alien,' but at least it was suitably gory and even made me a bit squeamish.

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

Pumpkinhead 4 - Blood Feud - Lame addition to the franchise

Eek, where to begin? Just don't bother. If you like low budget horror films then watch the first Pumpkinhead. This one offers nothing new and is just terrible.

I try to be a little more constructive, but it's just bad, bad, bad.

It reunites Lance Henriksen with the franchise. The film-makers obviously think that his name will entice people back to the story. And it worked... with me. I still think he's a great actor with amazing screen presence. However, he's not in this film enough to save it.

It's about a load of hillbillies. You won't care about any of them (even those meant to be sympathetic). They resurrect the demon Pumpkinhead. He kills people. Rinse and repeat.

It's a pity this film is so bad because Pumpkinhead himself still looks pretty cool. It's like the film-makers spent so much money on a decent-looking monster that they forgot to employ a competent writer. Shame.

1/10 This might as well have been written, directed and produced by Uwe Boll

Mud - Enjoyable, but very slow

Sometimes when you describe a movie as `slow' people may think that you didn't enjoy it. The trick with `Mud' to get the most out of it is to be in the mood for something with no car chases or gun battles.

It's about a wanted criminal, aka `Mud,' who, while living on an island off a U.S. river, befriends a couple of boys. What follows is a tale that is primarily based on love, i.e. the expectations people have of love, versus the reality.

Like I say, it's slow. It's about relationships forming (and unforming, of course!) therefore don't go expecting anything too fast-paced and action packed. However, if you're into more `character-driven' movies, then give this one a go. People often criticise child actors for `ruining' a movie. The young boy here gives an outstanding performance, as does Mathew McConaughey.

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

The Hunt (2007) - Not sure what I saw in this

'The Hunt' is an interesting film for me.  I remember the first time I watched it I was really quite taken with it.  I know it's hardly 'fast-paced' and definitely more of a 'slow-burner,' but the final third was pretty terrifying.  In fact, I enjoyed it so much, I bought it.

A couple of years later, I re-watched it and kind of wondered what I saw in it.  I've seen a few other reviews that describe it as 'Blair Witch with aliens' and that's pretty apt.  It's about two hunters who take one of their step-sons into the forest in order to film a documentary on 'bow hunting.' Granted it's not all filmed from a 'POV perspective,' but there's enough first-person footage of people running through the woods and talking straight into camera to draw similarities.

I've watched it three times now and each time the only thing I'm left with is the feeling that I must have been in one hell of a forgiving mood on the initial viewing.  I'm not saying it's terrible.  It's okay, but no more than that.  The acting isn't bad, but it has a really cheap feel - like a 'made-for-TV' movie.  Even the aliens - when you finally see them - look like they've been animated on a Playstation 2.  Plus don't expect many kills, or even gore on the few deaths you get.

I think if the film truly has a 'weak spot' it's the child actor who plays the little boy.  I don't want to come down too hard on him as, due to his age, has hardly had many years of 'treading the boards' to perfect his acting talent.  He just comes across a bit too weedy to really have much audience support.

Due to the film-makers deciding to tell the story as a kind of 'long flashback,' which is loosely interspersed with what is happening in the present, it does tend to rob the film of any tension as you kind of know what's happened and nothing really comes as that much of a surprise.

Overall, 'The Hunt' isn't an awful film, it's just so mediocre that you've seen a load of better horror/sci-fi films and this one is pretty forgettable (unless you're me, clearly).

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

Love, Honour and Obey - Could have actually been better.  SHOULD have been better

I first watched ‘Love, Honour and Obey’ back when it was released in 2000.  Seeing as I’ve always been reasonably into British gangster films, in short, I thought it was pretty cool.  However, I never had it on DVD and have only just got round to re-watching it a good fifteen years later.  Despite my good memories of the film, I begrudgingly have to admit that it hasn’t aged all that well.

Perhaps I was so into Guy Ritchie’s style of cockney gangster flick of the late nineties/early 2000s that I somehow lumped this into the same nostalgically-good category.  I don’t want to be too harsh on it, because there are definitely some good points and I didn’t totally hate it – it just let me down on a repeat viewing.  We meet Johnny Lee Miller’s character who is pretty much a London nobody and dreams of working his way into ‘the mob’ who it just so happens that his childhood friend, Jude Law, is already related to.

The overall impression I got after the credits rolled was that it felt more like a ‘made-for-TV’ movie.  And, upon looking into it, I did find that it was originally shown on the BBC before its release on DVD (or VHS in those days!).  It’s rare that I notice the ‘direction’ of a film so much.  Normally, a film is cut together so smoothly that you can follow the story at all times.  However, here scenes just sort of end as if the film cut out mid-dialogue.  It really is a bit jarring after a while.  Plus there are some scenes that don’t really go anywhere and feel a little out of place in the scheme of things.  And, while we’re on the topic of odd scenes, this film does struggle to know what it wants to be.  At first glance it’s a gangster film, but it’s never really dark and gritty enough to be that nasty.  It throws weird comedic scenes and plot-lines in there which wouldn’t be out of place in an American Pie film.  However, again, it’s not funny enough to be a comedy and, like the editing, it bounces all over the place.

But, like I say, even now I didn’t feel I totally wasted my time watching it.  For a start it contains a stellar cast, headed by Ray Winstone, Johnny Lee Miller and Jude Law (the less said about Sadie Frost’s performance the better).  However, the stand-out performance comes from a truly menacing Rhys Ifans for his rival villain.  For some reason they’re all called by their actors’ first names – weird, but interesting.  Then you have the karaoke scenes which really are quite fun (not to mention catchy!).

There was still just about enough nostalgia here to entertain me and, if you’re a major fan of any of the leads, you’ll probably find enjoyment during its hour and a half run-time.  However, I can’t see it being regarded as much of a classic in the long run.  It was kind of trying to ride the coattails of Lock, Stock and hope no one really noticed.  I did at the time, but it doesn’t now.

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