Queen of the Damned - Fun for the casual viewer

It says on the front cover of the DVD of ‘Queen of the Damned’ that it is the sequel to ‘Interview With a Vampire’ – you remember that – the smash hit movie, starring Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt.  Everyone loved that.  It was a hit!  Unfortunately, ‘Queen of the Damned’ is only a sequel as it’s using some of the same characters (characters, not actors – there’s a difference) and set in the same universe, so to speak.  Basically, it’s not really a sequel.  It’s another vampire story written by Anne Rice following some of the characters who you might have seen before.  Don’t expect to see Tom or Brad in this one.

However, just because it doesn’t really follow on, doesn’t make it a bad thing – a disjointed thing, but not a bad thing.  But, in some ways, it’s not really the film’s fault.  It’s about a vampire who has got disillusioned with drinking people’s blood over the centuries and has gone to sleep for hundreds of years.  Now he’s woken in the modern age and decided to ‘out’ all the other vampires and their blood-sucking ways.  It goes without saying that the rest of the vamps don’t take kindly to his outspoken ways and decide to take him out.  So where does the Queen come into it?

She doesn’t.  That much.  Unfortunately she’s only in it for two scenes because the young actress playing her tragically died while the film was being made, leaving the story lacking what should have been a big part of its central element.

Plus it doesn’t really do the book justice.  I haven’t read the book.  I’m one of the many who just watches the film, but I’ve generally browsed through enough internet message boards to realise that a lot of die-hard fans of the source material didn’t appreciate the transition to film.

So, it’s got its fair amount of negative points.  And yet it’s actually quite good.  Not great, but somehow highly watchable (if you’re into vampires in general).  It should all be quite campy and yet Stuart Townsend plays the lead vamp pretty well and is actually fun to watch.  Aaliyah, for the few scenes she’s in, sizzles as the Queen of the undead.  It would have been pretty good if she’d have been able to show what she can do all the way through the film.

It’s probably not a film you’re going to want to see again and again, but if you’re not totally bored with vampires after binge-watching box sets of ‘True Blood’ then take a look at vampires rocking out on stage and fighting each other in the chorus.

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

Mystery Men – The Avengers they are not

It’s hard to imagine a year go by where you don’t see someone in a latex body-stocking flying through the sky while buildings crumble all around them.  Or, in other words, a superhero movie.  Marvel’s dominance reigns supreme these days and DC does its best to mop up any gap in the filmic calendar year that Marvel don’t already have a stranglehold on.  However, back in the ‘olden days’ of 1999, just dressing someone up in a silly costume wasn’t enough to guarantee a billion dollars at the Box Office.  That’s probably why ‘Mystery Men’ never really made much of an impact back then and only really fills a niche gap in the market today.  We’re introduced to a world of superheroes, or rather ONE superhero – the unsubtly-titled ‘Captain Amazing’ – a man who has dedicated his life to protecting the city from wrong-doers and has therefore enjoyed all the lucrative benefits that come with it, i.e. corporate sponsorship and women.  In fact, he’s protected the city so well that there’s hardly a super villain left worthy enough to take him on.  So, while he spends much of his time as his (completely unrecognisable, glasses-wearing) alter-ego, it’s up to another band of ‘heroes’ to mop up the few thieves still daring to snatch old ladies’ purses.  However, these heroes are anything but ‘super.’ Their ‘powers’ are unusual at best.  We have a man who gets angry to the point of, er, being very angry.  A man who puts on a fake British accent while he throws forks and a guy who hits people with a shovel.  Not a Batarang to be seen among them!

Nowadays, when you look at the cast of ‘Mystery Men’ it almost reads like a who’s who of Hollywood.  Yet, back then all the stars seemed to be faces who you kind of knew because you’d seen them before in… oh, you know… it was him out of that thing on TV.  You have Ben Stiller, William H Macy, Greg Kinnear, Eddie Izzard and Geoffrey Rush to name but a few.  It’s a pretty impressive ensemble, so I always wondered why it was never bigger than it seemed to be.  I guess at the time people may have thought it was a superhero movie and, due to the public seemingly thinking that all superhero movies were like ‘Batman and Robin’ they stayed away, plus Ben Stiller’s star hadn’t quite peaked back then, so it couldn’t ride on his future post ‘Something About Mary’ popularity.  Plus it might be difficult to market, as, on first inspection, you could be mistaken for thinking it was a ‘proper’ superhero film, i.e. complete with giant budget and epic action set-pieces.  Then again, if you look closely at the silly costumes and the fact that one woman is using the skull of her father inside a ‘magic’ bowling ball as a weapon, you could be forgiven for thinking that it’s a straight comedy.  However, again, it may have many funny moments, but you wouldn’t call it a ‘laugh-a-minute’ ride.

‘Mystery Men’ is one of those films that dips in and out of various genres.  Personally, I’d call it a ‘satire of the superhero genre.’ Now, I enjoy both DC and Marvel’s current crops so I like to think I’m well up on the various conventions and clichés associated with the genre.  Therefore, when I watch ‘Mystery Men’ I can appreciate how much work has gone into lampooning it.  However, when it was released the genre it was parodying wasn’t established enough to really sell this movie.  If you’re looking for something that takes a satirical, yet loving, swipe at all things superhero-related, then you should definitely check this out.  Don’t expect total action.  Don’t expect outright comedy.  Expect a subtle blend of the two.  If you’ve ever read the cult comic ‘Astro City’ you’ll know the tone of this film.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

From Dusk Till Dawn - A grisly classic - not to be missed

There are few people nowadays who don't know From Dusk Till Dawn's `twist.' Originally, it was two separate screenplays - one about bank robbers fleeing the authorities and the other about a standoff against vampires. Quentin Tarrantino decided to combine the two and package it as one film. The result: awesome.

Although not directed by Tarrantino (instead, he casts himself in a leading role), it has a totally Tarrantino feel. Two bank robbers abduct a family in an attempt to escape the law and flee over the border into Mexico. Unfortunately, they run into a whole bar-load of vampires and are forced to team up in order to survive the night.

Yes, it may sound like many similar films, but for a start it has an impressive cast, featuring a (young and unusually nasty) George Clooney, Tarrantino himself as Clooney's creepy, psychotic younger brother, Harvey Keitel, Juliette Lewis and plenty of cameos from other famous faces as either vampires of those destined to drive a stake through their hearts.Expect slow-building, rambling dialogue, not to mention the inevitable foul language and violence.

If you like either Tarrantino's films or general action/horror, mixed with healthy doses of black comedy, then you really should watch this.

And, guys, if you haven't seen Salma Hayek's `snakedance,' you really haven't lived. Kristen Stewart's vampire isn't a patch on her!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Devil - Does the job  

Devil is about, well, um, the Devil (in case the title didn't tip you off) and how he likes to mess with the bad people destined to join him in hell for all eternity. And, in this case, he chooses five people with dubious pasts to trap in a lift and then generally mess with in the most grisly way he can think of.

The first thing I should say about Devil is that it's quite a short film, therefore talking about the plot may give away a few twists that might spoil the enjoyment. It doesn't need to be too long. Not all the action takes place inside the lift (as there is a team working on getting them out of there), but it's still quite a condensed atmosphere that doesn't lend itself too much scope to expand. Therefore, in this case, less is more.

It's actually quite good. Oddly enough, despite being a horror film, it's rated 15 (or even PG13 in some places), meaning there isn't an awful lot of blood and entrails floating about the place. What `scares' come are largely jumpy and `atmospheric.' However, that doesn't seem to matter. It's a condensed little film that should appeal to horror buffs with some decent performances and enough twists to hopefully surprise you.

Probably not a classic up to The Exorcist's standards, but entertaining enough in what it gives you.

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

Critters 3 - The only film where Leo looked his age

In case you don’t know, ‘Critters 3’ is best known for being the first ever film to feature Leonardo DiCaprio.  Here, he plays a kid who is a kid.  Then, forever after, he was destined to play an adult who looks like a kid.  But then that’s just me being bitter at his seeming inability to age.

Anyway, if you haven’t seen ‘Critters 3’ then you might want to start with the first two, as they’re arguably better and, well, chronology and all that.  The Critters are little alien monsters who crash-landed on Earth and generally eat everyone and everything – or rather everyone and everything who isn’t one of the lead cast.  These baddies tend to only eat people you won’t really care about.  Or at least they certainly do now!

I haven’t seen another monster/slasher film where the villains do so little damage to so few people.  If the Critters franchise was ever really classed as ‘horror’ (which it wasn’t really – it was more only every horror with a spoonful of comedy).  Now, it really is played out tongue-in-cheek with no real attempts to scare you.  The Critters roll and bounce around the place, bumping into things and come across more like Mr Bean with bigger teeth than anything that really threatens humankind.

Critters 3 is a short film.  And for good reason.  There really isn’t that much in the way of plot to fill it.  You get the little monsters brought back from the countryside into a big city.  You’d think that with the added number of human-prey this would make a change from the farm-country the previous two were set in.  However, the whole film is basically set in one apartment block.  And, for some reason, no one (Critter or human) ever really seems to make much of a play to leave the building.  You could argue that this creates an air of tension and claustrophobia.  But it doesn’t.  It’s just a cheap continuation of the franchise.

Yes, I know I’m being kind of negative.  And this is yet another step down for the franchise.  But that’s not to say that I didn’t find some enjoyment in it.  The Critters themselves – one again – are the real stars and, for all their ‘prat-falls’ they’re still quite fun to watch.  

If you like your eighties monster-horror films then you’re probably best off sticking to the first one (which most people seem to think is best, personally, I preferred part 2, but anyway...).  However, if you REALLY like the Critters and want to see more of them, you can try this – it’s the sort of film where you can surf the net and watch it at the same time and still miss much.  Plus, did I mention it had baby-faced Leo in it?  He’s being chased my fur-balls – c’mon, that’s got to be worth watching, right?

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

Blood Glacier (aka The Station) - Land of `rabid foxes'

Here's a fun game... watch `Blood Glacier' and give yourself ten points every time someone mentions rabid foxes. I would say drink an alcoholic drink, but you'd probably need hospital treatment if you did that.

In `Blood Glacier' we join an assortment of bearded geologists studying a glacier somewhere in the natural wilderness. Then, one fateful day, their glacier looks like it's made up of blood. Although it's quite pretty it does have the drawback of produces rabid foxes. Okay, so the `rabid foxes' turn out to be an assortment of monsters, but the geologists still seem to refer to them as `rabid foxes' for much of the film (even when Santa Clause arrives with his butt-kicking wife).

What you have here is a homage to John Carpenter's classic, `The Thing.' I don't say `rip-off' because that would be running Blood Glacier down and, despite its reliance on rabid foxes and baldy-beardy men, it's actually pretty fun. Yes, it has subtitles, so be prepared for that, but the effects are cool, the monsters well thought out and not that much (if any?) CGI effects which ruin so many films. The cast does as well as any cast in these situations. Of course there are always going to be a few daft moments where people do that thing Ripley does in Alien where they sacrifice humans to save animals, but, apart from that, if you're a fan of foreign horror, or liked The Thing, I'd give this one a go.

It also includes the rather surreal line, `Stop eating that banana while you're crying!' I don't know why that amused me so, but it did.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Atm - The most annoying horror film EVER

That's quite a claim, I know. But bear with me... we all know from watching horror films, that there's at least one moment where the hero knocks the evil killer to the floor then just runs off, allowing him to get back up and chase them down all over again. We all scream, "No! Hit him again! And again!" but they never do.

That sort of thing normally happens once or twice in your average horror film. Not in the case of ATM though. You will find yourself screaming at the TV screen near constantly for about forty minutes of the film.

ATM is about three friends who use an ATM (or `cash machine' as I always called them) in the middle of the night. They go inside to withdraw some dollars, only to find there's a psychotic killer (who looks a bit like Kenny from South Park in my opinion) waiting outside for them. And that's why he does - waits. He stands across the parking lot staring at them. They could just run away. They don't. It's also worth noting that these are the only three people in 2011 who don't have a single mobile phone between them. The killer then kills a passer by. While he's doing that, they could just run away. They don't. The killer then ransacks their car (which is parked right across the car park). They could just run away. They don't. The killer then wanders round the back of the ATM building they're in to hammer it a bit (why?). During that time he's banging on the back, they could just open then front door and run off without him seeing. They don't. And so it goes on.

These are truly the stupidest three people in the world. I watched it to the end, just to see if it got any better. It didn't really. And that was a shame as, believe it or not, the characters were actually quite well-written and funny. Plus the production values were quite high, putting it above many other modern horrors.

If you're expecting something clever and different like Phone Booth then you won't find it here.

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