Funny Games - Reviewed after second viewing

I first watched Funny Games (US) and enjoyed it (well, thought it was a film I'd like to watch again), so I bought it. However, half way through a second viewing, I decided I couldn't take any more and turned it off.

Some may say that's a sure sign that it's a bad movie. They may be right - even its star Tim Roth has since refused to watch it. The film is actually an American version (filmed shot for shot) of an Austrian `home invasion' movie and is supposed to be about `the nature of violence.' I didn't know this when I first watched it and just looked at it as a horrific film which was deliberately quirky.

It's about a family who get held hostage in their own (holiday) home by two nasty - yet annoyingly polite - young psychopaths. The first time I watched it I stuck with it and thought it was interesting/different enough to warrant a second viewing. I guess the reason I turned it off is because it was just too frustrating to watch. I practically wanted to jump into the TV armed with a chainsaw and... well, I won't give too much away.

If you don't know about the film, I won't spoil the `weirder' bits. It's definitely not a horror film, as there isn't much blood and gore (what there is happens off screen). It's more an experience in frustration making statements about the audience's desire to witness blood and gore on the big screen. Now, some may say that's a bit pretentious and, if you feel this way, this film probably isn't for you.

If you want to watch this - be prepared for the least `feel good' film ever made. It's not a horror and it's not a thriller. It's simply an exercise in watching. It's different enough to rise above a lot of its fellow genre films, but may not be everyone's cup of tea and is definitely hard to sit through.

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

Diary Of The Dead - The living dead would probably make a better film

First of all, let me say that I am a huge George A Romero fan. I loved 'Night, Dawn and Day of the Dead.' Each one contained quite a bit of 'social commentary' on the society of the times ('Day of the Dead' was about the dangers of science - in case you missed it - don't worry, that installment wasn't as 'socially aware' as the others!).  I could even see quite a few positives in 'Land of the Dead.' Sure, like 'Day' it wasn't that 'up' on the social commentary and felt more in line with the 'Resident Evil' films of the time, but it was still great fun and contained a fair few memorable moments.

I'm writing this review of 'Diary of the Dead' now because I've just watched the film a second time. After the first time I saw it, I wanted desperately to love it like I do with the rest of George's output. I didn't. So I just left it a few years and wondered whether I'd `get it' the second time round. I didn't.

This time George treats us to a `mockumentary' of a zombie outbreak. The film is set at the same time as 'Night of the Living Dead' was (albeit in a modern age, as opposed to the racially-tense sixties), i.e. when the zombies were first starting to rise. The footage is all shot by some kids filming their own horror movie (which, if they'd got round to finishing it, would probably have been better than the actual film itself!). In short, it's basically `Blair Witch with zombies.'

Unfortunately, there are simply too many bad points to list, so I'll stick to just a few. First of all the movie tries to be clever and mention `horror movie clichés' and then break them (ala 'Scream' franchise). However, in the next breath we're treated to the most stereotypical Englishman you've ever seen (how I wanted my fellow countryman to die quickly. Has George A Romero ever MET a real live Englishman?!).

Then there's the narration. Or should I call it `story-telling?' Seriously, it's so patronising that you might as well have large subtitles written in crayon, telling you what people are thinking. Actually, that's a lie. You, as the viewer, will have NO IDEA what people are thinking in 'Diary of the Dead.' People do the most ridiculous things all the time. They frequently wander off on their own. They don't lock doors to stop zombies from following them and - worst of all - the people behind the camera NEVER actually help out those in front of it. Seriously, if your mate was getting chewed on by the undead, surely you may just put down the camera and help out?! Well, they don't. Never.

The bottom line is that George is well off the mark with this one. 'Land of the Dead' was no classic, but it had its merits and was generally a fun film. This one is just awful (sorry, George). It adds nothing to the genre and comes across as thinking it's way more clever than it actually is. This could well be the `death of the dead.'

It comes to something when the best part of your film features a small contribution from a kamikaze, mute Amish gentleman with a scythe. If it wasn't for that scene, I'd probably only give it the 2/10!

4/10 Dumb and Dumber would probably appreciate this film

My Bloody Valentine (2009) - Acceptable 'Scream' clone

It seems like ever since 'Scream' revitalised the 'slasher' genre there's been countless imitation, some - such as 'My Bloody Valentine' even going as far as not to even bother being original and simply remaking an old (not that famous) eighties horror movie.  However, this time it's in 3D!

I've watched this version a few times.  Only the once in 3D and I have to say that it didn't add an awful lot to the overall story.  It's about a coal miner (clad in gas mask to conceal his identity until the final act, obviously) who goes around killing people in a small American town.  Nothing special, but the one thing that it does right (and also one of 'Scream's' main selling points) is the way that there are plenty of suspects as to who the killer might be, so there's a chance that you'll pick the wrong one (I did!).

There's some reasonable gore (if you're watching the 2D version you'll be able to tell which scenes were supposed to - literally - be popping out at you) and a bit of nudity and some strong language.   Therefore, it does its best to stay true to a more 'adult' audience.

Other than that there's not too much to say.  Everything about it is 'functional' and, if you like either your slasher films or just enjoy trying to guess who the killer is, this one should fill an hour and a half of your time.

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

The Borderlands - Not bad, but nothing that new

Two words sum up ‘The Borderlands.’ And those words are ‘found’ and ‘footage.’ If you’re into your modern horror films then you will already have stumbled upon this genre. It’s the type where everything is filmed from the ‘first person’ perspective and involves lots of shaky handheld camerawork.

‘The Borderlands’ is an example of this, albeit, instead of an American ‘Blair Witch’ style film, we have a British version, where two priests and a cameraman ‘investigate’ a possible miracle in an isolated church in the British countryside.

The first half of the film is basically ‘scene-setting.’ We watch the central characters bicker and rip on each other as we get to know them. Fair play to the writer here, as the dialogue is pretty snappy and humorous which makes it an easy watch. However, the character of the cameraman just comes across a little over-the-top sometimes. He’s like a Ben Elton clone who’s drunk too much Red Bull. His performance borders on manic and over the top. If you turned his acting down a couple of notches he’d be much more tolerable.

Then you have the second half of the film, i.e. where the spooky things start to occur. Again, if you’ve seen any ‘found footage’ horror film, you’ll know what to expect. The lights go out, the camera shakes and you get lots of frightened screaming into the lens (no runny noses though, ala Blair Witch). Finally, you’re left with the ‘typical’ found footage ending. I won’t spoil it for you, but if you’ve seen any other found footage film you’ll know how it ends.

So, although the dialogue is nice and there are some creepy scenes in the final third, there’s little here to really get excited about. If The Borderlands was released about fifteen years ago, it would probably steal Blair Witch’s mantle of being the film that ‘reinvented’ the found footage genre. However, as it stands, The Borderlands is just another – albeit okay – found footage film.

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

Austin Powers - International Man of Mystery - The lighter side of Dr No

Looking back on it, it was amazing that no one thought of completely lampooning those old Sean Connery Bond films until 1997. They were pretty over-the-top, but I guess that's what we loved about them. And, I dare say that the writer/star of `Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery,' - Mike Myers - loves them as much as the rest of us. For he gives us a most loving take on the unspoken absurdities that we deliberately chose to overlook in the Bond films. He plays both hero and villain here as a swinging spy, frozen in the sixties and defrosted in the - rather more politically correct - nineties to do battle with the (Blofeld-like) Dr Evil.

Despite being an American production, it has a very British feel to it. Everything is made fun of, but you never feel like they're being particularly cruel - it's all quite `loving mockery' (if you know what I mean). It's not just a string of naughty jokes, but it also does go a little deeper in highlighting the change in attitudes from the `free love' of the sixties to the more reserved nineties.

There's nothing here that's particularly clever, just a stream of innuendos which seem like they've been taken straight out of the original Carry On films. But, if you're in the mood for some general silliness (and have a healthy knowledge of the old Bond films), you should enjoy the crazy ride and find you're spouting the several Powers/Evil catchphrases for some time to come.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Tomb Raider (2018) – A computer game movie that works? (almost)

I couldn’t get past the second level of ‘Tomb Raider’ on the Playstaion (1) back in the mid-nineties, so I found the whole ‘Lara Croft thing’ a little frustrating.  I know I watch the two Angelina Jolie movies that were based on the computer game and have long since forgotten everything about them (apart from Chris Barrie from ‘Red Dwarf’ being underused in my opinion!) so my hopes weren’t exactly sky-high for this ‘reboot.’ However, having watched it I was actually pleasantly surprised.

Let’s get this out the way, ‘Tomb Raider’ was nothing absolutely out of the ordinary and so original that it will change cinema forever.  But then were you really expecting that?  I was hoping for an enjoyable little action romp to entertain me for a couple of hours.  And I got just that.  Being part of the *ahem* ‘older generation’ who has spent a lifetime watching films, I can totally say that there is nothing in ‘Tomb Raider’ that hasn’t been done before – sometimes better, sometimes worse.  I can’t think of a single negative thing to say about it (with the possibility of a few strained British accents being attempted here and there).  However, just because I can’t think of anything bad to say, doesn’t mean it’s perfect.  It simply just is what it is – an action film.

In case you don’t know, a young British aristocrat (Lara Croft) finds clues to show that her father isn’t dead and actually went on a secret expedition to, er, save the world I suppose.  Therefore, she follows in his footsteps.  And, luckily enough, she has spent her entire lifetime conveniently honing skills that will aid her in her quest.  Alicia Vikander plays possibly a younger, less ‘cartoony’ version of Lara, as opposed to Angelina Jolie’s more ‘comic book’ interpretation.  The Tomb Raider games have – apparently – evolved from that same cartoony look and feel to a more gritty, darker take and I guess the film has followed closely in its footsteps.  It’s certainly more ‘realistic’ and less reliant on amazing stunts that would make James Bond blush.  I preferred this approach as Lara handles herself more with her wits and only relies on her brawn when she absolutely has to, plus it would be totally unbelievable to see her beat up hordes of burly henchmen!

I’m not sure which part of the film I preferred more – the first two thirds are pretty good, slowly building up to a climactic third act.  However, when said climax arrives, it felt like the ending to another popular on-screen archaeologist’s third outing (‘Last Crusade’ anyone?).  I don’t know whether this was a deliberate homage, but it did make me wonder why they’d gone with such (what I considered to be) a blatant rip-off.

Anyway, I get the feeling I’m not this film’s ‘target audience.’ I enjoyed it enough for being what it was – an enjoyable little action film that offered nothing I hadn’t seen already and was designed to reboot the franchise and take it in a new direction.  However, my thirteen year old daughter absolutely loved it and will be buying it on Blu-ray the moment it comes out!

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

Skinwalkers - Yup, it’s another ‘found footage’ horror film

Is it a ‘spoiler’ to mention that a film is actually a ‘found footage’ film before you watch it?  Personally, I’d say no.  I think all ‘found footage’ films should come with a warning, mentioning that a film is ‘found footage.’ That way I can steer well clear.  Sadly, for me, there was no warning and I ended up wasting an hour and a half of my time on this.

I’m not a ‘horror snob.’ I actually really enjoyed The Blair Witch Project (and long before that Cannibal Holocaust, not to mention a very select few of more recent ones like REC).  The ‘found footage’ genre CAN work.  It’s just 9/10 it doesn’t.  And it doesn’t here.
If you’ve seen one of the ten million horror B-movies made this way, i.e. filmed from the point of view of one of the characters all the way through with the other characters aware and reacting to the camera, then you’ve basically seen this.  It’s just typical of a found footage film.  This time it’s about aliens.  But that doesn’t matter.  It could be about demons, witches or haunted houses – they’re all exactly the same.

The first half of the film, basically nothing happens.  It’s to do with ‘character building.’ Supposedly.  Although it’s probably less about introducing us to the characters’ traits and more to do with filling the ninety minute runtime without having to pay for special effects or decent sets.

Yes, the film has that credible ‘documentary feel.’ But that doesn’t mean that it’s either (a) scary (b) enjoyable or (c) memorable.  All it is is yet another found footage film which you’ll watch, not like and totally forget before wishing you hadn’t wasted an hour and a half of your life on it.

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