6 Underground - Watch it if you've already paid for it

I was a Ryan Reynolds fan even before he returned to the big time with his 'Deadpool' films, so I was more than happy to watch an action film produced for Netflix as I happened to have a subscription that month.  I didn't know what it was about, but, judging by the promotional pictures it had plenty of gun-play and explosions and, I'm ashamed to admit, that's normally good enough for me.

I noticed it was quite a long film (clocking in at just over two hours) and, believe it or not, the first twenty minutes are taken up with one long car chase.  Now, this may sound a little over the top, but it's well shot and there are a few nice moments and it's pretty cool.  Then I noticed that every explosion looked like it had firework-rockets spewing out of them - a trait only used by notorious action film director, Michael Bay.  This then happened so much I stopped to check who directed it and - sure enough - it was Bay's first film directly to streaming service.

Therefore, it's no wonder the film looks so good - and I stress the word 'looks.' Everything looks great in terms of shot composition and style, but, underneath there's just that feeling that there's something lacking overall.  If you're an uber fan of Ryan Reynolds you'll enjoy watching him on form as the part he plays - a leader of an elite team of assassins - is one where he can practically sleepwalk through.  The film felt a bit like a recent 'Mission Impossible' film where you have one major star (in this case Reynolds) leading a team of highly-skilled killers to take down the bad guys.

You will get some cool bits, some good bits, some funny bits and some bits that require you to not think too hard about the logic or physics of the situation in order to appreciate what's happening.  The plot is all over the place and sometimes you need to just sit back and enjoy the pretty sets and explosions.  It also has that 'Marvel-style' humour in it where the characters will make a witty quip here and there.  The trouble is, the film isn't for kids and there's plenty of gore.  So if there's just been a situation where many people have died, the humour feels a little out of place and takes away from what should really be a serious moment.

I read online that this was supposed to be the start of some sort of franchise, but, although reasonably successful, it didn't do well enough to green-light a second part.  I can see why.  It's not bad and if you like Ryan Reynolds and/or action films in general, it's well worth a watch as part of your Netflix subscription.  However, if I was expected to pay full-price to see it in the cinema, I'd certainly wait until it was released on whatever streaming service I was signed up to at the time.

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

Army of the Dead (2021) - This is every zombie movie rolled into one

Alas, Zack Snyder, I knew him well.  I'm a huge zombie fan and therefore loved George A Romero's 1979 classic 'Dawn of the Dead.' Naturally, I was sceptical when I heard it was being remade, but, to my surprise, Snyder handled it well.  Plus his next few films were pretty good, too (I even enjoyed 'Man of Steel').  Therefore, I had high hopes when I heard he was returning to the genre and almost being given a free run with the story and production.

I knew 'Army of the Dead' was not in any way related to his 'Dawn of the Dead' remake, so I was ready for something new.  What I got was an all-you-can-eat buffet of every aspect of a zombie movie ever put to film.

It was like the producers had thrown various cool zombie-related ideas into a hat and then chosen the best.  However, they obviously thought ALL the ideas were the best and so decided to put every last one into the finished product.

You end up with sleeping zombies, dried out zombies who wake up in the rain, robot zombies (yes, seriously), slow zombies, fast zombies, martial artist zombies, zombie animals, zombie queens and kings and, of course, zombies in love.

Now, you'd think with all those elements the film should last about five hours or be more like a long-running TV series.  However, most of those above are never really expanded upon, let, alone explained.

Meanwhile you have the overall plot of a team of mercenaries (most of which are stereotypes who you'll hate, others just criminals) who are trying to rob a vault in a Las Vegas hotel - even though the owner of the hotel has recruited them, making people wonder why he just didn't give them the key.

Naturally, the rest of America isn't too happy about having a city infested with flesh-eaters and have walled it off.  Now they're going to nuke it and make sure there's a 'no fly zone' in place over the city.  Of course this doesn't mean that people can't fly out, so as long as they get their hands on a chopper (which will somehow fit the bags and bags of money they've stolen, the US airforce will be fine with just letting them go.

It doesn't make sense.  Nothing really makes much sense.  Some zombies are practically indestructible... until they're needed to die - then they go down with just a head-shot.  It's a mess and it's all over the place.  One thing though - it is pretty well shot in places.  But just when you get one good looking scene, it's kind of spoiled by Snyder's direction when he focuses in on one thing in shot leaving everything else blurred all around it.

Perhaps if you've never seen a zombie movie before this one might impress you.  Or you're the most forgiving person when it comes to plot holes and things that just make you want to roll your eyes.  If this was the only undead movie around it would be a blockbuster.  As it is... George A Romero was making better (and more scary!) zombie films with a fraction of the budget fifty years ago in black and white.  Probably best to stick to those (or one of the earlier seasons of 'The Walking Dead').

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

The Brood - No new parents need to watch this

If you're thinking of having children, you really should make sure you don't watch 'The Brood' before you go all the way.  Otherwise you'll probably end up adopting a spaniel instead.  Mind you... it's not just the kids you have to look out for.  It's also advisable that you get your prospective partner checked out before you put a ring on her finger and make sure she can't conjure up evil midget-size manifestations of evil who want to kill everyone around them.  Happy families this is not.

Writer/director, David Cronenberg is well-known for taking us into some dark and horrific places, but this story is - loosely - based on his own experiences during his real-life divorce and custody battle with his soon to be ex wife.

I don't know how that story ended, but I hope it worked out better than what happens in 'The Brood,' where Oliver Reed leads a 'new wave' scientific experiment in his luxury home, where he 'treats' his patients' mental problems by making them speak to him as if he is the person they feel has caused them all their problems.  I know Reed has his problems off set, but his performance just somehow works here.  He's strong, stoic, practically without feeling and totally committed to his own cause - no matter what the evidence to the contrary provides.

However, the husband of one of them women under his care is concerned that she has been hurting their daughter during permitted weekend visits.  He therefore insists that the mother/daughter time swiftly comes to an end.  Oliver Reed's character does not agree.  Tension ensues.

Because 'The Brood' was made back in the seventies, there isn't the need for major special effects, so what you get is some pretty nasty make-up and creepy scenes which are a damn site scarier than a thousand computer generated monsters.

The film may always have the 'look' of the seventies about it, but the story is as solid and terrifying today as it ever was.  A definite classic.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Ninja III: The Domination - The perfect cheesy eighties film

If ever someone was going to bury a time capsule for future generations in order to show them what an eighties movies looked like, I'm putting forward 'Ninja III: The Domination' forward as a suggestion.  I haven't watched the first two 'Ninja' outings (I must track them down!), but if they're half as good as 'Part III' then I'm in for a good time.

If you're expecting a deep and meaningful narrative with complex characters and deep story arcs then you're in for a major disappointment.  In fact, if you're simply looking for a 'good' film then you won't find it here.  This movie is comprised of only negative elements.  That's possibly why it's so damn awesome.

A ninja tries to assassinate an American politician, but, despite taking out possibly half of the CIA's workforce in the process, he's gunned down and killed.  Or so it seems.  Luckily, his spirit is trapped in his sword and is later found by a leg-warmer-clad beauty who then becomes possessed by his soul, picking up all his powers and then going out on a rampage of revenge on the poor boys in blue who ended his life.

There are no actors you'll probably know, but don't worry - everyone here does their best to elevate the cheesy script.  Calling their performances 'bad' would probably be a little disingenuous, as the director was equally inept and didn't seem able to draw much out of them.  There are plenty of fight scenes, but don't expect anything up to the levels of 'The Matrix' here.  Sometimes people will throw punches and you can see the hits don't connect, yet you still hear the sound effects and the victim falls backwards.  There's a sub-plot involving a love story between the lady-ninja and a police officer and it's as predictable as it comes.  A new character is thrown into the film at about the halfway point who feels like a different writer has suddenly taken over.  In any other film this may feel jarring, but here you just need to roll with the (fake) punches.

Like I say, this film is terrible - so terrible it's awesome.  I don't think film company Cannon hoped it would be laughably bad, but it is.  But that's what makes it so fun.  If you're looking for a film that is truly 'so-bad-it's-good' then you will definitely find it here.  I enjoyed every awful minute of it and will definitely track down all other films in the series.  Please may they be as bad as this.

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

Screamers - Fun but flawed little sci-fi film

Okay, there's probably no way I would ever have watched this, but, growing up in the eighties and being a big fan of 'Robocop,' I couldn't help but try and 'support' its leading man, Peter Weller, in whatever he chose to do after hanging up his metal suit.  Therefore, when I found 'Screamers' in the video store with his name on, I figured I'd give it a try.

I watched it the once.  Now, over twenty-five years later, I've decided to give it another go.  It would be fair to say that it left much of an impression on me.  The only thing I remember was that it was a science-fiction film set on a far away planet with metal things ('Screamers') that burrow under the ground and kill you.  Seeing as I've just watched it, I guess I can now say that there's more to it than just that.  But not an awful lot more.

The far away planet is in the midst of a civil war and there are more than just the underground little robot killing machines (which my girlfriend kept referring to as 'murderous moles!') to worry about.  So Weller must lead a rag-tag bunch of humans across the desolate planet (which is probably just a patch of desert in California) to try and discover the source of the new threat, or just escape - whichever comes first.

On my second (2021) viewing, I noticed in the opening credits that it was based on a story (which I haven't read) by the (hugely talented) Philip K Dick ('Total Recall' anyone?) and the screenplay adapted by Dan O'Bannon (the screenwriter of the almighty 'Alien').  Based on these two sci-fi heavyweights, I was surprised that it hadn't left more of an impression on me.

I won't go into any more detail as there are some elements that you might not see coming.  But at least I can see why I haven't revisited it for all this time.  It's just... okay.  It's a B-movie and, for what it is, it does it's best.  It doesn't have the budget, nor the actors (sorry, Peter, you'll always be the 'true' Robocop) and some bits don't really make sense.  There are some nice sets here and there, but the special effects seem to be very 'hit and miss.' They're either actually pretty good, or laughably bad.  Although it is nice to see a film that doesn't rely completely on computer-generated effects and greenscreens.  It's no 'Robocop, Alien, or 'Total Recall,' however, if you're in a forgiving mood and you just want a slice of B-movie, sci-fi fun - it'll kill an hour and a half of your time.  Just don't expect to remember much about it in twenty-five years time.  I sure didn't.

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

Troy (Director's Cut) - Epic swords & sorcery (just with the sorcery edited out)

I did watch the original version of 'Troy' in the cinema when it first came out and it was pretty good.  I really enjoyed it and it was definitely a film I'd watch again.  However, when it came to buying it on DVD I found the 'director's cut.' Normally, when one of these is released you get a few extra minutes added in here and there - so few that you either have to be a mega fan and know every line, or you simply just don't notice.  Not here.

The director's cut of 'Troy' contains whole epic action sequences and sub-plots which were - for some reason - not included in the theatrical release.  I can only assume that the studio behind the film assumed that it was too long and less people would want to sit through it.  Personally, I think it's much better this way.

I was always a little confused at how 'Troy' seems to have been rather overlooked and as forgotten with the sands of time as it's central character, Achilles (Brad Pitt), fears he may well become.  The movie never really got the praise I feel it deserves.  I wonder whether that was to do with most people only knowing about the theatrical cut with so much left out.  For the record, I even here that this cut could have been longer, as the original story 'Troy' is based on contains the gods watching down on what humanity is doing to each other (in a kind of 'Clash of the Titans' kind of way).  

Now, since vaguely looking up 'Troy' on the internet, I do hear that there are some purists who are well into their Greek mythology who claim that the film doesn't do the story justice.  I must confess that I have never read the source material, so I really can't compare the two.  But I know that I like this.

It's an epic tale of how Greece went to war with the - so far - unconquered city of Troy.  Greece has Achilles and Troy has Hector (Eric Bana).  And they're fighting over naughty little Orlando Bloom (Paris) and his affair with Helen of Greece (not Helen of Troy!).  That's only a few of the familiar faces you'll find among the cast.  You don't just have the sweaty biceps of Pitt and Bana, but also acting heavyweights Sean Bean, Peter O'Toole and Brian Cox.

I know it's kind of long, so I guess that may put some people off watching it.  And, if you're desperately looking for a realistic interpretation of what the original story was like, this perhaps isn't it.  However, if you're into a 'historical' tale told with a modern (and fantastic!) cast, awesome action scenes and a story that is as old as time, then definitely give this one a go.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Die Hard 2 - Surprisingly good sequel

It's terms of action films, I think it's fair to say that the original eighties 'Die Hard' was a 'classic.' It seemed to have everything from the cast, to the obligatory action, but also a great villain, snappy dialogue and a real sense of claustrophobic tension.  I doubt those who made it really had that high hopes for it, so when it performed so well a sequel was green-lit pretty quickly.  And we all know what happens when a sequel is rushed out!

But not in this case. 'Die Hard 2' (despite its uninspired name!) is actually pretty damn good.  Okay, so if I had to compare it to the original, its predecessor would win hands down every time, but it certainly is a worthy sequel and one to add to your collection.

I suppose the main aspect of the first 'Die Hard' was that it was one man, police officer John McClane (Bruce Willis) all on his own, trapped in a tower block filled with hostile terrorists.  I guess it would be a little too much of a stretch for the imagination to have that happen to him a second time.  Therefore, things do work a little bit differently here.  This time round it centres on Washington airport and a group of terrorists who have taken control of the air traffic control system and are threatening to crash one plane after another unless their demands are met.

Because McClane is now part of a 'team' (who range from inept police officers, to tech guys, janitors and special forces) - technically - he has the opportunity to simply walk away from the dangerous situation at any time.  Yes, I know his wife is on one of the planes, giving him a vested interest in seeing them land safely.  But it's this difference between the two films which removes the sense of claustrophobia which the first movie possessed.

However, like I say this doesn't make it any the less action-packed and a definite watch for anyone who can appreciate the 'excess' of actions movies back in the eighties and nineties, to fan of Bruce Willis when he actually seemed to care about the films he was in.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one