Time Lapse - Tight Little Thriller

I always hate it when something I've read in someone else's review gets stuck in my head and that's all I can think of when I try to review a film myself. But, there's no other way of describing 'Time Lapse' – someone else wrote that it's basically 'Shallow Grave, but with time travel.' That's basically it in a nutshell.

Three housemates (instead of finding a bag full of money) find a time travel machine in the flat next door. Rather than sending them naked into the middle of Los Angeles or thirty years in the past by speeding up to eighty-eight miles an hour, this one is a little more 'low key.' It simply takes a photo of your front room twenty-four hours from now. Hardly as spectacular as sending a cyborg to kill the mother of your enemy, but it does work out pretty well if you bet on the horses and can now let yourself know every last winner.

And then they lived happily ever after. Only that would be a pretty dull film. Guess what – playing with time has consequences and, sooner or later, the body count is going to rise.

That's all you really need to know about the film. It's one of those stories where you only get the enjoyment of watching it once and not knowing what's going to happen. There are a few nice twists and turns along the way, so saying too much about the story will give those away. The actors all do their jobs pretty well. There's no real stand-out performances, but if you're looking for a nice little thriller and don't mind a small dose of science fiction, give this one a try.

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

Sin City - ‘Sinply’ the best

‘Sin City’ is one of those rare films which most people can actually agree on – and the general consensus is that it’s excellent! And, I can’t really disagree with that. I would say it’s a film for men. It has pretty much everything a guy (and perhaps an ‘action film’ enthusiast) could want. But, there are also a lot of women out there who enjoyed it, too. And that goes to show that it’s actually more than just shooting and hitting people again and again.

It’s not so much a story, but a collection of three main stories, all set in the same city (‘Basin City’ to be precise). These stories sort of play off each other and interlink, but remain mainly separate throughout the film. Then there’s the look of the film itself. It’s pretty much all actors being filmed against a blue screen and then having a weird, computer stylised background added on afterwards. It’s about now that I should mention Sin City is based on a comic book series. Maybe that’s why the black and white (with occasional relevant colour) computer background works so well. It really does add to the atmosphere, creating a seldom seen look to a film.

Then you have the cast. Simply put, Sin City is an A-list ensemble of recognisable faces. And, like all the best actors, every one puts in a perfect performance (although some people have criticised Clive Owen for letting the side down a little – maybe, but nothing to really let the whole film down).
So, if you like your action films, your comic book films, your stylishly shot films and interlinking stories in general, you should have already watched this by now. Even if you hate it, you’ll probably appreciate that what you’ve watched at least attempted to be a little different to the norm.

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

Quarantine 2 - Yeah, it’s another zombie movie

In case you didn’t know, ‘Quarantine 2: The Terminal’ is the sequel to a movie (Quarantine, oddly enough) which was, in itself, a remake of (an excellent) Spanish horror film, ‘REC.’ Both REC and the first Quarantine movie were primarily known for being shot entirely through the use of handheld/first-person video footage. However, in the sequel, they do away with the ‘point of view’ aspect for the most part and what you’re left with is a pretty standard zombie movie.

And the zombies are the ‘infected’ type (if you haven’t seen 28 Days/Weeks Later that means they run and are generally a lot faster) as opposed to the classic ‘shuffler’ zombies. So, a flight is grounded in a terminal and the plane’s passengers have to survive inside a terminal while zombies pick them off one by one.

As a standard zombie movie it does the job. It has a few moments where the (fast) zombies jump out and grab someone. However, it’s never more than average. You’ll find it hard to recognise any actor and the characters are also the standard cliched types you’d expect from a straight-to-DVD release.
If you’re not completely tired with zombie movies, you might like this one, otherwise, stick with an early George Romero movie or the Walking Dead.

4/10 You can watch this film while you're doing the ironing (you'll still get the general gist of it)

My Scientology Movie - Typically interesting, but nothing we didn’t already know

I’ve been a fan of Louis Theroux since his humble TV documentary-making beginnings of the early nineties.  Without exception I’ve enjoyed every small screen outing he’s produced.  Therefore, I was pretty damn excited when I found his latest (and first) big-screen topic was about none other than one of the most talked about subjects of the modern age – scientology.

It’s one of the fastest-growing religions, mainly in America, but its churches have been spreading across the world at a steady rate.  Now, the thing about scientology that most people seemed so bemused about, is its secrecy.  If I wanted to know about any other world religion, I could probably go into any library or bookstore and pick up a text on how it worked and what it was based on, i.e. the bible for Christianity.  The – dare I say – ‘problem’ with scientology is that no one really speaks openly about what it’s all about, leaving much speculation.

The church itself often doesn’t do interviews, meaning all we – the public – has to go on is what former members have to say about its practices.  So, here comes Louis into the fray.  Now, as I just said, the church doesn’t do interviews, therefore we don’t get any ‘official’ conformation/denials as to the church’s ways and means of doing things.  We just get the usual former members.

So, to fill the run-time, Louis re-enacts various ‘scenes’ from what the ‘whistle-blower’ says happened.  These, although if true are powerful, are only one man’s word as to what went on.  I’m not saying they’re false, but, if a documentary is going to be neutral, we’re really only treated to one side of the argument.  However, of course because scientologists won’t contribute this is hardly Louis’ fault – it just makes for a one-sided argument.

If you don’t know much about the subject, you may find it all quite enlightening and even shocking, but, if you’re like me and have seen plenty of previous documentaries on scientology, then it’s all a bit ‘samey.’ It seems that the church don’t like unwanted press/media intrusion and go to lengths to ‘retaliate.’ This comes in the form of following those following them and Louis often finds himself on the end of their film cameras, plus a few – slightly weird – people simply coming up to ‘see what’s going on’ – do they have an alternative agenda?  I guess that’s up to you to decide.

Louis Theroux is his natural mild-mannered self (or rather ‘persona’) making the documentary easy to watch.  However, the very subject matter doesn’t really lend itself to investigating because we only get one side of the story and there’s nothing here that most people who are interested in the subject don’t already know (or suspect).  Therefore, a lot of the screen-time feels like ‘padding’ with all these staged reconstructions of alleged events.  No concrete conclusions are drawn from it all and whether it’s simply a modern-day religion which is no worse than the more ‘established’ faiths is up to you to decide.  If you don’t know much about scientology, it will certainly make you think and any fans of Louis – like me – will definitely find plenty to enjoy.  I just felt there was nothing here worthy of the extended run-time.

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

From Beyond - Watch it before they remake it!

Question 1: Have you seen an eighties horror movie? Question 2: Do you LIKE eighties horror movies? If you can answer `yes' to both questions, you should be in the right frame of mind to watch From Beyond.

It's got gore, pre-CGI special effects, over-the-top acting and big hair. If you think you can sit through that, you really need to watch this film. It's about a scientist who only goes and creates a device that activates a dormant part of the human brain, allowing them to see into a parallel universe. Unfortunately, the creatures who live in that parallel universe don't really like us (and tend to bite heads off if they catch you). Add one cool cop and one sexy scientist and you have a recipe for plenty of sadomasochistic shenanigans.

Ken ('Dawn of the Dead' 1979) Foree is on top form here, but - sadly - he's only a supporting character.  But the monsters are also the stars, plus the plot weaves and turns in various directions, leaving you wondering where it will go next. The only drawback I found was the leading man himself, Jeffrey Combs, who plays the scientist at the centre of it all. I found his acting to be a little too over-the-top in some placed and outright wooden in others.  His 'love interest' played by Barbara Crampton doesn't fair too much better.  Her acting is hardly up there with the best of them and the film-makers attempts to 'dull down' her looks at the beginning of the film by doing that thing all films do in these circumstances, i.e. tie her hair back and put a pair of glasses on her.  You just know that by the end of the film she'll be 's3xed up' when running screaming from the beasties (oh, and she does a lot of screaming in the final act - seriously, get ready with the 'mute' button!).

However, for all the duff acting (Ken Foree excluded!), all these eccentricities are easily overlooked when the monsters start taking heads and small stork-like third eye start popping up from all manner of places.  The special effects are truly special and go all the way to save this film and turn it into the cult classic it truly deserves to be.  So, if you like cheesy horror and don't simply want wall-to-wall, serious CGI effects, then take a trip back to the eighties and.... Start the resonator!

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

Deviation - Alas poor Danny, I knew him well  

Danny Dyer is an enigma. A man not particularly... well, anything at all, and yet he still has a loyal fan base and, even more surprisingly than that, a career.

The only thing weirder, is why I keep watching his films. The Business and Severence were excellent (and I will admit to also like Doghouse), plus he did one about football hooliganism which was just about okay, but pretty much everything else he's done is terrible.

If you read the blurb it says, and I quote:
"NERVE-SHREDDING TERROR... DANNY DYER AS YOU'VE NEVER SEEN HIM BEFORE Prepare yourself for one of the most terrifying films of the year. An all-action, adrenaline-fueled bloodbath"

I have to wonder why no one's reported the film-makers for false advertising. Perhaps because no one has actually bothered to watch the films?

Dyer plays an escaped nut-job who kidnaps a middle class mum and drives her around London while he flips from being nice then nasty to her. Everywhere they stop she tries to escape and fails. Will she get away in the end? I defy many people to actually care.

I like horror and thrillers and there are some real low budget gems out there (try `Mum and Dad'), but this is not one of them. Repetitive, badly-written and not particularly well acted either.

Avoid.

3/10 Jabba the Hutt wipes himself down with this film

Critters 2 - Pretty good for a sequel

Looking at the internet, you’d think that ‘Critters 2’ was some sort of travesty which totally took away any cheesy merit that the original had.  Not so.  It’s actually pretty good.  If you like eighties cheesy horror.  And I do.

I’ve only just watched it since the early nineties and I’m amazed at how much I remember.  I’m sure I didn’t spend my entire childhood watching Critters 2, but I seem to recall some of it word for word.  If you haven’t seen the first instalment then don’t worry.  This one hardly requires much prior knowledge of the franchise to understand.  A couple of years ago, some nasty little aliens landed on Earth, terrorised a farm and were ultimately despatched by the alien bounty hunters helping the local townsfolk.  That’s actually also the plot to the sequel.  Only this time it’s bigger and better.

There are more Critters.  The Critters are generally nastier, while blatantly being funnier at the same time.  Critters 2 bounces between horror and comedy, whereas the first film was more horror with the occasional dose of humour.  In many ways, Critters 2 is to Critters, what Gremlins 2 was to Gremlins – bigger, louder, funnier, but ultimately not as well received.

Critters 2 is hardly horror.  Sure, there are a few gross moments and the Critters themselves are beautifully ugly.  But it’s one of those films that you have to know what you’re getting before you sit down.  It’s popcorn fun to the max.  Any alien who can turn into a Playboy centrefold and then remove the staple he’s inadvertently copied hardly sets out to take itself seriously.  The film is never that serious, so you shouldn’t try to take it so.

If you like nasty little eighties puppet-monsters and daftness to the max, you’ll like this.  Put your brain on hold and don’t over-think anything (otherwise you might start to question why a space ship, i.e. a ship that flies in the vastness of space, comes equipped with an Earth-made parachute.  Think about it).

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