Kull the Conqueror (1997) - Cousin Conan

It's hard to talk about 1997's 'Kull the Conqueror' without mentioning either Schwarzenegger, Conan the Barbarian, or both.  So I thought I'd get it out of the way early.  It's very similar.  Kevin Sorbo doesn't move that far away from the TV role that made him famous, i.e. Hercules, when he plays this film's titular barbarian who - sort of inadvertently - becomes king of a very Conan-esque 'sword and sorcery' type land, before realising that he'll have to slaughter all manner of villains in order to retain the throne and save his true love.  

In fact, 'Kull' was rumoured to be once a Conan script that Arnie turned down, so they gave it to Sorbo instead, who is very likable as the leading man and seems to know the right amount of cheese to go with the performance, so the story is never 100% serious, but also not an outright comedy by a mile.

Now, with a barbarian assuming the throne, this puts more than a few people's noses out of joint and they hatch a plan in order to resurrect the 'Red Witch' and use her powers to dethrone our boy, Kull.  Now, I've never seen the 'Hercules' TV series, so I don't know what Sorbo was like in it, but, as I mentioned, I enjoyed his performance here well enough.  However, I couldn't help but warm to the two main villains - Tia Carrere and Thomas Ian Griffith, who both seemed to be relishing their dramatically-evil roles and chewing the scenery for all it was worth.

I was thoroughly enjoying the film most of the way through, but it did sort of lag towards the third act a bit.  I don't know what I was expecting from the climax (and the second rate TV-style CGI monster effects are easily forgivable due to the production's obviously-low budget), but I thought they would have done something a little better.

This ending sort of turned the film - for me, anyway - into one that I would definitely have put on again in a few years if I was in the mood for some cheesy sword and sorcery, to one that I'm in two minds about.  There's definitely better out there, but that's not to say this one doesn't have plenty of well-meaning charm about it.

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

Into the Grizzly Maze (2015) - Bulletproof bear

Have you ever seriously thought what it would be like to be shot?  If I ever consider the - not particularly nice - possibility my mind always comes back to that early scene in 'Reservoir Dogs' where Mr Orange has been 'tagged' in the belly and is writhing around in a bl00dy mess.  I'm guessing that would what it would probably be like - to have a piece of burning metal blasted through your soft organs at great speed.

The reason I started with that was because 2015's 'Into the Grizzly Maze' is about a big ol' bear who starts tearing people apart in an American forest.  Now, I could get behind that principal if the victims the bear was after were, for example, children.  I.e. they would be scared, not really know what to do in such a scary situation and - most importantly - not be armed!

However, the - fully grown men - the bear is after are either professional bear hunters, or police officers.  And, of course, they're armed.  Now, this bear is supposed to be extra big for its species, yet it somehow is able to 'creep up on' a human without being heard, appearing next to them for a kill/jump scare.  Now, if that wasn't unbelievable enough, the human do actually manage to shoot it.  A lot.

I don't care how big the bear is - it's mortal.  Any bullet (assuming the bang from the gun itself didn't just frighten it away!) - even from a handgun - would cause the animal enormous pain and send it lumbering in the opposite direction.  But the bullets seem to just bounce off it before it - seemingly - disappears in the forest ready to jump out on our hapless heroes without them noticing.

Okay, the cast is pretty good with Thomas Jane, Billy Bob Thornton and Cyclops from the 'X-men,' but the overall premise of this film just kind of made it too unbelievable to be taken seriously.  It could have been good.  It should have been good.  It just didn't sit right for me.

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

Demon Island (aka 'Survival Island') 2002 - Does this really happen?

'Demon/Survival Island' is about an evil pinata coming to life and killing a load of people.  And, believe it or not, I can accept that as a movie premise (especially for a horror film).  However, what I found difficult to believe is that people actually exist like this, i.e. teenagers so stupid and also all taken to an island to play a game involving hunting underwear while drunkenly handcuffed together.  I guess I missed this part of growing up all those years ago.

Either way, half of them end up being murdered by a pinata.  Only it doesn't look like any pinata I've ever seen (okay, I haven't seen that many, but I've seen them a lot in films).  It's a life-size rubber demon with red eyes.  If one such entity came running towards me with murderous intentions, I doubt I'd point at it and say, 'Oh, look at that scary pinata!' (but then I wouldn't be stoned while plucking thongs from hard to reach branches).  Anyway, it kills a lot of people.  

Now, I like a good 'bad movie' where you get enjoyment out of just how stupid it really is.  Sadly, this one is just 'bad-bad' and not worth your time.  If the film-makers had leaned into just how dumb it is then it might have been fun, but they play it straight.  And they don't have the budget to really do anything memorable.  The monster is just a man in a rubber suit.  They try and make it scary by doing some form of 'Predator vision' where we see things from the creature's point of view, but it doesn't really work.  Although that's a masterpiece of film-making techniques when compared to what the monster does to 'chase' people.  The film goes all blurry and slightly slow motion and - somehow - it manages to catch up to its victims who are riding quad bikes.

There are a few familiar faces in the film, but don't let that fool you into thinking it's actually any good.  Rumour has it even the actors hated it.  There's minimal gore, bad effects, no nudity and nothing you haven't seen before - and a damn site better!

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

Harbinger Down (2015) - The Thing (on a boat)

There's a fine line between outright copying something and 'paying homage.' I thing 2015's 'Harbinger Down' just about can fall into the latter when it comes to how many similarities there are to the classic John Carpenter film 'The Thing' from the early eighties.

I'm a big fan of Lance ('Bishop' from 'Aliens') Henriksen and only really watched it because it had his name attached.  Now, what normally happens with a 'big' (ish) name in a small production is it turns out they're only in it for little more than an extended cameo and their name is only really used to sell the film.  However, I was pleased to say that Henriksen was basically the main character (okay, technically his younger, better looking niece is, but he's second) and certainly adds to the film.

It's about a team of research students who charter a boat to go track whales, but get more than they bargained for when they pick up a submerged Russian space capsule, complete with 'unwanted guest.' Soon they find themselves being picked off one by one in various grisly ways by a particularly nasty monster.

Normally, with these sorts of films, all the human cast are merely walking meat-sacks waiting to be murdered.  But here you may actually remember a couple of them (besides Henriksen) after the credits rolled.  Yes, you probably won't recall their characters' names, but they'll at least stay with you as 'Big Guy' and 'Russian Chick.' 

The special effects deserve a mention because we're so used to anything vaguely inhuman being brought to us courtesy of CGI that 'practical effects' have almost become a thing of the past.  Here, almost everything is done by puppets or miniatures and it does bring a level of realism to the vast array of tentacles and teeth!

It's not a perfect film though.  The first act does drag a little and characters do that typical horror thing where they constantly split off into smaller groups and then wonder why they get killed.  Plus sometimes things move a little too quickly (editing-wise) and I missed who exactly got killed in the carnage.  I just had to sort of figure it out based on who was no longer in the film.

Overall, it's no masterpiece, but if you're a fan of 'The Thing' you should enjoy all the little references, even if it does come a little too close to copying scenes and dialogue word for word.

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

Leprechaun 3 – Warwick nails it again

I’m pretty sure the ‘Leprechaun 2’ and ‘Leprechaun 3’ weren’t shot back to back, but they certainly feel like they could have been.  This isn’t really a spoiler for ‘part 3’ but let’s just say that the ending to ‘part 2’ isn’t really addressed and you just have to go with it.

This time, the titular antagonist has found himself in Las Vegas – and begins to cause lethal havoc in a city that’s got enough gold for every leprechaun in Ireland.

‘Part 3’ does feel like it takes a little while longer to get going than the previous two films.  This could be because the leprechaun seems to spend about the first half hour of the story in a single location – engaged in a cat and mouse game with a local pawn broker, who doesn’t really feel like he deserves the amount of screen time he’s afforded when the whole film is looked at.

This stad-off is intercut with scenes of our two ‘heroes’ meeting and going about their own lives in Vegas.  Now, I pointed out that the two leads in part 2 were hardly going to win any Oscars with their performances, but they’re due for their own stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame when compared to the two we have here.  Not only are they even blander than their predecessors (if that’s even possible!), but they just don’t seem the types to every really hang out in real life, let alone be a possible romantic couple.

So, again, the main – and only – reason to watch the film is Warwick Davis, who seems to find it easy to slide into manic delight with every passing kill he carries out.

If you’re a fan of parts 1 and 2 then you can’t go far wrong with part 3, but if you’re new to the franchise, then you’re not going to get much ‘outright horror’ here – more gruesome supernatural black comedy/horror.  And, if that’s your thing, you’ll get it in big red bucketloads here, but you’re probably better off starting with the first film, as it is technically superior.

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

Leprechaun 2 – Warwick nails it

I don’t know why the ‘Leprechaun’ films don’t seem to be held in such high regard with horror fans as others like ‘Nightmare on Elm Street’ and the ‘Friday 13^th’ series.  It’s definitely up there with the latter ‘Freddy movies’ as from part 2 of the ‘Leprechaun’ franchise the ‘horror’ is definitely tuned down and the humour is cranked up.

That’s not to say there isn’t a fair amount of gory deaths, it’s just they’re now played for laughs with a witty one-liner from the titular supernatural killer.

It doesn’t matter if you haven’t seen the first film.  You don’t need to.  All you need to know is that there’s a psychotic leprechaun lose in an American city on St Patrick’s Day and that he doesn’t take kindly to people trying to steal his gold.

I can’t help but liken ‘Leprechaun’ to the ‘Elm St’ films as you don’t really watch one of them because of the human characters.  They’re just fleshbags who you know are destined to be clawed to death by Freddy in all sorts of hellish fashions.  It’s the same here.  The humans who we’re supposed to (begrudgingly) root for are all pretty bland and one dimensional.  It’s Warwick Davis who we come to see.  He makes the movie what it is and steals every scene.

In this outing, he’s trying to marry a local American girl – much to her and her boyfriend’s disapproval.  In terms of ‘heroes’ the film-makers really scraped the bottom of the barrel with these two.  They are the definition of bland and forgettable.  I doubt you’ll remember either of the characters’ names by the time the credits roll.  However, I should at least give a nod to Sandy Baron who actually puts some effort into his performance and is a likable addition to the human cast, trying to thwart the Leprechaun’s plans.

If you don’t take your horror too seriously then you definitely need to give this – and all the ‘Leprechaun’ franchise – a watch. 

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

Gor (1987) Probably not one a shining example of 'gender equality'

A boring American college profession who bores his students to sleep in class gets dumped by his girlfriend because he's too dull, so he goes on holiday with just his magic ring for company.  And, after wrapping his car around a tree, wakes up in the land of 'Gor' -  a 'sword and sorcery' land which treats women as little better than slaves - and possibly members of the 'oldest profession.'

As soon as our boring hero arrives he watches a helpless village get their magic red stone nicked by a load of baddies seem to be well into rock-collecting and he vows to get involved.  Or at least he's persuaded once he falls in love with the first hot woman he sees who kicks a$$ with a barbarian's sword like the best of them.

One quick montage later and our formerly boring protagonist is now a skilled warrior with swords and bows and arrows, plus he had a six-pack all the time and we never knew.  Fancy that.  So, now he's totally ready to take back the glowing pink blob of jelly that the villages always refer to as their 'magic rock.'

So off they walk.  And they walk.  They walk quite far.  It takes me back to those people who didn't really like Peter Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy and accused it of just people walking across pretty landscapes.  Well, Gor isn't like that here.  The characters walk and walk, but the backgrounds could never be described as 'pretty.' It's a desert.  Followed by more desert.

In fact, it's this middle act that really lets the film down. 'Gor' is definitely a B-movie and never really tries to be anything more amazing.  And there are plenty of good looking men and women running around in skimpy clothes, chopping each other up with swords.  This is when the film excels as it knows what it should be.  But for every action sequency we get another five minute segment of our heroes trying to get in to an enemy cave (slowly) and padding out the run-time.

If you like you 'swords and sandals' movies then this one is so bad it's definitely good.  You just may want to have your thumb on the 'fast forward' button on the TV remote control when it comes to some of the walking.  If only they just had eagles to fly them where they needed to go and back?

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