Mimic 2 (2001) - Not as good as the (average!) original

It's hard for the average horror sequel to come close to the original.  Let alone when the original was only really slightly better than average at best. 'Mimic 2' is the sequel to the 1997 sci-fi horror film of the same name about giant bugs living in New York who have developed the ability to - wait for it - mimic humans in order to hunt them. Unfortunately, this one fall even shorter of the original, offering a less engaging and more predictable experience.

The storyline centers around Remi Panos (Alix Koromzay) who just so happens to be an expert in bugs and then finds herself targeted by the nasties. The film struggles to recapture the eerie atmosphere and suspense of its predecessor, leaning heavily on familiar horror tropes and lacking the originality that made the first 'Mimic' even vaguely memorable. The plot is predictable, and the scares feel recycled rather than fresh or innovative.

Remi seems to live in an neighbourhood where all the male characters are either incompetent or outright unlikable criminals.  Most of the men in the film are either portrayed as sleazy, ineffectual, or aggressive, which just makes them easier for us to not care about when they get their inevitable payback from the giant bugs.

While the first film at least had a better cast and went some way to embrace its cheesy, B-movie roots, this one fails to capture that same spirit. The practical effects and creature design are serviceable but are nothing that you haven't seen before.  Additionally, the direction and pacing often feel disjointed, with moments of tension undermined by clunky dialogue and uneven performances.

There are a few moments of tension and decent creature effects, but it ultimately fails to live up to the original's quirky appeal.  Stick to the first one.

5/10 You can watch this film while you're doing the ironing (you'll still get the general gist of it)

Martin (1977) - Great, but dated

George A. Romero's, best known for his '...of the Dead' series, brings us his own gritty take on the vampire genre, 'Martin.' Nowadays, we've had 'realistic' takes on various supernatural creatures, but I'm guessing that this was one of the first to stand out for its portrayal of a young man's struggle with his bloodlust.  Released in 1977, "Martin" eschews the traditional tropes of vampire lore, presenting instead a deeply psychological and unsettling narrative that looks at themes of what might drive someone in this position to do the things he does.

The film follows the titular Martin, a troubled young man who believes himself to be an 84-year-old vampire. Unlike the elegant, supernatural creatures of classic vampire cinema, he uses syringes instead of fangs and lacks any mystical powers, making his predatory behavior disturbingly plausible. This grounded approach lends the movie an almost documentary-like feel, enhancing its eerie atmosphere.

Romero's direction is disconcerting and raw, taking us back - once again if you know his zombie flicks - to Pittsburgh and its decaying urban landscape.  John Amplas delivers a great performance as Martin, perfectly embodying the character's vulnerability and menace, but the film definitely has its moment of nastiness and the violence he portrays is pretty dark.

However, while 'Martin' remains a well-made film, it does feel dated by today's standards. The pacing can be slow, and some elements, such as the grainy visual quality and the dated special effects, might not resonate with today's audiences who are probably more accustomed to computer-generated alien armies rampaging through New York while a giant sky-beam threatens the world.  Additionally, the previously-mentioned 'dark subject matter' might come across as problematic to modern viewers.  But, leaving these smaller drawbacks aside, 'Martin' still holds up today as an exploration of the popular creature and if you're a fan of Romero's filmography and/or the horror genre at large you should definitely get something out of it.

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

Happy Little Bunnies (2021) - What did I just watch?

Many people lament the fact that 'cinema' is largely taken up with remake, sequels and prequels with very little in the way of originality. 'Happy Little Bunnies' is certainly different - whether you like it or not may be a different story.

If you read the marketing you'll see that there's a serial killer on the loose (who seems to like dressing like the lowest budget rabbit you'll ever see) while a man is having a therapy session with a psychiatrist.  Yeah, that is about what the entire film consists of.  How do those two plots intertwine?  Well, you'll have to watch the film to find out.

And that's when you'll either love its quirkiness and originality, or find it the biggest pile of pretentious nonsense you'll have seen in your life.  I can see the arguments for both.

The bulk of the film is the psychiatrist's session with his patient.  This is intercut with not only flashbacks from the past, but - presumably - completely random scenes of bunny-murder.  Confused?  You probably will be.  And the film knows it - and enjoys your confusion.  How do I know?  Because it even 'stops' (sort of) halfway for the director to taunt you to your face.  Again, you'll either laugh at this and appreciate it and find it fitting with the film's off-the-wall feel, or find it completely unnecessary and jarring.  Again, I can see it from both sides.

Personally, I quite enjoyed it.  Although I was definitely invested in the film because I wanted to see how it all worked out in the end (I suspected everything was not what it seemed, but didn't predict the ending!) the 'high points' for me was the relationship between psychiatrist and patient.  I found their conversation quite interesting and brought up some interesting aspects about today's society and our culture as a whole.

But, like I've stressed, you'll either love or hate this film.  It really is knowingly over-the-top and revels in the confusion it causes.  If you're prepared for a ride like that, give it a go - it's quite good fun.

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

Sleep.  Walk.  Kill (2022) - Almost completely watchable

'Sleep.  Walk.  Kill.' occupies a strange place in my opinion.  There are plenty of low budget horror films on various online streaming platforms and many of them are so bad that I turn them off and don't bother even trying to review them.  However, I watched this one all the way to the end, so there must have been something there that was interesting or entertaining.  It's just there seemed to be so many flaws in it.

It's about a strange loud noise that echos out across America, making anyone who falls asleep a mindless killer.  One lovable loser has to try and keep his family together while holding out against the source of this supernatural event.  It's a horror comedy in a (very!) similar style to the classic 'Shaun of the Dead.'

What I'm going to do next is basically tear into the film like it's the worst movie ever made, yet it's not.  First of all, when I say 'low budget' I really mean it.  The gore is just about passable, but the acting is terrible.  Yes, I know we've all seen a bad actor or two pop up in a film and yet here pretty much everyone seems to be reading their lines off a cue-card just off screen.

Then we have the direction itself.  It's like half the shots you can almost tell that the actors were simply standing there waiting for the director to shout 'Action!' and then start performing accordingly.  The edits are sometimes jarring, especially when there's a scene that they clearly didn't have the budget/skill to film, so they just sort of use the loosest of camera tricks (maybe cut away from the action and only return to the aftermath) and hope that the audience doesn't notice.

Now, I don't know whether this was something to do with the streaming site or even my TV that I watched the film on (if so, please ignore this criticism), but the audio was all over the place.  It was like you needed to turn the volume way up to hear the characters speak, but then when some music was played over any dramatic part, it blares out at you and you have to quickly hit the 'volume down' button on your remote.

So, there you have it - many reasons not to like it.  But I stuck with it.  And, I think that the reason I did (besides seeing if there was an eventual explanation for the supernatural happening) was that the dialogue was actually quite funny.  Sure, the characters were hardly developed, but there were more than a few times when I let out a genuine chuckle or two.  So, set your expectations low and you might find something at least entertainingly watchable for an hour and a half.

5/10 You can watch this film while you're doing the ironing (you'll still get the general gist of it)

Primal Rage (1988) The '28 Days Later' prequel?

In case you hadn't guessed by the cheesy title, 'Primal Rage' is B-movie horror flick that delivers a mix of camp, chaos, and commendable creativity. Despite its low-budget constraints, this film manages to carve out a niche for itself with reasonable gore effects and a plot that, in hindsight, feels like an early precursor to the zombie resurgence seen in 2001's "28 Days Later."

The story revolves around a rage-inducing virus that run rampant around a university and turns people into rabid, bloodthirsty maniacs. The narrative is straightforward but effective, following a group of students as they battle the escalating chaos caused by the outbreak. The film’s practical effects deserve a nod; the gore, while not overly gratuitous, is enough to satisfy genre enthusiasts without descending into excessive brutality.

It may not have the dread and genuine scares of '28 Days Later,' it is a decent enough little B-movie if you're into your eighties horror films and chooses not to have 'traditional' zombies, in favour of Danny Boyle's 'infected.'

The acting is - at best - average (but you probably wouldn't be expecting Oscar-worthy performances with a film like this!). However, this adds to the movie's charm and you'll know it's from the eighties as soon as the opening theme starts playing.

It may not be the greatest zombie/infected offering, but it's a solid enough entry in the B-movie horror canon. It doesn't break new ground but delivers what it promises: a fun, gory romp that entertains without demanding too much from its audience.

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

Skinford: Death Sentence (2017) - I really wanted to like this more

Wow, this film was a 'rollercoaster' and by that I mean that my opinion of whether I actually liked or disliked it kind of changed every other scene.  It starts out with our protagonist 'Skinny' about to be executed in the middle of, er, the 'English outback' (seriously, I may be from the UK, but I didn't recognise a single location and characters' accent seemed to fluctuate!).  Two things then happen which I will simply class as 'supernatural.'

Now, I don't mind a good 'mystery' film - whether all points are wrapped up by the end of the story, or enough answers have been given which give the audience a decent chance of unraveling everything after the credits have rolled.  However, Skinny has the chance to ask the other main character in the film what exactly is going on - and yet he never really does.  I know that, in terms of writing, no writer would create a mystery, only to solve it two minutes later.  But the fact that Skinny never asks (or at least doesn't really find out until the final act in line with the audience) kind of ruins the film in terms of story.

But it was an engaging mystery and it kept me hooked.  However, what transpired was a movie which had nice ideas and yet either the writing let it down, the acting ability of some of the cast, or lack of budget.  Sometimes a new character comes into the story and we're instantly teleported to a flashback which explains the new person's relevance.  This is kind of jarring and puts the film's story in reverse.  A couple of the actors either can't act or overact and a couple even behave like straight out cartoon characters.  When it comes to budget, there are some computer effects which you'll have to be forgiving on, but a better example is a car chase through - what is by all accounts - a completely deserted city.  Therefore the lack of any other vehicle on the road (a fact I dispute, living in the UK, even in the dead of night!) really does hamper any terms of stake as there's not much to crash in to.

So, I stuck with it and most of the questions were suitably answered, even if you may have to really suspend your disbelief to the max in order to let the plot slide.  I hear there's a sequel and I'd actually be up for watching it if I can track it down - mainly just out of curiosity - because I think there are genuinely good intentions and ideas here and I'd like to see the film-makers behind it sharpen their skills and make something a little more focused.

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

Drawn Into the Night (2022) - The proverbial car crash

This film has to be seen to be believed.  Granted it's not the worst horror/slasher movie I've ever suffered through, but it certainly had its own... feel.  And it wasn't a good one.  Maybe the reason I found it so odd-paced came when I looked into it online.  When I sat down to watch it I noticed it was only just over an hour long, but when I checked online I was informed that it was actually a heavily edited version of a more normal (ninety minute) film of a slightly different name.

That would explain why it feels so rushed.  We're whizzed at breakneck speed through the basic plot/set-up of some cheerleaders have gone missing, police now looking for them and send a - slightly - youngish female cop undercover at the local school.  There she meets some of the worst (and oldest!) cliched teenagers I've ever seen committed to film.

Weirdly, despite the lack of big names in the cast list, the acting itself isn't that bad, plus the film-stock itself if adequate and not grainy like other low budget horror flicks I've stumbled across on various streaming services.  There are even a few well-written lines here and there.

But then there's the plot.  I won't go into too much detail, but it's a - kind of - take on what was going on in the 'Hostel' franchise.  That worked due to its off-the-beaten-path and isolated location.  Here, you probably couldn't get away with that sort of thing with well-to-do middle class teenagers from central California (or wherever it's set).  So you do have to suspend your disbelief quite a bit if you want to buy the overall premise.

As I say, this cut is just over an hour, so it won't take up much of your time.  Once you get a measure for what's happening, you'll probably be able to guess every plot point pretty faithfully right up until the credits roll.  Not the worst, just so odd that the film-makers felt the need to re-release it with a whole half an hour trimmed out.  I wonder what I missed?  I'm guessing not that much.  But then I did make it to the end - a feat which I don't always manage when it comes to the mountains of horror films that have found themselves dumped on a streaming service.

4/10 a hard trek, a bit like unicycling to Mordor and back