Deadpool & Wolverine (2024) - Sit back and just enjoy it

I've head many different takes on the third 'Deadpool' entry - some enjoyed it, others didn't.  A few thought it was merely okay.  I guess what you're going to get out of this film is dependent on what you stand on the franchise and superhero films in general.

If you're utterly tired of superhero films then this one doesn't offer much that's different - a supervillain wants to destroy the world and our antihero, Deadpool, must (finally!) team up with Wolverine (complete with yellow comic book costume) and save the day.

And that's it.  There's absolutely nothing majorly new about this film, so you could say it's merely average, unless - like me - it ticks all the boxes you're looking for in a film.  Ryan Reyolds and Hugh Jackman are great actors who are perfectly cast for their retrospective roles and they play off each other perfectly.  I've always wanted to see Hugh Jackman's Wolverine get the 'proper' outfit on screen and go crazy.  I get that here.  Personally, I loved the Marvel Cinematic Universe up until 'Phase 4' started, so a film like 'Deadpool & Wolverine' which openly mocks how the franchise has fallen is also very welcome.  Finally, the cameos.  I'm old enough to recall the superheroes films of the late 90s and early 2000s, so let's just say it was great to see a few 'old friends' on screen again.

So I enjoyed it.  If I had to offer any criticism, I'd say the opening twenty minutes did feel a little slow compared to the 'main meat' of the film.  Plus a few scenes later on could probably have been trimmed.  Overall, I'd take out between 10-15 minutes of the runtime to tighten it up.  The main gripes I've seen online are that it's not very focused and if you dwell too much on the plot then it all falls apart.  Okay, this may be true.  So, in order for that not to be a problem - just don't think too much about the story and enjoy the excellent chemistry between the two leads and laugh at all the in-jokes based around the genre.

I did.  And I loved it.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Mary Had a Little Lamb (2023) - Another one?

Okay, I'm starting to believe that there's a factory someone in Britain which effectively has a 'production line' which churns out low budget horror films based on source material related to children fairy tales.  I'm a fan of horror flicks in general and don't mind the odd low budget if the movie makes up for it with other qualities.  And not I've seen a fair few on a well-known streaming service which all basically have the same cast, the same location and, as mentioned, very loosely based on a children's nursery rhyme.

Now, if all those qualities don't unite them - they're all also pretty dire.  However, this one was actually decent (and I use that word loosely!) enough to keep me entertained for the duration.  But, don't get wrong - it's no masterpiece, even in terms of B-movies.

If you didn't know what the film was called, you'd probably never guess it was based on a nursery rhyme.  You'd probably just think it was called 'Poodle Maniac' or something, as the killer runs around with a giant mutated poodle's head on him.  Or at least it looked like that particular breed of dog.  Unless anyone can tell me what other animal it was supposed to be?

A group of podcasters... do you care?  Do you really need to know what the reason is that means yet another group of people are stranded in the middle of nowhere (this time in England) well out of the reach of mobile phone range, but just in reach of a mother/son nut-job combo.  You won't care about the characters - two of which make up both halves of the most awkward and unlikely couple I've seen on screen in a long time.  The others all just have weird accents like they're English trying to do an American accent, or vise versa.

About the 'best' cast member is the screwy mother, Mary.  She chews up the scenery like you've never seen.  Not a great actress, but at least memorable among the cast - I'll say that.  And the gore's not bad either.  It's not amazing in as much as none of the kills are particularly inventive, but at least they look realistic (as realistic as when you've just been killed by someone dressed as a half human/half farm animal).

In terms of horror B-movies I have definitely seen worse.  Many I end up turning off within the opening twenty minutes.  This one was bad, but it was watchable in a bad sort of way.  Does that make sense?

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

Curse of Jack Frost (2022) - Painful from the start

I watch a lot of horror films - and most of them are pretty low budget.  Yes, they're bad, sometimes so bad I eventually turn them off too early to even review.  However, 'Curse of Jack Frost' is an especially bad type of bad.  Most awful low budget straight-to-streaming-service horror movies don't show how bad they really are until at least 15-20 minutes into their runtime.  Not this one - it was bad from the opening shot.

It begins with a selection of hand drawn images, which are basically one hell of a long exposition dump about how Father Christmas was once a bad-a$$ warrior fighting the forces of darkness (led by Jack Frost, in case you hadn't guessed).  Now, besides going on for waaaay too long, they're played straight.  The whole idea of jacked-up warrior Santa sounds like it belongs in 'South Park' to be laughed at, not a horror film in which we're supposed to be afraid of.

Then we're introduced to the usual 'flesh-sacks' at the beginning of every horror film ever made.  They're there purely to die - and die they do.  But, being one of the worst horror movies ever made, the 'Jack Frost' antagonist is revealed to be one of the worst-looking monsters ever.  Seriously, the mask is okay if you're going to an average Halloween party, but the real problem arises when he speaks.  His lips don't move.  The film-makers actually didn't have the budget to animate any part of his face.  It's just a mask.  No more, no less - like I say... as scary as any you can buy around the end of October every year.

And that was about when I knew I was going to want to turn this film off.  I stuck with it, simply because I wanted to see if it actually had any redeeming qualities.  It didn't.  I really wish I could get back the hour and a half I spent watching this film.  It's not scary.  It's not gory.  It's not self-aware or in any way clever.  It's really one of the worst horror movies I've watched online recently.

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

Maxxine (2024) - Glamourous 80s slasher

If you like your 'slasher' horror films well-shot and laced with vibrant colours, then you should certainly enjoy the overall look and feel of 'Maxxine' where a young actress (best known for her - er - 'adult movies' decides she wants to break into the mainstream when she bags the lead role in a horror sequel.  Very meta.  What you get is a wonderful blend the seedy underbelly of Hollywood production with some 1980s aesthetic - David Lynch would most likely approve! The film's commitment to its retro style is evident in everything from the neon-lit sets to the synth-heavy soundtrack, which brilliantly amplifies the tension and atmosphere throughout (and I left wanting to download some 'Human League' and 'ZZ Top.'

Charley Rowan McCain is tough as nails in the lead role, delivering a performance that balances cold-heartedness and a ruthless desire to make it all the way no matter what, with vulnerability.  Her portrayal of Maxxine makes her a standout in a genre often dominated by one-dimensional characters. The supporting cast also delivers strong performances, adding depth and intrigue to the twisted narrative - kudos to Kevin Bacon and the ever-awesome Giancarlo Esposito.

The slasher elements of 'Maxxine' are satisfyingly brutal, with the film making excellent use of its Hollywood set locations for some truly memorable and creative kill scenes (even if one of the most gruesome crimes is committed by our protagonist, Maxxine, rather than the evil serial killer currently on the prowl. The gore is intense and unapologetic, perfectly fitting the film's gritty tone.

However, the film's ending is where it stumbles. The climax feels abrupt and somewhat disconnected from the rest of the story, potentially leaving audiences feeling shortchanged after such a thrilling ride. Despite this flaw, "Maxxine" remains a solid entry in the slasher genre, buoyed by its strong performances, captivating aesthetic and excellent soundtrack.

Overall, "Maxxine" earns a solid 7/10, offering a bloody good time for fans of 80s horror and slasher films alike, even if it doesn't quite wrap up a few lines of dialogue early on in the film that you think will come back later and play a major plot point - spoilers: the don't!

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

Axe Giant: The Wrath of Paul Bunyan (2013) - Inoffensive enough background noise

If there was ever a film that was supposed to be watched in between checking your social media on your phone, it was this.  It's not bad, but it's sure not enough to stop me from idly scrolling through my Instagram feed!

First of all - the title.  Why so long?  Were the film-makers trying to be epic?  It should have just been called 'Axe Giant' and be done with it.  Nit-pick over... it's a horror film about a bunch of young offenders who, as part of their 'rehabilitation program,' are taken off into the woods by a couple of adults in order to do some bonding exercise, or something.  Does this actually happen in real life?  I've now seen it three or four times as the set-up for a horror/monster film, but assigning two full time/paid adult carers to four or five teenagers seems like an expensive way of doing things.  

Anyway, guess what they meet up there?  Hint: the clue is in the title.  And that's where the film does show its weaknesses, i.e. the budget.  It doesn't really have much of one, so all effects are the cheapest computer or stop motion money can buy.  It tries its best, but, even when the gore-effects work, you won't care about the cast - the film tries doe some 'character building' early on by having each of the five kids sit round a fire and spout their back story.  Nothing like 'tell' instead of 'show.'

The film also boasts most horror cliches you've come to expect from a B-movie.  There's the old guy who knows more than he lets on and tries to warn the main group about the impending threat.  The kids that - er - 'get intimate' in the first act.  Guess what happens to them?!

But, despite all its flaws I stuck with it.  When it comes to finding movies to watch on streaming service there are plenty which are so bad I turn off within the first half an hour, so don't feel obliged to be able to write a review.  At least this one kept me entertained for its entire runtime, so it must be better than many.  It's content - filler content for it you're bored and looking for some silly, cheesy blood and gore with a cheap-looking monster.  If that's all you're after, it'll fill the time in between your social media feed of choice updating with new posts.

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

The Breed (2006) - Not as bad as I remember

I decided to watch this after finding it on a streaming site and it was only when I logged on to a movie trivia website did I find I'd already watched it and rated it a disappointing 4/10.  I don't know when I watched it, but I'm guessing soon after it was released on DVD, but I've completely forgotten everything about it.  Now I found that it's not half as bad as I clearly thought at the time.  Not that it's a classic, of course.

Anyway, five friends (two young couples and a 'red-shirt') fly to a private, yet deserted island where they have a full-stocked holiday home.  Don't dwell on the hows and whys of the situation, only that the island contains a load of dogs who want to rip them apart.  And these aren't just your regular pet store pooches - no, these are 'generically modified' mutts, making them ever so slightly smarter than your average canine.

Now, you may think that trying to evade a load of dogs would be easy for five humans.  And it may be for you and me, but the five youngsters (one of which being a young Michelle Rodriguez) seem to be only slightly smarter than your average house pet.  In fact, it's lucky the dogs often feel the need to go easy on them and just attack for a bit and then wander off for long periods of time, giving the hapless humans a chance to regroup and possibly come up with yet another hair-brained scheme regarding how to escape.  There is another guy on the island - we see him and his girlfriend at the beginning, but I couldn't for the life of me work out why he was included.  You'll see what I mean if you watch it.

It's not a great film by any standards, but it's watchable enough if you're looking for something not very horrific and pretty dumb.  Don't worry, there's no real sign of any animal cruelty, despite the dogs being the film's antagonists.  All 'man vs dog' violence is carefully cut away before you can really see it and any that you do see involves dummy dogs.

Not amazing, but definitely not a 4/10.  And it's worth watching if only to see Michelle Rodriguez in a role before she truly developed her trademark scowl/sneer/smirk that she adopted for every role post 'Resident Evil' - there are a few scenes where she looks like she manages to crack a genuine smile. 

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

Longlegs (2024) - Not as good as the critics make out

I don't go to the cinema too often - largely due to the cost these days - so I like to think I'm pretty selective about what I see there.  That's why I often check out YouTube reviews of a film before I decide whether it's worth watching at 'full price.' I have my 'trusted' YouTube reviewers whose tastes normally match up with mine and two of them gave 'Longlegs' utterly glowing reviews.  I like horror films.  I like serial killer films.  And I still love Nicholas Cage from his awesome performances during the nineties.  Therefore, I figured I couldn't go wrong with this one.  I was wrong.

'Longlegs' is set in the mid nineties and is about a serial killer who's been operating since the sixties.  Enter a young, female FBI agent who has a talent for second guessing situations - could she be psychic?  Well, don't expect an answer to that one because that story thread is dumped within the opening quarter of the movie.  And that's just one of the problems.

I remember films and TV shows during the nineties - two of the most iconic female FBI agents of the time were 'Dana Scully' from 'The X-files' and Clarece Starling' from 'Silence of the Lambs.' Both of them were tough and resourceful, while maintaining their femininity.  It was easy to picture them as hardened FBI field agents who could hold their own during the most tough of situations.  Now we come to the protagonist of 'Longlegs.' In the first time we see her in her adult form she's getting briefed among a room full of other law enforcers.  She looks like she's close to tears.  She looks like the sort of person who would burst into tears if you raised your voice at her.  And she doesn't really change throughout the whole movie.  It might not be so bad if she was some sort of 'lab geek' who wasn't really supposed to be on the front line of law enforcement, but, as someone who's supposed to be able to get down and dirty with villains, she's an utter joke.  

The film seems to think that enhancing her breathing adds to the tension.  This just comes off as very annoying/off-putting as her breathing is so loud at times she comes across as some sort of asthmatic.  Plus she's possibly the worst FBI agent ever, always failing to call in back-up whenever she's in danger.  Did she forget her radio or something?

The we come to Nicolas Cage.  He's basically the biggest name in the film (and even one of the producers), yet he'd hardly in it, so don't think he alone can save it.

The above are just the main gripes I had with the film, but there's so much more than just doesn't make sense.  However, credit where it's due - the film is beautiful to look at.  The director clearly can direct and set every scene as a creepy work of art.  It's just a pity the story (which could have worked) is just so boring and has so many plot holes.

I guess, based on the YouTube reviewers who clearly loved it, this film will definitely have its own audience.  Just a pity I can't include myself in them.

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