BStalker Reviews

Versus (II) (2000)

A revelation

[10/10 · 14 November 2002]

Words cannot describe how cool this film is. Imagine blending John Woo, Yuen Woo Ping, Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson into one uber-director and you have Ryuhei Kitamura. Great cinematography, great editing, great sound, cool and quirky storyline, suitably over-the-top acting, gross effects...just absolutely fantastic.

Watch it sober and it's great. Watch it drunk and it's a revelation.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

If you can adjust to the style, it's awesome.

[10/10 · 22 July 2002]

Clearly many viewers disliked this movie. Passionately. Chances are the same people hated Armageddon. Passionately. Michael Bay has a distinctive style which produces powerful reactions - either you go with it and enjoy the rollercoaster ride, or it doesn't work for you and his style comes across as shallow and painfully cheesy. IF you let yourself dumb down and take in the visuals instead of expecting a war movie in a similar vein to all the other recent attempts, you should find huge enjoyment in the film. Indeed, it was the second highest grossing film of 2001 behind Shrek which suggests it can't have been hated by everyone.

Personally, I think expectations were too high with people looking for another Titanic/Saving Private Ryan. The first hour is admittedly a little slow, but this is the price for the BEST 45 mins of action ever put to screen. This is the only film I've ever seen where the CGI is almost always indistinguishable from the real stuff. Somehow Lord of the Rings won the Visual Effects oscar instead, despite having some fairly poor effects at times. The hour of light-weight romantic build up gives the battle scene greater power by having such a strong contrast between the frivolous love story and such a momentous historical tragedy - especially in the recent Director's Cut which restores all the battle violence that was originally trimmed for the necessary PG-13 Theatrical rating.

The last part of the film was heavily criticised for it's apparent ridiculousness and what looks like a heavily contrived upbeat conclusion. However, the Doolittle raid is portrayed fairly accurately (most of Alec Baldwin's dialogue is a word-for-word copy of Doolittle's actual speeches). As far as the nastier details of the campaign are concerned (e.g. Japanese treatment of captured pilots), financial pressure from the Japanese market forced some omissions. As far as the somewhat contrived love story is concerned - blame Disney. They only agreed to put up the huge budget on the condition that a love story was included.

Basically, if you go with the cheese, the film is immensely powerful and entertaining. If you are just too cynical, or unable to enjoy "dumber" films, then there is little chance of making it through the entire film without vomiting.

Bay's style, like Tony Scott or John Woo, is highly distinctive and quite probably an indication of the style that will become more popular over the next few years as audience intelligence and attention spans continue to decrease. Perhaps then, Pearl Harbor will be more appreciated. Currently it is simply too uncomfortable a mix of Bruckheimer dumb action/romance and serious war film for most people. Those of you who haven't seen it, try the Director's Cut - you might like it.

Zombie 3 (1988)

Zombi 3, Zombie Flesh Eaters 2: whatever the title, it's a lot of fun.

[6 March 2002]

It was Alan Partridge who so wisely pointed out "Zombies are by their very nature inconsistent" and Zombi 3 seems to have this pearl of wisdom at its heart. All the ingredients are present for a perfect Italian zombie film - dire script, bad acting, bad dubbing but terrific amounts of gore. Many may cite Zombie Flesh Eaters as the better film, and even one of Fulci's best, but this follow-up has many less moments of tedium. To have Bruno Mattei take over direction was an inspired choice given his fantastically amusing direction on the older 'Night of the Zombies' AKA 'Zombie Creeping Flesh'. Sometimes we see the traditional Romero-style zombies who plod along slowly in a rather un-threatening, retarded sort of way, then at other moments we see the living dead running, wrestling, and incompetently wielding machetes. In the latter stages of the film they miraculously develop the ability to talk culminating in the frankly bizarre situation of having a zombie DJ spewing out zombie wisdom on his zombie radio station. Could this be an attempt at social comment? Probably not.

What is so admirable about this farcical logic is the fact that the director just doesn't care - he just gives them whatever characteristics suit that particular scene. Ironically this lends strength to some of the scenes since there is very little chance that an audience expects a severed head to fly out of a fridge and start munching on a man's neck. Likewise, who could have guessed that some dry ice bubbling up in a river could result in a woman losing her legs? How many other films dare to have a flock of zombie birds attack a coach load of girls? And who could not be repulsed by seeing a zombie fetus attack a woman while bursting out of the womb? Such endlessly strange and surprising scenes keeps the audience guessing as to what peculiar event might happen next. 'Zombie Flesh Eaters' is limited to a few key moments such as the eye-gouging and the zombie vs shark scene, 'Zombie Holocaust' had its outboard motor vs zombie head, 'Night of the Zombies' had the twin-thumb-eye-gouge and 'City of the Living Dead' had the gut-vomit and head-drill but Zombi 3 has enough strange and memorable moments to beat them all.

Out of all the Italian zombie films, this one seems to have the most sense of its own stupidity and instead of trying to give it a sense of plausibility, the makers just go with it and have a lot of fun. I doubt anyone will find the film scary, but for pure consistently absurd entertainment, this one's at the top of the genre. The script is terrible, the acting awful, the music dreadful and the film sucks on most levels. Absolute genius.

(The film is released in the UK in March 2002 under the title 'Zombie Flesh Eaters 2' and is uncut.)

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

Incredible, as long as you've read the book...

[10/10 · 9 December 2001]

After many years spent directing mediocre/awful films, Chris Columbus has finally found his fated place in cinema. "Harry Potter..." (thankfully) bears little resemblance to Home Alone but is far more reminiscent of the wonderful mid-80s years when Columbus was writing the likes of "The Goonies", "Gremlins" and "Young Sherlock Holmes" while Spielberg produced them. Like these older films, "Harry Potter..." isn't condescending to the younger audience both in its material (scary moments and violence) and its length.

Columbus and Kloves clearly made the (correct) assumption that most children who see the film will have read the book. With that in mind, they manage to cover a huge amount in the 2 1/2 hours that could well leave new-comers in the dark. Even at this length, however, there is still a good deal missing from the film, most noticeably Peeves the Poltergeist who was cut out at the last minute. Personally, I feel that the film could have spent a further 10 or 15 minutes showing more of the everyday life of Hogwarts covering more lesson time thus allowing for more animosity to develop between Malfoy and Harry, and between Ron and Hermione before the troll incident. With any luck, the DVD might provide us with some of the missing material.

Overall, the film has shown the potential for an incredible series which, at least for the younger viewers of today, could certainly rival the Star Wars series. Indeed 2002 is set to stage an epic battle of sequels - Star Wars II Vs Harry Potter 2 (as well as Lord of the Rings 2). Judging by the Phantom Menace, "Chamber of Secrets" is looking far more promising than "Attack of the Clones"...

Brass Eye (1997–2001)

Pure Genius

[30 July 2001]

Brass Eye is a quite awesome achievement. As I write this review, most of Britain's press is up in arms over the recent one-off episode which satirised the particularly sensitive subject of paedophilia. The majority of people claim that it is simply sick to even attempt to make a comedy based on such a theme. However, while not for the easily offended, Chris Morris' style has always been to approach serious issues using interesting methods. This particular episode managed to make some very interesting points, often highlighting the gross inconsistencies in the way in which crime and taboo subjects are dealt with.

A great deal of the humour comes from Morris managing to get celebrities to say the stupidest things. The fact that they are so easily convinced to speak such nonsense, highlights the ignorance and paranoia surrounding the whole subject. Amongst other things, we are told that paedophiles can feel children's faces via computer screens, that they occupy an area of internet the size of Ireland, that they can make toxic fumes rise from keyboards to make children more suggestible, that, genetically, they have more in common with crabs than people. At one stage, Kate Thornton tells us with utter seriousness that HOECS games are used by paedophiles to interact with children. It is quite incredible to see these people saying such things with such belief.

Other highlights include the Eminem spoof, JL B8; a story about a cheeky cockney ex-paedophile who does bus tours of his 'old haunts' - a brilliant spoof of the way the press treats the old east-end London gangsters these days; and an on-going news report showing a crowd lynching a paedophile when released from prison and burning him in a wicker phallus: scarily reminiscent of the mobs that ran wild in Britain in summer 2000.

To dismiss this or any other episode in the '97 series as sick and utterly unamusing, is to display an ignorance or unwillingness to address the very serious issues being dealt with. Just because there is humour involved, does not mean the issues are being sanitised - it actually makes them more poignant.

Jurassic Park III (2001)

Impressive for a threequel

[20 July 2001]

Threequels are not famous for their originality or even quality but with Jurassic Park 3, the creators have managed to produce an ideal summer blockbuster: light-weight plot, engaging characters (despite their shallowness) and plenty of action. While it's doubtful that it's going to be anyone's favourite in the series, it should please fans of both previous films.

The wonder element from the first film is still there as we see herds of 'nice' dinosaurs but given that it's all been done before, director Joe Johnston wisely gives us more of the humans versus dangerous dinosaurs scenarios that made the Lost World so much fun.

The script could have so easily descended into humourless cliches, but there is a pleasant tongue-in-cheek sense of fun present the whole time which is significantly aided by such a strong cast.

The one main advantage the film has over the first two is a likeable child character. This kid is not just there to scream - he's survived on the island for 8 weeks, knows his stuff and is generally more composed than his parents.

The main problem with the film was the ending. It finished just when I was expecting one more climactic dinosaur encounter. To top it off, someone turns up alive who clearly should be dead, which had the distinct smell of test screening re-shoot about it.

Aside from these two quibbles, the film was exactly what I'd hoped for - a rollercoaster ride which is immensely fun while it's happening, but leaves little impression afterwards.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

Titanigeddon

[10/10 · 1 June 2001]

Before seeing this film it is important to note the following:

1. Produced by Jerry Bruckheimer 2. Directed by Michael Bay

Conclusion: Expect a high concept storyline, a script laden with testosterone, stunning visuals edited within an inch of their life, a rousing soundtrack (preferably by Hans Zimmer), a bit of humour, a bit of sadness, and a HUGE amount of "God bless America".

With this in mind, and with all expectations of a thought-provoking, 'sensible' film thrown away, Pearl Harbor is the ultimate summer popcorn movie. Clearly, not everyone likes this type of film, and if your enjoyment of a film depends on the script and the quality of acting then this film could quite possibly make you ill. I think it's reasonable to say that if you didn't like Armageddon, you'll hate this. That's not to say that fans of Armageddon will necessarily like this as much.

In Armageddon, Bay had 2 1/2 hours to try and fit in as much action as possible and the tone was decidedly tongue in cheek. With Pearl Harbor, Bay and Bruckheimer have tried to go more serious by following the Titanic-approach of a doomed love-story. While this does produce a more emotional ending, it comes at the price of action and pacing. The first hour deals mostly with romance and really could have been cut down a bit. We get some relief with the English/German dogfight sequences which are the first suggestion that we are going to witness something truly breathtaking later. In fact, though this first hour and a half feel slow and tedious at times, this makes the Pearl Harbor attack all the more exciting by contrast.

The 35 minute attack is incredible with Bay's kinetic action style finally given a chance to shine. There are similarities in technique to Saving Private Ryan but so what. There are more than enough highly-original shots to compensate for the seen-it-before stuff.

After the attack, the film never slows down again, since it tones down the romantic plot and concentrates on the more traditional Bruckheimer "let's kick the bad guys' asses" plot. Consequently, the film becomes decidedly more Armageddon-y with numerous rousing speeches, heroic slow-motions, tough training for a dangerous mission, and an upbeat ending tinged with tragedy before the credits role accompanied by a cheesy, charts-friendly, love anthem.

Ideally, the love story could have been shortened at the start because Bay is an action director and romance has never been a strong point in Bruckheimer films. In fact, like the Rock and Armageddon, it is the male bonding that produces the more powerful emotional connection.

Pearl Harbor is at the top of its genre - big, loud and, assuming you can switch your brain off, very emotionally powerful. It is not a Titanic, it is not a Saving Private Ryan and to compare it to such films is unfair to the intentions of the film-makers. It is an action film and Michael Bay has yet again proved that in this field of visual entertainment, he is the best of the best.

Rambo III (1988)

The essence of 80's action

[6 May 2001]

Rambo III stands as a prime example of the sentiment behind the action films that became so successful in the 80's. It has NO pretensions of being anything more than mainstream action fare. Whether it's deliberate or not, the writers have made the character of John Rambo nothing more than a cartoon action hero - he embodies everything that is 'American macho'. This completely over the top (no Stallone pun intended) superhero is thrown into a wonderfully over the top story, where there's never any doubt he'll win and little chance that he'll have too much trouble in his task (a leg wound and a hole through his stomach are just an opportunity to show how incredibly tough and resistant he is). The action scenes unashamedly adhere to the 'Hollywood guide to entertaining violence' (probably in existence somewhere) and the viewer is exposed to endless guns, bullet hits, tanks, guns, sweat, helicopters, guns, dead extras, muscles, guns, explosions, blood and guns. Which is, of course, incredibly good fun to watch.

The story is fantastic in it's simplicity - nasty bad guy in charge of evil communist army is cruel to local rebels so good old Sly has to penetrate converted mountain base, rescue his friend and destroy the entire opposing army. Marvellous. The ultimate action-adventure that could be written by an excited 5 year-old.

This could have been incredibly boring given the horrendous script and there are times when it is in danger of becoming like one of the billions of B-movie action films that grace the bottom shelf of video shops these days, but Stallone's hyper-macho performance and Peter MacDonald's direction keep things lively. To be fair it's probably Vic Armstrong who is most worthy of praise for coordinating what are undeniably some of the most amazing battle scenes ever, combining helicopters, horses and an unbelievable amount of explosions. I doubt in the modern days of CG that we'll ever see this many pyrotechnics in one film again. So, well done Mr Armstrong for keeping the film firmly in the A-movie category.

Obviously, just given the film's title, people should know what kind of film to expect and anyone, like me, who is capable of ignoring a bad script and disengaging the brain, should relish the visuals and have a fun hour and 40 minutes.

8/10 for being so completely over the top.

Carnosaur 3: Primal Species (1996)

Look out! It's a rubber raptor!

[29 October 2000]

Here in England, we've not had the pleasure of seeing Carnosaur 1+2 and the film is just titled "Primal Species". Without the precedent of such un-doubtedly classic prequels, I had no idea what the film would be like (except for some guesswork based on the video cover).

Nothing much needs to be said about the film except that it is one of the worst of the worst of the worst films ever. Not that that's a huge criticism. It's extremely entertaining. To be honest the sight of those men in rubber dinosaur costumes was funnier than many proper comedies. Equally funny is the swat team leader's constant smirk and attempts to sound hard. The main death's were enjoyable too, firstly because the sight of fake monsters chewing on people is funny, and secondly because it meant that another annoying character had been wiped out.

For an alternative night's entertainment, I would recommend this in a double-bill with something like Demolition University. You'll laugh till you ache or simply fall asleep. Either way, you'll be happy.

Universal Soldier III: Unfinished Business (1998 TV Movie)

A.k.a "Zombie swat-team Vs Genetic Psycho and Burt Reynolds"

[26 October 2000]

Unfinished Business indeed. As if you hadn't been bored to death already, here's another hour and a half to really knock you out.

In case there's anyone out there at all interested, this follows straight on from the 'cliffhanger' of no.2 "Brothers in Arms" (NOT "The Return"), following the exploits of poor old Luc what's-his-name and some woman as they get ever closer to uncovering the truth behind an illegal government conspiracy to sell undead soldiers to......snore.....snore.....snore.

I can't quite remember, but I think there might actually be an explosion in this film somewhere - just for all you high-octane action junkies out there. Oh and occasionally people fire big guns. Other highlights? The trailers and the end credits.

Yes, it's really THAT good.

Universal Soldier II: Brothers in Arms (1998 TV Movie)

Universally Pants: Boredom and yawns

[26 October 2000]

[Just in case you don't know, this is an 'un-official' sequel to Universal Soldier. The 'proper' sequel is Universal Soldier: The Return.]

To make a decent, or semi-decent action film, a budget is somewhat obligatory. With Universal Soldier II, someone clearly forgot this rule or squandered the whole thing on getting Gary Busey, Jeff Wincott and Burt Reynolds to humiliate themselves. (The lack-of-budget theory is backed up by the end credits which say 'sponsored by Canada' or something equally silly.)

To be fair on the film, some people do look like they're trying. Matt Battaglia looks desperate to pretend he's acting, and the woman has a good go at delivering her dodgy lines. The director appears to have made the most effort by using numerous camera gimmicks to liven up the non-action. Sadly, these gimmicks are off-putting, look stupid and just highlight the boredom of the boring bits (i.e. 90% of the film).

The most enjoyable aspects of the film, were a) Gary Busey (who seems to be developing a very strange vocal problem) acting badly and b) Burt Reynolds (unseen most of the time) putting on the WORST irish accent of all time and also acting very badly.

Seen as a double-bill with Universal Soldier III, and with a healthy dose of alcohol, this could be a good evening's entertainment, but only in a so-bad-it's-actually-bad-but-funny way.

Perhaps a triple-pack of Universal Soldier II, III and 'The Return' could be marketed as some sort of torture weapon.

Army of Darkness (1992)

"Hail to the King, Baby" or "I slept too long!" ?

[10/10 · 26 October 2000]

Army of Darkness brings the Evil Dead Trilogy to a close (for now at least) with the funniest instalment. Evil Dead was horror with comedy, Evil Dead 2 was comedy with horror, but Army of Darkness is comedy with fantasy. As Sam Raimi admits, it's less a homage to horror films but more to the old Ray Harryhausen classics like Sinbad or 'Jason and the Argonauts' (most obviously the army of skeletons).

There are numerous different versions of the film, each with their own good points, although the recent Director's Cut release is the one Sam Raimi considers to be the most complete. This has 15 minutes extra footage beyond the American Universal release, including the original ending. Here in England, the original release was far closer to this new Director's Cut, though there are welcome additions. Most noticably, the battle with the 'army of darkness' is much longer and features some amusing fight scenes which were previously cut for running time. The longer version also fills in a number of plot holes and, as Raimi points out, sorts out many of the continuity errors.

Opinion is generally divided on the subject of the ending. The original American release featured a re-shot ending where Ash, back in the present, fights an evil-dead-hag in a shopping mall before finishing with the famous "Hail to the king, baby". This is much funnier than the official ending and it's a shame it's not included as an extra on the Director's Cut. However, it's easy to see why Raimi and Campbell prefer the original, 'downbeat' ending. It fits the tone of the film better, and bears closer relation to Evil Dead 2 by ending on a cliffhanger. It also has more interesting implications about what could happen in a sequel, should one ever be made. The one complaint I have about the Director's Cut is the replacement of the legendary line, "Good, Bad. I'm the guy with the gun", with the international version's "I ain't that good".

Personally, I think newcomers to the series might be better off seeing the 80 minute version (or perhaps the international version) first, but those who've seen the first two films should stick with the more complete and more satisfying 96 minute Director's Cut.

Parting Shots (1998)

Fat restaurant critic makes worst film in the world...ever!

[24 October 2000]

First things first - some people think this ISN'T the worst film ever. They are mistaken.

I recall, one fine afternoon, visiting the local multiplex and witnessing the trailer for Parting Shots. Something smelt distinctly fishy and indeed my worst fears were confirmed at the end when it proudly stated, "Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Winner". I was amused.

Some weeks later, reviews for the film started appearing in the press which all backed up my initial feelings. Some months later...much to my joy, the film appeared on the shelf in Blockbuster. After so long a build-up, I was desperate to see quite how bad this film could be. On these grounds, it is an incredible achievement of modern cinema. How Mr. Winner has been able to produce the ultimate "so bad it's actually kind of good" film is a testament to his skill as director and part-time restaurant critic. Details of the film's many amusements (Plot(?), characters, ethics, good actors looking worse than ever), have been discussed in the other, many (and often amusing) reviews. However, I feel duty-bound to give further highlight to the performance and acting prowess of one, Mr. Chris Rea Esq. This faded rockstar was originally supposed to do the music but 'friend' Winner suggested he play the main role, since nobody else could give such depth and realism to the part of such a born loser. Well done Michael. Every word and motion of Rea is pure (unintentional) comic genius, ranging from his heartfelt declaration of love ("I luv you. I do ya' know") to his 'interesting' bodily positions (note his stance beside the swimming pool, or his 'relaxed' look when sipping champagne). I have seen many, many films in my time, but even so, Rea is a truly original performer, nay artiste. He is the essence of Parting Shots and through him Winner proves to the world that he is, in fact, just fat, miserable, and inhuman. As if we didn't know already.

To conclude, if you build up your expectations for a truly bad film and perhaps partake in a fair amount of alcohol, you won't be disappointed by Parting Shots. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if you split your sides laughing all the way up to the scooby-doo-style-everyone-laughs ending. It's ironic really that something so devoid of humour can be so hilarious.

BUY IT!!!

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Being influential is not an excuse.

[28 October 1999]

I saw this in the cinema a week ago having already seen Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead. This probably explains why there was very little new to me in George Romero's original. I suppose, when it was released, the whole concept was pretty original and the camera style was radical but now, 30 years on, both the premise and the style have been mimicked in countless films. Just because this was the first of its kind, doesn't mean it is the best. Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead were as bad if not worse in terms of tedium but were more fun because of the gore. A film like The Evil Dead, however, is a far superior film even though it copies or parodies many ideas from Night. Romero's films are too boring - in his middle sections he relies too heavily on the script which is usually not interesting enough to keep the audience's attention.

If you've not seen this film before, then it is only of real interest for its many genre-defining scenes although the ending is nice and much better than the end of the two sequels. It has to be seen, but it's not the great classic its built up to be.

Where Eagles Dare (1968)

marvellous.

[9/10 · 6 May 1999]

It's unbelievable to think this was made back in 1969. Purely in terms of action this is still superior to many modern films of the genre. The story is spot-on for a wartime adventure and is 'unlikely' in places but in the same way that Bond films are. The fantastic music is perfectly suited to the material and gives the film a superb action/tension atmosphere.

Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood - cool is not the word.

This is not one of those war films that is still enjoyable for nostalgic reasons - it really is top-notch.

Broadsword calling Danny-Boy...

Jaws: The Revenge (1987)

Revenge indeed.

[1/10 · 5 May 1999]

Perhaps the title refers to the revenge taken on anyone who said that the earlier Jaws sequels were bad. This is quite the most monumentally massive mistake in movie history. Even more so than Batman and Robin this film raises the question, 'which studio executive heard the pitch/script and said "hmmm, sounds promising. Here's a budget - go make me movie..."? Alan Smithee wouldn't put his name near this nonsense.

This film was made 12 years after the original but has positively the worst effects of all 4 films. The Jaws 3 model was bad enough but this thing is barely a shark. The fact that the shark has a gaping hole in it's belly means that the camera views are highly restricted and every time it jumps out of the water (which is nearly every appearance) it seems to pivot on its tail. During the banana boat scene it looks as if its floating on the surface it's so far out of the water.

For a 'scary' film, its death count is even worse than its predecessor (2 or 3 depending which ending is used). Basically everything about this film sucks. There's too much time wasted on land (there seems to be more emphasis on Ellen and Hogie's romance than on the shark), a ridiculous plot (Great White swimming to the Bahamas on personal vendetta) and, in the end, absolutely no feature worthy of anything other than ridicule.

Give a ten year-old a video camera, a rubber shark and some ketchup and you'd have a more effective film than this.

Maybe one day, a good script will be written and, with the aid of CG effects, the Jaws series will be put back on track. Perhaps the title 'Jaws 4' could be used just to wipe out all evidence of this.

Jaws 3-D (1983)

Flaws 2-D

[5 May 1999]

I have to admit that when I was about nine this film scared me to death. But now, lacking a nine-year-old's vivid imagination and high susceptibility to being scared, I can't see anything special here. The scene where the shark is lured into the filtration pipe and crunches Simon MacCorkindale is still fun to watch if only for the lovely sound effects.

The strong cast is seriously let down by a script that goes far too far beyond the realms of suspension of disbelief. A 25-foot Great White in the first film is conceivable, but a slow-moving 35-footer takes all the scariness away from being a Great White. Also, a death count of 3 (4 including the pre-credits fish) is a bit disappointing for 'New depths of terror'.

The 3-D effects inevitably look rubbish on the small screen and the stop motion miniatures are shocking (The final explosion is still satisfying despite the slightly naff re-formation of the jaws). It was nice of the shark creators to try and get the protruding jaws effect of a real great white but it just doesn't work and simply looks like they forgot to attach the teeth to the shark.

As far as the series goes, the film's a real disappointment but it's not frustratingly unwatchable. To experience true cinematic torture along the lines of Batman and Robin, see the sequel.

The Grim Reaper (1980)

Really, REALLY dull apart from...

[4 May 1999]

Being one of the top video 'nasties' in Britain, anyone watching this will have high expectations for sincere blood-letting/female torture/animal mutilation. The opening suggests a promising film - woman reduced to blood in sea by unseen killer, boyfriend left with a splitting headache. However the rest of the film is sooooo boring. There is the one instance when the 'Beast' is glimpsed when a flash of lightning lights up the otherwise pitch black setting which is fairly effective but aside from this there are the just the two scenes near the end that justify viewing. Given that the American version is cut in two places, I can only guess it it these two scenes which are cut. The first and best (for originality) involves the 'Beast' strangling a pregnant woman, reaching up inside her and pulling out the half-grown baby and taking a bite. It has to be seen to be believed. The other interesting moment comes at the very end when the 'Beast' is pick-axed in the stomach and his guts fall into his hands (amid much ludicrous groaning) before he chews on them as he dies.

These two scenes really are the only points of interest for gore fanatics who will find it tedious even to fast-forward.

Non-gore-lovers stay well away.

Roadracers (1994 TV Movie)

Fantastic for a TV movie!

[30 November 1998]

Wow! It's very rare to get such an excellent, entertaining film made for TV. It's a cool homage to 50's road movies with David Arquette on top, TOP form as possibly the coolest character ever put to screen. Rodriguez' unmistakable editing and filming style combined with a snappy soundtrack and a nice dark tone to the story make this a must-see. It should have been released in cinemas.

The Rock (1996)

Action speaks louder than.......well, everything.

[10/10 · 23 November 1998]

Need a guide on how to make the perfect action film? Here it is. The Rock has everything.

A big round of applause for Michael Bay on his direction that redefines the term 'kinetic'; Jonathan Hensleigh for an action-packed story with a few neat twists; Hans Zimmer and crew for a truly thumping music score; Sean and Nicholas for being two cool good guys and Ed for being a believably human bad guy; and finally, Jerry Bruckheimer for bringing the whole thing together.

Truly, the best action film. Ever.

The Burning (1981)

Better than you might expect...

[9/10 · 23 November 1998]

Made in 1981, this film clearly jumped on the teenage slasher bandwagon and is very similar to a Friday the 13th movie. As far as the genre goes, 'The Burning' is way above average. Sure, it has the obligatory teenagers on summer camp and a deranged stalker out for 'revenge' but there are some genuinely tension-building moments and quite a few decent scares. The effects are above average (though quite heavily cut in the British version) thanks to gore-king, Tom Savini and Rick Wakeman's electronic music score is far more effective than Harry Manfredini's psycho-like strings in Friday the 13th. The acting is nothing special, but then again, it never is in these films.

If you're in the mood for a decent, scary stalk'n'slash movie, you could do far, FAR worse than this.

RoboCop 2 (1990)

Could have been so much better...

[10 November 1998]

There was no way this was ever going to be as good as Robocop but they could have done so much better. What's really missing is Basil Poledouris' wonderful fanfare theme tune. In its place we are giving some appalling brass'n'percussion with a chorus singing a ridiculous 'Robocop' theme on top. It's amazing how much music can change a film, and really, a decent score would have improved the film immensely.

Also, Rob Bottin's ultra-violent effects were sadly missed. The film is full of violence but it's mainly of the long-range bullets-hit-bad-guys type: the only thing close to the original's over-the-top nature was the brain removal and the stomach-slicing.

Phil Tippett is on hand, luckily, to deliver some entertaining stop-motion action scenes which really liven up the final scenes of carnage.

Sadly, the bad guys never come across as meanly as Clarence Boddicker did in the first, OCP seem unnecessarily annoying and the little kid is just annoying. It's not a TERRIBLE film but we really could have expected more from the man who brought us 'The Empire Strikes Back'.

Evil Dead II (1987)

Groovy!

[28 October 1998]

This film is the PERFECT mixture of horror and comedy. Evil Dead was scary, Army of Darkness was funny, this is the best of the trilogy. Raimi re-tells a more simplified version of the Evil Dead in the first five minutes which allows him to blast straight into the action with Ash getting possessed. It's uphill from here.

The effects are higher budget this time but not TOO high budget as was the case in Army of Darkness. Many of the scenes are remakes from the first but likewise many new scenes are copied in Army of Darkness (eg.Chainsaw arm/metal hand). You really don't need to have seen Evil Dead (though it helps) but you MUST see this before Army of Darkness, otherwise many gags in the latter will be missed.

Get your friends round, crack open some beers, crank up the volume and watch this and Army of Darkness for the most entertaining night of your life.

Day of the Dead (1985)

Lots of gore but a bit of a bore.

[24 October 1998]

This could have been an exciting, tension-building stomach churner. However, the film was let down by some appalling acting that just made the film ludicrous and allowed no sympathy for any of the characters (except for Bob the domestic Zombie). The army guys slowly shouted their lines, with a lot of swearing and laughing to try and make themselves sound hard. The rest of the cast put on stupid accents of various sorts: the "Jamaican" guy was almost incomprehensible.

After an hour of "plot" I started to get quite worried that nothing was ever going to happen. Happily, the gore started and the film finally got going. The gore effects were, for the most part, very impressive and they began to justify the long period of tedium prior to Tom Savini's bloody carnage. Tension and scares were put aside for humour - many of the deaths were laugh-out-loud gags and Bob's humanisms produced the odd chuckle.

A more downbeat ending would have been far more satisfying and would have brought about a greater sense of nihilism to the whole affair. The film is definitely worth seeing, but I would seriously recommend fast-forwarding most of the first 70 minutes.

I Spit on Your Grave (1978)

Horror? It's scary how such bad films get made.

[1/10 · 24 October 1998]

If you want to know how not to make a film, watch this. A fundamental problem with the film is that there is no music at all (apart from some classical music playing in the background in one scene). Music is ESSENTIAL for creating atmosphere of any kind. As a result, the only atmosphere in this film is that you're watching some amateur footage of a real event, though even that idea is destroyed by appalling acting and ludicrous characterisation.

According to the video cover, the film is about one woman's trail of revenge on the men who raped her. In actual fact, there is a disturbingly excessive rape scene (stretched out over 40 minutes or so), followed by the four, quick deaths of the rapists. The ONLY effective scene is one in which the lead rapist's penis is cut off in the bath and he is left to bleed to death. The other three deaths are so mundane that there is no real sense of justice in them at all.

The only reason for seeing this film is merely because it is so notorious and like so many REALLY bad films, it has to be seen to be believed.