bowmanblue Reviews

Catacombs (2007)

One person can't carry this

[4/10 · 2 June 2024]

On paper 'Catacombs' sounds like a reasonable concept for a horror movie. An American tourist who's visiting her sister in Paris, gets lost beneath the city in a network of tunnels and ends up being stalked by something not particularly nice.

Sadly, that's about it and its major drawbacks is its singular focus on the one woman, Victoria (Shannyn Sossamon), who is the film's lone protagonist navigating through the various darkened tunnels. This doesn't mean the movie is automatically bad as 'The Descent' uses a similar setting and story and yet manages to do so much more with it that 'The Descent' is a cult classic and this one is just forgettable. From the outset, it becomes glaringly obvious that Victoria, despite her constant running, screaming, and encountering supposed threats, is going to survive until the final act. This predictability strips away any genuine suspense or fear, leaving the audience able to skip to the final ten minutes to actually find out what will happen to her.

And that's really all the film has, i.e. Dark chaotic scenes where Victoria is frantically moving through the tunnels and it grows tiresome pretty quickly. Maybe it's trying to build tension, but the repetitive nature of these scenes makes them feel monotonous. There are only so many times one can watch a character sprint through dark, narrow corridors without losing interest. The film misses numerous opportunities to develop the few secondary characters who pop up (and guess what happens to them?!) let alone have time to any subplots that could have added depth.

Despite its actually quite clever choice of setting and the potential that could have been used, 'Catacombs' squanders these elements by sticking too rigidly to its lone protagonist and her repetitive plight. The catacombs themselves could even have been a character in their own right, yet are underutilized, with their potential to instill claustrophobia and fear left largely untapped.

There's not much in the way of gore if that's what you're looking for and although it may provide a few fleeting moments of fright, they are overshadowed by the repetitive and ultimately uninspiring journey through one dark, nondescript tunnel after the next.

Mimic 2 (2001 Video)

Not as good as the (average!) original

[5/10 · 1 June 2024]

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.

Martin (1977)

Great, but dated

[7/10 · 30 May 2024]

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 and it almost feel like it could be set in some sort of 'shared universe' with his 'Dawn of the Dead' classic.

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.

Happy Little Bunnies (2021)

What did I just watch?

[7/10 · 24 May 2024]

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.

Sleep. Walk. Kill. (2022)

Almost completely watchable

[5/10 · 24 May 2024]

'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.

Primal Rage (1988)

The '28 Days Later' prequel?

[6/10 · 23 May 2024]

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.

Skinford: Death Sentence (2017)

I really wanted to like this more

[6/10 · 23 May 2024]

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.

Drawn Into the Night (2022)

The proverbial car crash

[4/10 · 22 May 2024]

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.

Trace (2015)

A Familiar Haunting with Spotty Execution

[5/10 · 21 May 2024]

'Trace' is a supernatural (I won't say 'horror' as there really isn't much that's particularly 'horrific' contained within the runtime!) film about electronic voice phenomena (EVP), where a group of generic and not particularly memorable musicians dabble in capturing spirits on tape. Unfortunately, their experimentation takes a dark turn, accidentally opening a demonic gateway and unleashing terror.

The premise doesn't offer anything new and you're probably better off watching 'Flatliners' from whenever the hell that was released. The idea of using technology to bridge the veil between worlds has potential, but here it doesn't offer we haven't seen before. However, 'Trace' relies heavily on familiar horror tropes. We get the expected jump scares, shadowy figures, and characters making questionable decisions in the face of danger.

While not entirely original, 'Trace' has decent enough actors and the plot doesn't drag (too much!). The practical effects used for the demonic entity are just about okay and not too computer generated, but they're nothing that you haven't seen done better around the year 2000 in either 'The Ring' or 'The Grudge.'

Sadly, the script doesn't quite deliver. The characters are fairly one-dimensional, and their motivations feel underdeveloped. The reliance on clichés can be predictable for seasoned horror viewers. You end up getting one hell of a middle-of-the-road experience that doesn't offer a long-term horror viewer anything new.

If you find this on a streaming service (and haven't seen many horror films) it'll give you a quick supernatural fix with a unique technological twist, but horror aficionados might find it a bit predictable.

Thirst (III) (2015)

You've seen it all before, but it's watchable

[5/10 · 21 May 2024]

"Thirst" (2015) attempts to blend the elements of science fiction and horror into a cohesive narrative but ultimately falls short of leaving a lasting impression. Directed by Greg Kiefer, this film explores a camp in the middle of nowhere where youngsters with criminal pasts are sent for re-education. Unfortunately, an alien has happened to land nearby and is pretty hungry (or should I say thirsty?).

However, the film struggles in its execution of plot and character development. The storyline feels disjointed at times, with pacing that fluctuates between sluggish and hurried. Key plot points are either glossed over or dragged out, leading to a lack of cohesion that leaves viewers detached from the unlikable characters.

Characterization is another weak spot. The cast, featuring a mix of seasoned actors and newcomers, delivers performances that range from passable to wooden. Unfortunately, the script doesn't provide enough depth or backstory to make the characters truly compelling or relatable. As a result, their fates fail to evoke the emotional investment that such a dire scenario should inspire.

The horror elements are hit-and-miss. At first I thought Marvel's 'Venom' had been employed to do a turn as the evil alien, but those where when the creature was seen in the dark. However, when it's viewed in the full glare of daylight, it comes more across like a piece of modern art with teeth. There are moments of genuine tension and eerie atmosphere, but they are interspersed with clichéd jump scares and predictable deaths for those 'bad' and unlikable characters.

"Thirst" does touch on important themes like survival, resource scarcity, and human nature under extreme conditions, but these ideas are not explored. "Thirst" doesn't offer anything new in terms of concept and its uneven storytelling and shallow character portrayals don't help. The monster itself is okay and does occasionally offer some visually striking moments and occasional thrills, it ultimately fails to rise above mediocrity. For fans of the genre, it might be worth a watch, but temper your expectations. This film quenches the thirst for post-apocalyptic horror only partially, leaving much to be desired.

The Gate (1987)

It gets going

[6/10 · 19 May 2024]

I don't know how I missed this one, growing up in the eighties. With my love or horror and general appreciation of films like 'The Goonies' where a bunch of plucky underdog kids take on a far more powerful threat, 'The Gate' should have been well on my VHS Top Ten back in the day.

I have to say that for the most part I wasn't impressed. It's about a trio of kids (two young boys and an older sister) who accidentally open a portal (or 'gate' as I should probably refer to it as) to another dimension, allowing demons to flood into their house right on the weekend when their parents were away.

The first half dragged by and I seriously considered turning it off. Despite laughing at an almost unrecognisablly-young Stephen Dorff as the lead kid, I stuck with it and was actually pleased that I did. If I had to sum up the first half I'd say that nothing really happens. You can probably have the film on in the background and still know all you'll need to about the characters and general set-up. But perhaps worse still... for a horror movie (even one aimed more at a younger audience) there really isn't much threat, let alone danger or scares.

However, about the halfway mark things finally pick up. The creatures the kids eventually have to face are very nicely animated and, despite the obviously low budget, the film-makers do the very best with what they have to work with. And with the inclusion of some actual bad guys, the action hots up. There's even some inventive gore and possibly the most interesting 'kill' made utilising a Barbie doll that I've ever seen! Plus the climax involves the - now tried and tested - 'skybeam effect' long before any superhero movie stamped it into their climax.

I've seen a lot of people describe 'The Gate' as a 'cult classic.' I guess it is. I would imagine if I'd have watched it in the eighties then I'd be able to rely on a certain degree of nostalgia to make it even more enjoyable for me. However, as I didn't I'd have to say that it's certainly not a bad movie and has many plus points - it was just a pity it took half the movie to get there.

Deep Water (I) (2022)

I guess I didn't get it

[5/10 · 19 May 2024]

I'm worried that I've watched one too many superhero movies and now unless a story ends with a computer-generated alien army wrecking a city that's being destroyed by a giant skybeam I won't be able to understand it.

The plot (taken from the website to avoid 'spoilers') says it's about a married couple, the husband allows his wife to have affairs in order to not get divorced, but there are murderous aspects at play.

Okay, I've watched my fair share of 'murder mysteries' and 'relationship dramas' that I like to think that a film doesn't have to have wall to wall special effects and action in order to be good. And that plot sounds interesting enough to be worth a watch. And it was. Mostly.

It's main 'selling points' are the fact that it has two very good, very watchable and very capable actors as the leads - Ben Affleck and Ana de Armas, playing the couple. As I say their performances are well up to the task of hooking an audience and maintaining interest - and I was hooked.

However, when the credits finally rolled I was left unfulfilled. I would love to go into why I felt so 'cheated,' but unless I go into deep 'spoiler territory' and give you a full account of what happens and all the characters' secrets, I can't really do my opinion justice. I just felt that I didn't get certain characters' motivations and was left wondering what the point of some of their actions were - actions which seemed to go against the logic of the situations they found themselves in.

I'll admit I watched this at home and I guess I could have glanced at my phone and missed a line of dialogue which completely explained everything, but - ultimately - what was a good and enjoyable film left me shrugging my shoulders when it was all over and not understanding why they did or didn't do the things that had transpired. I see it's got pretty reasonable ratings and that it was actually based on a book (which you won't be surprised to hear I haven't read), so maybe the answers I'm looking for are actually contained in there.

Scum (1979)

Raw

[8/10 · 13 May 2024]

Wow, just finished sitting down to watch 'Scum' and it's like getting off one hell of a frightening rollercoaster. There are times when a film's budget dictates the probability of how good it will be, i.e. If a film is 'low budget' then you can expect sub-par actors, writing and special effects. 'Scum' is distinctly 'low budget' and yet is the polar opposite of those tropes (not that it needs any giant computer-generated 'skybeams' and alien armies invading New York).

It's about a new boy (an almost unrecognisable Ray Winstone - believe it or not, he was young and fresh-faced once!) who gets sent to a borstal and ends up rising through the (unofficial!) 'ranks' of inmates until he's the 'top dog' (or 'Daddy' as apparently is the lingo of the time and place).

I hear it was classed as a 'video nasty' in its day and, although there's definitely worse out there, I can see how it was actually pretty shocking - especially for its time of release. It's not just the - highly realistic - graphic violence, but also language and elements which many modern reviews probably wouldn't get published if they were mentioned. Yes, it's that bad. 'Progressive' it is not.

It's hardly a 'feel-good' film and you won't finish it feeling all light and fluffy, but if you have a strong stomach and dare to take a peek into this kind of world (and in the late seventies when then world was certainly less 'PC' than it is now) then the sheer scale of how raw and realistic this is will truly blow you away. Hard to believe that one day this little Ray Winstone will play a bad guy in a Marvel movie. Films like 'Black Window' are just about as far away from 'Scum' as you're ever likely to see.

Goodnight Mommy (2022)

Okay, but a bit drawn out

[6/10 · 3 May 2024]

Damn-it, I really wanted to like this film a lot more than a did. Naomi Watts is a talented actress and can always elevate even the more mundane of films. She played the titular 'Mommy' - a former actress who lives in a large country house. Her two sons are dropped off by their estranged dad after an extended parental visit and the boys return, only to find her face wrapped in bandages.

Now, naturally the two lads seem a little uneasy with their mother's appearance, but I don't think anyone would take too much convincing if they're told that an actress has resorted to plastic surgery to rekindle her dying looks and is merely in the 'recovery' phase. The real problems start when they start to realise that her entire personality has also changed and she may actually not be who she says she is.

It's an interesting premise, but the trouble is with only really three primary members of the cast, you know full well that nothing will really happen to any of them (not until the final act, at least). Whatever 'secret' may be going on we know that it's hardly going to be revealed in the opening five minutes, so what the film consists of is an overly long and drawn out game of cat and mouse where the children never really get any closer to finding out any answers.

Obviously, the story does eventually conclude and tie up all the loose ends, but what you ultimately have is an idea that would probably have been better suited to some sort of sci-fi anthology TV show (like 'The Outer Limits' - if that's still going!), rather than a full length feature film. Put simply... there just isn't enough material here to justify the runtime.

However, what's there isn't necessarily all bad. Watts is excellent - as usual - and the two young actors are both convincing in their roles - a feat many a young star fails in when too much of a movie is placed on their youthful, inexperienced shoulders. Overall, it's okay, but once you know the set-up you can effectively have most of the movie on in the background and ultimately just wait for the final conclusion where things are revealed. Not bad, but a bit too drawn out.

Devil Beneath (2023)

Sooo generic

[5/10 · 2 May 2024]

If there was an award for ticking every horror movie cliche box going then 'Devil Beneath' would clean up at the ceremony. Apparently, it was made in 2023 and yet felt like if it was released in the eighties it would feel old-fashioned and outdated.

Two brothers meet up at their family farm in Australia, only to find themselves falling foul to a local beastie. Add a van-load of generic teenagers who you won't care about, let alone remember any of their names, then stamp them with the typical 'jock one' and the 'slutty one' and the 'virginal one' and you can easily figure out each one's fate. There are some bad humans too who you won't care about (guess what happens to them?!) and some locals who have a secret knowledge of what's really happening and you're left wondering who actually green lit this film to begin with.

Not much happens in the first half and by the time the monster shows up (and I use the term 'shows up' loosely) you won't see that much of it because it's shot in a way where you can't really get a good look at it because the budget clearly wasn't high enough for anything more than a so-so computer-generated creature.

In some ways there's absolutely nothing wrong with this film - in horror terms. It certainly ticks all the boxes, but it's biggest fault is just being so generic that there's equally nothing to remember about any of it or offer anything that any seasoned horror fan hasn't already witnessed a hundred times and done better. About the only way you'll really think it's amazing is if you've never watched a monster movie before and aren't aware of every plot contrivance that goes with the genre. Watch it if you like, but I'll wager you won't remember a thing about it in a day's time.

Jungle Cruise (2021)

Saved by the cast (just)

[6/10 · 1 May 2024]

There's a lot NOT to like about 2021's 'Jungle Cruise.' It would be easy to point out how it's a kind of 'cut and paste' rip-off of another of Disney's theme park rides, 'Pirates of the Caribbean,' and then blended with 1999's 'The Mummy.' It would be equally easy to write off the characters like Emily Blunt being little more than a stereotypical 'strong woman' while Jack Whitehall plays her inept younger brother. However, for all the film's faults, the two aforementioned actors, combined with the lead - Dwayne Johnson - they actually make it watchable.

Like 'The Mummy' it's about a female scientist (and her coward of a brother) acquiring the services of a local man in a dangerous location (now the Amazon) during World War 1 and getting him to escort them to track down a magical item. Meanwhile, various villains are on their tail - who are generally just 'evil dudes' so don't expect too much nuance from them (even the excellent Jesse Plemons) and Paul Giamatti's contribution is little more than an extended cameo, so don't expect too much from him.

Although it's based on a theme park ride, I found the similarities with 'The Mummy' more apparent, but that's just personal taste. The characters could come off as annoying (and very nearly do so!), but are saved by the actors reeling in their own performances just in the nick of time.

Perhaps the main 'problem' I had with 'Jungle Cruise' is one that many a modern movie suffers from (in my opinion!) and that's its runtime. It just goes on too long. I could forgive the blatant green-screen filming and cheap-looking computer generated effects if they shaved about twenty minutes from the overall length. It kind of dipped in the middle and the 'effects heavy' action scenes also went on too long.

It won't become a franchise like either the 'Pirates' or the 'Mummy' films, because - sadly - it's just too generic to really attain the same status as either of those. It's not a terrible movie and, as I say, that's down to the cast. I'm sure it will keep their die-hard fans entertained and possibly and children who are actually okay with sitting still for longer periods of time.

The Lie (2018)

Nice idea, but stretched too long

[6/10 · 1 May 2024]

In a cinematic world where many of the biggest films involve - literally - the universe being at stake (or at least 50% of its population potentially wiped from existence) sometimes it's nice to watch a story where the stakes are, not so much minimal, but at least personal.

I hope it's not too much of a spoiler to say that 'The Lie' is about a teenage girl who 'accidentally' kills her best friend. Distraught, her separated parents decide to cover it up at all costs.

The nice thing about this movie is that it's a concept that most of us should be able to relate to. We may never hold the fate of the universe in our gloved hand, but we all have family we care about and how far would we go to protect them, even if they'd done something we knew was wrong?

It's this premise that makes the film watchable and should have most people sticking to the end. Not that I'm saying it's perfect. The simple story comes with the downside that it's not that easy to stretch it out for over ninety minutes and it's hardly a rollercoaster of excitement and thrills. Plus the daughter isn't the easiest person to root for. Perhaps if she was a nicer character you could empathise with the parents as they go to great lengths to protect her, but part of - at least - me half thinks that she's such an unlikable youngster that she should simply just be thrown to the police and left to rot.

However, if you're in the mood for a slow burner with some moral choices which will get you talking, you could do worse than this one.

Killer Grandma (2018)

Definitely made for TV

[5/10 · 30 April 2024]

Do you ever watch a film that's actually quite close to being good, but just can't quite stick the landing when it needs to? 'Killer in Law' is no classic. The plot of a relative who starts out as merely overbearing, but ends up with more sinister motives is nothing new, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily going to be bad. It depends on the execution. Here, a grandmother joins her son and his wife and daughter after an extended period, er, 'in an institution' shall we say? Of course they welcome her at first, but soon things take a darker turn.

And in this outing, some of the actors are actually quite good. The leading lady is very watchable and can easily handle the role. Plus the little girl who plays the daughter is decent enough for her age. Sometimes when youngsters are placed centre stage they're either bad actors or simply annoying. Here, she's neither. However, whereas they're good the husband seems to be more like a male model who's trying his hand at acting and the older lady who plays the grandmother uses every ham-fisted overacting technique ever. Although, perhaps I shouldn't rag on the cast too much. The script doesn't give them much to work with and the people behind the camera could probably have tweaked the script to higher standards.

During the opening there's so much exposition they might as well have just done one long 'text crawl;' in fact people almost SPEAK in exposition to tell the audience the general set-up for what's to come. The strange thing about the script is that most of it actually works. It's like every ten lines of dialogue a child was allowed to add one line before handing writing duties back to the grown-ups. This gives the dialogue a really uneven feel to it.

When it comes to the story, there's nothing you won't really see coming. Anyone not a major member of the cast is effectively there for a 'bodycount' (which isn't very high - and don't expect any major gore or ingenious kills or make-up effects). What you have here is a very bog-standard affair that would have felt outdated back in the eighties.

The Haunting of Julia Fields (2023)

99% set-up

[5/10 · 30 April 2024]

Apparently, the film with the most 'on the nose' title ever - 'The Haunting of Julia Fields' - was 'based on a true story.' If that means a girl rents a house, then I guess it's correct. But I'm guessing the film-makers wanted to imply that the supernatural elements which befall her are the part which is supposed to be real. I guess if you make it until the end you'll realise which parts were supposed to be 'real' and which weren't. Um, that's pretty much a summary of the movie. A girl - Julia Fields, would you believe! - moved into a rented house in Florida where she's slowly stalked by more and more supernatural events and entities.

And when I say 'slowly' I mean slow. The film isn't long (not that much over an hour), but it does tend to drag. I wanted to like this one more than I probably did, but there just isn't that much that happens. Unless I blinked and missed the part where the story explains why a young girl (who looks more like she should be in college) can rent her own home and never seems to have to work, the central character does little more than wander round the house in her pyjamas and then hears a noise.

I know some people will say that this is all done to build tension, but there comes a time when the audience is just crying out for something to actually happen. It doesn't help that Julia Fields lives on her own, therefore she doesn't really have many times where she can interact with any other character - until she encounters one creepy person after the next.

However, saying all that, I did make it until the end. It wasn't just because the film was so short that it was easy, but I actually quite liked the lead actress' performance and she certainly did her best with what little she was given. Plus I wanted to see whether there was going to be some sort of major twist/payoff in the final moments. I won't spoil the ending, but I will go as far as to say that, although this is an easy watch and has a few moments of creepiness, there isn't that much that a seasoned horror fan won't have seen before, meaning you can take or leave it really.

Freelance (2023)

Nearly... something

[6/10 · 29 April 2024]

There's always an argument between those who lived through the eighties and nineties as to which decade spawned the best 'action' movies. There were definitely cases for either period, as there were musclemen, huge explosions, islands full of expendable bad guys and crazy locations for terrorists to try and take over form and make their demands. The the millennium came and the action genre seemed to try more for 'serious' and 'realistic' and those over-the-top blast-a-thons looked like they'd had their day.

'Freelance' definitely feels like it should be more at home in either the eighties or the nineties, but whether it's any good I can't really say.

John Cena certainly has the classic 'action hero' physique and plays the leading role as well as any wrestler who has turned to acting, as he's stranded on one of those nondescript South American countries that always need a dictator or two overthrown and he has to protect the real president and a reporter.

Now, if you're expecting wall to wall action and explosions, you may feel a little disappointed, as the action seems a little subdued for a film that looks like it firmly belongs in the 'action' genre. There are a couple of nice gunfights, but nothing that really stands out or will make you go 'Wow!' and let it stick with you.

The secondary characters are pretty nondescript. The bad guy is, er, bad. And the woman Cena is trying to protect is, er, a damsel in distress. It hits all the major beats of an old school action movie without actually trying to add anything new to the genre. If it had have been released back in the eighties, I really do think it would have first become lost among the Stallone and Schwarzenegger output, before being cursed to the bottom of a 'straight to video' barrel and forgotten about. I can't really think of anything overly negative to say, but then I can't really think of anything that I'm going to really remember about it. I hear John Cena has plenty of fans out there, so I guess this film will always have a dedicated audience to enjoy it - and enjoyable it is, whether you watch it properly, or just have it on in the background, you'll roughly get the same experience.

Chompy & the Girls (2021)

Marks for originality

[7/10 · 29 April 2024]

Some people say that all the best stories have been told. Others point out that there are only really a handful of stories to tel and that it's all about doing them differently enough to pass as something even vaguely original. I watch a lot of (bad, straight to streaming service) horror films. They're just a monster stalking your average bunch of teen until they're picked off one by one. Most are bad, some are okay, but none really stick with me on account that they really aren't anything new that will actually stand out.

I'm not saying that - the weirdly-titled - 'Chompy and the Girls' is an amazing film which will stay with you until you die, changing your life for the better. But it certainly is different. And, in this case that was good enough for me.

The premise is that a teenage girl is meeting her long lost father for the first time in the park when they notice a strange man with a jaw which can dislocate, expand then seemingly swallow an innocent little girl whole. Naturally, seeing this only a few meters away freaks them out and they do what most of us would do in their predicament - run.

The only problem is, 'Chompy' (as they christen him) starts to follow them round with his mouth open, as if he's selected his next two meals.

Yes, this film probably sounds a bit wacky and 'out there.' It is. You have to let your brain accept some pretty crazy premises to get anything out of this. But hopefully the characters should keep you invested. They're hardly a particularly brave and noble bunch, but, starting out like this, it does give them a long way to go in terms of growth as the movie progresses.

I'm not sure I'd call this an outright 'horror' movie. Sure, it has some horror elements, but more creepy scenes and a lot of black comedy and banter between the main characters. It's not perfect. The main character can be a little annoying with her brat-like behaviour, but she learns a lot on the way. Otherwise, if you're in the mood for something a little different from your typical Hollywood output then this is actually quite fun.

The Legend of Jack and Jill (2021)

How quickly will I forget this?

[4/10 · 25 April 2024]

Okay, I confess... I've left it almost twelve hours before getting round to reviewing 'The Legend of Jack and Jill' which basically means I've almost completely forgotten everything about it.

I think I was consciously invested for at least the opening two minutes, where I saw a woman forced to abandon her children (Jack and Jill, would you believe?) in the British wilderness. Skip forward to when the kids have now grown up and they're mutated killers and there's a bunch of young adults about to take a hiking trip effectively through Jack and Jill's back garden, so to speak.

You can probably guess what happens next. One by one our 'heroes' are picked off, blah, blah, blah... The problem is that I'm guessing I'm not the only one who has practically forgotten everything about what they just watched in a matter of hours. This movie is totally forgettable. It's problems are that you won't care about the people being killed. Nothing wrong with that in itself. It wouldn't be the first slasher film where the people you're watching are little more than 'meat sacks' waiting to be slaughtered. The trouble is that there's nothing that interesting about the killers either. Add to it that if you're hoping that there might at least be some inventive kills and gore, there isn't. The kills aren't that grisly. The acting isn't that sharp. The make-up you could probably do yourself if you're going out for Halloween and the overall premise of the killers being (horrific) incarnations of a popular nursery rhyme really isn't explored. Seriously, if you called this film 'Woodland Mutant Killers' no one would ever say, 'Wow, this is like a slasher version of that old nursery rhyme.'

I can't believe anyone who sits down to possibly watch this hasn't seen a slasher film before. You're probably at least slightly into the genre. Therefore, you've seen better. You probably have better DVDs in your collection. Just put one of those on.

H.P. Lovecraft's Monster Portal (2022)

Warning: does not contain many monsters

[5/10 · 24 April 2024]

Hey, I've got nothing against horror 'B-movies' - in fact, they make up a significant proportion of my DVD collection. You don't have to have major actors, great special effects, or even a particularly original story to make a movie enjoyable - as long as it entertains then it usually fits the bill. However...

If you make a film with the word 'monster' in the title, it does tend to set an audience's expectations. If you sat down to watch 'Snakes on a Plane' you'd probably not be expecting Shakespeare, but you'd be looking for something that's just a bit of harmless fun. If you got one sickly-looking adder ten minutes before then end, then you might feel just a little bit 'short-changed' from what the title promised.

'Monster Portal' is an adaptation of an HP Lovecraft story, which is fair enough, but it does relay on giant creatures as part of its central theme. Sadly, the movie doesn't have the budget to really pull it off. Yes, there are a couple of monsters sprinkled here and there, but not only is it not enough to justify the title, but they're rendered about as well as your average Playstation 2 cut scene.

Now, I'm happy enough to ignore the special effects if the story is overall engaging and fun (or in a horror movie's case 'scary' would suffice), but here the acting is bad. Yes, I've seen enough horror movies to know I'm never going to get 'Oscar-worthy' performances, but in this case it basically feels like the actors are reading their lines off a cue card which is just out of shot. I guess I shouldn't really put all the blame on the actors, this script is pretty basic and they're probably doing their best with the awfully generic lines they're given, plus you'd think the director might be able to coax something out of one or two of them.

It's not the main characters who are the (total) problem. They don't turn in very good performances, but I can just about excuse them. It's more the secondary cast-members who might as well be your average passers by who were roped in to read a line or two here and there.

As I say, B-movies can be fun, but this one just tries to bite off way more than it's capable of. With a higher budget, better actors and script it might have worked, but, ultimately, it couldn't make anything of its lofty goals.

The People Across the Lake (1988 TV Movie)

Strangely watchable

[6/10 · 23 April 2024]

I know the words 'made for TV' are hardly a ringing endorsement for a film - it normally denotes a low budget, no real actors you've heard of and shoved on late at night when no one is ever going to see it anyway. All that may actually be true of 'The People Across the Lake,' but, despite all its shortcomings, it's actually quite watchable.

It's about a 'typical' (i.e. Mum, dad, teenage daughter and younger son) moving from the city to a small, rural town to start up their own business. However, when they get there it turns out to be possibly one of the most least friendly places to go in America - and that's before random corpses start showing up seemingly under every stone that's overturned.

Again, nothing amazingly revolutionary with the plot, but what made it watchable for me was generally the dynamic between the husband and wife. The kids don't really get an awful lot of screen time, so it's the adults who are the main characters. I just found something about them very believable as a couple and, for whatever flaws reared their heads, I still found myself wanting to root for the central characters through to the end.

It's hardly a 'thrill-ride.' In fact you could probably call it a bit of a 'slow burn,' as very little of real note happens during the first half of the movie and it's all just generally setting the scene. Once all the 'red herrings' have been discounted as to what's going on, when the 'threat' is finally revealed there is a slight element of 'scenery chewing' here and there which does make you want to roll your eyes just a little in terms of various people's acting ability, but it is a 'made for TV' movie, so what do you expect?

It's hardly a classic that will stick with you for very long, but if there's nothing else then this one will certainly fill an hour and a half of your time.

Isolation (2005)

If 'Alien' had simply been called 'Cow'

[4/10 · 17 April 2024]

If someone tried to tell me the plot for 2005's 'Isolation' I'd probably think they were making it up, or, if the film was as they described, I'd think it was some sort of parody film of the 'monster movie' of the horror genre. But it isn't.

If you think about 'Alien' and how it was set on a spaceship. Then you think of 'The Thing' and how it was set deep in the Antarctic and sort of combine the overall theme of the two, only set it on a country farm in the middle of Ireland. One question you may ask is... isn't a farm a lot easier to escape from (as opposed from a deep space craft or totally inhospitable terrain on all sides) - especially if some hideous killer monster was on the loose. I would say the answer is yes. But that's just one of the movie's sins.

The cast (or staff on the farm) of the film are some of the most uninspired and generic you'll ever see. They really are a bland bunch and one guy (who's supposed to be at least one of the main heroes!) spends much of the time crying! I've never met a quartet with less personality therefore I really couldn't care much for their plight when the monster started its munching.

Oh, yes, the monster... it's hardly the xenomorph from 'Alien' or the insanely grotesque shape-shifter from 'The Thing.' It's a scraggly pink sausage creature that writhes and wiggles about the place. I think it may have teeth. It's not in it for long - probably due to lack of budget.

There's not much to recommend about this film. I don't want to be too harsh on it. It doesn't have a million glaring faults making it completely unwatchable. In fact, it's major fault would be just how mediocre it really is in terms of those in the genre. There's nothing especially bad, but there's nothing that will make you remember it. Oh, and the monster came from a cow. Yeah, the cows incubate them, so perhaps this film is at least a good advert for going vegetarian.