Sammy_Sam_Sam Reviews

A Woman's Torment (1977)

I preferred the soft version...

[6/10 · 23 May 2021]

Sometimes you'll see an uncut version of a horror or exploitation flick and completely out of nowhere, there will be some hardcore porn. It seems out of place and sure enough, quite often it will have been added at a later stage, usually to sell to a different market. Conversely, there are also adult movies that released in a softer form with large sections cut out, again to sell to a specific market. This falls into the latter, as it was I believe primarily intended to be an adult movie, but one which had other elements. With that said, it isn't particularly erotic due to the fact the story revolves around mental illness and murder! I decided to watch the softer version because personally, I like horror to be horror and porn to be porn. I won't give away too much about the storyline, other than to say it isn't particularly complicated. What I can say however is that it's quite well shot, has a lovely score and is reasonably well acted. With better actors and a bit more gore, I think this could've been a really great movie, but it's by no means a bad film, particularly when you consider the small team who made it. I did flick through the full uncut version afterwards and sure enough, it is highly explicit. I'd seen Michael Gaunt in 'Intrusion' the night before, so it was interesting to see him in another role (also there was an interview with him on the Blu Ray, presumably filmed at the same time as his interview for Intrusion). Another interesting person to make a (brief) appearance is Robert Kerman (or R Bolla). To me he'll always be Professor Monroe from Cannibal Holocaust, but he crops up in quite a few adult movies. On the soft version he can be heard discussing Fellini at a cocktail party - mildly interesting given his acting roles in Italian cinema. I believe on the strength of other performances, he and Gaunt could have been solid actors in more mainstream films, but I suppose once you get your name known as an adult film star then it can be difficult to get other roles.

I would certainly recommend the soft version to anyone interested in proto-slashers and horror, but just bear in mind there's nothing particularly memorable in terms of the kills. Considering the small team behind it and the fact the star apparently ran off from set before the movie had been finished, I think they did a pretty good job bringing it all together into a watchable film.

A Climax of Blue Power (1974)

Grim!

[4/10 · 23 May 2021]

Here we have a film not dissimilar to Taxi Driver or Bad Lieutenant, but the most obvious difference is that it features explicit adult material. Essentially a 'roughie', it's a mixture I suppose of exploitation and hardcore porn, however it does neither of these things particularly well and I don't really know to who I could recommend the film. On the one hand, the pornographic sections don't make for pleasant viewing. The actresses have heavy tan lines and on the Vinegar Syndrome Blu Ray the blemishes, spots and everything else were all very clear to see. I couldn't imagine anyone finding anything in this film particularly erotic. On the other hand, the storyline just wasn't enough due to the incredibly long sex scenes, so I can't really recommend it on that basis either. The acting was actually pretty good, particularly the male lead, and the music was also great (I had the theme stuck in my head for a few hours after viewing). All in all though, I think this would only appeal to those who seek out extreme cinema and for me, there's nothing here to warrant a second viewing, but in a funny kind of way I'm still glad that I saw it. You'll certainly need a shower after watching this one!

Dead Water (2019)

Face Your Deepest Fears

[1/10 · 23 May 2021]

My deepest fear would be sitting through this film again! The back cover of the DVD presents this film as a thriller, with three of the four pictures clearly showing action shots. 'Fear' and 'Terror' get a mention on the case. In reality, so little happens in so few locations that this could very easily be made into a play. But not a good play. Not the sort of play you would want to actually sit through. Halfway through the film a spider ran across our floor and I had to remove it - to give you some idea, that was a highlight!

I didn't expect that much from Casper 'Rico' Van Dien, as the last thing I saw him in was an episode of Monk and he hardly set the world alight with that performance. Judd Nelson on the other hand is usually good value for money, but he doesn't even appear until nearly an hour into the film. He probably gets five minutes of screen time, despite his name appearing on the front of the box. When he does appear, he mumbles his lines incoherently and doesn't seem at all bothered, which I'm guessing he wasn't. He looks good for 60 years old, but this wasn't the Judd Nelson we know from Breakfast Club, St. Elmo's Fire, Cabin by the Lake, Relentless etc..

I'm trying to think of something positive to say about the film, as I can usually find something (I've been watching the Andy Milligan box set this week, so my tolerance for poorly made films is very high indeed). In truth, there are no redeeming features. At 87 minutes including credits, you couldn't even say it was mercifully short, because an incredibly simple premise is drawn out to easily twice the amount of time it should've been. This could very well have been a 25 minute Tales From the Crypt episode, were it not for the lack of gore.

This film is abominable - AVOID.

The Cannibal Man (1972)

Another gem from the video nasty list

[8/10 · 23 May 2020]

Marcos is a poorly educated man who works as a butcher. When he's accidentally involved in a killing, his attempts to cover things up cause matters to spiral out of control. La Semana Del Asesino ('Killer's Week') makes far more sense as a title, as 'The Cannibal Man' isn't actually a cannibal. Although I must admit it made me want to watch the film, the UK trailer is quite misleading in this regard. And it's one of those films which I'm so glad was on the video nasty list, as without it having been included I might've missed it altogether.

There's a lot going on in the movie and I won't go into all of it in this review, but I suggest you approach the film not expecting a slasher film and try to keep an open mind. In many ways it's quite a beautiful film and not just in the way it's shot, which is particularly impressive, but also in the way the characters are depicted. Marcos himself is a fairly sympathetic character and without going into details, you feel he has been dealt a bad hand. The film deals with many themes and although my knowledge of Spanish history isn't particularly strong, it's clear there are a few swipes at Franco's regime. In one scene, the 'fuzz' (as they're bizarrely referred to) take the word of Néstor, simply because he lives in the fancy new high-rise building (thus proving Marcos correct in his comment early on in the movie, that he is less likely to be believed because of his social standing and education). A lot of use those ID cards are!

Other themes include change (not just in characters themselves - Marcos going full circle), but other more obvious ones. The visual representation of the huge new buildings towering over Marcos' old home illustrate this perfectly. The introduction of machines to automate work is another obvious example, although this isn't explored fully. The film itself is one of those great amalgamations of genres, bringing together black comedy, political satire, horror and quite a tender theme of friendship. You'll most likely laugh (a lot) as people describe to Marcos in minute detail the circumstances surrounding his mother's death. Then you'll feel so sorry for him when you realise he has been backed into another corner and the hole is getting deeper. It's such an impressive movie in this respect.

The music is impressive throughout, particularly the reverse bell sound (at this time I believe samplers weren't yet commercially available). There's a particularly beautiful piece which generally plays as it becomes clear somebody is about to die - it's a subtle prompt which makes what is about to happen seem almost unavoidable. Dubbing is solid and believable, including at least one comedy character (who claims Marcos is buying enough perfume for an entire navy!). On the Spanish Blu Ray I own there are sections of dialogue in Spanish with subtitles, presumably due to loss of the original recording (or perhaps the scenes weren't originally included in the international release?). The only dubbing which I suppose is questionable would be that of Marcos himself (he sounds erudite, considering it's suggested he lacks education). It doesn't really matter too much though and I suppose better that than someone putting on a strong regional accent, which could come across as comical.

Overall, if you like films which aren't too genre specific and are more character than event based, I think you'll enjoy this film. Without any spoilers, I must say I'm glad some of the deleted scenes didn't make it into the final cut. I feel the movie was more subtle without those included and it leaves things a little ambiguous, although others might disagree. Still, all in all - highly recommended!

Satan's Blade (1984)

Watchable Low-budget Slasher Flick

[5/10 · 10 January 2018]

Having read the reviews on here I wasn't really sure what to expect with this film, but I'm glad I watched it. It's certainly no masterpiece, but not every film needs to be and considering what must've been a very low budget, it's a solid effort. The acting is hit and miss with some people putting in a pretty good performance, while others are quite frankly terrible. But that's often part of the charm with films of this sort and anyone who has seen a low-budget slasher won't find it too distracting.

What surprised me most perhaps is the look of the film, which is very nicely shot in places. It's all straightforward and there's nothing particularly spectacular, but it didn't look bad and one shot in particular next to the lake really did catch my eye. The score most certainly deserves a special mention, as I thought it was brilliant and fit the movie perfectly. More generally the film has a somber feeling and isn't fast-paced, but personally that has never bothered me with slasher flicks - I tend to watch them for the fact they aren't going to work my brain too much at the end of a tough day. The gore levels aren't particularly high, but there are some good screams. There's also not enough struggling from the victims for my liking (the mark of a decent kill!), but much better than a lot of other slasher flicks I've seen. So all in all, for me it's a 5/10. If you enjoy slashers and like a film with charm then it's probably worth a watch. Fans of Notting Hill and superhero movies should probably steer clear though.

Split (IX) (2016)

Too long and a suffers from a real lack of tension

[4/10 · 16 January 2017]

I'm going to start this review by stating that this isn't a particularly original film - there are already quite a few out there which do the same thing, only far better. Only last week I watched 10 Cloverfield Lane, which is broadly similar, yet a far superior movie. The reason 10 Cloverfield works (the final 10-15 minutes aside) is that you always feel John Goodman's character could lose it at any moment. And from time-to-time, he does. That movie really had me on edge and the tension was almost unbearable at times. Unfortunately, 'Split' did not do this well. The runtime and pacing is probably one of the biggest issues, because a movie like this set over 117 minutes really needs to be handled by a master. I don't know much about this director, but he's no Kubrick. And although Kubrick could be self-indulgent (Eyes Wide Shut was a catastrophe), a film like The Shining runs for well over 2 hours, but the suspense and atmosphere carries it all the way. With Split, the film lulls and drags… you really don't believe you're going to see this 'beast' they talk about till the very end, which is a big problem, because you're not on the edge of your seat. Perhaps sharper editing would help and personally I would've cut it down substantially, but that still wouldn't have made it a great movie.

McAvoy gives a decent performance, but I'm not about to overstate it. I saw a film called 'The Love Butcher' the other day and the almost unknown actor in that film also played many characters quite successfully. Lots of actors are capable of this and I'm sure many will cite McAvoy's performance as being a key element of the film, but for me it doesn't save the movie. If you want campy fun of this sort, check out John Lithgow in Brian De Palma's Raising Cain! Other acting in the film is absolutely fine, although you don't get to see two of the girls all that much. This again is another problem, because this sort of film really works best when you can put yourself in the place of the victim(s). It doesn't really dare you to do that, as it moves from place to place, but doesn't focus on their plight.

There's a huge plot hole… something which one of the characters should have said near the end of the movie, but I won't elaborate, as I don't want to spoilt it. It's a glaring plot hole though! To conclude, it really does drag so much and I couldn't wait for it to end. It gets to the point where you know everything there is to know, but it won't stop. We're just treated to more 'performance' from McAvoy, but by this point, you won't care. I could recommend at least a dozen similar films without a second thought which are far better than this, so I honestly wouldn't waste your time. There were a few laughs along the way, but by the end of the film, you certainly won't be laughing. Overall, for me it's a 4/10.

Island of Death (1976)

Unique and entertaining!

[7/10 · 9 July 2016]

I picked this up in the sale a few days back and having read fairly negative reviews, I wasn't expecting a lot. As you'll probably know this film was banned as part of the video nasties hysteria, but even this uncut edition wasn't all that shocking by modern standards. Well perhaps the scene with the goat was a little shocking, but it's really not that bad. The first 10 minutes of the film might put you off, but do keep watching, as it'll start to make a lot more sense before long.

Without spoiling the film, it's a fairly straightforward story about killers on the rampage on a small island. It was made on a very small budget, but the island serves as an attractive cost-free backdrop. On that note, it is beautifully filmed. Lots of wide angle lens shots and on the Arrow Film release, aside from a small section of deteriorated film near the end, the colours are vibrant. I really wasn't expecting such a fine looking movie.

The acting seems to come up for a lot of criticism, which I disagree with. Robert Behling puts in a great performance as Christopher, creating a genuinely interesting character. He reminded me a little bit of Ted Bundy, although he looks more like Greg Kinnear (it would've been funny to see him in the role!). I enjoy watching characters like this. Michael Reilly Burke as Bundy, Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman, Jake Gyllenhaal as Louis Bloom… you get the picture. Personally, I think Behling puts in a great performance.

I guessed straight away that Jane Lyle was a model and she comes in for a lot of criticism, but I actually think she was perfect for the role. She has an innocent look and I agree with Stephen Thrower's assessment that her line delivery adds something extra. It may not be an example of the finest acting ever, but she comes across as a little simple and naïve, which (without spoiling the film) fits perfectly. The pair of them reminded me of the Ken and Barbie killers. Other actors put in a reasonable performance, aside from the director, although he only appears through necessity (an actor pulled out last minute apparently) and it's not an important section of the film. In fairness, even by his own admission he isn't a great actor, but it's not too distracting.

The music is absolutely brilliant and was co-written by the director, so it fits perfectly. On the Arrow Film release it comes as an extra on the disc (along with a ton of other great extras).

There are a few things which will seem out of place. For starters, there are often scenes with no extras. It's a holiday island which is at times seemingly deserted. Also you'll notice that victims have a strange habit of not screaming for help, which is strange. Often the film seems quite surreal, perhaps a little like parts of 'American Psycho'.

Much like American Psycho, this film has a dark sense of humour. But it also has an interesting point to make about morality and voyeurism. Indeed, Christopher's character could well be a Daily Mail reader, so outraged that he has been 'forced' to watch things he didn't want to see (based on his moral code) that he now wants to take revenge and see the "perverts" punished. The irony being that the Daily Mail has run many campaigns against video nasties, despite the fact most readers would be unlikely to (and probably haven't watched) these films. In the film, the hypocrisy is quite clear for all to see and the crucifixion (along with many other things) puts the emphasis firmly on religious conservatism.

So all in all, I think it's a great film. From the unusual opening credits, which use a camera shutter sound to set the scene, it's a very unique and interesting film. There is a 15 minute section near the end which dragged a little, so some better editing here would've raised this up to an 8, but for me it's a solid 7/10. It's unique, well shot, has fantastic music, great characters and more importantly, it has something to say. We could do with more films like this, rather than Iron Man 12 or X-Men 20. And well done to Arrow for putting out a great print of it. If you like your films sleazy and unusual, then this is definitely worth seeking out!

Fallen Soldiers (2015)

A bit hit and miss, but a great effort all the same

[5/10 · 19 April 2016]

It's no secret that horror and exploitation movies lend themselves to low budgets and over the years, we've seen many. Going back to the B-movie and the move from that into horror, particularly the early days of VHS, there has been no end of low-budget horrors. The good thing about horror is that you don't need vast sums of money to scare someone. Once I hid in the back of my girlfriend's car late at night and when she got in (to come pick me up from a nearby pub as it happened), I pounced... the scream she let out was amazing! That was a scare for free. But I digress...

Back in the days of video nasties there were plenty of low-budget efforts, but they had that awful picture quality to hide their sins. Nowadays with such sharp picture quality on every TV, your film has to be so much better visually. And that said, the effects in this film are for the most part pretty impressive. It's nice to see almost all of them done in the proper way and not digitally, at least. The makeup effects in particular were well done and praiseworthy.

With regards to the plot, they've tried to do three brave things: 1) They've provided an interesting storyline. A lot of low budget films don't bother and it is mentioned in the extras that the storyline came first and set pieces second.

2) The film is set against a historical background. This opens up opportunities for inaccuracy and of course the bother of more complex sets and outfits. However, going on the 'making of' they were clearly aware of this and planned to use it to their advantage (not worrying too much about the historical accuracy side of things).

3) They've messed with convention and have zombies which can revert back to the living.

On the first two points, to some extent they've successfully achieved their goals. On the third point, I have to confess that I'm old school, so I can't really say I liked this aspect of the film, although for the purposes of the storyline I can see why this might've been useful.

The acting ranges from below adequate to very good (particularly Matt Neal, who put in a decent performance). As one reviewer on Amazon noted, it even varies fairly substantially for individual actors from one scene to another, which personally I found a little distracting. But they throw themselves into it with gusto and generally speaking, they do a decent enough job. The audio was excellent and a reminder how lucky we are in this age of films, as so many people can put together a decent score. That said, I'm making the assumption it has been made solely for this film... I couldn't find anything out about it. So I could be wrong on that one! In terms of the film more broadly, I found that at times I was really enjoying it, but other times my mind started to wander. That's not so much due to the pacing or the storyline, but more to do with the hit and miss nature of the scenes and for some reason, the lighting and framing of the shots in certain scenes. Also the nature of flashbacks in a film like this does remove some tension, as you can kind of guess who is going to buy it and who doesn't (or can you!).

My worst criticism would be that at the end, the film just stops. I think the ending would've been absolutely fine, but it really needed to build to that moment (particularly the music) before cutting to credits. As it stands, most people will probably be a bit surprised. That said, overall it's a pretty good effort and I could see some of those involved going on to do more films in future. And although I don't know the exact budget, I doubt it was all that high, so on that basis it's an excellent effort. They've chosen the tougher options and gone all out to make something a bit more interesting, so fair play to them. If you can watch and enjoy a film for what it is without being overly critical, then I'm sure there's plenty for you to enjoy here. 5/10.

Monsters (2010)

A movie about bonding, with monsters

[7/10 · 17 November 2015]

I'd read a few reviews before watching this film, so I was curious as to what it'd be like. To be honest, I was a little apprehensive, as it did seem to attract a lot of negative attention. Having now watched the film, I have to say that it's actually a very enjoyable movie. However, it isn't really suited to this age of ADHD cinema, whereby viewers seemingly demand non-stop unconvincing CGI images covering the screen at all times. I've seen films which reminded me more of my PS3 games than actual films. Well here we have a small budget to limit things, but don't let that put you off. In fact I don't even think the budget even dictated the volume of effects, as I get the impression the director is a bit smarter than that. The effects are there though and they aren't amazing, but they know their limits and they do the job. This is crucial, because the worst thing for me is when you watch a scene and it's ruined by some awful CGI which only serves to distract, when you know it wouldn't have been missed had it not been there at all. It's like a lot of things… use the CGI when you need to and use practical effects when you need to, but use all things in moderation.

I won't spoil the film, but I will say that if you go into it expecting to see a sci-fi spectacular then you'll probably be disappointed. A friend of mine once described Cronenberg's 'The Fly' as 'a love story in which a guy turns into a fly', and he was absolutely right about that. Well this is a movie about two people bonding in which there happens to be 'monsters' on the rampage. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it 'love', but I suppose you could. It also has elements of an adventure film, bizarrely reminding me in some ways of Walkabout or Cannibal Holocaust (two of my favourite films). I'd never heard of Scoot McNairy or Whitney Able before this, but I think both of them do a great job and you sense a genuine connection. And it's this connection which can make a movie, because I've seen a lot of low budget (and for that matter big budget) films which were technically every bit as good as this, but they lacked that something special to make you care. Well I definitely cared about these two and the fact the film floats along at a fairly laid back pace really didn't bother me, because I just wanted to see how their story turned out (and on that note, there is a twist, but I won't spoil it).

On a technical note, the soundtrack is excellent and it's very well filmed. It's well acted, moving, and for me it's one of those films that I needed to 'digest' afterwards, occasionally thinking about it again later that day. Perhaps it's not everybody's cup of tea, but I think over time the current rating of 6.4 will go up. For me it's almost an 8, but probably closer to a 7. Well worth a watch.

The Last American Virgin (1982)

Identity crisis

[6/10 · 29 September 2015]

This film reminds me of the days in the 80s where you'd buy or rent a film based on the cover and short blurb on the back, only to discover that what you'd got was nothing like you were expecting. In my opinion, the film has something of an identity crisis and it's weird, because based on content I'd think it would appeal to the PG or 15 age range, but with an 18 certificate they seem to have missed their audience a bit. Think American Pie, Porky's etc., but crossed with a John Hughes coming of age style storyline. And I didn't realise it at the time, but it's a remake, although I can't comment on how this compares to the original.

I would say it's fairly well acted and although they're a young bunch, they seem convincing enough. There are a few cringe worthy moments which perhaps might seem slightly odd... I won't go into details! It's probably fair to say though the 'goofy' moments in this film really undermine the more serious aspects of the story, as they creep out of the light-hearted comedy 'prank' territory and into the realm of the absurd. For example, there's an Inbetweeners style moment involving a car, but rather than fear any repercussions for their actions, they just dance about laughing, as if nothing happened. That'd be fine if this were Porky's, but it's supposed to be serious too, which means this moment works in contradiction to the more serious moments. I watched a film called Big Wednesday that same week, which features a similar situation with a car, but in that their reaction is more realistic (and that film certainly isn't what I'd call subtle). It also occurs to me that this film reminds me of 'Click', a film which had some genuinely interesting points to make and was quite poignant in places, but sadly allowed the goofy moments to detract from that.

The soundtrack in this film is excellent, although the songs feel as though they've put in to gel together parts of the story which really shouldn't have gone with each other. For that reason, in some ways it feels more like a sketch show in places... again, it could've worked well, but it doesn't seem quite right.

I so desperately wanted to like this film, so much so that I gave it a second viewing a couple of months after the first. Unfortunately though I can't really say that I liked it all that much, which is a shame, as it had some brilliant moments and I really think it had potential. Not a terrible film by any means, but certainly not the undiscovered masterpiece which some might claim. And I particularly liked the end, which I shalln't spoil, but I think it was a brave effort and only a shame the rest of the film hadn't been a little more in keeping with that. If I had the time and ability, I think I could edit this film into a 7 or 8/10, but as it stands, it really is a 6/10. I'd recommend St Elmo's Fire or Some Kind of Wonderful as better takes on a similar story, or perhaps give the original a try, as I understand it was very successful and probably a better film.

San Andreas (2015)

Exactly what you'd expect from this sort of film...

[5/10 · 29 May 2015]

The film starts with a CGI car falling down a CGI cliff in a semi- CGI world... I haven't seen a car crash like that since the Playstation 1, but the quality does get better from thereon. It's a disaster movie about some earthquakes and some people who are caught in some earthquakes. Some die, but some do not... makes sense. The Rock is the star and he is like a bald-headed action man who jumps from one vehicle to the next. He is incredibly strong and can hold his breath underwater for minutes at a time. He drives a huge black American 4x4 in immaculate condition, with the US flag on it. I kind of wished for once that the leading man would drive a nice little hatchback or a sensible family estate, but sadly not. And like a lot of leading men in disaster movies, he is troubled by something from his past and is in the middle of a divorce. Anyway, there's some more stuff that happens and then there are credits when it ends... nothing too unusual really. If you like inexplicably stupid films then I can't recommend this highly enough, because it has EVERYTHING. Good CGI, bad CGI, loads of extras dying in imaginative ways, a bumbling Brit who can't get his words out (I guess Hugh Grant was too old for the part), and Paul Giamatti. Some things I liked about the film were most of the effects, Paul Giamatti, and some interesting shots of the female cast. Things I didn't like were the script, the storyline, most of the actors, and I didn't like that I watched it in 2D when 3D would've made some of those aforementioned shots even better. To conclude, 5/10. It would've been 6/10, but the Rock missed the opportunity to wear a captain's hat while he was pootling along on his boat.

City of the Living Dead (1980)

It's not 'The Beyond'

[5/10 · 9 October 2014]

Okay, this is the briefest of brief reviews! I love 'Don't Torture a Duckling'; it's a great movie. I really like 'The Beyond' (for all it's negative aspects, it's a fine film). 'Zombie Flesh Eaters' is brilliant (a personal favourite). This film is not in the same league. It's a really trashy B movie with poor effects and it simply has none of the magic which makes his best movies what they are. I really wanted to like the film, but in truth it wasn't all that good. If you see it cheap to buy somewhere then perhaps pick it up for a viewing, but I can almost guarantee that you won't like it anywhere near as much as the movies mentioned above!

Die-ner (Get It?) (2009)

A fun little movie for those who don't take things too seriously

[6/10 · 12 January 2014]

I'll start my short review by mentioning that the copy I got had the title 'KFZ: Kentucky Fried Zombie' - not massively important, but I thought I'd mention it. I picked this up from a pound shop, so frankly I had low expectations. However, much to my surprise I actually found the movie to be quite enjoyable; it just goes to prove that you shouldn't judge a DVD by it's box (or price!). It's amazing how a small budget can go such a long way when the people involved in the project are so eager to put in a good performance, and this is certainly the case here. In particular, I have to praise Joshua Grote in the role of Ken. He seems to me a cross between James Van Der Beek and Edward Norton and brings plenty of humour to the movie, appearing more than comfortable in front of the camera. I predict he will have a strong career in future if he gets the break he needs and I'd certainly like to see him in more movies. Everyone else in the film does pretty well too and for the most part, the direction is more than adequate, occasionally being quite stylish in it's presentation. The script deserves praise and the music is also really good (the special effects aren't too bad either - I've seen much worse!). So overall, I think it's worthy of a 6 out of 10. It's no masterpiece by any means, but I've sat through enough big budget drivel and visited IMDb to find a rating well above that. This movie was entertaining enough to hold my attention from start to finish, it made me laugh for all the right reasons and the makers deserve credit for putting together a decent little movie on such a small budget.

Basement (2010)

"Come on, we're wasting time!"

[3/10 · 12 January 2014]

Oh, the irony! I enjoy watching Danny Dyer movies, simply because they're so laughably bad, but this one is so bad it's dreadful. The script is terrible, the story nonsensical, the music is bizarre, the acting reminds me of secondary school drama class and for the most part, relatively little happens. There is a storyline and some action does occur eventually, but by the time it happens you'll probably either have stopped watching or nodded off. I've given it 3 out of 10 and the only reason it wasn't a 1 was because Danny made me laugh so much. From his "I want to be somebody" line to his comical run, Danny brings some (no doubt unintentional) humour to proceedings. There is also a great moment where Danny says: "I've done something terrible, and I've got to live with it for the rest of my life". He delivers the line so well that one can only assume that he was thinking about this movie.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012)

Muddled and absurd

[3/10 · 3 May 2013]

It's very rare that I go to the cinema and feel so differently when leaving than I did when I went in. It takes a remarkable movie to do this and there's no doubt about it, The Place Beyond the Pines truly is remarkable. The film is probably best described as being three poor movies squeezed into one, truly awful movie. I've noticed others describe it as 'three acts', but that description is pretty kind to say the least. For the most part it's well acted, but the movie doesn't seem to know what it wants to be and as a result, before long it loses it's way. And regardless of what it was supposed to be, after viewing it leaves you asking so many searching questions. Questions like: Who was the protagonist in the movie? What was the point of this film? Who came up with such a convoluted and absurd storyline and why weren't they stopped? Why didn't Ryan Gosling's character buy more t-shirts when having robbed a bank, he could so easily afford to do so? Why didn't they steady the camera a bit so we could admire the excellent stunt work during the chase scene through the graveyard? Why did the movie keep going on and on and on and on despite the fact that by this point, none of the characters really mattered to the viewer? And why did I spend all that money going to watch this?

It reminded me a lot of Mystic River and the redeeming features were just as few and far between, although I must point out that the music was superb throughout. And I suppose I should be fair and say that I did like the reference to Hall and Oates (with a bonus song later!). Ryan Gosling was brilliant, although that really shouldn't come as much of a surprise. But none of that is enough to make up for what I sat through. I was so happy when the movie ended and having waited so long, when the ending finally came it didn't disappoint. The credits rolled, the lights went on and then, at that point, I knew in my heart that everything would be okay after all. I'd like to think that not even a chin-stroker could defend this movie, yet I know that there will be many who do.

Wings of Desire (1987)

Have a good flick through the quotes page before considering watching this movie

[5/10 · 25 June 2012]

I'd read a lot of good things about Wings of Desire, so when I finally got around to buying a copy of the film expectations were high. I know it's lame, but straight away I'm going to say that my favourite film of all time is probably Nicholas Roeg's 'Walkabout'. Why would I make that point? It's really just to make clear that I'm not automatically dismissive of films that aren't event driven, or feature long periods where nothing much happens.

In some ways Wings of Desire isn't really about all that much and I'm not even going to try to explain the few things which do happen in the film. In another sense it's a film about absolutely everything and your interpretation and feelings toward the movie are going to depend largely on your own personality, what you expect from it and various other factors, including what sort of day you've had (it's very easy to space out during this movie!). The first two thirds of the movie are spent wondering what it is you're actually watching, as there's not really much in the way of dialogue (at least not much of interest). The final third of the film gives us some sort of resolve to the film, although really by this point most viewers are likely to be bored out of their mind. If I had to pick a scene which sums the movie up then it'd have to be the one where the angels are discussing what it is they lack in their existence. It seemed to go on forever and I couldn't really have cared less by the end of it, because they cite too many examples. If you think this sounds harsh, take a look through the quotes section on this movie to get an idea of what you'll be hearing throughout.

There's no doubting that this film is well filmed and visually it's very impressive. It's an unusual film too and one which immediately grabs your attention. However, despite these qualities, the 'introduction' is just far too long and drawn out. The director could easily have covered the first hour in about 15 minutes. And I know some people would argue that this is to give us a sense of what it's like to live forever and all the rest, but it's really not necessary. In movies there are ways of conveying long periods of time. Flashbacks, a montage etc. But there's really no excuse for the way this movie starts, it takes forever to get going and the ending is totally unsatisfying.

If you like your movies arty then check it out for the visuals alone, but if you like some sort of entertainment or something which is actually going to occupy your brain in some way then I'd avoid it.

Melancholia (2011)

Very slow moving

[6/10 · 25 June 2012]

Coming to this movie with such high expectations, perhaps I was always setting myself up for a fall. I very much enjoyed Lars Von Trier's recent movie Antichrist, a film which (whilst not completely original) was certainly a slick, disturbing and thoroughly impressive movie. I'm also a massive fan of Charlotte Gainsbourg, owning all of her music albums as well as a lot of her films. She and Kirsten Dunst often choose very interesting roles and generally I like the movies in which they appear, although there are of course some which don't cut it, and that's where Melancholia comes in...

The film begins with a very long drawn out slow motion introduction, with music, visuals and no dialogue whatsoever. I can appreciate the idea behind this style of introduction, but it doesn't seem to work as well as it does in Antichrist and in my opinion comes across as over-stylised filmmaking. Once the film finally does get going (and believe me it takes a while), you start to learn about the characters and their various problems, of which they seem to have many. As interesting as they might've seemed at first, by the end of the movie I really didn't relate to or care much about any of the characters in this film, in fact I thought that the best thing that could happen to them would be a very quick death to put them all out of their misery. Perhaps that's the point of the movie, but I really didn't have any emotional investment in it. To read some of the reviews on here, you'd think that this movie is some sort of masterpiece, but I can only assume those people were watching a different movie. You can read into a film all you like but no matter what you compare it to (mythology etc.) even if it was the intention of the director, if the film isn't any good then it isn't going to matter.

Visually the film is very impressive; there's little question that Lars Von Trier knows his stuff and is a talented director. There are some stunning shots and the quick-fire editing style (no doubt borrowed from Nicholas Roeg) does on occasion make a scene that little bit more poignant, although I'm inclined to suggest that it's used a little too much in this film. Technical excellence doesn't make a great movie though, and there are just so many other elements that this film is lacking. I don't often write reviews on here, but sometimes a film bothers me to such an extent that I'll take the time to do so, especially when I think the IMDb rating isn't what I expected. This is just one such movie, where I've found myself feeling totally empty at the end. I suppose you could argue that the film was supposed to make the viewer feel this way, in that they felt the pain of the characters, but that just sounds like an apologist's defence of a poor movie to me. If I really wanted to be depressed then I'd tell someone who hadn't seen the Phantom Menace that it was the best movie ever and then watch the look on their face as George's comedy sci-fi spoof played out (actually that sounds strangely entertaining in a sick sort of way, perhaps that film did leave me genuinely damaged). Some people will like Melancholia, particularly those who buy and own every film a particular director has made (in this case Lars Von Trier fans). I only own what I deem to be excellent or entertaining movies, so it doesn't matter if it's Spielberg, Hitchcock or Lars Von Trier for that matter – if the movie isn't good then on eBay it goes, and that's where this one is listed!

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

The best sci-fi comedy in years!

[1/10 · 25 June 2012]

The Phantom Menace is a sci-fi comedy spoof based on the Mel Brooks classic 'Spaceballs'. Many people (wrongly) thought that it was part of a prequel trilogy to the Star Wars movies, in which George Lucas had (allegedly) been involved in making many years ago, but anyone expecting a film like that would only be disappointed. The film isn't as serious as Spaceballs and it's also worth noting that the effects aren't as impressive, particularly the cartoon-style CGI, but this isn't a problem due to the comedic nature of the film; decent special effects would only have detracted from the gags and OTT acting. The movie pokes fun at the nonsensical storyline of Spaceballs by itself making very little sense at all, throwing in some humorous subplots about taxes and trade embargos for good measure.

The film was so successful that George managed to once again line his pockets by licensing merchandise based on the film, which is pretty funny when you consider the scene in Spaceballs where they look at Yogurt's cave; this brilliant sense of irony is just one of the many things that proves George to be a very clever man indeed. He must've had a lot of fun making this film and it shows, as there's almost nothing here which you could take even remotely seriously. This is probably my favourite comedy movie from that year, although the sequels weren't quite as good (apart from the 'noooooo!' scene in the final film, which is possibly the funniest thing to feature in a film, EVER).

Having read a lot of the reviews on IMDb, it disappoints me that so many people misunderstood what George was trying to achieve. Of course as a serious sci-fi movie this doesn't work, but the film was never supposed to have any artistic merit. So sit back and enjoy the brilliant film that George has made, and may the midi-chlorians be with you!

The Great White Hype (1996)

Very sharp boxing satire!

[8/10 · 8 May 2007]

Reading through the reviews on here, I can only assume that the humour in this film was wasted on a lot of people. Boxing is one of the few sports that translates well into the movies, with there being a decent number of great films based around the sport. This is slightly different to most however, as it takes a very humorous, cynical approach. There are so many memorable scenes and lines in the movie, right from the opening scene it's spot-on and I really can't work out where this criticism of the direction stems from! The fight scenes are over quickly and are nothing like the real thing - obviously - it's a comedy, not a documentary (sigh).

Like I said, I can only assume that the biting satire has been wasted on some viewers who were clearly expecting something different from the film. Each to their own, the film seems to have missed it's audience, but a 5 or 6 out of ten it certainly isn't! For me, it's definitely one of the better comedies out there. It's sharp, funny and well worth watching. 8 out of 10.

Rancid Aluminum (2000)

Waste of time

[1/10 · 4 April 2007]

Words really can't describe how bad this film is. I thought Zandalee was bad, but at least that had some nice shots and the occasional good chin stroking moment here and there to stop you from nodding off. This is just laughable! Terrible script, poor direction, awful acting and you know what? I can't think of a single thing to recommend about it other than the fact that it isn't too long. If you want 100 minutes worth of entertainment, book yourself in at the dentist and have some root canal work - far more enjoyable and much better value for money (assuming that you need it!). Incidentally, I need to type 10 lines of text to complete this review - PLEASE DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE. IT IS TERRIBLE!

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)

A great film - much better than the rating.

[8/10 · 19 October 2006]

I first watched this film when I was 10. My brother got a copy off a friend before it was in the cinema and it had all the scenes that were cut from the UK version (now seen in the DVD release) and the original ending. I later owned the cut UK version. I loved both versions, just as I loved the cartoon.

Last night I watched it with my nephew, a huge ninja turtles fan. I asked my sister if she minded him watching it, because he is young, but she said he'd be fine and I went through it with him before, telling him it's not real, they don't really kick each other etc. Just as I thought, he loved the film as much as I did when I first saw it. Having grown up watching Sesame Street and Rainbow, when I first saw the film I couldn't believe that there were actually turtles fighting on the screen in front of my very eyes, but I guess to my nephew it wasn't quite such a big deal. You don't even see the first fight scene (it's in the dark) and this is very deliberate, because at the time the director must've known that people would want to see the turtles, they'd want to see how they looked. When they do appear it's no disappointment! These effects are great and if I've said it once then I've said it a million times; a guy in a well made suit with time and care put in looks a billion times better than some useless CGI character designed by some company that are only in it for the money. Compare Ja Ja Binks with one of the turtles and you'll see the turtles look more real, because they're actually there and the light that is on them is real, the shadows are real - it looks believable. A lot of time and effort has gone into making their skin look just right and it shows. I've seen a lot of comments about lip-synching etc. It's a minor point, deal with it. I think it's only even noticeable in about two or three scenes and even then it isn't that bad.

My nephew was totally blown away by it. He loved the jokes, the fighting and I didn't hear any bad language (damn is only considered offensive if you're extremely religious). Anyone on here who slates the soundtrack is clearly on another planet. It was made in 1990! Listen to other music of the time - it's electronic, it's sharp, concise and it pulls no punches. I like the soundtrack, always have. It does what it's meant to. I'm sure people will look back on the 'urban'/'r&b' soundtracks to current releases in years to come and laugh at them (although I personally believe they should, because it isn't to my taste).

I've read a number of extremely positive reviews and a number of extremely negative reviews. I want to give it 10 because I'm certain that 5.9 isn't a fair reflection of the movie. I should give it 9.95 (if you know and enjoyed the movie, you'll appreciate that). Instead I've given it 8/10, which deep down is what I think it deserves. It's a great film that can be enjoyed by children and adults alike, the fight scenes are great, the camera work is needlessly good (they could've got away with much less effort), there's comedy, drama etc. It really is so much better than a lot of the CGI super hero movies out today and it's a shame that the sequels were so poor.

Garden State (2004)

Completely pointless

[1/10 · 21 September 2006]

It's very rare that I come away from a film feeling that it had absolutely no redeeming features. I can however say with all certainty that this is definitely one of them. It's got a horrible 'trendy' soundtrack, rubbish characters (Portman is irritating beyond belief) and I just can't understand why it even exists. I don't mind a love story; I like subtle ones as well as the cheesy stuff, but this is just useless. I'm sure some readers of the Guardian (lefty UK newspaper) will enjoy it, but that's by no means a recommendation...

It started off a bit 'Grosse Point Blank' like (although that is clearly a great movie), then it descended into a poor man's 'Lost in Translation'. Two people connecting... that's about all I got from this movie. The jokes aren't funny, in fact I did wonder at one point if I was even supposed to laugh! I feel sad that I wasted my time watching it and I sincerely hope that you don't make the same mistake. Why it has such a high rating on here, I'll never know, but at least it means I might get some money back selling it on eBay!

The Fan (1996)

Not great, but worth watching for DeNiro alone...

[7/10 · 6 September 2006]

I watched this film again yesterday for what is probably the fourth or fifth time. Firstly, it's not a great film, so if you demand 9/10 from a movie then this isn't for you. Also, although baseball is a very interesting sport to some, the great majority (particularly outside the US) just don't get it and are not interested in the sport. This undoubtedly will have an affect on some viewers' enjoyment of the film, although you could apply the psychology of it to any sport; it's just that a lot of people would need it to be based on a sport that they enjoy. Fair enough...

Bad bits: The part that Ellen Barkin plays is totally pointless and the film would be better without her. There are a few characters that are slightly annoying because they're playing into steretypes. The way the lead characters drive around in huge SUV's seems to be spot-on though and quite believable, although you have to question just how much Robert DeNiro's character is earning and why he lives in such a dump whilst owning such an expensive vehicle (although it does happen I know). There are a few bits that are difficult to believe, like the ending (it just seems to go a bit too far). But then to me, that's kind of the whole point of this film...

Good bits: It's fun! The ridiculous poem at the beginning sets the scene brilliantly - this is about someone who really cares about something. That doesn't make them an intelligent person, he isn't meant to be; hence the poem is a bad one.

Not every film needs to be ultra realistic. Like for example, why does the boss have a car door sat by the desk? Nobody would ever hold a sales meeting like that! My boss has never so much as spilt his tea or dropped a biscuit in such meetings. If you want this scene in ultra realistic format, watch Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glenross.

Why don't the police catch De Niro sooner? I don't want to go into details but at the end of the film, you can't help but think that real police procedure might be different (although not being a cop, I couldn't say that with authority). But who cares?! DeNiro is fantastic, fans like him DO exist and this sort of event has taken place before. Plus the music is brilliant, it has some great lines, they don't waste time with a pointless love interest and the film is short and to the point...

If you can accept films with a pinch of salt then you will enjoy this movie. The rating doesn't do it justice and I've seen so many films that are much worse with higher ratings. People who rate it 1/10 just because they don't like baseball should be stopped from reviewing. I don't like baseball, but I love movies!

Harsh Times (2005)

Did I see a different film dawg?

[5/10 · 29 August 2006]

Looking at the current rating of 7+, it's easy to believe that this is a good film. Please believe me, it isn't the case! No doubt a lot of people enjoyed it and this is often the case with new films on IMDb - lots of people overate new movies on here. I suppose that there's a good chance you'll like it because so many others have rated it so highly. But here are several good reasons not to like this film...

1) Stereotypes - it throws up every single stereotype you would care to imagine. It really isn't necessary, as most audiences are intelligent enough to relate to other people based on film content rather than basic characterisations. We all know what the hood is like, dawg.

2) Ridiculous dialogue - Yo' wassup daaaawg. All people have different ways of speaking, but this just sounds stupid. Even worse, if you're going to have such stupid dialogue then the least that could be done is to have an actor who is relatively unknown or can at least pull it off. Christian Bale just sounds like Christian Bale doing a stupid voice. However, I have added a mark for the best line in a film for ages - 'that was a serious breach of the homey code'. Absolute genius! What is the homey code? True gangster stuff, I'm sure.

3) Christian Bale - Even my brother, who liked the film more than I did - even he couldn't deny that Christian Bale seriously resembles Jim Carey from Me, Myself and Irene. The haircut is identical as well. I guess you can't level this as a criticism, but I did keep thinking it during the film and that was offputting!

Other than that, there was some ridiculous slow motion near the end, some pointless scenes and very little to rescue the film. Sometimes the film seemed like a spoof of itself, which I don't believe was the intention. In its defence, there were one or two powerful scenes and I do like the fact that there wasn't an obvious explanation for CB's relationship with the Mexican girl (most films would play on this).

I'm glad I saw it because otherwise I wouldn't have known how funny it was - but that doesn't make it a good film. 5/10 - an extra mark for the 'homey code' line, dawg.

Saw (2004)

Good, not brilliant

[7/10 · 29 August 2006]

Keeping it short, I have to say that there are many good things about this film. The storyline, the plot twists, the scares - all spot-on. If you like horror films and thrillers, you'll really like this regardless of what I'm about to add... there are just two things that let the film down:

1) Cary Elwes - Despite seeing him in a number of films, I still don't know how to pronounce his surname. Generally he's good in most films, (especially Glory), but in this his limitations really are shown. At the end of the film I was laughing because he had such trouble acting scared, which really detracted from the film. The fake stuttering is the worst part. It's not his fault, not everyone can act scared, but if you can't do it then you shouldn't appear in this kind of movie.

2) Cary Elwes' makeup - Maybe they wanted him to look like a distinguished doctor, who knows? To me he looks like someone threw a bag of flour over him. Rather than treating patients, it's easy to think that he actually spends most of his time baking cakes...

So overall, a very good film, but sadly let down by some minor (but in my opinion important) issues.