Change Your Image
bowmanblue
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Night Stalker (1972)
TV movies are not normally this good
In film-making terms the phrase 'made for TV' always brings up images of a low-budget movie with a sub-standard script and nothing really to elevate it to the heights of its theatrically-released 'betters.' It seems that whatever you read online about 'The Night Stalker' it seems to mention how it was made for TV and never released in a cinema - probably because it's actually pretty good and at least worthy of a small commercial release - especially around horror festivals and the like.
It's about vampires. And whether you've seen films regarding that particular fictional nasty for decades, or you're new to the genre, this one ticks every cliche going - and yet is also enormous fun at the same time. It kind of reminded me of 'Jaws' only with a human rather than a fish. In the same way the chief of police was running around trying to convince people of the impending shark attacks, only to be met with a wall of disbelief from the powers that be, here we have a grumpy journalist trying to warn the police of the undead threat that is currently stalking the streets of Las Vegas, picking off unsuspecting women and draining them of their blood.
Don't expect too many great special effects or action-packed set-pieces, but it comes in at a tight runtime of less than the usual ninety minutes and makes the most of every second. The ghoul who is chewing on so many young, innocent necks is actually quite creepy and the reporter on his trail is likable in his gruffness. It may be a little cheesy by today's standards, but it's great fun if you're into this sort of film.
Communion (1989)
Probably better 'pre X-files'
For those of you not glued to your TV screens every week in the nineties, 'The X-files' was a weekly show about two FBI agents who investigated the paranormal and, in particular, alien abductions. It ran for many seasons and, as the popularity began to wane, even became a little 'self-referential.' One of the lead actors states that 'alien abductions' have become to common in popular lore, that if you ask most people they'll be able to describe such an event.
Even my mum, who used to walk in and out of the room when I was watching the antics of Scully and Mulder, could probably tell you that thin, grey creatures with big black eyes whisked you up to their flying saucer and stuck implements up your... anyway, what I'm saying is that pretty much everyone knows what a stereotypical 'alien abduction' is comprised of.
However, back in 1989 before 'The X-files' made the genre so mainstream, you may not have been aware of this 'phernomanon.' And, because of this, 'Communion' may have actually been quite scary. Sadly, looking back at it from the far-flung future of 2024, it offers absolutely nothing new - let alone scary.
Yes, Christopher Walken is as watchable as ever, but, apart from him as the man at the centre of the alien abductions, it doesn't offer anything you probably haven't seen before. Apparently, it's based on a 'true' story. Whether you believe this sort of activity is 'true' or not is up to you. Personally, I see this film as either 'entertaining' or not. And, in my opinion, it's not that good.
Assuming you're not looking to watch roughly ten seasons of 'The X-files' to get a grip on what aliens have in store for us, if you're simply looking for another film that covers all this the I would recommend 'Fire in the Sky.' It's also supposed to be based on a 'real' encounter. Again, I won't say whether that's accurate or not, but it sure is certainly more creepy than 'Communion.'
I read online that Christopher Walken laughed when he saw the aliens' masks. I can't blame him. They're hardly in the same league as John Carpenter's classic 'The Thing' in terms of gruesomeness. The creatures' features don't move and therefore come across as little more than the rubber masks they actually are.
Overall, if you've never seen anything on alien abductions then this movie may offer the odd chill here and there and Walken is as good value for money as ever, but, apart from that, there's little here to recommend.
I Saw What You Did (1988)
Good concept, slow execution
Did I enjoy the TV movie 'I Saw What You Did?' Yeah, it was okay. In fact, there were some very nice moments - like the concept - kind of simple really in an almost 'Hitchcock-esque' style. Three young girls, while bored at a sleepover, play a prank phone call on a stranger. However, they get more than they bargained for when it turns out the stranger in question is a little more on the homicidal scale than your average prank-victim.
It's a set-up for a pretty good thriller; it's only flaw is that it never seems to get going. The first half is effectively built up. Yes, you certainly get to know the trio of girls and you get to know a fair bit about the life of the man who is going to be the central antagonist (plus you get David Carradine thrown in there for good measure - or a pay cheque). But it takes so long for their paths to cross - and therefore any major tension, that most of the film has gone by.
You can see what's coming a mile off in terms of the overall premise of the story, so you just want to get on to the 'high stakes' element of the film. However, even at the midway point where the two groups interact, it all fizzles out again and everyone goes their separate ways.
It's not until literally the final act until the tension is really utilised. Like I say, it's not a terrible movie, but I just felt it could have been better and - perhaps worse still - I really wanted it to be better and a little faster paced. I guess there are those who will appreciate the 'slow burn' of it all and, for those, I'm glad there are those out there who could like it more for what it was.
I guess if you're in the mood for something that's 90% build-up and only a little bit 'thrilling' then this is certainly the one for you. Just know what you're in for before you sit down.
Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace (1995)
Nineties predictions of the future of the internet
I remember when the original 'Lawnmower Man' film came out. There was quite a lot of hype surrounding it. Not only was it based on a Stephen King book, but it was also the first film that heavily relied on virtual reality (I don't think the original 'Tron' counted!). However, it never really set the Box Office ablaze as many thought it should. It just kind of faded out of the public consciousness, so any sequel that came after was always destined to be a 'straight to video' affair.
I'm not really sure why this film was made. It's a bit of a 'nothing-burger' really. And, not only does it effectively fall flat at every turn, but it also ignores much of what happened in the original. A group of generic nineties bad guys in suits have brought Jobe (the guy who mowed lawns in the first movie, before he got a 'cyberspace upgrade' and tried to take over the world) back to life and now he wants to get into cyberspace to take over the world? Hang on, didn't he achieve that in the first one? Never mind. Now, discount version of the original's star Pierce Brosnan must team up with the kid from 'Last Action Hero' and stop him.
I guess I should point out that, due to the story's content, a lot of computer special effects are needed for the plot - and, believe it or not, they don't look that bad.
Single compliment over - the rest of the tale is just bland. If you - like most people - haven't already forgotten the first 'Lawnmower Man' then you'll definitely forget this one. About the main fun you can have with it is laughing at how you can now apply modern day internet technology (and the fears surrounding being online) to the villainous plots the bad guys had in this film. Wouldn't it be terrible if people when online all over the world and ended up feeling 'disconnected' with their fellow real humans? Thanks, social media. And wouldn't it be terrible if you went online and had to hand over all your private details for using this website or that. Thanks, cookies.
Anyway, taking the tragically depressing irony aside, there's not much here worth recommending.
Dead Space (1991)
Warning: Do no eat Walter White
There are some sci-fi films like 'Star Wars, Aliens' and 'Terminator 2' - all created before (or in) 1991. All of which are timeless and even look better than some movies and TV shows today. So, if they could produce something so great, you'd think that other movies could at least try and get a little bit close to their look and feel.
It's effectively an 'Alien' rip-off, i.e. A giant monster running round a space base (instead of the Nostromo spaceship) and gradually killing off the cast one by one. Only, instead of Sigourney Weaver running around with a cat and a flamethrower, you have Marc Singer ('V' and 'Beastmaster') wielding a puny pistol while protecting a crew of expendables dressed in true nineties wardrobe, plus an early role from Walter White himself, Bryan Cranston (who - believe it or not - manages to actually turn in a good performance with the dire script he's given).
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed 'Dead Space.' And, just to prove it, I'm going to basically list all (well, nearly all - there are probably quite a few I've forgotten) the things wrong with it.
It looks cheap. The sets are all just darkened rooms that could be the drama hall in your local senior school, just with added smoke to hide the lack of details sets.
The monster looks good. It's practical effects, but the problem is that the puppeteers don't seem to know how best to make it move. Therefore when it's on screen and shown in all its glory, it's sort of anchored to a wall with only its limbs flailing, meaning characters have to actually run towards it and let it catch them, rather than be mercilessly pursued by it.
The script is basically what you'd expect from a first-time film-studies student would write. There's nothing new and only the better actors - or should that be just ACTOR - Bryan Cranston - can make work.
The 'droid' is goofy. Again, he mask actually looks okay, but when he stands up you can clearly see it's just a man in an - albeit decent - mask.
Much of the gore is ripped from 'Alien' with the obligatory 'chestbursting' scene.
So, with all this that's wrong with it, why did I like it? Because it's dumb, cheesy and generally fun. It's not really self-knowing, but it's just a relic of a bygone age and, if you're in the mood for - yet another - 'Alien' rip-off, then this one will kill an hour and a half (or if you just want to see what Bryan Cranston had to do to earn a living before he hit the big time in 'Breaking Bad' then this is amusing).
Island Claws (1980)
If you do spot a crab... you must have better eyesight than me
I always feel bad when I rip on a B-movie. Most of the films in my DVD collection involve daft rubbery monsters and screaming victims. It's safe to say I don't consider myself to have a 'high bar' in terms of the movies I like and, as long as they can entertain me in one way or another, then I'm happy.
'Island Claws' is about a swarm of killer crabs on an island. Now, I've seen plenty of normal animals, always mutated to giant levels, stalking various hapless residents. So, when that's your kind of thing, killer crabs actually sound like fun.
Only there's no actual kills for roughly the first forty-five minutes and, I know the production budget isn't huge, but you'll see where it's been spent on when it comes to our clawed antagonists. There's lots of them. Some footage of real crabs has been interwoven with the anamatronic crabs created just for this. And the puppet crabs look good. In other words the look like regular crabs. But I was kind of hoping for more. Okay, so in the final act we got a - long overdue - giant crab, but there could have been at least one who shoots laser beams from his eye stalks, or something. Did I expect too much?
So the side-crawlers aren't up to much, but I guess they're a little more interesting than the humans who run around in the dark trying not to get their toes pinched by these clawed menaces.
In short, not much happens. Yes, it's a B-movie, so most of us don't expect Oscar-worthy performances, but, for all its eighties cheesiness, it's just not that fun to watch. I know remakes are often looked down on, but this is the rare occasion where I'd actually like to see one. Killer crabs is a good - but completely - silly, idea. So if it was done with a slightly higher budget and a script which knows it's tongue-in-cheek then you could actually be left with something that's quite fun.
Alien from L.A. (1988)
What actually happens?
Do you ever watch a film and really want to enjoy it a lot more than you actually did? In 'Alien From L. A.' I'm certain there's a good movie in there somewhere, but it seems to not know what to do with its own idea. It's about a geeky teenage girl from L. A. who, while looking for her missing scientist-father, falls through the Earth's core into the sub-terrainian world of 'Atlantis.' Yes, the plot is a little far-fetched, but this was the eighties and there were many a tale from that era which you had to suspend your disbelief to truly get the most out of.
Now, I don't know whether I'm being unfair on the version of the film I watched (it was on a streaming service and therefore not a 'bought' copy such as DVD or Blu-ray), but there was something really wrong with the sound. The dialogue was really hard to hear while the soundtrack blared out, obscuring what few words I could actually make out.
If that wasn't bad enough, the main character has an annoying voice. And, no, I'm not just being cruel to the actress (who's actually a model in real life!) who plays her - it's part of the story and many characters remark on it. And they're not wrong. It's the vocal version of 'nails on a chalkboard.'
But it's not all bad. The sets and the costumes found within the mysterious underground world are pretty well done, plus the direction and shots make the most of the sets and give off a nicely dystopian environment.
And so our squeaky protagonist must find her father and avoid the authorities who are looking for the titular 'alien' among their population. And she sort of does that, meandering from one close encounter with those trying to stop her to the next. Rinse and repeat.
Therefore, not an awful not a lot happens and that's the film's biggest crime. What could have been a nice, cheesy eighties family adventure becomes little more than a slog with some nice sets (and a badly-mixed audio track).
It's not terrible-terrible, certainly just about watchable, but it's just a shame that it probably should have been more of a cult classic than it actually was.
Howling III (1987)
Pretty painful
I don't expect much from the third instalment in an eighties horror franchise about werewolves, but I at least hope to be entertained - even if it's on a 'so-bad-it's-good' level, I can happily laugh my way through many a dire, low budget slasher film. However, this one was just bad from the start.
I know, I know, but honestly, I really don't want to be overly harsh, but I just can't think of anything good to say about it. The acting - bad. I don't expect A-list Oscar-winning actors to be in a film like this, but the line delivery was either wooden, or the character was just chewing up the scenery to an almost comedic level. And, because it's set in Australia, there seems to be every Australian cliche thrown in there to remind you exactly where it's set.
And, I'm aware that this film isn't meant to be taken completely seriously. There's definitely a little 'self knowing' about it. And for that I understand there will be those that definitely think I'm being too down on it, but it just wasn't good. The plot revolves around an Australian girl who has lived in the Outback until her early adulthood, only to run away to Sydney and become an actress in - you guessed it - a low budget horror film. Oh, and the Men in Black (sort of) are after her.
There's no real gore, the werewolf make-up effects (i.e. A bloke in a suit) are pretty terrible and you definitely won't find anything here to be scared of. Perhaps the worst thing that really took me out of the movie was the sets. Apart from the outdoor shots of the city, every inside scene appeared to be set in someone's living room with a different coloured curtain draped over the background and a few lights shining through.
The first 'Howling' film was genuinely enjoyable. The second was campy fun (and it had Christopher Lee in!), but this one just doesn't have anything going for it. Pity. Sorry to all those who actually enjoyed it, but I couldn't be forgiving with this one.
Howling II: Stirba - Werewolf Bitch (1985)
Charmingly cheesy
Werewolf movies have a tendency not to be taken that seriously, even in the - slightly more generous - horror community. Most people tend to see 'The Howling' as a classic of the genre, so naturally it was always going to get a sequel. I watched the entire thing and I still can't quite tell whether it's actually a 'self-knowing parody' of the genre, or whether it's trying to be serious.
It starts off with a funeral where Christopher Lee (effectively playing Christopher Lee) gatecrashes a funeral where he tells a grieving man that his sister in the coffin was a werewolf and now needed to be killed (again - properly). Skip forward a few minutes and the two men (plus a woman who looks like a discount version of Jamie Lee Curtis) are off to Eastern Europe to hunt the Queen werewolf.
So the bulk of the movie is set in a land where the locals tend to speak like 'Borat' from the comedy series of the same name and our protagonists are repeatedly threatened by a series of rubbery monsters. And that's about it.
The good: the effects aren't that bad. They're practical, as was the style of the time and nicely gory for the budgetary constraints and what they're supposed to be. Plus you have Christopher Lee, whose mere presence can elevate even the most average of films to be at least watchable.
The bad: Lee's two young 'sidekicks' are pretty bland and forgettable. Plus the tone of the film is a bit hit and miss. Like I say, sometimes things feel about as serious as a Roger Moore James Bond film. Other times the film really does seem like it wants to be taken seriously in the scares department.
It's no classic, but it's definitely watchable. If you're generally a fan of cheesy eighties horror films, werewolves or Christopher Lee then you'll get more out of it than most. Oh, and it does have more different types of 'screen wipes' than I've ever seen in any other film.
Mac and Me (1988)
Help me. I liked this
I guess there comes a point in your life where you realise that maybe you just have no taste. 'Mac and Me' is terrible. It was terrible when it was first released. It was so terrible it gained infamy throughout the years as to how a movie so terrible could have been greenlit in the first place. And it remains as terrible today. I did see it back in the eighties. I didn't like it. I didn't hate it, but there was so much better around and 'E. T.' was only a few years old by then and 'Mac and Me' was just nowhere near as good as it.
I don't know why I watched it nearly thirty-five years later (free on YouTube!), but I actually liked it. Yes, I know there are loads of films which you can enjoy because they're 'so bad they're good.' And this could definitely be described that way. I could leave it there if it wasn't for the fact that, even though I could tell it was awful, I actually found myself enjoying it UNironically (I need help, clearly).
Even if you haven't seen 'E. T.' you probably know the story - cute alien left stranded on Earth, befriends a young boy (government in hot pursuit). Well, someone must have copied and pasted that in terms of 'Mac and Me,' but without the decent script, special effects (and possibly been high on some sort of illegal substance at the time).
I think maybe the major 'flaw' with the film (in 1988 and today) is its weird tie-in with McDonalds restaurant - get the title - (Big) 'Mac and Me?' Yet, for a movie which literally uses a product as its title, there's actually not that many references to the fast food chain, besides the truly surreal song and dance routine roughly halfway through. In fact, if I didn't know better, I'd say the film should really be sponsored by Coke a Cola.
I can't possibly recommend this film to anyone. Objectively, it's that bad. Obviously, if you're into those sorts of 'so-bad-they're-good' films then you may enjoy it on an ironic level. But I think there will be few out there who - like me - actually claim it's an enjoyable romp, no matter how bad it really is. I'm now off to seek some sort of professional help for my clear lack of taste.
The Brain (1988)
Probably better than Shakespeare
I confess - I haven't read anything by the - arguably - greatest writer who's ever lived since I was at school nearly forty years ago, so the title may be a slight exaggeration. All I know is that I was bored senseless reading about Romeo and Juliet whereas I was thoroughly entertained by possibly one of the most stupid films I've ever seen.
A giant monstrous brain (with a scary face!) is using the signal from a local television show in order to take over the world. Or something. Only one local teenage tearaway seems potentially unaffected by the hideous organ's superpowers and can therefore save the human race.
Did I mention this movie is daft? It is. In fact it's got to be one of the greatest films in its league. And by that I don't mean it's a classic of narrative storytelling and should be remembered in the same lines as 'The Godfather.' No, 'The Brain' is in a totally different league of films that are just so bad they're good. Only this one is probably more so stupid it's good.
The acting is questionable, the plot relies on major coincidences and lacks of logic to move it along and the characters are totally dumb whenever the story requires them to be. Although, genuine kudos to the film-makers for making the 'brain' itself actually quite cool - or rather disgusting, which I guess is the same thing when you're making a horror film.
So, if you're looking for something completely dumb which you just want to rest your brain to while you laugh at, put 'The Brain' on. Although please don't hold me responsible for any lack of brain cells lost to your own grey matter in the hour and a half runtime it lasts. My own brain wasn't up to much to begin with.
Greenland (2020)
Armageddon it is not
I probably shouldn't have watched this film so close to 'Armageddon' - a classic 'dumb-fun' B-movie from the nineties. 'Greenland' is a modern take on a comet about to crash into the Earth, potentially wiping out the entire human race - and this time Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck weren't on hand to help out.
This time it's much more of a personal tale. It's ultimately about a family coming together and trying to cross America (and later the world!) in order to reach a safe bunker in (you guessed it) Greenland. Gerard Butler plays a father who's separated from his wife and son, but, during the story, he needs to reconnect with his family as well as ensuring their safety.
Thinking about it... it's almost like to 'disaster movies' what Tom Cruise's 'War of the Worlds' take was to 'alien invasion' movies. It's a film where you could rely on big budget special effects and set pieces, or you could use the situation simply as a backdrop to the life of one particular set of people and how they act during the carnage.
So, whether you'll enjoy it kind of depends on what you're looking for. If you're hoping for something really spectacular with loads of special effects and visual destruction (not to mention cheesy over-the-top action) then I'd definitely recommend 'Armageddon.' However, if you're looking for more of a drama then this is worth giving a go. There are a few moments of destruction (albeit some that are blatantly low-budget computer-generated) and even one that actually stood out as quite dramatic, but it's more of a drama than all out popcorn epic.
Barbarian (2022)
Delightfully twisty
I'm pretty sure every review of 2022's 'Barbarian' mentions 'Psycho,' so I'll get the comparisons out the way early. It's a horror film that effectively has one long portion of the film (the first act, basically) specifically following certain characters, only for what seems like a completely different story to kick off midway through, giving most people a sense of confusion at how what they've just witnessed is related to what's happening right now.
In the classic 'Psycho' the trick was pulled by having the 'star' get murdered halfway through, bringing us - the audience - to the realisation that, actually, she wasn't the star and the new people we're going to follow through the final half is in fact the ultimate protagonist.
In 'Barbarian' - which I read online is a very loose anagram of the word 'air B and B' - two strangers find, by a 'coincidence' that they've accidentally been booked into the same property at the same time. Seeing as they both appear to be decent folk, they decide to spend the night there and sort it out with the owners in the morning. Only the house has a few secrets of its own.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film, largely because it was a rare occasion where I genuinely didn't know where it was going. Most 'run-of-the-mill' slasher films follow a set pattern of genre cliches and you know who out of the main cast will be the 'final girl.' However, here you really didn't know what the deal was when it came to the threat and how it came to be and, what's more, how is going to make it out alive - if any!
I don't know whether 'Barbarian' will remain up there with the best horror films as the years go by and cement itself as a long-standing classic. It's pretty gruesome in place and I don't just mean in term of (practical - no computer-generated, thank goodness) gore, but also some genuinely sick imagery and things the protagonists have to do to survive. But, if you're looking for something that's actually gone to the effort of trying to be different in terms of the scares it gives you, this is definitely above most of today's horror offerings.
The Northman (2022)
Brutal and brilliant
Wow, I really didn't know what I was in for when I sat down to watch this. I'll confess... I didn't know much about 'The Northman' and kind of figured it was a bit of a 'sword and sorcery' tale. It isn't. Or is it?
It's about a young Viking prince who's father is murdered by his jealous uncle who then goes on to enslave his mother and take his father's kingdom. So, as spurned princes need to do, he has to grow up, get totally pumped up and go on a 'Kill Bill-esque' rampage of revenge.
The thing you need to know about this is just how brutal it is. You may have seen 'Game of Thrones' and thought... yeah, that was pretty dark, I think I can guess what 'The Northman' is going to be like. You're probably wrong. 'The Northman' is ten times more bloodthirsty.
And it's long. It's over two hours, but it doesn't drag. It's not just the acting that's great here, but also the scenery and direction that makes it epic. I understand from what I've read online that the film-makers tried to make the look and feel as accurate as possible with costumes etc, but - at the same time - it does kind of play into the supernatural - just a little.
You need to know what you're in for if you choose to watch this and, despite how you'll probably root for the hero and his cause etc, there's not really any - truly - good people during this time period, as the film just tries to depict how savage the world was back then.
If you have a strong stomach and want to see the way - some of us - lived back then, this one is really awesome.
Plane (2023)
Bulletproof aviation
A YouTube film reviewer who I normally trust described 2023's 'Plane' as a nineties-style action film in the modern era and generally sung its praise. So, seeing as movies of that genre are a real nostalgic favourite of mine, I figured I'd give this one a go.
I can see where the reviewer was coming from. It's a pretty simply plot - passenger plane pilot (Gerard Butler) crashes his jumbo jet on a remote island, whose only real population seems to be terrorists. Naturally, the passengers are taken hostage and it's up to Butler and another passenger (Mike Colter) to get them out alive.
Yeah, it's fun. But - and maybe this is just my biased, nostalgic view - those action films of the nineties (i.e. 'The Rock' and 'Speed' etc) seemed to get going right from the beginning and never take their foot off the brake until the credits rolled. With 'Plane' you can pretty much scroll through your favourite social media site on your phone while the first half of the story plays out. Really not much happens. Of course the action really gets going in the second half, but you can effectively skip everything until the passengers are actually taken hostage.
The villains are pretty much cookie-cutter stereotypes - simply 'evil dudes' being evil. One even started to make me laugh because every time he was on screen he scowled to such a degree he might as been wearing an 'angry mask.' The other - minor - gripe was during the end. As I elude to in this review's title, the plane is kind of 'bulletproof.' I don't know anything about planes or how they work, but I'm pretty sure you can't really fly with an entire army's bullets slugged into your windshield, but - hey - never mind.
There's nothing majorly new about 'Plane,' but if you can find it for cheap (or on streaming service) and you generally like all-out action then it's definitely worth a go - especially for the gunfight at the very end and an awesome 'sniper-style' rifle that generally makes mincemeat of the bad-guys.
Totally Killer (2023)
The good outways the bad
The thing with time travel movies is that they rarely make sense. If you're so inclined, you can tear apart even the biggest classics from the genre, such as 'The Terminator' and 'Back to the Future.' Yes, time travel isn't real and therefore doesn't have any official 'rules' so it's up to you to decide what makes sense. And, as 'Totally Killer' shamelessly admits to, it's basically 'Back to the Future' (but with serial killers). And, what's more it doesn't make sense in terms of physics.
So, you can either hate it for it's lack of scientific inaccuracies, or you can simply enjoy it for being a fun ride which satires everything from social attitudes from the present day compared to the eighties, to horror/slasher films in general. I chose the latter. And I enjoyed it a lot.
Let's just ignore the 'time travel mechanics' itself. You don't need to know how she does it, but our young protagonist somehow finds herself taken from her 'safespace' of 2023 all the way back in time to the 'hedonistic' eighties. There, she finds that a serial killer is still on the loose and that she now has the power to stop him - and potentially mess up her parents ever getting together, thus erasing her entire existence. Did I mention it was like 'Back to the Future?' I think I did. The film also isn't ashamed to admit that it's effectively using the same template, but adding a 'slasher' element to the story.
So, what you're left with is a 'meta' slasher film where the protagonist has all the knowledge of thirty years ahead of where she finds herself, combined with knowing how these types of films normally play out. Therefore a lot of the gags come in the form of the juxtaposition of the eighties vs present day and real life vs how people act in horror films.
Out of all the run-of-the-mill horror films you'll find on streaming services this one is that rare type where you might actually remember something about it after the credits have rolled. Like I say, it isn't perfect, but it's as enjoyable as you'll let it be. If you recall how the eighties were (like me - I'm old) and you know all the conventions of a slasher film then you'll definitely get more out of it than most.
Boss Level (2020)
So much fun
I'm about to get rid of my Amazon Prime account, so I decided I better watch some of the films that have been languishing on my watchlist for some time. I'm so glad I watched this one before I lose access.
Yes, it's another take on the tried and tested 'Groundhog Day' formula, so if you have a problem with other movies that copy the 'repeated day' style of film-making, then you might not enjoy this. However, I've never had a problem with them and I definitely love some old 'nineties style' over-the-top action.
In fact, while we're on the subject of the nineties, if you believe what's written about this film online you'll see that the script has been kicking around Hollywood since the nineties and it's only just made its way onto the screen. I can actually see that being true as it's so over-the-top in its action that it's right up there with similar classics of the genre, like 'Con Air, Speed' and 'The Rock.'
Here, a special forces agent repeatedly wakes up on the same day where he finds a whole army of assassins trying - and succeeding - to kill him. He's murdered - in variously grisly ways - again and again and has to go on reliving the day until he can figure out what's going on - and obviously find a way of not just reversing this bizarre situation, but also rekindling his relationship with his estranged girlfriend and son.
Yeah, you'll probably see a lot of what coming, coming - if you know what I mean. I'm not sure how many times I can use the phrase 'over-the-top' in this review, but it's what really should be rubberstamped on this one. Have you seen any of those old Jason Statham films like 'The Transporter' or 'Crank?' Well 'Boss Level' is kind of set in that universe, if that's any help.
Don't expect a masterpiece, just enjoy having fun.
Dug Up (2013)
Why bother?
I know this film was made in 2013 and 'Shaun of the Dead' was in 2004, but either way, both movies were released during the 'renaissance' of the zombie era. The difference is that 'Shaun of the Dead' was one of the first flicks (of the time) to mix zombie-horror and comedy and it was funny, endearing and well-written. Jump forward nearly a decade and 'Dug Up' in also a comedy-horror film set during an undead uprising. And it's not that bad. It's just not that good, either.
If we say - speaking generally - that 2002's 'Resident Evil' (movie) started the modern obsession with zombies, then now - over twenty years later - we've seen almost every different type of take on the subject matter. If you want a 'straight' zombie-horror, then you have everything from Romero's films, to 'The Walking Dead' TV series, or '28 Days Later.' Whereas, if you're looking for something similar, but more light-hearted then you'd - most likely - choose 'Shaun of the Dead.' And, let's pretend that 'Shaun' didn't exist and you asked me - now, in 2024 - to name my 'Top 20 zombie comedy films' I could probably do that and give you a load of movies you probably haven't heard of, but all have laughs at the expense of some shuffling ghouls.
And that's where the problem lies. Even if I had to list twenty zombie-comedies, 'Dug Up' still wouldn't be included. You'll notice I'm not really telling you much about the plot. That's because there isn't one. It's merely one of many similar films which tries to be funny and original, but just can't really offer anything that you haven't seen before.
There's some brief nudity in the opening act, if that's any incentive for you to watch it. But I found it on a streaming service and happened to pause it to go to the kitchen. I figured it must be about halfway (forty-five minutes) through and was amazed when I saw I was only twenty minutes in.
Like I say, it's not terrible. If you really want to watch about 'Number Thirty' in the top hundred list of best zombie-comedy films then this is it. Otherwise, simply stick to 'Shaun' - chances are you already own a copy in your DVD collection.
The Furies (2019)
Those dastardly ol' men
Men, don't you just hate them? All they do all day is kidnap helpless women then hunt them for sport and brutally murder them. Well... it seems on whatever planet 'The Furies' is set they do. And, judging by the accents of the poor helpless females, constantly on the run from the variety of masked axe-wielding psychopaths, the 'planet' is called 'Australia' (even though I spent several months backpacking there about twenty years ago and never killed anyone while I was there - guess it must have changed a lot since 2002).
You could probably say that this film really doesn't like men much and portrays them in a negative light. Then came 2023's 'Barbie: The Movie,' which took that to a whole new level, so no matter how badly men men come across in 'The Furies,' they're still head and shoulders over a 'Ken' or two.
I could continue to stay on my soap box, banging on about how much the film bashed men and portrayed them in a negative light. Or I could just shut up and enjoy the film. I chose the latter. All political messages aside - no matter how 'in your face' they may be - it's just a cheesy horror film and you can turn it off any time you like. I didn't. Because it was actually quite good fun.
When I sit down to a horror film I don't ask for much. I know I'm probably not going to get deep character arcs and amazing performances, but I do want to be entertained. And this entertained me. It's got some nice practical gore which is pretty nasty. I know that a lot of people have likened this movie to things like 'The Hunger Games' and other stories which centre around hunting innocent people for 'sport.' Yeah, there's nothing that original in the premise, but it's nicely done here and there are a few nice little touches here which give it the odd unique quality. Plus the central character is likable. She's not drastically overpowered for no reason and fights off hordes of men much bigger than her. She really does have to fight for the right if she's going to achieve the 'honour' of being the 'final girl.'
Overall, it's a fun little horror film. Maybe it's got a few 'right on' messages which you can either take to heart, or just let ride over you and enjoy a well-crafted little horror film.
Howl (2015)
Who says B-movies are dead?
As the title - semi - suggests, 2015's 'Howl' is about werewolves - not always the easiest of monsters to fit into a horror film, simply because they normally take more special effects/money to make believable and - perhaps more importantly - scary. However, it's nice to see a low budget movie do the best with its limited budget and actually pull off something quite special - at least in terms of B-movies.
'Howl' may not have the action and 'gung-ho-ness' of 'Dog Soldiers' (my personal favourite werewolf movie!), but it still works. Late one night, a train travelling out of London, gets stuck in the countryside and, as well as the buffet car being closed, it just so happens that a pack of werewolves are outside due to the full moon.
So, what you're left with is a tale with a - reasonably generic - plot, i.e. Survivors making a stand in a one location (in this case, a stranded commuter train). At this point it could just fall into that oh so forgettable category of so many similar films. But here the writing is good enough to elevate it above so many others. The first major plus point is that the characters aren't complete stereotypes. Yes, they may be a little one-dimensional, but when compared to other 'monster-fodder' in such films, they're actually a lot more 'fleshed-out' than many such characters in monster movies. Even the obligatory 'bad guy' among the group is memorable and you'll be waiting for him to finally get what's coming to him.
Then there are the creatures themselves. Maybe for budget reasons, the film-makers have leant more into 'lycanthropy' being more a mutation to regular humans, rather than transforming them into fully-fledged monsters. Therefore, the film doesn't rely on cheesy computer-generated effects which take you out of the story.
Like I say, 'Howl' may not be - quite - as much fun as 'Dog Soldiers' (which really did raise the bar in terms of werewolf movies), but it's definitely a fun film if you like the genre and well worth a watch.
Freeze (2022)
I seemed to like it more than most
Found this low budget horror film on a streaming service and decided to watch it. And I'm glad I did. It was only now I've come to review it did I find how much of the minority I seem to be. I'm guessing it's set about 100-150 years ago when a sail-ship takes an expedition to the North Pole in order to find a previous lost vessel. Naturally, they find something pretty nasty waiting to take a bite out of them in the frozen wastelands.
As I say, it's low budget. Don't expect any amazing set pieces, but what I enjoyed was the cast. They were older than your average cast of a modern horror film. Most cases have actors barely out of their late teens cast in roles which should really go to middle aged people. Here, I actually believed that the men on the crew were hardened sailors - especially the captain himself, who I was really rooting for.
Now, don't think that I'm saying that everything is perfect here. The monsters are nice - for the budget, but they're basically men in costumes and the lack of movement was really visible when the creatures had to attack humans. Because the monsters' mouths obviously weren't designed to move and be seen to take bites out of people, they just sort of rub their hideous, slimy faces against the people. It was actually quite comical, unfortunately.
Plus there's a woman on board. Yes, the 'in story' explanation is that she's a stowaway, but her character seems really out of place, like she's had Ripley's ('Alien' franchise) personality imprinted on her. She even tapes two guns together in a weird throwback to that classic scene from 'Aliens.' It's very out of place.
Then you have the human antagonist of the film, who chews up every piece of scenery even harder than any beastie could. He's more evil than a thousand Dr Evils and he shows it.
Yet, I watched it right until the end. I actually enjoyed it. It had its flaws, but the casting and story was different enough to keep me entertained. Although, perhaps its strongest 'selling point' (for me!) was that it was set a long time in the past and this is the first new horror film I've seen in a while where the teens don't have to point out that their cell phones don't have any reception.
Drainiac! (2000)
I don't know what I was expecting
I've decided that any film whose title is effectively a pun really is not going to live up to much. 'Drainiac!' is one hell of a low-budget horror film which tries its best to add some humour into the bargain. It's fair to say that it succeeds and fails in everything it tries to do.
A house is possessed and the teenagers who are trying to clean it fall foul of the entity lurking in the building's pipes. It may have a low budget, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the script has to be bad. However, here's it's pretty amateur at best. Sometimes the dialogue really grates as some words are used again and again. Plus the characters are pretty one dimensional. You'll know whether someone is going to make it or not simply because they're completely unlikable from the moment they appear on screen.
Although, props to the film-makers when it came special effects. There's some computer work done here and there (which is a bit ropey), but the majority is actually in the form of the lost art of 'stop motion' and it's actually quite inventive and makes the most out of the limited budget.
I think I laughed about once at some lines which were supposed to be humorous, but quite often the laughs fell foul. Plus the kids seemed to be quite casual about the situation they found themselves in, laughing and joking almost right up until the end. There's some nudity thrown in there, too. It's pretty unnecessary in terms of the plot, but I'm guessing the scene will certainly appeal to some people.
Overall, the film's okay. I may be dwelling on the negatives, but I could have turned it off at any point and I didn't. That's more than I can say for a fair few horror films I've had the misfortune to stumble on via streaming services. Can't think of anything to particularly recommend this one for, but it's not as terrible as it could have been. I guess the title still amuses me.
Bong of the Living Dead (2017)
Hit and miss (but more hits, I guess)
Due to nearly fifty years of watching zombie movies, me and my friends have spent many drunken evenings rambling about what we'd do should the undead ever rise and threaten what little brains we have. 'Bong of the Living Dead' is almost my life story after a few pints (only minus the actual ghouls).
Six friends, all of which are well versed in 'zombie lore,' find they are actually caught up in an apocalyptic situation when the dead rise from their graves and start biting anyone with a heartbeat. For a fan of the genre, there was a lot to enjoy. Zombies have been back in fashion for a couple of decades now and even my mum knows that if one should show up, all you have to do is destroy the brains and you're okay. Therefore, I've kind of grown tired of other films where characters see a zombie and spend half the film shooting and attacking them in every part of their body apart from the head - until they finally figure it out.
This story skips all that and spends its time poking fun of the conventions and cliches that come with the genre. And it's all good. In fact, some of the 'in-jokes' and 'movie-related' meta humour is some of the highlights. However, it had its drawbacks. Namely one character who seems to be in the first half a lot more than he's in the second. He just chews the scenery at every opportunity and if I was forced to survive the zombie apocalypse with him I'd happily offer my tasty brain to the first flesh-eater who was passing my whichever shopping mall I was holding up in. Secondly, there's a woman who - and this could just be me - I couldn't understand. She seemed to mumble all her lines and I had to keep rewinding the film to try and make out what she was on about.
Secondly, don't try to apply too much logic to this film. I guess it's all about the gags over the story. First of all the humans seem to be well on top of the situation and the jokes stem from how everyone knows what to do therefore our protagonists' skills aren't needed. Then it's like you turn over two pages at once and humanity has been wiped out, besides our stoner household.
Anyway, I'm just being picky. If you're into your zombie movies and want to see a movie that is funny as it pokes fun of the genre, give this one a try. Or just put 'Shaun of the Dead' on again - it's up to you.
Satanic Panic (2019)
Crazily amusing
I came up with the title to this review about three quarters of the way through the film. I was really quite enjoying the stupidly-horrific black comedy. However, the last act kind of let it down, but that's not as bigger negative as it could have been.
It's about a pizza delivery girl who regrets delivering to a well-to-do mansion, only to find it's the setting of a devil worshiping cult, hell bent on ushering in the next age of darkness. Oh, and they're looking for a virgin. And would you believe it, but the pizza delivery girl is a very - er - 'nice' young lady who just so fits the bill.
The bulk of the film is about the cult chasing her round the neighbourhood. It's not an overly-long movie (and it doesn't need to be) and it moves nicely from one gory and over-the-top set-piece to the next. It's actually quite fun, never really taking itself too seriously and definitely fitting into the 'black comedy' area of the horror genre. However, the story's best assets are its characters. The primary protagonist is very down-to-earth and very easy to root for. Contrast this to the cult themselves who are deliciously over-the-top and evil, making a nice, simple contrast for the conflict which follows.
Overall, it was a lot of fun to watch. But I did mention the ending. I saw another couple of reviews mentioning they had problems with the endings. And I get where they're coming from. It's not a terrible ending which ruins the overall film, it just sort of comes out of nowhere and doesn't really feel like it was part of everything which had come before. It's literally the last ten minutes, so, up until then, it's all good, daft, horrific fun, so don't let the 'left turn' that sort of comes out of nowhere spoil an otherwise enjoyable horror B-movie.
Armageddon (1998)
Yeah, I know it's dumb, but...
I remember watching 'Armageddon' back in the cinema back in 1998 (and probably on VHS soon afterwards). And I enjoyed it. It was fun. And that was about all I really had to say about it. I don't know why after nearly thirty years I decided that I needed to watch it again, but - for some reason I can't explain - it hit me on so many different levels.
No, I'm not saying it's an intellectual film with deep themes and layers. I still think it's dumb fun - an asteroid is hurtling towards Earth, destined to wipe us all out and NASA's best plan is to send a rag-tag group of oil drillers led by Bruce Willis to plant a bomb on it before it hits us. Yeah, I know - don't think about anything 'physics-related' when you watch this or you'll turn it right off.
Somewhere along the timeline of movie-making, Hollywood seemed to have stopped caring about good old-fashioned harmless fun (no matter how daft the premise!) and gave us dreary, tired and depressing tales of miserable people.
Michael Bay gets a lot of flack these days (mainly for butchering 'Transformers' lore!), but sometimes we forget just how well he can elicit emotion through his direction. Yes, 'Armageddon' is very 'American, hell yeah!' There are plenty of the tropes that define his film-making techniques, i.e. Helicopters, the stars and stripes flag and those weird explosions that seem to have fireworks contained within them, but here it all adds to the ride he takes you on.
Sure, some of the characters are a bit one-dimensional, but that doesn't mean you won't care about them when the mission gets underway. The first half of the film could almost be described as a 'comedy' but when the crew finally come to terms with the stakes, the atmosphere changes to more dramatic tension.
'Armageddon' is no masterpiece. It'll never rank as highly as 'true classics' like 'The Godfather' and 'Empire Strikes Back,' but it is just about as perfect as a movie that has the sole purpose of entertaining you can be. If all you're looking for is to shut your brain off and enjoy the ride, then this is the two hour spectacle for you (okay, there is a bit of over-acting here and there that made me roll my eyes back in 98 and hasn't aged that well, but, apart from that, the rest is sound!).