Reviews

When I awoke my PS3 from it's slumber, Resistance was the game I started my trip down memory lane with. Resistance 3 was my cheif reason for doing so. I had such fond memories of an incredible game from my younger years, and I was itching to revisit it. Normally I'd be worried about having rose-tinted glasses, but my revisit of games 1 and 2 (I have reviewed these) went so well, I figured I had nothing to worry about.

My revisit confirmed for me that Resistance 3 was absolutely the best FPS of the PS3 era.

Gameplay-wise, Insomniac listened to the fan bases displeasure with 2s changes and so brought us back to health packs and weapon wheels. What they did keep from 2, which game 1 did lack in areas, was the sense of scale. When a giant spider monster turns up, it isn't just another thing to shoot, it's a house sized monster that you need to outwit to survive. Survival being the word, as this whole game feels like you are fighting just to see the next level. It's incredible how immersive this game is, even compared to the already incredibly engaging past 2 games.

The story helps out a lot. At times it can get distractingly like Half Life 2 (namely the mouthain town chapter), but it works great as an apocalyptic road trip. It's a suicide mission, and the story does a great job at bringing hope in a hopeless situation. It's much more character focused, and Cappelli is a much better protagonist than Hale in that regard. There's a lot of humanity to this fallen soldier, and you do feel what he feels. The prison character in particular makes his character shine through.

If I had a complaint though, it would be that the game just kinda stops. It feels like we played through another general chapter and then we've suddenly beaten the game. It kinda feels like Insomniac didn't really know how to end it. Narratively it works well enough, but as a game it is a little weak to end on. But the rest of it is so good that it doesn't really bother me. This isn't a Mass Effect 3 situation.

While FPS games may have had better released after, or before, or possibly on the 360, Resistance 3 is an absolute cut above the rest of the FPS games released for the PS3. And considering that includes Resistance 1 and 2, Killzone, COD4, Far Cry 3, Doom BFG and Crisis, among others, that is a huge bar to reach. If you need just 1 game to convince you to fire up the old console, Resistance 3 is definitely it.

I fired up my old PS3 after nearly 2 years of no use, and elected to start with the Resistance trilogy. As mentioned in a previous review, despite some clunk, Fall of Man had aged exceptionally well, so I looked forward to what I remembered being the series black sheep.

Resistance 2 is a divisive beast. While the overall quality of the game was never in question (it was and still is exceptionally well produced), elements of the story and changes to the gameplay were not exactly loved by fans of thd original, including my teenage self. So it was something of a pleasant relief to see that the game was better than I remembered.

Taking control of Hale again, we are now a part of a team stopping the chimera from invading the USA, this time led by insane human/chimera hybrid Daedalus. If there is something I can give this game over the 1st, it's scale. This thing is huge! It genuinely feels like the end of the world. The story works as a great excuse to move us from location to location, and it all feels natural. It is very different in tone from the 1st, but that isn't a bad thing.

What is a bad thing is that the characters are very hit and miss, namely misses. Hale suffers the worst, with his refusal to take his life saving medicine being very flimsy and making him come off as kinda dumb. Daedalus is also a very uninteresting villain, speaking poetically and having a very peculiar design (and an even more peculiar boss fight), though he does work well enough as a threat. Only Doctor Malakov and Joe Cappelli really work as engaging characters, but their screen time is minimal until the final chapters.

The gameplay leads to some phenomenal setpieces and spectacular (if simplistic) boss fights. The issue fans have is that it abandoned the 1st games weapon wheel, limiting you to only 2 weapons at a time, and ridding you of health packs so that you heal over time (the fact that Resistance 3 brought both back makes it more perplexing that this was done). It feels odd in this series, and was completely unnecessary. But in the game as is, it works. It adds to the sense of thrill and scale, even if I do find myself missing the tension of low health and the freedom of weapon choice.

Compared to its former and latter brothers, Resistance 2 falls short, but it is by a hair. It is a damn good game and absolutely worthy of the 8 hours it asks for. If you have the means to, play it as soon as you are able. Game 3 is just around the corner, and the ending of this has me begging for more.

I remember when Resistance Fall of Man first released it was labelled as one of (if not THE) best games of the early PS3. Playing through it, it was easy to see why. The game took more from Doom and Quake than it did the typical of the time Halo and Call of Duty. At the same time it felt fresh thanks to a nihilistic atmosphere and an enemy as uniquely awesome as it was fiercely grotesque.

When revisiting something from long ago it usually a risky business (whether its simply because of the technology of the time not matching what we are now used to, or just that we are more forgiving as kids/teens), but wanting to give my later consoles a rest, I decided to fire up the old PS3 and started with this.

I am pleased to say that outside of the obvious graphics limitations (although in truth it's still a great looking game) it really doesn't feel like this game has aged a day. Well, for the most part. It's story still works, it lacks typical emotion (we don't have a hero we particularly care about, the story follows a very basic point a to b to c structure), there is this horrifying bleakness to it that makes the entire thing engaging and compelling. If an alien invasion did happen, perhaps it would be like this. The world building is flawless, giving answers where needed and questions where most impactful, with the stars of the show being the chimera - some of gaming's greatest villains. Mass Effect villains ain't got nothing on these perversions of life! And the gameplay is spot on. The shooting is satisfying and responsive, and the guns are all so unique and equally fun to use that you never get bored. That is something Insomniac have always done superbly, and it is in full force here.

My only issues are controller set up is very dated (R1 to fire?), though this can be changed to make it easier. Also despite there being a war on, Hale (our hero) is not in a rush. A sprint button would have been welcomed, if not a slightly faster walk cycle. Outside of saying that Widowmakers can do one and some battle segments are a little too unforgiving, I genuinely have no other issues.

It was a pleasure to rivisit an old favourite and find that I still felt as I did back then. Here's hoping I find the same with game 3, and that game 2 is better than I remember.

Wish Upon is a true oddity in the current cinematic climate.

On the one hand, this is what you would expect from a cynical, mass market teenage horror movie. It has a good premise (like, a really good, almost Freddy Krueger level premise) of a corrupting wish box, where a demon will tempt you with 7 wishes, for a price. But that is where the creativity ends. When it's not being a very uncreative Final Destination ripoff, it's being one of those countless Mean Girls ripoffs you can find on Netflix. Being a teenage aimed movie also means that the deaths are very sanitised in terms of creativity and violence. Everyone is good looking, and all actors (talented as they may be) were hired on that ground alone, and it shows. The script is written for teenagers by someone who is in their 40s and the teenage characters are directed by a man in his 60s...try to guess how well that translates.

Do you remember Truth or Dare? Or Slenderman? Or Ouija? Or Annabelle (which this shares a director with)? That's Wish Upon. A quick get in and get out production. Make a bit of money and move on. If you are lucky then you could make a sequel. That is the movie in a nutshell.

On the other hand, it is far worse in its execution than those. Despite moments that look nice and the effects being about average, this is a horribly produced movie. The shopping mall is a set built in someone's basement. The hotel set, that comes out of nowhere, is a set used by 3 or 4 other movies that year. A bike was left on the lawn for 8 years by the movies own logic. The dialogue and attempts at social commentary are often painful. The kills are so lame and poorly set up. Most actual kill shots feel like they were done for comedy. It's a terrible, terrible movie.

On the other, mutated 3rd hand though, it all comes together as the funniest comedy of the 2010s.

The laughs are not constant (the first 10 minutes or so are rough), but they happen often enough, and they hit hard.

To call something "the new The Room" is overdone and often not accurate. But I can't think of another thing to call this. It's so bad it is actually glorious. It isn't one I can recommend, but I'm also not saying that you shouldn't watch it...

When I saw Into the Grizzly Maze I did not think it was particularly good, and I would have given it either 4 or 5 out of 10 and left it at that. But I kept thinking back to it. I couldn't get most scenes of this movie out of my head. And soon I caved and watched it again...and again, and again. So I guess the movie won.

It's a bit of an oddity. Not only did it come out the exact same time as another (better) bear movie called Back Country, which is a very serious and grounded piece. But this is a schlocky, trashy horror movie that is all action. It is very light on plot, and what plot there is is so undercooked it's raw. Yet it has a, let's be honest here, huge cast of talented character actors and recognisable faces. I have no idea how this fits together.

The plot, for what it is, is about 2 brothers, plus guests, who find themselves in the Alaskan wilderness to pay respects to their father. All the while over hunting and deforestation has angered a huge bear so much that it is raging a one man (or bear) war against mankind. All of this is just dressing for the actual plot...which is that Thomas Jane and James Marsden are hinted by and have to fight a large man eating bear.

To give the film its due credit, there is actually plenty to like. Firstly, it's a quick and nasty watch. Not 10 minutes goes by without some bear related carnage. The acting is good all around (as should be hoped for), and that extends to the bear itself. As unlikely as it may be for a movie like this, they used a real bear (Bart 2), and this bears acting is great. It genuinely comes off as a ferocious animal and it is very imposing. It looks very good too, with some beautiful shots of what I expect is actually the Canadian wilderness. There are some genuinely good scenes here and there too, the logger scene jumps out.

It's let down by really bad gore effects, horribly generic music, a poor script and it's obvious low budget. Considering this was directed by one of the directors of the Saw franchise, the poor gore was particularly surprising. There is also a very odd sound design choice with the bear, in that it roars like a dinosaur. It's literally the roar effect of the T Rex from Jurassic Park. It happens nearly constantly. It never gets old and it's never not funny.

For a film I thought would have no impact at all, I keep getting drawn back to this silly little bear movie. Maybe it just works as a throwback to the creature features of the 70-90s. Or maybe it's just a fun bit of cheap schlock.

Minotaur is...an interesting flick. It calls back to the days when Sy-Fy actually put effort into their originals (or at least paid some company with some resources and/or talent to make them for them). This is much more along the lines of Abominable and Spiders than it is complete trash like Sharkula and Titanic 666. But at the same time it was much better (and weirder) than the average movie of such origins. Making it a pretty OK film in general.

The story is mostly that of the ancient Greek fable of Theseus and the Minotaur. Basically a queen gives birth to a bull monster, which is quickly locked within an underground labyrinth and every few years a number of youths are lowered down and fed to the beast. For a base story line, it's not bad. You can get some milage out of it. Most of this milage, of course, goes untapped.

To be positive, it's not a bad looking movie. The sets are well designed and the costumes are a mix of good and what were they thinking. Nobody was clean, it was a very down and dirty film, which works. The labyrinth, while very samey very quickly, works well and has an atmosphere. There are actually some creepy shots and moments here and there. The music is decent. And the Minotaur itself, for the type of film and budget that it is, actually looks pretty good. In fact the effects are about on par with those of the 1st season of Game of Thrones.

But, it's mostly an untapped well. There's a big man eating bull that charges at people in tunnels. No matter how dark and gothic you make the tunnels or how creepy and gross you make the bull, it's going to get old at some point. As for the acting, despite it having a shocking cast (a pre-fame Tom Hardy, as well as Tony Todd, Ingrid Pitt and Rutger Hauer), it's obvious that nobody is at their best here.

Hardy doesn't give any indication as to his actual talent, being pretty bland. Not bad, just bland, I assume he knew what he was in. Pitt and Hauer are also claiming a pay-check, but are pro enough to not sleep walk through it. Todd, on the other hand, is on a different plain of existence altogether. I have no idea what he's doing, but if I'm enjoying it this much, for any reason, then I shouldn't complain. It doesn't help that his costume looks like something a Kardashian would model in.

Overall, Minotaur is an underwhelming affair, but it still makes for a fun watch. It's one of the last of the truly entertaining made for TV movies of the time, not long after this they almost all became completely unwatchable. It would be nice to see someone else have a crack at it, preferably with a slightly larger budget and a slightly camper tone. But for what it is, it's fun to just put on while you do your chores or just have a lazy evening with. Not a great recommendation, but it has its place.

The Meg was a fun B Movie with a budget. Great, self aware stuff. Could have been a bit crazier, gorier or more deliberate in humour or tone, but for what it was it was a good bit of schlocky fun. Meg 2: The Trench continues that trend about as well as it can, both in good and bad ways.

The Trench promises plenty of Jason Statham, Shark, dinosaur and monster action. On this it absolutely delivers. The action here does feel trimmed down a little, like it was initially gorier but got edited for a fairer rating. Regardless, it's well done and thrilling and giddy stuff. Everyone in the movie seems to be completely on board with it too. They commit to the dialogue and treat it seriously, which helps the film feel more absurd and fun.

The effects are fun, though not entirely convincing. The trench stuff looks great, but the scenes above or closer to the surface don't fare as well. But the style and energy of the film make up for that, and it never looks Sharknado or Scorpion King bad. It's pretty relentlessly paced too, so you're often caught up in the thrill before you see the strings.

Where the film does suffer a bit is in the trench. At a certain point, while not boring, the film is absent of creature madness. And after a while you do miss them. Sure the opening and ending make up for it, it's just a bit unfortunate.

In the end it certainly has the better moments, but The Meg is likely the better overall film. It's worth a watch for lovers of B Movie schlock and for those who only want what it sets out to deliver. It isn't great by any means, and certainly not for everyone. But it's very enjoyable nonetheless.

Night of the Demon is most famous for being one of the infamous Video Nasties in the UK. The story goes that it was originally filmed as a much tamer movie, but when festival reception was less than favourable, the producer went back and filmed all the gory and shocking scenes and awkwardly edited them in. And the film plays out like a really bad horror film, which somebody went back and 'fixed' by awkwardly editing in gory and offensive scenes.

To be fair, this move absolutely saved the film.

What you don't get told about the Video Nasties is that they suck. They're poorly produced, horribly acted, awkwardly paced and terribly directed films. There are exceptions of course (The Evil Dead, Possession, Tenebra), but Night of the Demon is not one of them, falling for all the traps. But another thing they have is that their nasty moments make them unpleasant to watch as well. Not here, here the gore and rape is hilarious. It was all made for fun not shock, and it really helps.

As it got quoted once, it's a dick ripping, intestine swinging good time. It's more graphic and intense than such similar films of the time, like Friday the 13th, but, despite the straight play of the rest of the film, those moments feel like someone is telling us that it is all for fun.

The random biker getting castrated. The man getting swung in his sleeping bag. The girl scouts forcably knifing each other. The couple having sex in the van, who's screams sound so orgasmic and suggestive that you swear bigfoot is actually just getting in on the action. It's all horrific on paper, but it's nothing short of comical on screen. And each crazy moment last just too long enough to get a laugh out of you.

This is one of the few movies with the so-bad-it's-good reputation that actually lived up to it. For something so simple, it is a true oddity. Now, thanks to a wonderful blu-ray restoration, it is available for viewing in the UK completely uncut. It's a must watch for fans of bad or cult cinema (of the best of the worst movies). Though everyone else should probably give it a pass.

A Sound of Thunder had such a troubled production and was released in such an unfinished state, that it might have been better for everyone if they just cancelled the production altogether.

It's a fun story. Time travelers go back to hunt a mighty dinosaur, only to alter the past and destroy the future, erasing mankind and creating monsters that evolution had once skipped. And in all honesty, it isn't poorly told either.

The script, while having some logical errors typical of time travel movies, is pretty decent. It's tonally consistent and there are no pacing issues. The action comes in when it should and it makes for some fun setpieces. It's a script with a lot to say, and it does say it without being too preachy. While the film is mostly on greenscreen, there are some very impressive sets, which look great. Peter Hyams knows how to shoot a film well, and it is in those moments that he shines.

Where the film completely fails is in its technicals. There is no dressing it up, this movie looks horrendous! The CG is unfinished, not rendered properly and with very noticeable clipping issues. Particularly the dinosaur, whose head keeps clipping into the body. With no practical monsters and no miniatures or matted backgrounds, the poor CG dominates the movie. It makes a cool, and even epic movie look as fake as can be, and it just tanks the whole experience.

Greenscreen is a skill, one that Hyams does not have. He struggles to direct his actors against it, so they look disconnected from the scenes, as well as bored and frustrated. Nobody come out of it looking good, including Ben Kingsley, who at least looked like he was having fun under that wig.

The movie is entertaining enough, both genuinely and ironically. You can laugh at the poorly rendered monster apes, and also some genuine social satire. Looking into the production, which changed directors and actors, was plagued by floods, studio bankruptcy, and restricted the movie to using only $30 of its $80 million budget, it isn't a surprise that we got a train wreck. What is a surprise is that it still remained a thoroughly entertaining train wreck.

Cyborg! The little movie that couldn't. It had a troubled production, where it started out as 2 other movies that were reworked into 1 when Canon's finances went down the toilet. Take that and the star power of a young Jean-Claude Van Damme and the direction of schlock auteur Albert Pyun, and you get something really weird and incredibly simple at the same time.

It isn't worth going into plot details. Van Damme has to kill a bad guy to make sure a cyborg gets from A to B. It's set in the post-apocalyptic and it's all just people kicking and punching each other. On that the film does well, genuinely. The action is often and, despite obvious budget restraints, it's exciting and well done. The world is also impressive given the budget, with some great sets (the end battle set is particularly gorgeous), mat paintings and found locations (the desolate building, factory and swamp fit in well).

But with bare plot comes nobody to really care for. It's also oddly structured, and not in a good way, with its use of flashbacks. The script is pretty painful to listen to, so it's probably for the best that you can't hear most of the dialogue, either due to poor sound mixing or the actors whispering their lines.

And yes, the acting is terrible. Van Damme has never been of high caliber, but he is worse than usual here. When he's not kicking or punching at least. But to give him credit, nobody is doing well performance-wise, so Pyun might be more to blame on this one.

I say all of this to make it clear that I am not blind to the issues of what is, truly, a very bad movie. Because I love Cyborg! I love how awkward yet charming it is. I don't really care about the lack of plot or characters, because I want to see them kick and punch in this low budget post-apocalypse. When it does something right (like the crucifixion scene), it's worth noting and celebrating. But in the end it's just a really fun, dumb little movie.

It feels like a mix of Van Damme and Pyun, like they were battling over control of the movie (which they likely were). The result is one that is one of the best and most enjoyable of both, warts and all.

To make my views on this franchise clear: the original Halloween is one of my favourite horror films ever, as well as one of my favourite John Carpenter movies, who is one of my favourite directors, so it has all that going for it. Aside from 3 and 4, I hated all the sequels (even then, 3 and 4 are just OK), until we got to 2018. That wasn't great, and had logical errors aplenty, but it was a fun, nasty back to basics horror film that mostly worked for me. Halloween Kills was a step back, a mindless gorefests that bored me to tears. So when I call Halloween Ends my favourite entry after that original, you know that's a mixed message.

Halloween Ends is a thoughtful, entertaining love letter to the explanation films of the 70's, the slasher films of the 80s and is in keeping with the themes of the original film. And sadly, it is pretty hated across the board for it.

The story goes that Corey Cunningham accidentally killed a kid he was babysitting. The town is still reeling from Michael's rampage, so instead of helping Corey they brand him a killer. Years later, Corey comes across Michael and becomes infected with his evil. Corey loves Allyson, and will use his new found evil to make sure they both get what they want.

It's an interesting story, a very good story about evil, and how it may be inherited or perhaps its all circumstance. But if themes are not what you're after (they weren't what I was looking for), then don't worry, it's still a great slasher movie. The kills are awesome: creative and very very gory. These are some of the best onscreen kills in recent years.

Its well filmed, with great acting and good use of neon colours. John Carpenters music is great as usual, and it's some of his best since he stopped directing. I'd get the soundtrack separately, and that's rare.

Sadly, without wishing to spoil, the final 15 minutes or so suck. The story ends early and it's just a random action scene that 'had to happen' because the title says Ends. It is such a shame, it knocks the film itself down. It doesn't ruin it, but it's a huge let down after such a solid run up to it.

I feel that, much like with Halloween 3, time will be kinder to this film. As it is, there is a lot of hate coming it's way. I think it is a shame, but then again, I am hardly a fan of this franchise. I was glad for something interesting and different, but there are a lot of people who aren't. Still, maybe if we come back to it in 3 or 4 years...or whenever they decide to make another one.

Arcade comes from an interesting time. In the 90s VHS had really hit its stride, and even Dvd had started. So many companies found it was easy to make something cheap that could skip theatres and go straight to video. But to sell such films they had to have fun box covers, wacky concepts and/or some star power to push them. It also helped if you could make these as good as possible. These days stuff like The Asylum and Sy-Fy have found that a concept alone can sell a lazy cash grab, but back then even the worst films had some effort put into them.

Arcade is what happens when Charles Band and Albert Pyun watch Tron. It follows some teenagers as they play the next great thing in video-games, a virtual reality adventure called Arcade. But Arcade learns and adapts, and if you die in the game you...well,kinda just vanish in real life. To stop the game somebody has to beat it.

Arcade has a solid script (shockingly by David S Goyer of Blade and The Dark Knight fame) and some good actors doing admirable jobs given the project they are in. It is also a bit more creative than just the horror version of Tron. Pyuns directing leaves a lot to be desired here (he always was a bit hit or miss with how he handled filming), but I can't fault him ambition with how much CG was to be used in such a cheap film from the 90s (this was filmed before Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park).

Unfortunately for those involved, they had made a CG videogame world, where people from our world go into it for an adventure. There is a bit with racing cycles that travel on lines of light. The people in the game wear jumpsuits and helmets. The villain is some kind of master programme for the game. So Disney, the makers of Tron, called up New Moon and said 'Come on...'

So while initial footage was poor in quality, it looked like typical pre-T2 CG, it all had to be scrapped and redone. Time and money means that it was all just slapped together and thrown out. So we have a film that looks like fried garbage. It's understandable why, but it does look horrifically bad.

Despite its (rightful) neutering by the cease and desist, Arcade is a fun and creative take on the virtual world concept that was hot at the time. Controversially, I prefer it to Tron, which I mostly found boring (Tron Legacy was more my bread and butter). Arcade was never boring. Its fun and short, with a good script and some talent bringing the required skill for the is film. Its not something I can recommend to everyone, but if you enjoy cheap little adventures then Arcade is slightly better than the average.

I am opening this by giving my thoughts on Transformers as a whole. It's fine. We all know why the shows and movies exist, to sell toys. That doesn't mean it cant be fun to watch, or even very well written at times. But, outside of the Bumblebee movie I haven't loved anything Transformers... Except for Beast Wars, Beast Wars is where its at!

In this story that is more than meets the eye, 2 factions of transforming robots crash land on a mysterious, primal planet (try to guess where). This planet is rich in an element that gives the robots power, an element the baddies are after, but the radiation from this element will kill them after long-term exposure. This means that they must take on the forms of living beasts found on the planet. After that it's war for the sake of the planet, the element and even the whole galaxy.

There isn't any hiding it, Beast Wars has a huge problem. While it was pretty standard animation for the time (the likes of Reboot were produced at this time), it looks like garbage now. Especially the first 5 or 6 episodes, which were clearly made before any other part of the show. The character models are pretty bad looking, with a lack of textures and clipping, but are otherwise well animated. The backgrounds and environments are atrocious, feeling like test footage animation.

What makes up for it is the writing, directing, voice acting and just general stories and characters. Outside of looking like trash, this is a damn good show. From the goodies having the wise Optimus to teach the audience lessons in, Dinobot the turncoat who needs yo adjust his blood lust and Cheetor the kid of the group. The baddies have Megaton the conniving tyrant, Tarantulas the ambitious mad scientist and Waspinator the loveable idiot. All make for great teams, all are well acted and very few are bland.

The action is fun and creative, overcoming the worst of the shows limitations. The stories told are more than just action excuses, they are well thought out and do come with their own lessons and a surprising amount of series continuity. It's not the best stuff ever, at the end of the day it is still here to sell toys, though it does a great job of it.

The truth is I saw little of this show as a child, and opted to watch it as an adult. But why? I mean, I know why as a kid, it wasn't playing on my favourite channel and in the UK its a really hard tape/dvd to come by. Well, as an adult I wanted yo watch it because what little I saw of it I remembered almost line for line.

I remembered enjoying it and I occasionally even thought back to it. From the opening score, to Rattrap and Dinobot bickering, to Optimus saying 'maximise!', to Megatron's constant use of the word 'Yesssss'. I remembered it better than most shows I actively watched back then. There really is something to be said about that.

During the back end of the 80s, deep sea horror became fairly popular again. In 89, 3 such films were released, The Abyss, DeepStar Six and Laviathan. All 3 were similar in concept (terror from the deep, and being set on a deep sea lab), but varied in quality. While The Abyss was more artful and thoughtful, DeepStar Six was dumb (fun) trash. Laviathan finds itself in the middle of the 3.

What let's the film down is that it may be one of the most unoriginal movies ever. I think it copied the same paper as The Abyss, but it also wears its Alien and The Thing influences on its sleaves. It is horribly predictable and far too familiar. The final form of the monster leaves much to be desired, though the effects are excellent.

It is well directed though, with a good grasp on how silly it's situation is. The actors do a fine job, with the cast being pretty all-star. The effects are the major selling point. Stan Winston pulls no punches. The monster effects are great, almost as great as the set design. It's a fun lab set up and even the deep ocean stuff is convincing.

One thing this film is not is boring. As clichéd as the plot is, it does still make for a fun experience. For those who enjoy a decent underwater creature feature, this one isn't half bad.

Wes Craven certainly had an interesting career in the 80s. A Nightmare on Elm Street solidified the man as a master of horror. But the series went in directions he didn't want it to, so he left it. Sadly his other 80s films were usually pretty messy, and were often subjected to studio meddling. With Shocker, not only was Craven given full control, but he had the chance to outdo the now legendary Freddy Kruger...

...whoops!

The plot of Shocker is fairly similar to Renny Harlin's Prison and Jim Isaacs' House 3. A killer is put to the chair, thanks to a teenager with a psychic connection to him. A deal with the devil and over 1000 volts later, the killer is back in the form of pure electricity. Now he is after the kid responsible for his execution. No more Mr Niceguy!

Its a fun idea for sure, and it is present with its tongue firmly in its cheek. The characters and their relationships are pretty good. The actors all do what they need to to make the material work. Peter Berg makes for a very likable hero. Mitch Pileggi steals the show as the delightfully vile killer Horace Pinker, one who genuinely 'might' have rivalled Freddy if given the chance. And the soundtrack to this rocks!

Unfortunately what let's this film down is how disjointed it is. It feels like 3 films in one. The first half of it is pretty solid, classic Craven through and through. The horror and humour are perfectly balanced and the atmosphere is great. Once Pinker is killed and comes back, we go even sillier. This quarter of the film isn't as good, but is great for a laugh. Not really what you want from a horror film, but fun is fun.

It is the films ending, it's final quarter, that flushes it down the toilet. Reality and atmosphere are completely abandoned. The film becomes an unfunny cartoon (Pileggis performance not included). This is not helped by the truly terrible special effects. I don't know why, even as a concept, Craven thought that this was a good way to end the film.

In the end I do like Shocker, though it was a close call. The first half, and even the little time after it, are too good and fun for me to write it off. The same goes for the acting, music and overall directing of the film. It's such a shame about that ending. So, Elm Street it is not (don't make me laugh, though it is better than some if the sequels). But a bit of fun, Shocker is.

Wes Craven has had an interesting run. The man was a master of horror, and it's easy to see why. But is unfortunate is that he had more misses than hits back in the 80s. Deadly Friend has a reputation of being one of his worst films. Now that I have seen it I don't know how unpopular my opinion will be.

The story goes that Craven wanted to make a tragic love story. Young Paul has moved to a new town. A tech wiz and young genius, he has invented an AI robot called BB. He befriends and falls in love with Sam next door. But when a crazed neighbour destroys BB and Sam's abusive father kills her, Paul uses his tech to bring Sam back. But she isn't normal anymore. It's a good Frankenstein story, but sadly fans and the studio demanded more horror and gore, and what we got was pretty bizarre.

The truth is, I loved Deadly Friend. The first half is stronger. The actors aren't the best in the world, but are all likable. Especially those playing Paul and Sam. The abuse is uncomfortable, as it should be. As a tragic love story, it works beautifully. It honestly makes you wonder what it could have been, had the studio not mandated reshoots.

As for the added horror, it isn't scary. But damn if it isn't fun! The famous basketball scene is the highlight of this element of the film, and it is just as glorious with context as it is without. These moments can be jarring, and they do take away from the core of the movie. But, credit where its due, they are very memorable. Although the final stinger is a bit too far for me.

Despite being a film that was clearly tampered with, I genuinely think that Deadly Friend is an underrated 80s horror film. I'd go as far as to call it one of Craven's best. Perhaps it could have been the best, once upon a time. I know that many call it bad, which is fair, but towards the end I did well-up. In my mind, no bad film could have achieved that.

Remember Shocker, or Prison? Well House 3: The Horror Show is basically that again. A vicious serial killer is caught and put to the chair, only to come back and brutally haunt the man responsible for his capture.

This is very different from the rest of the House series, which already played like an anthology rather than a concurrent story series. The others are comedic, with ghosts, ghouls, monsters and mostly bloodless fares. Almost like family friendly horror movies. This is a dark, gory, campy, purely adult slasher film.

It's from the director of Jason X, and while it is much better than that film, it does have the same problems. It looks fairly cheap. It's not scary and the gore is what makes the violence fun. The entire film has a thrown together, clumsy feel.

But the gore is great. The campy tone is actually well balanced here. It goes along at a good pace and is never boring because of it. But the big sell is Lance Henriksen and Brion James as our hero and villain. Henriksen is a pro, and brings his usual A game to this movie. James is also a pro, but is also clearly having the time of his life playing is hilariously despicable monster.

Overall, its nothing new and is pretty sloppy. But it's entertaining and features 2 great leads and gory kills. This may be controversial, but it is my favourite of the House films, and I think its better than Shocker and Prison.

Personally speaking, I am no Sonic fan. I enjoyed the first 2 games as a kid, but after that I lost my care for the character. I saw the 1st movie, and I thought it was good. It was a lot of fun and surprisingly well made. It's the first videogame adaptation that was genuinely good. So when this came out I went in expecting more of the same.

Oh boy was I wrong...

Tonally speaking it's a pretty unbalanced film. It shifts from silly comedy to grand adventure to intense action, and not always seamlessly. The animation isn't quite as strong this time around, likely due to the increased scale and runtime of the film. Speaking of, it maybe is a little too long. But none of the matters, for you only pick this up in hindsight. At the time, this feels like the greatest movie ever made.

It's a kids film at the end of the day, and it does its job flawlessly and admirably. It is a lot of fun and very funny, both for kids and their parents. It's also fully self aware. It knows how to play to pop culture and all facets of the fandom.

It is also well directed, gorgeous to look at, perfectly acted and strongly written. It's a good film, made by people who wanted to make it as good as it can be. There really isn't anything major to complain about. It is exactly as good as it could have ever been.

Surprising myself, I loved this. It is one of my favourite films I have watched in the past few years. I prefer it to the first film, which I already loved. If you have kids or are remotely curious, watch it.

As hit or miss as the great Roger Corman was back in his day, I always found myself respecting his efforts. He made low budget, trashy, sleazy bmovies, which more often than not followed popular trends, if it didn't ripoff certain films altogether. But he was so good at it. This was often down to him having quality control for his scripts, hiring fresh talent on and off the camera and not cheaping out on the music. The mid 70s to early 80s were certainly the height of his career.

In this period came this odd Jaws ripoff, Humanoids from the Deep. A story of genetically altered salmon people (just roll with it), who attack people in a fishing village before the annual celebration begins. This was around the time when Jaws ripoffs were a dime a dozen. But, while it isn't THE best of its type (Alligator takes that trophy), it is certainly one of the better of them. Its arguably better than Cormans Piranha.

The faults are easy to find if you look for them. Cheap sets, hilariously rubber costumes (with terrible arm extentions), suspect acting, strange cuts in sound, the fact that everyone over 30 is wearing bodywarmers and everyone under 29 is wearing bikinis: it's all here. There are also obvious additional scenes. Director Barbara Peters did not want much nudity in this film, so additional scenes (including rape scenes) were filmed and edited in after completion. These do mess with the pacing and tone, though not to a huge degree.

But Peters was the perfect director for the job. She had an eye for efficiency and style, while also being somewhat subversive to the genre. The inclusion of Doug McClure and Vic Morrow to the cast was incredibly helpful. These two were pros and everyone seemed to follow their example, understand what you are in but take your work seriously.

It is a nasty piece of work, but is very enjoyable. It is also far better made than you might expect. James Horners score helps out a lot too. Its silly, but plays it straight. The best Corman films are the ones where everyone is in on the joke, and they absolutely are here.

It isn't for everyone, and those who hate bmovie sleaze, or just films with rape in general (very understandable), are absolutely going to hate this one. But it is one of the better entries in Cormans career and is a fun watch for around the spooky season.

The Long Kiss Goodnight is a film that could have gone either way. Shane Black was at the peak of his career, and was consistently written great stories with awesome characters, cool action and funny dialogue. On top of that Davis and Jackson are both great actors and usually have great chemistry with anyone they work with. But at the same time the budget was pretty low for this kind of movie and it was to be directed by Renny Harlan, who's films are either dumb fun at best (Deep Blue Sea, Die Hard 2 and Nightmare on Elm Street 4) to being complete trash at worst (Exorcist 4, The Covenant and Cliffhanger).

Luckily, the script came through and even Harlan seemed to be putting in more than his usual effort here. The story isn't exactly new, an amnesic who is trying to remember their past finds out they were an assassin and must stop the badguys from the past once again. But there are some fun twists to it.

The big one, which will have eyes rolling in this day and age thanks to garbage like Captain Marvel and Oceans 8, is that it is a female action hero. Unlike countless examples today, where it feels like a male role given to a woman, this fact is essential to the story. They play on the maternal side of things. Without spoiling, her past loved the work and hated kids, her present loves her kid and is disgusted by the work. And at some point these ideals must meet. It's pretty ingenious and adds a lot of humanity to the story.

Jackson has some of the best lines of his career. Brian Cox has a hilarious scene involving a dog. The action is brutal and great. It felt like everyone was firing on all cylinders. It's surprisingly long for a 90s action movie, but thanks to its pace and witty dialogue it never outstays its welcome.

Unfortunately the villains kind of suck. They are just typical spy movie villains and nothing about them is memorable or intimidating. And while the film makers are doing a grwat job, the effects heavy action was too much for the budget to handle. The ending has some of the worst explosions I've seen in a blockbuster.

Despite its flaws, The Long Kiss Goodnight is one of the best action films of its kind. It is well worth a watch, and is an odd but welcomed example of a woman led action film done right. It's certainly one of the best of Harlans career, and possibly even Black's. There wasn't a sequel, and I'm OK with that. There is nothing they could add to this. Give it a go, you might be pleasantly surprised.

The Last Boy Scout can best be described as a sleezy, embittered man's movie. Written by a man going through a rough break-up and produced by and staring a bunch of alpha male personalities. And normally, embittered and mean spirited action movies like this don't work for me. But The Last Boy Scout does it so well that I find it infectiously enjoyable.

The term, they don't make them like this anymore, does get tossed around with this movie. It is true, it doesn't fit in with modern trends and conventions. But it has its place. It's honestly one of the best action films of time, rivalling the likes of Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger.

The story isn't anything special and you can see the twists coming a mile off. What helps it is its violence, which even for the time was extreme. Heads are blown off, noses are smashed in, a man is diced by a chopper, all great gory stuff. The acting is great, not just from Willis and Waynes but from even the minor henchmen characters. And the dialogue, which has some of the greatest insults ever committed to film!

This isn't a film to show to women. This is horribly misogynistic. But in a way, it's therapeutic. It's a pretty perfect man's break up movie. It certainly felt cathartic for me after one or two rough ones. There's a place for this kind of film, just like something like Twilight can be therapy for women.

It is what it is, and with a rough production and blatant misogyny, it's easy to see why it isn't so popular. But for its creative action and dialogue, as well as its brutality, its one I can't resist. It is flawed, but I have a place for this nasty little film in my heart.

DragonHeart is one of those 90's films. Its a lighthearted bit of fluff for entertaining families. It used state of the art vfx, big name actors and plenty of action and adventure.

The story of a dragon and dragon hunting Knight teaming up to scam a kingdom, they both find themselves to be key players in overthrowing a tyrannical King. It doesn't do much else, but it does what it does very well.

90s effects have a bad reputation, one that is mostly earned through misuse and overuse of cgi. But DragonHeart has some of the better effects of the 90s. The textures are a bit off, but the rest of the CG dragon is really well done. The lips sync up with the voice perfectly. There is some nice uses of real ruins and the costumes are really good too.

The acting is fine across the board. Dennis Quaid is having fun, is a laughable English knight. David Thewlis is enjoying being sinister. Pete Postlethwaite is acting the bumbling fool. Diane Meyer is pretty bad. Sean Connery as Draco is the highlight, bringing all the needed gravitas to the role, and making it special.

The story is nothing special and is occasionally uninteresting. It is directed by Rob Cohen, and it shows, being epic in some shots and clumsy the rest of the time. Outide of the effects, and possibly the lovely music, there is nothing hear worthy of much celebration.

But why fix what isn't broken. The lighthearted energy, great music, moments of genuine epicness and solid effects are enough for it to work. It's simply fun for the whole family. It isn't anything special, unless you have nostalgia towards it, but much like many family films of that decade, it does its job well and pure entertainment.

Species was a bmovie, and a good one at that. It wasn't the film to watch for quality film making or storytelling. But it was a surprisingly well thought out exploitation film about an alien woman trying to mate. The high levels of nudity and gore made sense and it worked despite its obvious flaws. Species 2 is exactly what Species could have easily been.

I'm not going to bang on about it being an ugly, low effort and completely tasteless film, but that is what it is. The idea going into this one was bigger is better. That means more gore, more sex, more action, more aliens and of course, more boobs. And after a while it all falls flat. I have no issue with films featuring nudity, but at about the half way point there had been so much of it I just wanted to see these people put their clothes back on.

The story? Oh, that sucks. It feels like it is trying to do 2 things at once. Retell the first film with bigger stakes, and bring back Natasha Henstridge for another outing. I loved Henstridge in the first film, as it played to her strengths (ie she was new to acting, so they kept her mostly wordless and had her reacting to this new world), but in this one she is hardly in it and is putting in little effort. It feels like she is misdirected. As for the raised stakes, the idea of the evil alien being male this time is a good one, but that is the only praise I will give it.

The first film felt like it had worked out its science and managed to tell a story that worked well, with obvious meddling in the finale that soured things a bit. This one is pure nonsense, which normally I don't mind, but this film still insists on playing by the 1st films rules.

Other than that, the effects are awful, the monsters are horribly designed and the acting and action suck. Michael Madson is clearly phoning it in and occasionally possibly drunk. The final fight ends with a pitchfork and some air cannons. It's shot like everyone just wanted to get it over with and go home.

There just really isn't anything to recommend. It doesn't even work as sleazy schlock as it's mostly boring and takes itself way too seriously, while also trying to work in terrible one liners. If you like the first one, you'll hate this one. If you didn't like the first one then this won't win you over. Only if you are very, very curious and don't mind being bored to tears, then I will recommend this. Simply put, don't bother. What a shame...

Prey follows a Native American girl who wants to prove to her tribe that she is a hunter, ever bit as skilled as the actual hunters in her tribe. To prove this she chose to hunt a bear. This hunting trip takes her on a dark, horrifying journey, one that puts her in the hunting path of a ferocious predator...

I love the first Predator movie, it is one of my favourites. After that the series has been a mixed bag, even though I always loved the crab faced monster. 2 was enjoyable, I really liked Predators and The Predator was a depressing experience. So I took Prey at face value. I wasn't thrilled by clear gender politics and over use of unconvincing cgi, but I liked the directors previous film and the setting and designs looked interesting. All I hoped for was a better film that The Predator.

Thankfully, that happened within the first few minutes. Prey is an exciting, well made and thrilling little movie. It's back to basics, Predator killing people and hero must stop it. The simplicity leaves plenty of room for fun spectacle and character development.

The risk you run with a story like this is that the main character has to carry it. Luckily the lead here is really good. There aren't many gender politics on show here, only 2 or 3 monologues that hammer in that nail. She fails, she learns and every victory she gets is earned. She can't physically match her enemies but she can outsmart them. It makes a fun and relatable protagonist.

The cg is a problem, in that it isn't particularly convincing. The gore, while graphic, feels cartoonist. The animals look good until they move, then there is a definite jank to them. The Predator looks pretty great when it's there, but the invisible cloaking isn't the best. Everything else, like sets, makeup and action scenes are all great, so it must be a case of rushing the production.

Beautifully and stylishly directed, with great performances and an understanding of what made the first film great. It isn't as good as the original, and I did prefer Predators myself, but it is a worthy sequel, or prequel. It's some of the most fun I have had with any film all year. Go in expecting just a bit of fun and you won't be disappointed.

This is a film a mostly missed as a kid. I saw it once in the cinema and then never again until last night. Not for lack of interest, but I had other movies I preferred to watch. I did remember enjoying it and being wowed at how 'real' it all looked, but not much else. I knew it had a following, but it was only last night I decided to see how it held up.

The story is about what you would expect. The Shredder has kidnapped Master Splinter, so the turtles with help from new friends April O'Neil and Casey Jones fight to save him. Along the way they learn about the power of team work, family and other such fluff that cartoons provide. It's all harmless and gives a good base for the rest of the film to work on.

While this may not be a cartoon, it is definitely one for the kids. It's darker than you'd probably expect (no more so than the original Star Wars trilogy), but it's still fun of zany humour and slapstick action. It can be clumsy, but is better than you would expect from a film where men in heavy costumes perform karate. The acting is what you would expect from a cartoon, over the top yet still dignified, giving you a sense that they took it seriously enough while still having fun.

The effects on the turtles and Splinter are great. You can see the seams in some areas of the costumes but it isn't too noticeable. Their lips move nearly seamlessly with the voices too. The city itself looks like a bargain bin Batman or The Crow, though to be fair the budget was tiny. That would also answer why most of the film is in studio apartment locations.

In the end, it is flawed. It won't grab adults with no nostalgia for it, and it does have more than its fair share of 90s cringe worthy moments. But it works. Its a bit of fun, and was done with more respect and efforts than the likes of Suicide Squad or Black Widow. If you have kids, it's a good one to put on.