Reviews

Martin Sheen is Captain Benjamin L. Willard, an alcoholic soldier holed up in a sleazy hotel with his hallucinations of the war to keep him company. He receives new orders to find and kill Colonel Walter E. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) who has gone AWOL in the Cambodian jungle. Kurtz is a decorated military hero who has excelled in the dirty work that others have failed at or just avoided. The top brass in the military has become fearful of Kurtz because he has gone rogue doing his own thing, and the military fear his past and his potential. He has inspired a breakaway guerrilla militia - and is being idolised like a living deity. Captain Willard and his small team begin the journey to find him, sometimes aided along the way, but quite often hindered just as much too. The road, or in this case, the river, is long, and it is not going to be a smooth journey to fulfil the orders he has been given. Captain Willard and his small team begin the journey to find him, sometimes aided along the way, but quite often hindered just as much too. The road, or in this case, the river, is long, and it is not going to be a smooth journey to fulfil the orders he has been given.

Based on Joseph Conrad's boo, "The Heart of Darkness", Francis Ford Coppola and John Millius set about converting the original story into one more relevant to recent events for them. Instead of the plot being based in Africa, it is centered on the Vietnam War. Carmine Coppola's eerie and sometimes hypnotic score really compliments the cinematography that Vittorio Storaro brings. The end result is something that some people find challenging while other feel enlightened. Either way the film was a massive success with plenty of awards and recognition - some people still have "Apocalypse Now" in their "Top 10 Films of all-time" lists, and that's despite the film being over 40 years old now.

There are a lot of household Hollywood names acting in this film, some in plain sight and obvious, so not as much - Harrison Ford, Laurence Fishburne, Dennis Hopper, R. Lee Emery, & Robert Duvall. But don't worry too much about the names though, because the film is littered with gritty and authentic performances throughout. The stand out's here though are Martin Sheen and Marlon Brando. Sheen carries the film throughout, not just the face the audience follows but the narrator that moves the story on too. He does really well in transitioning from the broken soldier, to the machine that's just "doing his job" without letting emotions interfere. He then goes through various other transitions before seeing the reality of war and being horrified by what he's part of.

Much has been made of Brando's performance in this film. Some documentaries and commentaries say unhinged, some say brilliant. Considering he only has a small part in the film, something about his performance stands out and sends shivers down my spine. I'm not sure if it's because we have been part of Willard's journey, obsessively searching for Kurtz, and when we eventually find him after going through so much madness along the way, he's just human after all. But then the longer we spend in his presence, the more we see a character that is out-of-bounds mentally, spiritually, and physically. Considering the small amount of screen time, Brando brings real presence to the screen, and Francis Ford Coppola manages to work with that well by putting him shadowy situations where you can't quite see him and are forced to listen extra carefully to interpret the mumbled dialogue.

The could have been... Steve McQueen was Francis Ford Coppola's first choice to play Willard, but he didn't want to leave America for the shooting period - and he was too expensive. Al Pacino was offered the role having worked with the director before, he declined because he feared getting ill like he had done in the Dominican Republic while shooting "The Godfather Part 2". Other people that were offered parts, or declined parts include: Harvey Keitel, James Caan, Gene Hackman, Clint Eastwood, Nick Nolte, Tommy Lee Jones, Jack Nicholson, Robert Redford... the list is massive, not just in the acting stakes, but all around, for example - George Lucas was nearly the director. He got the green light for "Star Wars" though and decided against this.

In many ways this film nearly broke Coppola, and the cast too. But the level of pain experienced feels like it dropped through into the celluloid that audiences got treated to. There have been plenty of stories about the problems that making this film created, and there are some great documentaries of behind the scenes. If I was to call out one it would be "Heart of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse" (1991) by Eleanor Coppola, George Hickenlooper, and Fax Bahr.

"Apocalypse Now" is challenging and at time psychedelic and even painful to endure. It is not something that everybody will enjoy it, but for those who do, there is plenty of room for your own interpretation of what is unfolding. I once read a review of it that likened Willard journey to that which may be experienced if descending Dante's "Inferno" and experiencing the different levels of Hell. Each step along the way brings with it more and more horror and depravity, before finally the gates of Hell are opened - or in this case the canoes that guard Kurtz's temple part, so that Willard can go into the heart of darkness. That's kind of my interpretation of what happens at the end too, Willard is reborn when he comes out of the water at the end, he embraces evil as a c hanged man and takes the heart of darkness from Kuntz for himself.

If you haven't seen "Apocalypse Now", my advice is start with the original version. The "Redux" does add more to the film but not all of it is essential in my opinion. It's more something that hardcore fans of the film may want to try out.

Ever wondered what it would be like to be an NPC in a OW-FR-MMORPG - or are you just wondering WTF that means? Be honest, did you think I just hit the keyboard with my head a few times and made a random acronym?

Guy (Ryan Reynolds) is a none-playable-character (NPC) in open world (OW) free-roaming (FR) massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG). That basically means he's a computer character in a game where real people can log in and pretty much do anything they want (think Grand Theft Auto or Fortnight). Guy is happy in his existence living in Free City and working as a bank teller. He goes about his daily life without many dramas and issues but wishing he could be one of the cool people that all seem to wear sunglasses. One day Guy gets his wish and learns the truth about his existence and meets the woman of his dreams, Molotov Girl, a.k.a. Millie (Jodie Comer). She blows his mind with stories about what's really going on, and from then on, nothing is the same for poor Guy, especially with the games head-developer Antwan (Taika Waititi) hunting him.

Do you need to be a gamer to enjoy this movie? Well, no, you really don't. This is really just a fantasy film with a modern twist. If you've enjoyed ghosts and goblins, or wizards and unicorns before, then you should be fine with this. Being a gamer gives you an insider knowledge and grants you access to some of the things that happen or are hinted at, but you can easily watch this film without knowing because it's either explained in the film or isn't a massive dealbreaker for enjoyment. If you strip away all the guns and fast cars from the film, it really comes down to an old-fashioned formula; Boy finds dream girl and tries to impress her - Something bad happens - They come together to fight the bad thing and save the world.

Ryan Reynold and Jodie Comer take up the lead roles of the protagonists Guy and Millie/Molotov Girl, with Taika Waititi playing the main antagonistic, evil, and greedy game developer Antwan. Their performances are good, and I really enjoyed the level of humour being brought. It wasn't just the humour though, there were some really heartfelt moments in the film too, especially with the feeling of being trapped and totally out of place that Guy experiences, much akin to "The Truman Show". I'm not going to suggest for one minute that the human drama is deep and compelling like a "Forrest Gump" or "Shawshank Redemption" because it's more throwaway and humour with Reynold giving more of a "Deadpool" level of performance, just without the costume and bloodshed. Also appearing are Joe Keery, Utkarsh Ambudkar, Lil Rel Howery, Channing Tatum and whole host of others actors who had decent performances and fitted their roles really well.

There is a lot of bonkers in the film, some of which probably doesn't make much sense, but that's what modern culture feels like to me sometimes. I grew up playing video games as a child of the 1980's and since then the landscape has changed. These days it's easy to feel out of place with things like TikTok, Twitch, random trends, throwaway streaming clips, and cheap games that don't make much sense (I think this is what it's like to be getting old). With these kind of things the film is homage and parody and pays tribute to modern gaming and modern culture (which sadly I might not be part of anymore!). Sure, there are things that I thought were dumb or didn't get, but the film was still palatable and enjoyable. It looked good, it was loud, it was engaging - it was entertaining and that's what counts really. It's almost like the director and writers (Shawn Levy, Matt Lieberman and Zak Penn) picked some films and games off a shelf and put them in a blender to produce this. I saw "Grand Theft Auto", "Fortnight", Modern Warfare", "Need for Speed", "The Truman Show", "The Lego Movie", "Matrix", "Ready Player One", "Star Wars", "They Live" ... absolutely loads. In fact, I saw nods, references and heard dialogue from a whole lot more than I'm not going to name here - I didn't get them all, but I might get ones that you didn't. It's just there's too much to list on a quick blog like this.

All in all, I enjoyed the film. I though the cast were all great and the story was fun. This was a nice change from some of the more serious films I've watched recently. I'd definitely watch this again soon, but first I'm going to try and get my head around Twottering and StikStocking :D.

I enjoy finding films that seem to have slipped me by, and this Ron Howard film is one of those. It's an adaption of the Nathaniel Philbrick's novel by the same name, and if you haven't read that it's kind of based on events that could have transpired to influence Herman Melville to write "Moby Dick" - the famous 1851 novel where Captain Ahab's purses the giant titular white whale. When I say, "it's kind of based on", that's because - well who know - Philbrick certainly based his work on an account by sailor Thomas Nickerson that was found in 1960 and authenticated in 1980 - but still - who knows eh. In the film, Melville interviews a survivor of the Essex and uses this as inspiration for his book. While it is suggested that Melville did base some of his story on the Essex, there is no genuine evidence that he met that survivor himself. I'm not going to hold that against this film though. Before watching this, I had actually recently re-read Melville's story so I was interested to see what this film brought when I managed to watch a copy of it. Would it be as absorbing as the book, or would it be a wet, rubbery, flounder of an attempt?

In the main starring roles are Chris Hemsworth (as Owen Chase), Cillian Murphy (as Matthew Joy), Brendan Gleeson (as Tom Nickerson), Ben Wilshaw (as Herman Melville), Tom Holland (as Thomas Nickerson), and Benjamin Walker (as George Pollard). Aboard the ship there is plenty of emotion and tension as the crew all struggle with the life they have chosen and the battle that they eventually take up or are forced on. Having read Melville's story, it was easy to see correlations between the characters being displayed and characters in the book - Cpt Ahab, Ishmael, Starbuck, Queequeg, and Dagoo. While my wife wasn't a fan of the Nantucket accent the cast were adopting it's something that I could easily look past once the film started picking up pace and the ship went to sea. As the film kicks in there are some real intoxicating emotions being displayed, suspense, tension, panic, despair - the men go from being ready to do their job, to hating life and wanting revenge, to questioning their life choices and the purpose of living and choosing whether to try and survive or not.

Writers Charles Leavitt, Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver do a real good job constructing a story which stays relatively true to source material while also giving some great dialogue as well as a health mix of pacing. While some people may watch this and question the stop/start pace of the film I am happy to dismiss this, it's the same reason why some people don't finish Melville's book. The pace of both are a good reflection of life on board a sea faring vessel where you might be away from home for long periods of time (apparently anyway - I'm not a sailor so can't be 100%). There are times when life moves really slow and one moment feels the same as the last. Then there are times when things move really quickly and you have to hang on for dear life, especially when confronted with issues to deal with - storms, famine, massive white whales. Like the novels this film is based on, in the quieter times you still get to learn things which is nice - after all "Ignorance is the parent of fear" (yeah, I just quoted Melville - sue me!! :D )

I really enjoyed the visuals that were presented, the vast and empty landscapes which at times were bleak and other times fruitful really gave a great quality. When not at sea the environments that the crew were put in, whether together or solo, really worked well and gave a sense of authenticity. There was a good blend of practical and computer-generated effects used, and even the whales looked well crafted, something that might not always be the case. While breaking down whales on the ship (like Tom Holland's character had to do) it looked like a visceral and dirty job and situation to be in. Likewise, when hunting the white whale at sea, or being hunted by it more accurately, it didn't look terrible. I'd have been really disappointed if I'd have endured the film only to see a CGI whale splash out of the water. There are some scenes were there is obvious use of green screen but what I'm saying is that it didn't detract from my enjoyment, especially when we are pulled back to the human dramas unfolding. The whale also took a bit of a backseat - sure it's one of the main antagonists, but the development of the characters and their issues is the main vehicle. If I'd have seen another "Gregory Peck tied to a big rubbery fish with prosthetic dead eyes looking back" kind of scene here I think I'd have rated this film a lot lower - not that the 1956 "Moby Dick" film was bad, it's just there's a time and a place, and with Ron Howard stamping some good qualities on this film seeing a full size rubbery whale would have been a let-down.

So, "I am past scorching: not easily can'st thou scorch a scar" (yeah, another quote!! Sue me twice!) - in summary, I enjoyed the film. I was surprised this hadn't appeared on my radar and I'd happily watch it again. It can be tough work at times but the reward was worth it and Ron Howard brings a good human melodrama with a backdrop of the cruel world of 1800's whaling. It's beautifully wrapped up with good cinematography, and once you get passed Thor, Spider-Man, and Tommy Shelby being sailors you get to have (sorry) a whale of time (really sorry). 7/10.

With a shorter run-time than its predecessor, "Venom: Let there be Carnage" once again follows Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock, the once slightly dodgy reporter who has become host to an alien symbiote that gives him superpowers with a not so heroic twist (as featured in Marvel comics, specifically Spiderman but then branched out). Following on from their last outing in 2018 this 2021 film once again delivers action with a twist of dry humor as Eddie and Venom exchange conversations and attempt to figure out who is control of their co-existence while facing different challenges. This time their nemesis is Carnage, yet another symbiote which is co-existing with deranged death row serial killer Cletus Kasady (as hinted at in the first film). Kasady managed to get himself some alien symbiote action when he bit Brock during an interview. With his new alien superpowers Kasady escapes and causes... well... he causes lots of Carnage along the way. Hot on his tails, and Brock's too, is Detective Mulligan. Kasady is aided on his path of, err, Carnage by his former lover Frances Barrison/ Shriek who possesses superhuman screaming power.

Right then, so we know Tom Hardy is back as Venom, he contributed more though because he helped with the story too. Woody Harrelson is Carnage/Cletus Kasady, Naomi Harris plays Frances Barrison/Shriek, and Stephen Graham is Detective Mulligan. They're all brought together under the directorship of Gollum; I mean Andy Serkis. Hardy is credited of working on the story with Kelly Marcel who also did the screenplay. That's a lot of big names already, there are more, and the crew and cast is big and has plenty of experience, so surely this anti-hero film must be good right, as good as the last one at least yeah. Well, I'm sorry, it felt a little weak and unmemorable truth be told. There were parts that were far-fetched, but in truth it was a very simple premises...

Guy1/Symbiote1 (has superpowers) interviews Guy2 (serial killer) and accidently gives him Symbiote2/superpowers. Guy2/Symbiote2 uses powers to escape prison and cause Carnage. Guy1/Symbiote1 are having identity/co-existence issues. They must work through it to fight Guy2/Symbiote2.

Sure, the story is weak, but then perhaps the action great, maybe the CGI is mind-blowing, perhaps the dialogue is rich, and the humor is dark?? Yeah... maybe don't hold your breath on that either. The action was pretty much rinse and repeat from the first Venom film or from any superhero film of the Marvel/DC cinematic era. If anything, it felt toned down, having read the comics the action is usually dark and nasty, this seemed to hold back.

The CGI wasn't the worst I'd seen, but wasn't great either, there where scenes that were so obviously green-screened and filled with CGI that at times it put me off and became laughable. The dialogue was just enough to drive the film but not really that well thought out, there were times when Kasady was able to talk in detail about Brock's past, but they hadn't been life-long friends so how he knew that level of detail and intimacy was beyond me. I kept having to wonder if I had missed something. The fact that it just boiled down to a symbiote vs symbiote film like the first outing was a bit of a let-down - I can only assume this is because Sony, who own the rights here, can't go delving into the Marvel character database to give us something new.

The humor? Ahh yeah, there are times that the Venom symbiote is supposed to be coming off as funny - it felt like too much dialogue was given to that character, and it didn't land well either. The scenes where Venom is without Brock and discovering himself and partying, it felt like that was added for kids to enjoy more than anybody else, but with a rating of censor rating of 15 I think it was still too weak.

I'm sorry, I really hate being negative about this, but the film was a bit of disappointing mess. It felt like it had been rushed, chopped, changed, and then just put in front of the audience so they had something rather than nothing. Instead of "let there be Carnage" it felt more like "let there be cringe". One thing it had going for it though - at just an hour and half I didn't have to suffer that much. Damn it, I wanted to like this. 4/10.

I almost went to the cinema to watch this, but I got ill and couldn't go. After that I couldn't go because I was going on holiday. Imagine my surprise when the 12-hour flight I was stuck on had this film in its media library. I sat back with headphones in to block out the sound of screaming kids and airplane turbulence and had my very own private viewing - I noticed too that somebody further up the plane was also watching it too.

The Northman is a Viking story of revenge and redemption starring Alexander Skarsgård, Nicole Kidman, Claes Bang, Ethan Hawke, Anya Taylor-Joy, and Willem Dafoe. Written by Sjón and Robert Eggers, with Robert directing. Prince Amleth, son of King Aurvandill the War-Raven, escapes an attack on his village perpetrated by the King's own brother, Flöjnir. Living in secret the Prince, now a man has grown strong but still has revenge burning away at him. An opportunity presents itself to return home to exact that revenge, but he must be clever about it. He hides amongst slaves and works his way into Flöjnir's house staff, finding out more information along the way and finding love with one of the slaves. While posing as a good guy, Amleth is secretly butchering Flöjnir's trusted staff with a plan to work his way to the top of the hierarchy and get his shot to kill Flöjnir and free his mother who he's learned has been wived and sired another child.

Even before watching the film, I wanted to love it. I love Viking history and mythology, I've absorbed plenty of it in books, film, and TV before, and the advertisements for this made it look like an absolute epic that was a "must see". In parts this was enjoyable, it was dark, it was brooding, it was caked in blood, but it just wasn't everything I had expected. I can't fault the acting, that was decent and helped to elevate most characters. I didn't feel the same for Nicole Kidman's Queen Gudrún character though, not that the character wasn't written well but it was more just an odd fit for Kidman to be in the role. I couldn't distract myself from the previous roles I've seen her in, and she looked to well-polished for this. It felt slightly similar with Willem Dafoe, while he didn't look as polished, I couldn't help but see some of the other maniacal roles he's played. I probably would have been more convinced with less established actors in these roles instead. The dialogue that was delivered though was fairly simple, there wasn't any moment that I felt gripped by good dialogue which has to be down to the writing rather than the cast delivering the lines.

The film is dark, not just in the themes of revenge. There were some scenes that were hard to make out properly. In fairness this has to be expected in order to keep some authenticity because it's not like the Viking's had the luxury of electricity to light their homes and settlements. It would have been nicer to see what was going on, but I settled for the grunts and groans of action instead.

The pace of the film seemed to have a problem; it followed a generic pattern too. You could easy overlay the likes of "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" (1991) or "Braveheart" (1995) over this and come up with the same plot. Man wronged seeks revenge and justice. He grows strong and then comes back stronger. Unlike the other films this could easily have been though it was slow and there were times when nothing really happened. Put that together with the gloomy darkness and at times cliché dialogue and you have a little bit of a problem. I guess the counterbalance is the beautiful scenery on show - but there were times where it felt like the cinematography was more important - some scenes were forcibly made to look pretty and epic rather than the story driving things.

As I watched the film in front of me on the airplane flight, I noticed that the person who was also watching it further up the plane had fallen asleep. I endured it and was left with a feeling of disappointment at the end. So much promise, but ultimately the Northman whimpered on to its ultimate climax without really exciting me as much as I'd hoped. Since the flight I have watched the film again, you know, just in case the version I watched had been edited specifically for a family friendly flight - unfortunately it hadn't, and I didn't feel any better. There are far better Viking themes films and TV programmes that have left more of a mark - hell, give me Richard Fleischer's 1958 Kirk Douglas/Tony Curtis film any day instead.

4/10.

I recently dusted off a box of VHS's in my loft and unearthed some long forgotten treasures. For anyone that was born after the year 2000, a VHS is how mummy and daddy used to watch home movies, it's like a big piece of plastic that... oh never mind, it's pointless explaining that, because the next thing I am going to have to explain is this movie that I'm reviewing; Rod Amateau's "The Garbage Pail Kids Movie". Strap yourself in because this is a super cringe-fest, even people who lived through this haven't got much love for it so new audiences are going to wonder WTF this hideous creation is. A young boy called Dodger is being bullied, one day the bullies take it to the extreme. They've already assaulted him and robbed him, but that's just harmless 1980's fun. They follow him to his work where the lead bully's girlfriend, Tangerine, is being nice to him out of guilt. The bullies kidnap him, and then handcuff him in a sewer and pour sewage onto him - it's the 80's, they're just having a laugh. Dodger is rescued by mysterious little people who go by the name of the Garbage Pail Kids. The GPK's came to Earth in a garbage can spaceship and were released from it when one of the bullies knocked the garbage can over in the shop where Dodger works, run by Captain Manzini. He introduced Dodger to the GPK's properly but tells Dodger that they can't leave the shop, or the "normies" (normal people) would attack them - they also can't go back into the garbage can without magic. Dodger and Tangerine go to a nightclub where it turns out that Tangerine is an aspiring fashion designer and sells some clothes. At the same time, the GPK's have leave the shop and cause 1980's mayhem - you know, stealing trucks, wrecking cars, and eating too much around a campfire in an alleyway. It's ok though, they sew a jacket for Dodger, which Tangerine likes. She plans to sell clothes if Dodger can get them for her, but she is repulsed when she meets the GPK's - not to worry though, she plans on exploiting them. She locks them in a basement sweatshop, but she isn't aware that her boyfriend the bully has arranged for the GPK's to be rounded up and sent to the State Home of the Ugly. Dodger and Manzini break the GPK's out, so they go to trash the fashion show that Tangerine was going to use to flog her wares. Dodger gets into a fight with the bullies, but the bullies get arrested by the police. Tangerine offers Dodger an apology, but Dodger tells her to stick it. Manzini attempts to trap the GPK's in their garbage can spaceship prison but fails. And the movie ends with eh GPK's driving off in on an ATV. I watched this film as a 7- or 8-year-old and it didn't matter that it made no sense because it had pretty colour and gross things were 'cool'. I remember watching this again as a drunk university student with my housemates as we tried to out-do each other with bad films - I won a few bets that night (but no friends!). As I watch this again as a 40+ year old I haven't been able to find many good things to say about it. The only thing that has kept me from ejecting the VHS and burning it is a sense of nostalgia. Having a copy in my hands reminded me of a simpler time were I was a lot younger and carefree. As far as the film goes though - please heed my warning. I've watched this rubbish so you don't have to. Read a book, make a cake, go for a walk - anything. This doesn't deserve your time.

Next time you want to win an argument about the worst films, if nobody already has, try dropping "Mac and Me" into the argument and see what happens. Regarded as one of the worst films of not just the 1980's, but modern cinema, this film is part rip-off of other successful films, and part advertisement for the American fast-food industry. Having watched this film in the 1980's, I subjected myself to another viewing 30+ years later - why oh why did I did that?? Would I recommend this film? Well, if you are competing with friends to find a bad film then yes. If you want to watch a film which is supposed to be serious but might just having you in ironical stitches of laughter because it is so bad, then yes. If you want to watch this as a serious film and think that it is a good alternative to "E. T." then keep moving. If you want to suspend your disbelief without getting angry and wanting to throw something at the TV, then this isn't a good idea. This film doesn't have many redeeming features and there is a reason that various film forums rank this in the top 10 worst films not just of the 1980's, but of all time. I didn't enjoy watching this in the 1980's when I was a child - I haven't enjoyed re-watching it 30+ years later. If I live out the rest of my life and don't watch this film again, it's been a good life - sorry, that's harsh, but I really didn't/don't like this.

You know how it is right; Tale as old as time, true as it can be, barely even friends, then somebody.... STOP!!! There will be no singing here!! Disney's 2017 re-imagining of Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" moves the story from animation to live action but tries to keep the same fun an enjoyment as the original which the 1991 original brought audiences. The film looks at Stockholm syndrome... no wait... it prepares girls for arranged marriages despite not loving the potential suitor... no wait... it... maybe it tells the story about what unattractive recluses should expect from spoiled br... err...

I didn't love the film. It might have looked good but it lacked feeling - I wasn't absorbed, I didn't find myself rooting for, or embracing the characters - and FTR, some characters were updated to make it more post 2015, mixed race relationships, LGBTQ+ characters, but it was just touched upon to tick a box, rather than to highlight anything. It all just felt a little meh - It all looked good, but it was dead behind the eyes.

I would much rather watch the 1991 animation, but does that mean I'm old and out of touch? Am I falling back onto better times and a sense of nostalgia? You can be your own judge there, try watching both versions and see what you think. For me, this was painless to watch for the most part, but it wasn't engrossing. I sang along with the songs, but my heart wasn't really in it. I probably wouldn't have missed out if I had of just skipped the film altogether.

This 2007 film is written and directed by Scott Wiper. It is an action film which stars ex-WWE wrestler "Stone Cold" Steve Austin and British footballer turned actor Vinnie Jones. Produced by WWE Films, the film was distributed by Lionsgate. When it was released the film only spent a small amount of time in theaters and was quickly moved to DVD and Blu-Ray release, and that's how I caught this at the time. After a tidy-up recently I found the film (I can't remember buying it, but it might have been owned by one of my old housemates), so I decided to watch it again.

10 criminals from around the world who have been condemned to a death sentence are brought to a remote island. They are offered their freedom and a load of money, but they must fight to the death and be the last survivor. Strapped to every participants ankle is a bomb with a 30-hour countdown, so if they go rogue, or they fail to meet the rules in the 30-hour death match, they'll be killed - but that's okay, it's kill or be killed after all! The island and the exploits of the criminals are being filmed for an illegal internet game show, so the more extreme the better for the invisible masses watching. One of the contestants, Jack Conrad (Steve Austin), is not really who he is thought to be and probably should not be there. Conrad's real name is Jack Riley, and he was a covert undercover Delta Force operative working a Black ops mission in El Salvador when things went wrong, and he was captured. Once this is worked out by the FBI, they have a vested interest in him surviving. The biggest threat to Conrad's survival though is Ewan McStarley (Vinny Jones), who will do anything, including cheat, to become the victor. He always seems to be one step ahead, almost as if he is getting help from somebody. That 1 in 10 chance that everybody has will be hard fought for whoever manages to get the upper hand.

The first thing that I have to say is that this type of 'Deathmatch' and 'Battle Royal' film is not something new, I can easy think of over a handful of them without researching too much (including: "Deathsport" (1978), "The Running Man" (1987), "Surviving the Game" (1994), "Battle Royale" (2000), "The Hunt" (2000), "Azumi" (2003), "Kill Theory" (2009), "Tournament" (2009), "Gamer" (2009), "Predators" (2010), "The Hunger Games" (2012+), "The Belko Experiment" (2017), "Ready Or Not" (2019)) so, this not that original. Despite not being original, the film is still enjoyable and works as a decent action film. Back in 2007 when I first watched this, I expected to be bored to tears watching something I had seen plenty of times before, but I wasn't, I enjoyed it. Since watching this in 2007 I have watched it again, and I still can't hate it. It feels as though it has become cheesier with time, but I can forgive that because the film is a no brainer, popcorn ready, action film which is not too taxing.

Being a wrestling fan "Stone Cold" Steve Austin was one of the headline acts during WWE's attitude era. He was always destined to go onto more entertainment after his knees and neck finally gave way. He has not been as widely used or successful as The Rock, who was also big at the time, but he still works well in this film. Other wrestlers have made the transition well, including Andre the Giant, Hulk Hogan, Dave Bautista, and the aforementioned Rock - on the flip-side, some wrestlers haven't been as successful on the big screen: Macho Man Randy Savage, Kevin Nash, The Miz, Randy Orton (I'll leave you to pick how you feel about John Cena, Rowdy Roddy Piper, and Jesse "The Body" Ventura). Austin was never overly muscular compared to some of the WWE's big stars so he fits well into an action film where he is portraying a special forces kind of guy. He doesn't need to be ripped with a 6-pack - he just needs to be a bad s.o.b. - which Austin always was anyway. Being gruff and gritty he will always look more comfortable in an action film than a romance film, and this venture is a good fit for him. Austin does well as the hero of the film. The writing made his plot motivation of getting back to his wife a little cliché, but he was still a decent and fun presence on screen.

Starring opposite Austin is the sometimes Welsh, but mostly English - ex-football (that's soccer to the septic's) player Vinnie Jones. By the time this film came about it looked like Vinnie's star had risen and was on the decline. He's had some good turns in "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" (1998), "Gone in 60 Seconds" (2000), and "Snatch" (2000), but he'd also appeared in "Eurotrip" (2004), "She's the man" (2006), "Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties", and who can forget his 'incredible' performance as Juggernaut in "X-Men: The Last Stand" (2006). Hopefully that explains why I would have considered his best days behind him. In this film, Jones does well, and that surprised me. He's still the stereotypical kind of rogue British bad guy that he is in other films too, but it's OK. Here in fact, that injection of his usual personality makes the maniacal character that he plays stand out a lot more than Austin's character. He helps create a focal pantomime villain to "boo" and "hiss".

The look and feel of the film can be described as well polished, as you might expect when the WWE Films production company is behind it. Ross Emery in the cinematography seat does well to make the remote location look both isolated, but an attractive location. The music in the film is largely made up of modern rock and pop acts and artists which works for the film and made it feel on the pulse in 2007. Re-watching it some 14 years later the music does not make the film feel dated, which is a nice achievement.

This film might have bombed at the box office, it might not be original, it might be clichéd and formulaic in places. Despite everything it is and the criticism it is hard, I still enjoyed the film. I did not have to think. I got enjoy snacks while being entertained. Re-watching it 14 years later, so I know what is about to happen, but it still fun. This was never going to win an Oscar, and it has not become a cult classic, but one thing is for sure - this is a fun action film. It isn't all too dissimilar from the kind of action films the 1980's and 1990's brought us - lots of blood, guts, and high adrenaline - which FTR I love. The pinnacle of a 'Battle Royal' films that's been made, for me, is the 2000 "Battle Royale" - "The Condemned" just happens to be an American action hero version of that which is aimed at action film fans, jocks, dads, and big brothers. It is easy to watch and its still better than 25-30% of the rubbish that is made these days.

Distributed by Netflix this 2019 Casey Silver produced film is a period crime drama set in the 1930's which tells the story of two former Texas Rangers who are hired to track down the notorious criminals Bonnie & Clyde. Stuck in development hell for nearly 15 years, what was originally going to be a Universal Pictures film nearly did not get made until Netflix bought the project in 2018.

Its 1934 and America is in 'the great depression'. Bonnie & Clyde have been on the run for two years, in which time they have broke some of their gang out of prison, and they have continued a spree of violence. Begrudgingly, former Texas Ranger Frank Hamer (Kevin Costner) is brought out of retirement to help authorities, and he seduces his former colleague Benjamin Maney Gault (Woody Harrelson) to the cause too. Using all the old tricks from their past, and learning some new tricks along the way, the senior rangers hunt for Bonnie Parker (Emily Brobst) and Clyde Barrow (Edward Bossert) to bring them to justice, or to give America freedom from their heinous crimes.

Having seen different variations of the Bonnie and Clyde story, including the 1967 "Bonnie and Clyde" film, I expected this film to feature the notorious criminals more than it did. I was surprised but delighted that instead of just focusing on them, this film followed two of the lawmen that were trying to track them down. It was refreshing to see the story from the other side rather than glorifying the criminals like previous films and TV series have.

Costner and Harrelson perform well as the former Texas Rangers. With the star power that the pair have it would be easy not to believe in their characters, but they feel authentic in the roles and deliver them with credibility.

The cinematography on display is superb. The construction of the landscape and scenery is done well and looks gorgeous. At times, the sweat and the dirt in the scenes seems to ooze out of the screen and into the pores of the audience. There are apparently some historical inaccuracies compared to what has been written about the events being shown, but not enough for it to become a work of fiction. It treads the path of fact carefully, to the point that the director tried to work close to the actual Bonnie & Clyde trail as he could -filming in the same locations (or as close as possible) to where real crimes occurred.

The pace of the film has been criticized in some of the reviews I have read. While it was not the quickest film, I did not personally have a problem with it. I think the film needed to be a slow burner to build up the story and the chase. The law seems to be two steps behind all the time, and there is a noticeable shift in the last act of the film where the law has for once got ahead of the criminals. To me, the pace of the film was reminiscent of some of the crime biopics of the 1980's and 1990's. It felt like the same kind of pacing as other films I have seen Costner in, like "The Untouchables" (1987), like "JFK" (1991). Perhaps the audience that did not enjoy the pace would have preferred something with more action in, and therefore a film from the lawman's side of the chase might not be the best choice.

I enjoyed the film. I thought it was beautifully crafted and brought to life well by those in front of and behind the camera. It was entertaining to watch, and having seen previous versions of Bonnie & Clyde, I learned something new here, instead of just been romanticized by their folklore exploits of robbing the rich and giving to the poor. Some films are all-ages and can be watched by everyone, I would put this film in the grown-up film category and suggest it needs maturity and patience to enjoy it. It's a film that feels old fashioned, not just because to the 1930's period it depicts, but also in the way that this 2019 film unfolds. Real acting, simple story, basic plot with no rush and no CGI to get the audience to the end. Refreshing.

"Harbinger Down" or "Inanimate" is written and directed by Alec Gillis, who is more known for his work in Special Effects and Make-up. It is no surprise then this film has a large dose of effects in it as the crew of a ship do battle with a mutated organism whose characteristics are like those of the alien in "The Thing" (1982).

The Harbinger crabbing ship is booked by some science graduates who want to investigate global warming effects on Beluga whales in the Bering Sea. When it dredges an old Soviet space wreckage the team of graduates have something else to study. Locked within the wreckage is an experiment gone wrong - the Russian's had been experimenting with tardigrades and space radiation. When the space craft crashed and froze in the sea, the mutated tardigrades lay dormant, waiting for the warmth of human interaction to wake them up. Once loose, chaos ensues, and the crew of the ship and its passengers have a fight to survive on their hands.

I was drawn to this film for two reasons; 1 - it sounded like a "The Thing" (1982) crossed with "Alien" (1979), and 2 - it has Lance Henriksen in it. Two points I will use for the basis of this write-up.

When reading the synopsis for this film it felt like it would be something comfortable, like an old sweater. It seemed clear that this film would kind of be a cross between "Alien" and "The Thing" so I figured I could just watch it without needing to use my brain. I figured there would be some jump-scares, there would be some cool effects, and there might even be lots of tension in a claustrophobic scenario. Some of that served to be right, it was an attempt to cross "Alien" and "The Thing", it just was not much more - it did not push any further and stayed safe rather than challenging. Within the first 10 minutes it is easy to see where the film is going and who is going to be more than just a victim by the end of the film. The writing could have been much better and maybe offered some tension of shocks, alas this never really happened. Having such potential left me disappointed that I got what was delivered.

The writing also seemed to affect the script, and thus the dialogue that would be encountered. As mentioned, one of the attractions was Lance Henricksen, and truth be told, it is not a film he will be remembered for. He will probably be glad that he will not be remembered for this with the lack of quality to some of the lines the script had him delivering. His character, like the others in the other characters written into the film are bland and poor. Some of the others were that stereotypical in fact that they could have been pulled from a number of other films to play a cliched roles here - the Russian lady for example (Svet), with that poor accent that kept slipping in and out, it made her sound like Ivan Drago from "Rocky IV" (1985) - she could have been from any 1980's Hollywood film that had Russians in it. The script tried to convey that there was tension, but all it did was have characters argue and shout at each other. Once one argument finished, the arguments and shouting would be taken to a different part of the ship. It just never really went anywhere. I tend to argue that a good acting performance can make even a poorly written character look good, however that did not really happen here. Apart from Henriksen the acting does not really elevate the film much.

Having been conceived mainly as a vehicle to show off some cool creature effects then, the film unfortunately is a let-down in that arena too. Poor lighting and annoying shaky camera effects really get in the way of seeing some good visuals on-screen. While it is possible that having a low budget affected the delivery of the effects in some sense, it cannot be the sole purpose if I'm saying that the lighting and camera didn't help. Then some of the blame needs to be on the direction and cinematography too for not leading in a more visual way for the effects. Speaking of the cinematography, one thing this film got right in that field is the ship setting. If everything else had of been carried out successfully then the ship would have made things very claustrophobic.

This film is not the worst film I have seen by a long way, but it will not be one that I highly recommend to fans of the horror genre. Its heart is in the right place but there are other films which are practically the same, that are delivered a lot better than this. Having had so much promise when I read the synopsis of the film, I was left disappointed at the failed potential and the bad execution of it too. Rather than watch this, I'd be tempted to go for the film that inspired it and watch "The Thing" instead.

Successfully pop-writers do not always make the best comedy-horror writers, and "Dead 7" proves that. Written by and starring Backstreet Boy's member Nick Carter this film found its way to audiences thanks to the Asylum and KaOtic Production companies - you know, the same Asylum that brought audiences the "Sharknado" films. With that in mind, before sitting down to watch this I had low expectations - but they were not quite low enough.

The zombie apocalypse occurred. Humanity reverted to a simpler way of living, which in this case is like the Wild West crossed with Mad Max. A woman called Apocalypta (Debra Wilson) trains zombies as her army and then starts to send them out to destroy the town of Harper's Junction. Some residents flee while others create a fighting resistance. The resistance fighters, which includes Billy (Jeff Timmons), his girlfriend Daisy (Carrie Keagan), his brother Jack (Nick Carter), and Whiskey Joe (Joey Fatone), try to save the town but will ultimately have to take the fight to the Apocalypta.

This low-budget film is a bit of a mess. The tone of the film feels wrong, it can't decide if it's a western or something more modern. Rather than picking one style it tries to jump between them and it gets more annoying than it is confusing. Occasionally over exposed shots, occasionally tinted yellow, occasional clear shot, all contribute the tone being mixed up and confused.

The plot is really basic and didn't do much to keep me entertained - while Nick Carter wanted to have a bash at starring and writing a film, maybe he should have stuck to writing music. The writing that does not help the plot also makes the characters and dialogue poor too - to be fair it cannot be blamed entirely on Nick Carter because Sawyer Perry was employed as a screenwriter too - it takes two to tango. I did not care for any of the characters, they came across as wooden and 2 dimensional. It felt like failed amateur dramatics, at times very cheesy, and other times completely stale.

In some films, a badly written character can be saved by a great acting performance. I can assure you that this is something that the film is missing too. The ensemble of actors in the film do have plenty of experience in pop-music and being in music videos, but when it comes to proper acting it is obvious that it was a struggle for them. The performances did not carry much emotional weight and annoyingly from one scene to the next accents would change for no reason - as if the actors forgot which accent, they started the film with. This film brings you not just one Backstreet Boy, but three of them. They are not alone and pop fans of the late 1990's and early 2000's may also recognise members of 98 Degrees, N*Sync, O-Town, Everclear, Crazy Town, No Authority, Atlas Genius, and All-4-One.

Do not expect Earth-shattering SFX of CGI in this film. Id' be lying if I said that the zombies looked convincing, and the action was made to look visually stunning. Likewise, the set and staging is pretty bad too. All in all, this is a bad film - admittedly it is not the worst film I have ever seen, but it's a bad film that I won't be in a rush to watch again or recommend. This is not one of the better films that Asylum and KaOtic have produced, and this SyFy channel original might as well crawl back to the shadows where it belongs. 89 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

In the world of low-budget B-movie films, there are good films and there are bad films. There are bad films that are good-bad films, and there are bad films which are bad-bad. This film falls well beyond the later to be a bad film which was bad-terrible. Based on reviews and trailers I knew what to expect; a trashy film which was dripping with cheese and excessive amounts of fake blood - but I do not think I was actually that well prepared for what I eventually watched.

A party bus on its way to the Burning Man festival in America breaks down in the desert. This is an inconvenience for the young adults onboard as they are ready to party and want nothing more than more loud music, sex, drugs, and alcohol - most of which the party bus has been able to provide so far. During the night they are attacked by satanic nomads who are hiding out in the desert and enjoy a good massacre. The young adults, or what is left of them, take refuge on the bus and fight for their lives. Being relative strangers to one and other, they can either pull together or fall apart, and it seems that they are not all who they claim to be.

This film became a chore to watch quickly. Even before the 10-minute mark was up, my wife was happier cleaning our cats litter tray and then cleaning the kitchen instead. There is an idea of a story here, but it is not all that original, and it is executed terribly. The plot feels like it could have come straight form a horror-comedy-parody of the early 2000's. Rather than an interesting or original story this film was geared up for the visuals as the vehicle which would carry the film.

Aesthetically this film was, well, it was a bit of a mess. The CGI was annoyingly weak and became a running joke. I like a lot of gore in movies, but if it serves a purpose. And in this it felt like there was a budget of fake blood to use, so it was just flung in wherever and whenever. But let's not beat around the bush here... I would have to be blind not to mention the partial nudity and sex that was shown for pretty much 90% of the film. This film is filled with topless woman and seems to be happy to objectify the female characters to the point they become lusting caricatures. Even the ones who are set up to be heroes/survivors are sexualised and enjoy exploring their own or each other's flesh. I am not a prude by any stretch of the imagination - but the sexualisation here got boring and cringy quickly, it wasn't necessary, other than perhaps to cover up or distract from the bad story and poor acting.

The cast of actors assembled do not have much experience under their belts, and to be honest, it was not really required either. It feels like the casting requirements were: (1) are you young and consider yourself hot? (2) can you read off a script? (3) do you mind getting semi-naked in front of the camera? (4) Are you happy to wear your own clothes and get them doused in fake blood? My comments here are due to it feeling like the assembled cast were just reading the script - no emotions or feelings, just word for word reading. The writing wasn't great for them so that didn't help, and there were a lot of stereotypical characters - the easy girl, the stoner, the hippie, the spoiled rich kid, the nerd, the lesbians. Sadie Katz and Tara Reid seem to be the recognizable actors in this with credible experience. Tara Reid looked like she's just finished a 24-hour party, and Sadie Katz seemed happy enough to join the topless troupe.

By the end of the film, apart from feeling violated, I was also getting a headache. The lighting in the film is reminiscent of going to a poorly lit rave in the 1990's. There are moments when strobe lighting has been used to intensify the action being played out - but it just ended up hurting my eyes which where already in distress from watching the film. I will not be in a rush to go and watch this again or recommend it highly. When it comes to a rating, I am going to give it 2 out of 10. You might have expected a 1 out of 10, but this gets an extra star only due to the fact that I have seen some terrible movies in my time and at least I got through this in one sitting. It was disjointed and poorly executed, but it was not that annoying and contrived that I could not soldier through it to the end so that I never have to watch it again.

San Francisco detective John "Scottie" Ferguson (James Stewart) suffers an experience which leaves him scarred with a case of acrophobia (fear of heights), and vertigo (a false feeling of spinning to the senses). He retires early from his job but is soon roped back into action when an old friend from college, Gavin Elster, asks him to follow his wife Madeleine. She is acting strange and he rescues her on more than one occasion. Things turn bad though when she ascends a church spire, and he is unable to follow her due to his condition. Frozen by fear he sees her plunge to her death from the rooftop. Later, after the dust has settled and Gavin is receiving treatment in a sanatorium, Scottie can't shake the case. One day he runs into somebody who looks exactly like Madeleine but claims to be Judy Barton. This drives Scottie to taking things further, much further in fact, to the point where he won't settle for what he believes has happened. Could Judy be Madeleine? Is it all a ruse? If so, why?

Based on a 1952 novel by David Dodge of the same name, "To Catch a Thief" is a romantic thriller which sees a cat-burglar come out of retirement to clear his name. This film stars Cary Grant and Grace Kelly, who both had featured in Hitchcock films previous. This would however be the last time Grace Kelly would appear in a Hitchcock film, while Cary Grant's best performance in a Hitchcock film was still yet to come ("North by Northwest" (1959) IMO).

John "The Cat" Robie (Cary Grant) is a retired jewel thief who is living the good life on the French Riviera. When evidence linking him to a new string of crimes comes to light, he is suspect number 1, something his old gang are not too happy about as that puts them in the lines of potential suspects too. It is obvious that a copycat burglar is operating, so John takes matters into his own hands. He comes up with a plan to catch the new Cat and clear his name. To pull off his plan he needs help form an insurance man (H.H. Hughson played by John Williams) who provides him with the details of rich tourists. John sets his sights on Mrs and Miss Stevens (Jessie Royce Landis and Grace Kelly). John and Miss Frances Stevens enjoy time together, but when Mrs Jessie Stevens jewels are stolen, Frances suspects John has fallen back into his old ways, which she has cleverly worked out. In a bit of a pickle at this point, John has been outsmarted but still needs to clear his name. A masquerade ball is coming up which will see lots of rich tourists and residents gather, surely, he can catch the cat at this function.

In comparison to some other Hitchcock films, this one is more light-hearted and less tense. There is a theme present that he would revisit again but the suspense and the thrills make way for more of a mystery crime adventure here. The theme that Hitchcock is trying on here is the wrong man, or the accused man, something he would use Cary Grant for in a future film ("North by Northwest" (1959)). There is a minor streak of suspense in the film, but it is more regarding the leading stars Cary Grant and Grace Kelly - and that suspense is the question of if they will get together.

Regarding the lead stars in the film, both do a great job. Cary Grant is smooth and cool as the gentleman cat burglar that is enjoying the good life. For most of the film his character is one steps ahead of everybody, and Grant pulls this off well. Grace Kelly is the star of the show for me though. Her character in this is once again as clever and independent, as she is glamourous and gorgeous. She managed the same feat in the previous Hitchcock film she appeared in too ("Rear Window" (1954)), whether this is down to her acting or the writing on this film is open for debate. In this film her character figures out who John Robie is, well before Robie is ready to confess. She 'plays him' at different times too, either with the witty dialogue that she has been written with, or the clever use of keeping knowledge until it is needed. Kelly plays her role with refined grace and elegance. It was during her time on the French Riviera that she would meet her future husband, Prince Rainier III of Monaco. Kelly and Grant though had a mutual respect as actors, both have said respectively in interviews that working together was among their highlights of their careers as actors.

The supporting cast which included Jessie Royce Landis, John Williams, Charles Vanel, and Brigette Auber (to name but a few), all do their work with credible conviction. They are authentic and really help the credibility of a film that was not in the usual Hitchcock mould and could easily have been disliked by fans.

Fun Fact: Hitchcock's cameo is on a bus, sitting next to Cary Grant. By coincidence on the other side of Grant is a woman holding a birdcage, almost as if pointing to the future Hitchcock film of "The Birds" (1963).

In the cinematography/ photography department, Robert Burke was once again in charge, and once again he does a stellar job. The scenery that is on show in the film is colourful and gorgeous. It is postcard perfect and really works as an inspiration to tell people to pack their bags and go and visit. In contrast to the more claustrophobic films that Burke has done with Hitchcock, this is a real open and vast playground to work with and a fine job is done.

For me, this is more of a lazy Sunday afternoon film, than an intense Saturday night film like the future "Psycho" (1960) or "The Birds" (1963) films might be. It is a fairly low maintenance, leave your brain at the door, romance, and crime adventure. While it is minimal on the tension, it excels at being as great to look at as the two main stars of the film are. Plenty of charm and style to enjoy, plenty of fun - still a lot better than a lot of modern films, and definitely worth a watch still.

Considered one of the best films that Hitchcock directed, "Rear Window" is a crime thriller which was written by John Michael Hayes and based on a 1942 short story by Cornell Woolrich called "It Had to Be Murder". The film is an exploration of voyeurism, with the fascination of crime and wrongdoing taking a central seat. It would be easy for me to write in excess a study of the film and some of the meaning and metaphors behind it, but I am going to refrain (for now) and try to be as straight forward about it as I can from an entertainment point of view.

L.B. "Jeff" Jefferies (James Stewart) is a professional photographer that is housebound in his New York apartment due to a broken leg. His housekeeper Stella (Thelma Ritter) keeps the apartment clean, and his high-society fashion consultant Lisa Freemont (Grace Kelly) keeps his spirits up. Fascinated by the world outside of his window, Jeff spends his time watching his neighbours. When he suspects that one of his neighbours (Lars Thorwald, played by Raymond Burr) has committed a heinous crime, Lisa and Stella are on hand to do a little snooping for him, after all, with his broken leg, all he can do is watch from a far.

The acting in this film is great. James Stewart leads the line as the voyeuristic photographer Jeff. He acts his way through a range of emotions well and really brings the character to life despite the confinements he is stuck in. Jeff is fed up and angry at being confined, he is more accustomed to the freedom to 'up and go' anywhere, at any time. Jeff develops an addicted fascination for the world beyond his window and needs to see more and more. By the final act he is horrified, not just with what he has seen from his window, but at what he has become, especially in sending his girlfriend and housekeeper into a dangerous situation. James Stewart's performance as an "any man" he is authentic and engaging, something that really allows the audience to connect with him as a voyeur.

Like Stewart, Grave Kelly's performance is fantastic in this film. Her character is a headstrong woman that is as intelligent and independent, and she is daring and ready for action. She is also gorgeous too of course! Hitchcock is known for liking strong women in his films, if they are not playing the femme fatale, they are often the untouchable Madonna's that are there to be worshipped from afar. Grace Kelly's character, Lisa, enters the film like a dream. She seems to know already what she wants at the start of the film, but regardless of Jeff's doubts. She spends the entire film trying to get close to Jeff and convince him she is right. Once she buys into what Jeff has seen she finds another way of trying to convince Jeff that she is the right person for him despite his initial doubts; with actions rather than spending money on him, expensive food, looking good, or even just convincing words.

Grace Kelly and James Stewart show some great chemistry in this film, they bounce off each other easily, and it is especially noticeable during moments of intimacy. It looks like Grace Kelly really is fond of James Stewart, and as they embrace there is some real tenderness seen.

In a supporting role, Thelma Ritter as housekeeper Stella provides some great input. Her humour is dark and cutting at times, but she generally comes across as a nice 'salt of the earth' type who you would be happy to have a drink with or work alongside.

The clever dialogue throughout really drives this film at times. It is mixed with touches of comedy and romance to relieve the tension, but it is never too far away from the suspense. Jeff is the "any man" and the situation he is in is something anybody watching the film could find themselves in. Having had a broken foot myself, I know how frustrating it can be to be stuck at home in the same chair for hours on end. Jeff has his window to watch rather than a TV, but it is the in-between times that need to be jazzed up - and that's where the dialogue that the characters have been written with really makes sure the film doesn't suffer staleness.

The location used for the film is great - yes, it is pretty much all done at Paramount Studios (a replica of a Greenwich Village courtyard was constructed, complete with working drainage), but that is not what I mean. The cinematography construct by Robert Burke and Hitchcock is great. The confines of an apartment make the film feel claustrophobic. The only time we see the outside world it is through the same window as Jeff. As much as he is a voyeur in the film, Hitchcock turns the audience into one too. It is fair to say that as film goers the audience is already a voyeur, but here there is an extra layer of it. Having just one apartment for Jeff to watch would have made a boring film, thankfully here he has a collection of apartments all inhabited by people that you could easy find yourself living nearby. To further humanise Jeff's neighbours, they all have nicknames, much like would happen in real life. Here we have "the songwriter", "Miss Hearing Aid", "Miss Lonelyhearts", and "Miss Torso". It becomes a mini-soap opera, but with the variation of characters it is like channel hopping too.

At nearly 2 hours this film is quite long for a film of the 1950's, but the pacing keeps it interesting. The first act sets up the story nicely, transforming Jeff and the audience into a voyeur. The second act brings the suspicion of a crime to mull over. By the third act, actions are being planned to bring the crime to justice. It never feels like the film drags and even the quieter moments have something to offer.

The sense of suspense is carried all the way through this thriller. With the excellent cinematography, great camera work, and splendid acting - this is a film which is carried off well. I am a fan of this film, I was the first time I watched it in the 1990's, and I have enjoyed it every subsequent viewing since then too. "Rear Window" is a masterpiece in storytelling and excellently explores the voyeuristic psychology hidden in everyone. Having watched this recently (2021), this is still a film that does not feel that old - sure, a mobile phone would have made life easier for the characters being shown, but that aside it hasn't aged terribly (other than a lot of people not liking or speaking to their neighbours these days). The film is still great fun and enjoyable to watch, and despite there being remakes by different names over the years, none have captured the feelings that this film gave.

If you haven't seen this film, you absolutely should. It isn't just something for cinephile's to adore, this film won plenty of industry awards, it has been entered into the National Film Registry by the American Library of Congress, and it features on many a top 100 list - including the American Film Institute (AFI). It is a beautifully crafted and enjoyable film that I'm giving a solid 8 out of 10 for.

While Rope is not necessarily the most famous of Hitchcock's films, it is still one I really enjoy. It is the first of Hitchcock's Technicolour films and technically it is very clever and uses some skills that were not necessarily mainstream in film. This psychological crime thriller is based on, and shares a title with, a 1929 play by Patrick Hamilton. This was also inspired by real-life events whereby a 14-year-old was killed by students at the University of Chicago to prove they could get away with it.

Brandon (John Dall) and Morgan (Farley Granger) decide to kill a former classmate from Harvard, David (Dick Hogan), in their Manhattan penthouse, just as a fun, intellectual exercise. They want to prove they are better than people by committing the 'perfect murder'. They host a dinner party which includes David's dad, aunt, fiancé, and best friend (his fiancés ex). Also included is their old prep-school teacher, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), who apparently inspired the murderers based on some philosopher's text (Nietzsche & De Quiney). The killers hide the body in relative plain sight, it is in a wooden chest that good finger food on it. With the guests wondering where David is, and with the hosts occasionally dropping hints - the film follows the evening to see if the killers can get away with the murders, or if somebody will work things out.

As I mentioned, this film uses some skills and techniques that were not mainstream in film. In fact, Hitchcock was being risky and experimental when he decided on how to do the film. I was lucky enough to study this film as part of a course I did at college and the lecturer was extremely passionate when talking about this - something I was quick to understand. The film takes place in real-time and there is extraordinarily little editing involved. It makes it look like the film was done in a single take. There is a small and limited setting in the film - not necessarily the first time Hitchcock has done this, see "Lifeboat" (1944).

Although the film looks like it has been done in single take it was not. It was cleverly worked to make it look like it was though. In fact, shots were roughly around 10 minutes at a time and then edited together. The clever techniques include things like a camera zooming into a close-up to the point that everything looks black - while it is black, a cut/edit occurs. The new shot then zooms out and looks seamlessly like it was a single shot with just some minor interference to the audiences view. If you look at interviews and reports that dissect the film, I am sure these will break it down for you better than I do here. Because of the techniques used, it was not just the actors who needed to be well rehearsed for scenes; the camera & sound teams, the entire production team, they all needed to be well practiced too. To help though, a lot of the furniture and props were fitted on tracks or with wheels so they could be moved without causing too much of a distraction to give the crew more room to work in.

The relatively small cast do well and are authentic enough. James Stewart is the standout for me, and he proves why he was a mainstay in future Hitchcock films. He comes across as intelligent and confident, a perfect leading figure to command the cameras attention. That is not to say that the others are not as good - John Dall and Farley Granger also do well as the high-society killers trying to prove they are above everyone else. They show smarmy confidence when it is required, but then also manage to portray shame and anxiety at the potential of being caught. The characters being shown would not fit well into modern cinema, but for the time they were a perfect fit for a film of the 1940's. When I say they are a perfect fit for the time - they were changed to fit. In the play the characters were homosexual but for the film they were changed because audiences would not apparently be as accepting.

While the acting was fine, the thing that is not as good, especially nowadays is the story. It has not got as much depth as other Hitchcock films to be considered a great film. Because of how blasé and 'matter-of-fact' it is, to modern audiences it would just seem outdated rather than horrific. It almost feels like the story is not as important as firstly the techniques being used, and then secondly, the actors who keep the audience attentive.

Not all experiments are successful. Although Hitchcock was pushing boundaries, the lack of depth to the story lets the film down a little. The acting being demonstrated made sure that the film was not a failure, but it is not consistent throughout - probably because the actors were tired and stressed from the long shots. In summary though, there is a reason why "Rope" is not regarded as one of Hitchcock's top 5 films amongst critics. Much like the murderers trying to get away with a 'perfect crime' and prove they are better than everyone else; this film feels like Hitchcock was trying to prove that he too was cleverer than others when it came to his art of film. I do enjoy this film and still think it is good, but to me it overbalanced with more style than substance.

"Retreat" is a 2011 British horror-thriller film which marks Carl Tibbetts directorial debut. Filmed in Scotland and Wales, this low-budget film is intentionally very isolated and remote film and puts an extremely small cast of great actors into a confined situation to drive the tension.

Martin and Kate Kennedy (Murphy & Newton) aren't happy. Their relationship is tense after Kate's recent miscarriage and in an attempt to rekindle the love for each other they decide to stay on a remote island away from society in a small cottage which have they stayed in during happier times. Fairweather Cottage on the Blackholme Island is in the middle of nowhere - in fact, the island only has one building and that is where the couple are staying. Doug (Yuill) is their only contact with the outside world, and when the houses generator blows up and injures Martin, he is called to help them. While waiting for Doug an injured and unconscious soldier washes up on the beach. Private Jack Coleman (Bell) tells them that there has been a viral outbreak of Argromoto Flu, codenamed R1N16. It started in South America and has since spread around the entire World. It is a fatal virus with a 100% fatality rate. Victims choke to death on their own blood as it attacks their respiratory system. The couple initially believe Jack, but over time they begin to doubt him. Is the virus real, or is he a lunatic madman intent on keeping them prisoner on the remote island?

This film is very minimalistic and sparce. There are only 5 actors credited with appearing in the film, and they are in a desolate landscape which makes them feel like the only people in the world. With more dialogue than action, it is up to the cast to bring their A game to drive the story and work the tension so that the film is not a let-down. Thankfully, they manage this for the majority of the film otherwise this would have been a dull film. There are times where the writing could have enhanced the film, or where unnecessary plot-holes popped up, but working with what they have Murphy, Newton, and Bell do really well.

I hate to find issues with everything (but I usually do), but I found that the film didn't quite live up to the potential it had. This could have been a really great film, but instead felt more like a missed opportunity as there were quite a few times where I felt underwhelmed. This is perhaps down to the first-time director not having the experience to smooth out minor issues which could have made the film play out a little better. Still, credit where credit is due - he still brings audiences a wonderfully tense film which allows the stars to shine brightly.

This low-budget thriller has some excellent cinematography and despite some minor flaws still delivers a decent tense experience thanks to great acting.

Direct and written by Dyson and Nyman this 2017 film is based on a stage play by the same name, which was also created by the pair in 2010. This British supernatural horror works as an anthology of tales which are wrapped up by another story, and it feels like an Amicus Production film of the 1960's.

The hardest thing about writing this review is going to be giving away no spoilers... so here goes...

Nyman plays Professor Goodman, whose life has been devoted to debunking fraudulent psychics to stop people's lives being ruined the same way his family was affected in his youth. He receives an offer from a long-disappeared inspiration of his, Charles Cameron, a famous paranormal investigator from the 1970's. Now old and sick, Cameron asks Goodman to investigate 3 cases that he couldn't disprove from his career - cases that have haunted him.

Case one is Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse). He was haunted by a young girl while working as a nightwatchman at a disused asylum. He put it down to guilt that was brought on after his wife died, and after he stopped visiting his daughter who is suffering locked-in syndrome in a hospital.

Case two is Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther). Teenager Simon has a bad relationship with his parents, which Goodman assumes is the reason why Simon suffered visions of a monster trying to kill him when his car broke down in the woods one night.

Case three is Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman). He thinks he is being haunted by the poltergeist of his dead wife, who dies in childbirth which he didn't attend.

The wrap around elements will become obvious throughout, if not at the end - but one that audiences will definitely see crop up in the hooded figure.

If you are a fan of British horror films then the construct of this film will feel familiarly like an old Amicus film. The stories themselves might not be that surprising or difficult to work out too. There are twists, turns, and revelations on show - but unfortunately for a seasoned horror fan like me - it did not work. I had figured it all out within the first 15-20 minutes. With it worked out, I was left to watch what happened to see if I was right, and unfortunately, I was. Getting to the end was a little slow, the pace was not brilliant, and the ending was not much to write home about.

Despite the predictability I found this to be still fairly enjoyable in parts. It is a very distinctly English, horror film that uses atmosphere and dialogue to keep attention and drive the plot. It has some lovely northern scenery on show, from Humberside, to Leeds and Bradford too. Having lived a lot of my life in Yorkshire, it was lovely to see familiar scenery on show. I was particularly impressed to see Hornsea in the feature as that is close to my old stomping ground of Preston (near Hull).

Regarding the acting, it was all ok-ish. Paul Whitehouse was the biggest surprise for me. Usually more at home with comedy I found his portrayal of Tony Matthews to be chilling and haunting. Freeman's performance is of a yuppy that I have seen in other titles before so that did not do much for me. And while Andy Nyman does well in the lead role, he does occasionally come across as a bit flat and cheesy. While he might do well on stage with this kind of performance, in a feature film it did not always carry across brilliantly for me.

Despite any negatives you may perceive from me in this review, the film is still ok, but more average than great. It is probably something a family can watch, as long as the younger family members are teenagers rather than toddlers. I found this film on terrestrial TV late one night, and that is likely to be where it stays. I cannot see this becoming a cult classic like other British horror. I didn't get the urge to rush to re-watch it, so for me it doesn't have much of a shelf-life. Still though, it's harmless enough.

How many times have you heard "Disney" and "Bombed at the Box Office"? Not many times , so, sit back and let me tell you about "Tomorrowland: A World Beyond" which was directed and co-written by Brad Bird who also directed "The Iron Giant" (1999), "The Incredibles" (2004), "Ratatouille" (2007), "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" (2011), and went on to direct "Incredibles 2" in 2018.

In detail In the past, 1964, a boy genius, Frank Walker, finds his way into an alternative dimension called Tomorrowland. It is a place where the cleverest people can co-exist to make a better reality. Fast-forward to the present, presumably 2005, and Casey Newton is living with her brother under the watchful eye of single father Eddie Newton in Cape Canaveral. Space exploration is a forgotten thing, and Eddie being an space flight engineer spends his time working in his garage, which Casey, in her spare time is sabotaging the removal of the rocket platform that is on the outskirts of town. Casey is a genius in her own right and dreams about going into space, she is forever asking the question how to fix the world she lives in. One day she receives a mysterious pin that shows her a vision of Tomorrowland. Hungry for more she attempts to find out about the pin, and gain entry to the mysterious place. She is eventually tracked down by Athena who hails from Tomorrowland and is trying to recruit Casey to help the future of existence. In order to help, Athena convinces Casey to get a much older and grumpy Frank Walker onside too. The idea is that Athena needs both Frank and Casey to stop the world from going through a catastrophic event that kill be the downfall of humanity. The journey to save the World, via Tomorrowland starts - but the trio are tested on the way by conspiracy theories who want in on Tomorrowland, and also by the hierarchy of Tomorrowland itself.

In 180 characters Possibly child genius recruited by mysterious age-less child from alternative reality, to find ex-child genius and save the world. Colourful family adventure from Disney with George Clooney leading the cast.

The film tries to recapture a failing passion in the world for some of the things that Walt Disney initially tired to bring to his media and parks - space, futurism, and a sort of utopia. It's a sci-fi adventure film which is mostly grounded on Earth, and an alternative reality of Earth, but does have a moment in space too. "Tomorrowland" is a colourful and imaginative film which is visually pretty to look at and flows nicely. Although I am an adult these days, this is still a fun filled film which is as entertaining to me now, as it would have been in my pre-teenage years too.

George Clooney leads the cast being a seasoned A-lister that he is. His range is not really tested in this and his performance is not that far removed from other family films he has appeared in. Stealing the show though are Britt Robertson and Raffey Cassidy who both feel like a good fit for a Disney film. They are fresh and deliver solid performances in their roles. While neither necessarily being Oscar worthy in this, when I compare what they bring against other live-action Disney films of the past, they both fit the bill well and come across as authentic.

I have mentioned that the film is visually good. There is a lot of CGI in this film and for the most part it is not off-putting and distracting. This is fuelled by Disney's Industrial Light & Magic, which does not put too many footsteps wrong in this feature. I am fairly sure that this would have blown my mind if I were watching this as a young boy - sure, it's on the family friendly side so it wouldn't necessarily be as cool as something like "Tron" (1982) or "Transformers" (1986), but it would have still enthralled me. It was hard for as an adult not to see some of the continuity errors that cropped up from time to time (there were a load of them!), but I easily overlooked them because of the sense of fun that was been delivered.

I watched this film with my wife, and it is fair to say that she did not enjoy this. She claimed that she feels robbed of 2 hours of her life. Likewise, I have spoken to other people that thought this was a bit weak too. On the other hand, I know that there are some audiences who loved this and cannot understand the negativity and how it bombed at the box office (it cost $190 million and earned $210 million). I kind of sit on the fence, with my feet dangling in the positivity side of the garden. I enjoyed this film, but I know that not everybody will do - I did. It was a fun family adventure which used a Disney-esque steampunky (very loosely of course) sci-fi element, and it made me think of the live action films of Disney's past that I enjoyed, the kind of films that Disney made before they went whole-hog on animation epics. Films like: "The Island at the Top of the World" (1974), "Escape to Witch Mountain" (1975), "the Cat From Outer Space" (1978), "The Black Hole" (1979), "Tron" (1982), "The Flight of the Navigator" (1986), and even "Flubber" (1997).

So, it may be a film that will divide audiences, but if you give it a go it can still be plenty of fun. As such, I am going to give this a controversial 7 out of 10.

The first time I watched "Young Guns", in the early 1990's, it impressed me. It was like watching the cool kids of the wild west making up the rules as they went. With the cast that the film brought there was a rat-pack/brat-pack feel to it too with the likes of Estevez, Sheen, and Sutherland in it. Re-watching the film as a more 'mature' audience (rather than a teenager), some of that rule-breaking cool that the characters brought then, in particularly Estevez's William H. Bonney (a.k.a. Billy the Kid), now seems less cool, and more petulant and annoying. I will get into that some more later though.

The film starts off with Terence Stamp's John Tunstall and Kiefer Sutherland's Doc Scurlock picking up a bad-boy runaway, Estevez's Billy the Kid. Tunstall gives a home, education, and purpose to outcasts that aren't necessarily friends of the law. When Billy joins up, Tunstall already has a 6-man posse of riff-raff on his staff. When the kids aren't helping around the farm they are regulating, and they "regulate any stealing of his property" (I'm not quoting Warren G's anthem, the G-man samples the film in his "Regulators" song). So basically, the kids aren't just there to work the farm and learn a purpose, they are hired guns and muscles that can protect Tunstall and his interests. When Tunstall is gunned down by Lawrence Murphy's gang, who Tunstall has been in competition with, the 'young guns' are begrudgingly deputized in order to bring the outlaws responsible to justice. Unfortunately, the west is still wild, and as the roam Lincoln County in New Mexico, not all the young guns have the same idea of justice. "Dick" (Sheen) wants to arrest the responsible outlaws, while Billy's justice is execution. This puts the gang on the wrong side of the law and end up being wanted men - so they make a run for it. Again, not everybody is happy with doing a runner, especially when vengeance for Tunstall and their friends hasn't been served properly.

The casting for this film was eye-candy to 80's audiences. Most of the main stars had been in big hits before they were assembled in this western action film. They all do a decent job in delivering their performances, and for the most part I do not have much beef. One of the things I did have a slight issue with is that they were all supposed to be under the age of 20-years. This however is Hollywood of the 1980's and quite often audiences were told somebody was a teen, even when they had 5-o'clock shadow and crow's feet.

The standout among the group is Emilio Estevez in the starring role of Billy the Kid. As a teenager watching this film, I thought he was cool and always seemed to push the boundaries of what was acceptable. As a much older viewer nowadays, my opinions have changes slightly. These days the character would warrant a slap and be sent to bed with no supper. The choices he made constantly got the group into trouble, and in some instances, it got them dead too. This is the wild west though - and from reviews and studies I have read there seemed to be a lot of historical accuracy in the performances and characters.

Some reviews have suggested that the way this film played out was closer to what happened in the Lincoln County War than other films before it, the notable exception is the John Wayne film "Chisum" from 1970. In fact, some commentators have said that, with how accurate the characters were to real-life in "Young Guns", only the addition of a John Chisum character could have made it more authentic. Despite the plaudits the film got about certain historical element it got right, the film still plays fast and loose with other historical accuracies. Let's face it though - this is entertainment and not a documentary, there has to be some Hollywood embellishment here or it might not have appealed to the box office and grossed the $56 million that it did. Because of its success, despite how the film ends and the narration that mentions Billy the Kid's eventual demise, 1990 brought audiences a sequel in the form of the creatively titled "Young Guns 2".

From a technical point of view the film revamps and updates some of the more traditional elements you would expect to see in a classic western film. Camera work is good and there are some nice scenes shown. Some of the post-production and editing is a little cheesy, especially the end with the number of slow-motion shots that are played out - but its still fun. The wardrobe department did well to make the kids look cool but authentic too. And music, decent enough although its modernised a lot so make this the rock-and-roll version of a western films.

"Young Guns" as a whole is a fairly enjoyable film which has a decent pace and features some fun performances. It isn't going to be something that everybody enjoys, but it is good pulp-fiction to western fans. It is a buddy-road movie in a western style which is very much "ride of die", and "pals stick together like family". There have been better westerns in the past, better western films came after this too - but as a contribution from the 1980's, this is a decent enough entry with plenty of fun and 80's feels to it. If the likes of "Rooster Cogburn" (1975) is an acoustic guitar, and "A Fistful of Dollars" is a jazz trumpet, then "Young Guns" is definitely a 1980's flying-V heavy metal guitar with amps turned up to fuzz and crackle. But just like hair-metal of the 80's, this film isn't as fresh as it once was to me.

In 2007 Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino made the "Grindhouse" double-feature, which brought audiences "Planet Terror" and "Death Proof". Hidden within "Grindhouse" was a fake trailer for "Machete", which starred Danny Trejo as a bad-ass Mexican Federal, turned vigilante. This was not the first time that Trejo had appeared as a character called Machete in a Rodriguez feature, he also played Machete in the Spy Kids franchise too (2001 - 2011). Although I have not seen the Spy Kids films, I can imagine that while the character has the same name, the themes within the different Rodriguez features are completely different, one being a family friendly comedy action series, the other being a trashy exploitative B-Movie.

Machete Cortez (Trejo) has had a rough time of late, while working on a case his partner is killed, then the target he was after is killed (but not before stabbed him in the leg), he is betrayed by his corrupt Chief who gives him to a powerful drug lord called Torrez (Steven Seagal). Torrez kills Machete's wife, promises to kill his daughter, and then leaves Machete for dead. Fast-forward 3 years and his life is not much better, he is making a living as best as he can doing odd-jobs and gardening. For a moment though, his luck might be able to change. He is approached by a businessman, Michael Booth (Jeff Fahey), with a proposition - well, more a threat. He is tasked with killing Texas State Senator John McLaughlin (Robert De Niro) who has secretly being deporting hundreds of illegal immigrants. Of course, if Machete refuses the job, Booth will just have him killed there and then. Remember when I said his luck was only about to momentarily change? Well, that is because it is all a big set up - McLaughlin will not be killed, Machete will be framed, the media will get behind the story of a Mexican taking a shot at the senator, and ultimately McLaughlin will be lorded over.

Machete is a wanted man - the law wants him; Torrez, Booth and McLaughlin want him, as does a whole host of bad guys. Soon enough too, Machete is hunted by a persistent US Immigration and Customers Enforcement Agent, Sartana Rivera (Jessica Alba). He is also hunted by hitman Osiris Amanpour (Tom Savini) who is hired by Booth. Thankfully though, Machete is not out of ideas yet, through Luz (Michelle Rodriguez) he might still be able to find a mysterious rebel leader called "Shé" for help. Machete can also call on Padre, his "holy" brother (Cheech Marin) for support. With nothing left to do but fight for his life and his freedom - bad guys beware - Machete is focussed on retribution and revenge.

Although a joint venture in directing between Rodriguez and Ethan Maniquis, the Machete character can be credited to Rodriguez alone. In 1995 while making the "Desperado" film Rodriguez was impressed with Trejo and knew then that sometime in the future he would make a film which had Trejo as the lead role.

"When I met Danny, I said, 'This guy should be like the Mexican Jean-Claude Van Damme or Charles Bronson, putting out a movie every year and his name should be Machete."

Trejo does not disappoint. His character is an adrenaline fuelled, hard-as-nails, mean and nasty, S.O.B. that also manages to fluidly transform into a Lothario when it is required too. Trejo was 64 years old when he played this part, but he still played it like a younger, more spritely man. Sure, his weathered appearance has made him look old throughout his career, but to me he still looks the same as when he first came to my attention in film through the 1990's.

The supporting cast around Trejo are great too. Having featured in the "Grindhouse" trailer it was nice to see Cheech Marin and Jeff Fahey return for the feature length version. Michelle Rodriguez and Jessica Alba's characters in the film are far from eye-candy, both are strong women that play their own part in the film, which are delivered with good performances. The bad guys in the film, played by the likes of Seagal, De Niro, Savini, Fahey, and Don Johnson, all feel a bit comic in their delivery, but executed well all the same. In fact, it's not just them that feel comic, a lot of the time as the film ventures on and different things happen, or random characters appear - it sometimes feels like this is actually an animated cartoon that's been brought to life. The film does not take itself too seriously and there are times when the performances by the actors is gritty and authentic; but equally, there are times when a knowing look at the camera is intended to directly talk the audience about how ludicrous this who thing is too. The balance is maintained well.

As you might expect if you have seen the other "Grindhouse" films, this is intended to be a tongue-in-cheek, schlock, B-Movie, semi-exploitative film which pays homage to the "sex and violence" films that came out between 1960 and 1980. It ticks all those boxes and is a fun film with a lot of over the top and bonkers action, a simple enough story which is still engaging, and has some lovely technical work behind the camera to make this look and feel in fitting with its "Grindhouse" tag. I found it impossible to sit through this with a straight face - I was either open mouth with amazement at what I have seen, or I was struggling to breath as I laughed uncontrollably. This is more a comedy than a horror film, it is more Mexpolitation than exploitation, its... err... well, not for everybody, but for the audience that it is for, it will be loved.

Yes, this is a cheese fest - but it is meant to be. Leave your brain at the door and just watch a random bat-sh!t crazy action film that harps back to some of the cheesy films of the late 1900's in design and delivery. If the unkillable Machete is angry, you better hope it wasn't you who angered him, or you might find he uses your intestines to write an angry letter :D

This B-Movie horror-comedy film is part of the "Grindhouse" project that was supposed to be a collaboration between a handful of fun directors, including Tarantino, Eli Roth, Edgar Wright, and Rob Zombie. The original concept was a massive bumper film with lots of smaller segments allowing the different directors time to flex the directorial muscles in a 1960's and 1970's grind-house film style. As things developed, instead of one film, two films were birthed. "Planet Terror" which has a main story with other smaller segments mixed in, and Tarantino's stand-alone film of "Death Proof", which also has a segment in "Planet Terror" anyway.

Residents in a rural sleepy part of Texas are about to face off against a nightmare horror which will test their skills of survival. In the process of securing a biochemical agent, Lt. Muldoon (Bruce Willis) and his men encounter problems, and the chemical is accidentally released into the air, thus starting a zombie outbreak. The airborne chemical infects large parts of the local populous mutating people into deformed zombies. Meanwhile, Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan) has quit her job as a go-go dancer, she bumps into her mysterious ex-boyfriend El Wray (Freddy Rodriguez) and they plan to leave town. Dr Dakota Block (Marley Shelton) is about to leave town with her girlfriend Tammy (Stacy Ferguson), much to the anger of her husband, Dr William Block (Josh Brolin). But things seem to be going very very wrong from one turn to the next. Cherry loses a leg, El Wray is imprisoned, Mr and Mrs Block have a domestic, and the military are not much use at all. As the group of survivors come together the odds might be about to even out as Cherry gets a machine-gun leg, and El Wray's mysterious backstory is revealed - kind of.

Inspired by grind-house movies of the past in style and feel, this film is made as a homage with the intention of looking bad and cheap. For that reason, you might think that it feels uneven or undeveloped in places. You will probably notice the change of film stock used to capture the footage. The intentional scratches and cigarette burn on the film, and of course the 'missing reel'. Rest assured these are all intentional, as intentional as the ludicrous story, the over-the-top action, stunts, and gore - but, let's be honest, if you know you are about to watch a film where a lead character gets a gun appendage to replace a zombie severed limb, you probably know that this isn't going to be "Titanic". While it may not be for everybody, I grew up watching what some people would call awful films, so for me, I enjoyed every bit of the tackiness.

While "Planet Terror" is playing out you will see mismatched cuts which at times brings in other smaller segments that act as trailers for other films. "Death Proof" which Quentin Tarantino did as a solo movie anyway but appears as a trailer. "Machete" which also went on to be a standalone starring Danny Trejo and directed by Robert Rodriguez. "Werewolf Women of the SS", Rob Zombie's trailer with Nicholas Cage as Fun Manchu. "Don't" which sees Edgar Wright doing a Hammer House of Horror style trailer. "Thanksgiving" - Eli Roth's slasher film trailer contribution. And "Hobo with a Shotgun" by filmmakers Jason Eisener, John Davies, and Rob Cotterill, who won a competition to get their short included. Like "Machete", "Hobo with a Shotgun" went on to a feature film too with Rutger Hauer in the lead role.

The acting is decent enough, but just as hammed up as the action unfolding on screen. There are times where the characters give a knowing nod and wink to the audience, but for the most part they seem to be playing it straight. Rose McGowan leads the line, although the supporting cast all do well enough, or as well as the silliness allows anyway.

This tongue-in-cheek zombie gorefest is blood soaked and sexually suggestive. It has lots of carnage, violence, and bad language to help it forward. If you expected anything less, then you might need to brush up on what you expected from a film which celebrates the brutal sex-and-action exploitation films that grind-house style movies brought audiences.

I wont lie, I loved this film. It might be ludicrous and bad-taste at times - but I'm a depraved film fan that grew up watching nasty and over-the-top horror films. This for pure enjoyment and fun, rather than for any important messages. Leave your brains at the door, get the snacks ready, and just kick back and enjoy.

Tarantino's first western film sees him return with a lot of the usual Hallmarks that are associated with him as an auteur. This film is heavy on violence with lots of gunplay and fighting, and it is filled with plenty of dialogue which drives the story as much as the action. Like some of his other films there is also a theme of vengeance running through it, something that was explored a little in "Inglourious Basterds" by Shosanna and the American-Jewish commandos; in "Death Proof" by the surviving women; sort of in "Jackie Brown", "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs" too. This time out though, the main vengeance is between a freed slave and slavers in the 1850's wild west.

Christoph Waltz plays Dentist/Bounty Hunter Dr King Schultz, who frees a slave called Django (Jamie Foxx), who will help him find some outlaws he has been tracking for a bounty. Django has his own plans though and wants vengeance against the racial injustices that are rife, and primarily to find his wife Broomhilda von Shaft. They learn that she is being held as a slave at the Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) "Candyland" plantation in Mississippi. On route to Mississippi, Django learns all about bounty hunting from working with Schultz and they develop a mutual respect for one and other.

Although Jamie Foxx was not the first name out of the hat when Tarantino went into casting, he delivers a great performance as Django. As his story arc develops, he gives the role some excellent character and strength which I liked, which contrasted nicely with Waltz's more polite and sensitive character. Django and Schultz have a good chemistry that works well in tandem, one being gritty and raw, and the other being quieter and more reserved. One being about action now, and the other being more of a planner. Both manage to learn from each other as the story progresses and, in a sense, this becomes a bit of a buddy road trip (on horseback) film. In Tarantino's last film "Inglourious Basterds" I felt that Waltz's performance was one of the standouts, and this film he continues that level of acting once more. I do not prefer one of the roles over the other, they are both equally on par here.

The pantomime villain of the film is DiCaprio's Calvin Candie. On the surface a well-mannered southern gentleman, despite obviously being a slaver and dictator in his own kingdom. This performance caught me off guard slightly and the usual lovable DiCaprio was able to turn on the offensive as easy as turning on a light switch. One minute he was being presented as calm and jovial, the next minute displaying a mean as hell psychopath willing to risk everything. Tarantino had wanted to work with DiCaprio for a while, even try to get him for a role in "Inglourious Basterds", so in "Django Unchained" he finally got his man.

I must mention Samuel L. Jackson's performance in this, he was incredible. He made my skin crawl and was a genuinely haunting character. He felt as much a bad guy as Calvin Candie was. In learning to survive and the way he adapted to do so for a better lifestyle he become corrupted. This corruption was not just the way he was and acted, but also the way he looked, his mannerism, everything about the performance gave me shudders.

Dealing with a film that looks at a dark time in humanities history is always going to invoke ill feelings and this certainly does that. Tarantino's film here is of course highly stylized and not entirely historically accurate in certain parts, but the main topic of slavery is something that cannot be denied. While "Mandingo" fights might not be accurate, or the wardrobe being display is not always correct for its time, the atrocity of slavery did of course exist and was mainstream in certain parts of America. While Tarantino handles this topic, and the linguistics unabashedly, certain audiences and critics did not respond well to it. While some audiences and critics have said it is offensive to them and handles racial issues terribly, equally the film has received praise from some quarters for the way it authentically handled these things. In this sense, the film does and will divide perceptions and will not make everybody happy or comfortable. In his own justification, Tarantino wanted to do a film which featured the history that America is ashamed to deal with, and which other countries directors feel they do not have a right to deal with.

This highly stylized western film is tribute to Spaghetti Westerns of the 1960's and 1970's, three of which Tarantino openly admitted he paid homage to in making "Django Unchained". Sergio Corbucci's 1966 "Django" and his 1968 "The Great Silence", and Richard Fleischer's 1975 "Mandingo. The "Unchained" part of the title may pay tribute to the likes of Corbucci's 1966 "Hercules Unchained", or Lee Madden's 1970's "Angel Unchained" which is a revenge film against rednecks. Lots of doffs of the cap to Corbucci but then when Tarantino wrote this film he had just finished a book on Corbucci overlap isn't all that surprising. Furthermore, Corbucci makes a cameo in the film too, which further shows Tarantino's admiration for the Italian filmmaker.

I enjoyed this film more than I though I was going to. After "Inglourious Basterds" I expected another visually strong film, but one which was a bit messy and unintelligent. In this I got an exciting film that despite its nearly 3-hour runtime it did not feel like it dragged and still offered plenty of twists and turns. It might not have handled certain racial elements well, and I cannot think it did anything for gender politics either the way that women appear only as damsels in distress. But none the less it offered good writing with lots of strong dialogue. The onscreen bromance between Foxx and Waltz was endearing and fun, and DiCaprio's character gave me a somebody to "boo" and "hiss" at. Add to the writing and the performances some lovely cinematography and well-choreographed scenes, and this film does feel like a modern spaghetti western that is full of grit and style. 8 out of 10.

This film represents Tarantino's fifth full-length feature film. He is credited with more against his name as a director, but I have discounted guest appearances and shorts from the list. Like it or lump it, my argument is that this is his fifth.

"Death Proof" is one part of a double feature called "Grindhouse" that Tarantino worked on with Robert Rodriguez, Eli Roth, Edgar Wright, and Rob Zombie. "Grindhouse" was not meant to be two films by all accounts; from interviews I am led to believe that there would be a massive single film with "Death Proof" as one of two main films interwoven between shorts and vignettes. But after the full "Grindhouse" project failed to meet expectations at pre-release screenings in the US market, the film was halved, and "Death Proof" was given its own life.

The other part of the grindhouse double feature was "Planet Terror", which, as well as a retaining a small segment for "Death Proof", brought segments such as "Machete" (which went on to be a standalone feature), "Werewolf Women of the S.S.", "Don't", "Thanksgiving", and "Hobo with a Shotgun" (which also went on to be a standalone too).

The idea behind the whole "Grindhouse" project was to make something that paid homage to and used the style of 1970's exploitation films. The initial poor reception meant that although it is not a single film anymore, a drive-in double feature could still be achieved - so still working within the parameters of the project to some extent. The two titles, "Planet Terror" and "Death Proof" were eventually released two months apart and kind of referenced each other too.

So, what is it then? Well, "Death Proof" is an exploitation slasher film starring Kurt Russell as a psychotic stuntman who murders young women in car accidents using his "death-proof" stunt car. He stalks some women early on, who he manages to dispatch with minimum effort, but cannot be charged by the law despite them thinking he is responsible. Later, he stalks some more women, but he is up against meaner opposition this time as one of them herself is a stunt person too.

Kurt Russell plays the stuntman, Mike McKay. Before being cast, Tarantino attempted to get John Travolta, Willem Defoe, John Malkovich, Mickey Rourke, Ron Pearlman, Bruce Willis, Kal Penn, Ving Rhames, John Jarrett, or Sylvester Stallone. That is not to say that Russell was not in the running, by all accounts, he was on a shortlist, the others just had prior commitments which meant Tarantino was able to go with him. Again, from interviews, Tarantino thought that Russell had been away from bad-ass roles for too long, playing more conventional nicey-nicey roles.

Russell's performance offers plenty of aestheticism and he plays the gritty and weary killer stuntman with aplomb. His performance felt like his Snake Plissken character from "Escape from New York" (1981) has taken a wrong turn somewhere on his path of life and ended up here, old, dirty, and unhinged.

Starring opposite Russell is a formidable mix of talent including Kiwi stuntwoman Zoë Bell as herself, Rosario Dawson, Vanessa Ferlito, Sydney Tamiia Poitier, Tracie Thoms, Rose McGowan, Jordan Ladd, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Keep an eye open for Tarantino making his regular cameo, and fellow "Grindhouse" director Eli Roth features along the way too.

Zoë Bell did not realise she would be cast as a leading lady when she initially got the call. Tarantino was that impressed with her as Uma Thurman's stunt double in "Kill Bill" that he wanted her in the film, and furthermore, he wanted her to play a version of herself too. It was her first on-screen acting role, and she does herself proud as a bad-a55 foe to Russell's psychotic stuntman. In fact there is a lot of bad-assery on show from the other female leads too. In this, despite the stuntman thinking he's in a mans world, (to quote James Brown), "it wouldn't be nothing, nothing, without a woman or a girl".

In trying to make "Death Proof" fit in with the grindhouse ethos, lots of techniques were used to make the film look, feel, and sound like an ultra-low-budget B-Movie. There are times were the picture looks washed out, and other times where it looks like bad editing has stitched the film together. These were all intentional techniques and it really gives the film a dirty and seedy feel. The music used also adds to this, the soundtrack is comprised of non-original music, with other film scores used rather than making something new for this. The constructs used help to make the film look fitting of the era it is paying homage too. One thing I noticed though from watching "Planet Terror" as well as this - in that the "Death Proof" segment looks even more ultra-low-budget. The standalone version of "Death Proof" is more polished, and in fact, towards the end of "Death Proof" there is a noticeable shift from what the first two acts brought in terms of style.

I have gone this far without explaining the meaning behind the title of "Death Proof" so allow me a moment for that. Stunt people and film production teams would make a stunt car "death-proof" so it could be smashed and hammered without killing the person driving it. Rollbars and reinforced body work were added under the shell of the vehicle that the audience could not see, thus making the stunt professionals safer than if they were using a commercially bought car which would probably crumple (I like writing that word - "ccccrumple") after impact. With a fascination for this concept, Tarantino wondered if this could be combined and used in a slasher film context, and hey-presto - the film was almost writing itself. There are at least two top muscle cars on show in the film, a souped up 1970 Chevy Nova SS which the stuntman has at the start of the film, and a reinforced 1969 Dodge Charger later on. Please don't send me questions about the cars - I'm the furthest person from a 'petrol head' that you could find.

Having read a lot of reviews about this film there seems to be mixed feeling about it. Where some people have said it was an over-glamourisation of exploitation films which serve no purpose in today's modern film market I can see their point. I would argue that there is a market for all types of films though, and while humans are such unique and different creatures there will always be somebody that likes what a director pumps out. This might not be a film in the traditional mould of styles that Tarantino has used before, or what audiences expect from him - there are not any random flashbacks for one, but that does not mean it is any less of a Tarantino film. The power that the author of a piece of work has, is the ability to change things up occasionally, unfortunately not everybody handles change well. In imitating a style that is not as fashionable as it once was in its heyday, this low-budget style film is still plenty of fun for hardcore film fans. This is more of a straightforward genre movie than Tarantino's usual homage laden films provide, it's free from irony, very old-fashioned - but it still has a place in film and is a success on its own terms.

With its 113-minute runtime, some audience members might think the film drags on a little in places, and I happen to agree. I cannot concede though that I did not enjoy the film. It still provided lots of fun and excitement for me to watch, but in my opinion, I preferred Tarantino's last feature film outing with "Kill Bill", and I also preferred the "Planet Terror" film which only featured a small segment for "Death Proof". Still, there are a lot worse films out there and I'd happily sit in front of this one again.