Reviews

If you fancy watching a film about Zombies then something called "Zombieland" would feel like the best course of action. Unfortunately though Zombieland is very far from the rom-zom-com it's emulating, i.e. Shaun of the Dead. Shaun of the Dead had a great love and affection for this genre and played to it beautifully, interweaving sharp comedy with drama. Zombieland attempts this but ends up being a teen road movie that just happens to be set after the zombie apocalypse and I did not want to see a teen road movie. Don't get me wrong there are some good moments and the film starts off quite promising. However after Columbus (Eisenberg)and Tallehasse (Harrelson) meet the two girls it's begins to lose it's shine. The real problem with this film though is the poor writing. For a start the two girls are instantly unlikeable and the sudden attraction Columbus has for Wichita seem tacked on. Tallahasee's search for Twinkie (think thats how you spell it, I'm British so they're not well known over here) screams of smack you in the face product placement. Then there's the plot holes, oh so many plot holes... 1 - How did the girls manage to get past the zombies in the supermarket when they immediately noticed Columbus and Tallahasse? 2 - Why did the girls hide in the back of the supermarket on the extreme off chance that someone not zombie-fied would stumble upon them? 3 - Why bother conning the guys out of their car and weapons when there's millions of cars and guns just lying around? 4 - The amusement park was meant to be zombie free so why smash open the gate with the car to get in, thereby paving the way for zombies to enter? 5 - Since it's shown that zombies can easily climb why did the girls think a paltry 6 foot wooden fence surrounding the park would hold them back? 6 - Correct me if I'm wrong but if you live in a world over-run with homicidal, flesh eating zombies then surely you'd want to keep a low profile? Why then when you finally get to this supposed zombie free amusement park would you turn all the power on, lighting the place up like a Christmas tree? 7 - How did they manage to get on and off the boat ride without someone else to start and stop it? 8 - Why go on the ride that shoots you straight up to avoid the zombies when you know it'll immediately come back down? 9 - And finally, who's running all the power stations? Everything seems to be working without any problem. You can watch TV, pump petrol, even start up an entire amusement park yet surely the power would be the first thing to go?

In all the premise was interesting, though not original, and could probably have worked a lot better with some better writing and perhaps playing to the fact it's a coming of age road movie which just happens to be set after the zombie apocalypse.

I have just watched Twilight for the first time and I must say I'm peed off. This is due to the fact I decided to treat myself to a Blu-Ray player on the weekend and had to find a film to watch on it. There wasn't anything that I didn't already have on normal DVD other than this. God how I wish I'd never bothered! Forevermore my first tentative steps into the world of high-def will be forever tainted by this film.

I have to be honest and say I've never read the books (and never will have any desire to) and other than the hype surrounding this film that I was somewhat aware of I had no idea what to expect from the world of Twilight. So how would I sum this film up? Boring! Painfully boring! I spent close to two hours essentially watching a bloke stare and his navel and furrow his brow (I think he thinks that conveys intensity) and a girl mumble her lines. I think the screenwriters wanted to create a tortured, Byron-esquire type figure with Edward Cullen but he actually comes across as a common, everyday, sullen teenager, I truly think that you could have taken out the whole vampire element of the movie as it seems just latched on. Then you have Kristen Stewarts character of Bella Swan; plain, disinterested, inarticulate (crack a smile once in a while love). Why anyone would so desperately want her, be it vampire or otherwise, is beyond my comprehension. And that's a major problem for me as I would class myself as being a rather cynical person, a realist. I just can't believe that crazy, intense love thing the actors were trying to convey exists in real life. It would take a brilliant performance for me to buy in to it. Unfortunately I didn't.

What is the deal with these "vampires" anyway? They happily stroll around in sunlight as in the world of Twilight (i.e. completely ignore vampire lore) this doesn't kill them but rather shows off the lame body glitter effect their skin is meant to have. What that brings to the story I have no idea. Also where are there fangs, an essential bit of vampire kit? But don't worry cos their eyes can change colour for no reason whatsoever. And why is a hundred-plus year old vampire chasing a seventeen year old? I know he looks that age too but...well he's not. And that was a key flaw in this film. None of these centuries old creatures had any wisdom behind their eyes that comes from being around for a while (see Interview with the Vampire). Edward may as well have just been seventeen.

Twilight has a few good moments. The fight scene at the end was enjoyable although having to sit through the rest of the film to get to it it wasn't much of a payoff.

Basically the whole premise of Twilight isn't aimed at people like me, a 29 year old man from the UK. However, if you're a 13-15 year old girl from America with an Anne Rice fixation you'll love this soppy nonsense. Me? I'm gonna keep watching my vampires get their heads chopped off by Wesley Snipes.

"Demons" eh? Can't actually remember seeing a demon in any episode. Oh well anyway.....I began watching this show in the hope that what had been created was a British version of Buffy or Supernatural. I stuck with it, watched every episode and have come to the conclusion this must have been written by some film students with a hard-on for these shows but without the talent to duplicate them. Demons fails miserably on so many levels and that's setting aside the poor writing, laden with clichés. For a start we have the protagonist, Luke, a hero that has all the personality of a lump of wood. He might very well be a good looking chap but that's hardly enough to carry a whole series. Watching him furrowing his brow (which I think he thinks means he's being deep and intense) and staring into the distance makes me want one of the show's crappy monsters (I'll come to that later) pop up behind him and put him out of my misery. We've got a hero who, personality bypass aside, has no more going for him than you or I. OK, so he's the last of the Van Helsing's. So? At least Buffy had powers like super strength etc. Other than some very dubious martial art's "skills" this guy offers nothing. Then we have Ruby, the most pointless character since Lana Lang in Smallville. Here we have one of those annoying teenagers (ok, I now she's probably really 25 or something) whose mannerisms and speech seem based entirely on that of our transatlantic cousins, except with a British accent, something that personally annoy's the crap out of me. Her entire job seems to be getting captured and then waiting for rescue interspersed with pining over the 2x4 called Luke. Lukes mother, whose sole purpose seems to be 'stand in kitchen, make sandwiches and coffee'! We have a vampire who seems to do NOTHING vampire-y. And finally Rupert. Phillip Glenister is the only one who comes out of this with a shred of respect. OK, his dialogue verges on the comical (seems to have been written by people who have never actually met an American) but he does his best with it and doesn't seem to be taking it too seriously. There are also a lot of elements of the show that are either confusing or make no sense; where do these half-life's come from? Are there other hunters out there? How do they fund what they do? Information like this adds to the richness of a show. By leaving out these types of details the writers are not creating a believable world, one which we can buy into.

Saying all that I do think the show has a spark of potential but they need to bring in better writers and have a overhaul of the basic concepts of the show. Might I suggest, in my humble opinion, the following points: 1 - Get a better actor to play Luke, someone who can really portray the weight of this awesome responsibility dumped on a ordinary teenager. 2 - Then give him some kind of ability that sets him apart from us mere mortals, something that can develop over many show's, something that starts off as a burden and eventually shows him learning to accept, control and use it. 3 - Get rid of Ruby. Brings nothing to the show, no reason for her to be there. 4 - Make the monsters more monstrous, more malevolent. Introduce more traditional monsters (like Werewolves etc) and stick to the traditional set of rules in relation to them. Don't have Vampires strolling around in sunlight and get rid of the more crappy monsters like the rat fella (about as scary as watching High School Musical). 5 - Get rid of Galvins accent. 6 - Have an over reaching story arc. When you watch series like Supernatural of Buffy there are indeed stand alone episodes but there is always something/ someone powerful, different from the norm and dark we all know is coming and the characters spend the series slowly becoming aware of and trying to combat. Demons seems entirely composed of stand alone episodes with no real goal, purpose or destination in mind. 7 - Introduce a "big bad" into each series (and no, Mackenzie Crooks ridiculous character doesn't count). 8 - Make it darker (which seems like a ludicrous thing to say about a TV based on the supernatural). The show is a bit too pre-watershed friendly, i.e. there is room to manoeuvre without upsetting the parents.

As I said at the start the series has potential but it seems the writers first need to create the mythology of the show, create the world based on that and then drop the characters in. At the moment it seems as if they're making it up as they go.

I thought I'd wait to comment until I'd watched every episode. Now that I have......well what can I say? There were some good ideas in here but one can't help thinking that Charley Brooker simply sat down with copies of Dawn of the Dead and 28 Days Later, pilfered the best bits then filled in the gaps with some original (although not very good) ideas of his own. What you then have is a program that showed a lot of potential, enough to keep me tuning in every night hoping that I'd see something new and exciting but unfortunately it never came. The main problems for me were the gaping plot holes you could drive a double decker bus through: 1 - Despite the fact that society is facing the apocalypse the power companies still seem to have staff running their systems since the TV's work right till the end. 2 - A wire fence can somehow manage to hold back hundreds of zombies constantly pushing against it. 3 - The survivors urge the fat bloke (sorry, can't remember his name) not to leave in the van as opening the gate to get out will let the zombies in and the BB house is safe at that moment (questionable). What the hell are they gonna do when food and water runs out? Surely they'll have to leave eventually. Doesn't make sense to do it early on and all together rather than wait for the hundred zombies to turn into a thousand? I could go on. I get the distinct impression that if the bare bones of the plot were given to a more accomplished writer than Charlie Brooker to flesh out then this could have been truly great piece of telly. Unfortunately it turns out to be a pastiche of better zombie films. On the bright side Jaime Winstone was good, I was never really a fan of hers before but this did change the view somewhat.

Just finished watching Walk Hard (the uncut version) and my initial feeling is one of mild disappointment to be honest as I would consider myself a fan of Judd Apatow and his name is what drew me to it. That being said I don't think the film is a complete waste of time as there were some funny moments but no belly laughs that I have enjoyed with his other work. The film is overly long (okay I accept I was watching the extended version but that's only an extra 25 mins whilst I felt it could have lost around 40-45) and some of the jokes are repeated a bit too often such as the drug taking scenes (once was funny) which eventually I could predict happening. Some other reviewers have slated the way the music icons appearing such as Elvis and Buddy Holly constantly referred to themselves by name in the third person with one reviewer going so far as to say he knows who they are and doesn't need to be constantly reminded. This guy is missing the joke! The celebrities playing these people are so unlike their characters that it's necessary for them to remind us and its a knowing wink to the audience. The "cameo" by the Beatles is also highly amusing. This could have been a lot better but I think the combination of too many pointless characters given a large chunk of screen time (Deweys band and Darleen spring to mind) and the long run time, which seemed to mean lots of padding, lets this film down. Quite funny in some places but my criteria for recommendation of any film is whether I'd give it a repeat viewing. In the case of Walk Hard, sadly, its a No.

Being a fan of the fantasy genre I was quite looking forward to seeing The Golden Compass. Even though some people might roll their eyes and tut when I say this I admit I was hoping for a new Lord of the Rings, a sprawling fantasy trilogy I could look forward to seeing each year. Unfortunately this offering was a big letdown. I never thought I'd say this but I think the root of the problem with this movie was it wasn't long enough! I kept wondering if the version I was watching had been edited by some p*ssed up media studies student as it appeared disjointed a best and ridiculous at worst. Simply not enough time was allocated to fit in all the elements that would make the story work. Lyra goes from being an urchin to Mrs Coulters assistant to meeting up with the Gyptians all in about 40 minutes. It felt like the writers and director knew certain key scenes from the book they wanted to touch upon but didn't give a crap about the narrative connecting them. That's not all that lets this film down sadly. Some of the central performances are also quite poor with Dakota Blue Richards being the most obvious. I feel bad saying that as I realise it's her first leading role but I have to be honest. Easily the most annoying of her portrayal was her inability to settle on an accent so seemed to me to be doing a poor Eliza Doolittle impersonation. The other actors seem to get so little screen time its hard to offer a proper critique. When LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring first came out one review I read said that it has raised the bar for fantasy movies and all others which follow would and should be measured against it. Unfortunately The Golden Compass cannot compete.

To say this movie is awful would actually be complimentary. This movie is so Godawful you want to pull out your own fingernails just for a distraction. Luckily I saw this on TV so no money was wasted on cinema tickets (otherwise I'd have been REALLY mad). Initially it looked quite good; bunch of students stay in a Gothic mansion where where all kinds of spooky mischief occurs. Unfortunately my initial hopes were quickly dashed. The acting was pretty lame, the dialogue was clunky and, at points, downright ludicrous:

"Hey, lets play strip poker". "What's strip poker?"

WHAT'S. STRIP. POKER???? You cannot be bloody serious! Don't bother with this film, even if you get the chance to watch it for free as you'll end up paying in fingernails.