bowmanblue Reviews

The People Across the Lake (1988 TV Movie)

Strangely watchable

[6/10 · 23 April 2024]

I know the words 'made for TV' are hardly a ringing endorsement for a film - it normally denotes a low budget, no real actors you've heard of and shoved on late at night when no one is ever going to see it anyway. All that may actually be true of 'The People Across the Lake,' but, despite all its shortcomings, it's actually quite watchable.

It's about a 'typical' (i.e. Mum, dad, teenage daughter and younger son) moving from the city to a small, rural town to start up their own business. However, when they get there it turns out to be possibly one of the most least friendly places to go in America - and that's before random corpses start showing up seemingly under every stone that's overturned.

Again, nothing amazingly revolutionary with the plot, but what made it watchable for me was generally the dynamic between the husband and wife. The kids don't really get an awful lot of screen time, so it's the adults who are the main characters. I just found something about them very believable as a couple and, for whatever flaws reared their heads, I still found myself wanting to root for the central characters through to the end.

It's hardly a 'thrill-ride.' In fact you could probably call it a bit of a 'slow burn,' as very little of real note happens during the first half of the movie and it's all just generally setting the scene. Once all the 'red herrings' have been discounted as to what's going on, when the 'threat' is finally revealed there is a slight element of 'scenery chewing' here and there which does make you want to roll your eyes just a little in terms of various people's acting ability, but it is a 'made for TV' movie, so what do you expect?

It's hardly a classic that will stick with you for very long, but if there's nothing else then this one will certainly fill an hour and a half of your time.

Isolation (2005)

If 'Alien' had simply been called 'Cow'

[4/10 · 17 April 2024]

If someone tried to tell me the plot for 2005's 'Isolation' I'd probably think they were making it up, or, if the film was as they described, I'd think it was some sort of parody film of the 'monster movie' of the horror genre. But it isn't.

If you think about 'Alien' and how it was set on a spaceship. Then you think of 'The Thing' and how it was set deep in the Antarctic and sort of combine the overall theme of the two, only set it on a country farm in the middle of Ireland. One question you may ask is... isn't a farm a lot easier to escape from (as opposed from a deep space craft or totally inhospitable terrain on all sides) - especially if some hideous killer monster was on the loose. I would say the answer is yes. But that's just one of the movie's sins.

The cast (or staff on the farm) of the film are some of the most uninspired and generic you'll ever see. They really are a bland bunch and one guy (who's supposed to be at least one of the main heroes!) spends much of the time crying! I've never met a quartet with less personality therefore I really couldn't care much for their plight when the monster started its munching.

Oh, yes, the monster... it's hardly the xenomorph from 'Alien' or the insanely grotesque shape-shifter from 'The Thing.' It's a scraggly pink sausage creature that writhes and wiggles about the place. I think it may have teeth. It's not in it for long - probably due to lack of budget.

There's not much to recommend about this film. I don't want to be too harsh on it. It doesn't have a million glaring faults making it completely unwatchable. In fact, it's major fault would be just how mediocre it really is in terms of those in the genre. There's nothing especially bad, but there's nothing that will make you remember it. Oh, and the monster came from a cow. Yeah, the cows incubate them, so perhaps this film is at least a good advert for going vegetarian.

Invasion U.S.A. (1985)

Who needs the army?

[6/10 · 17 April 2024]

Oh, no! Communists! Whatever are we going to do? Guess we might as well surrender - arguably - the most powerful country in the world with a population of around three hundred million. What else is there to do? Certainly not tell a story, if the internet is believed.

Just in case you find the title misleading, 'Invasion U. S. A.' is about a few busload of armed communists, who rock up on America's shores and decide to effectively invade. Hopefully no other band of scallywags try this in real life, as the States seems to roll over quite easily in the face of a few hundred rowdy men. Luckily, one man isn't going to have that and in the same way Tom Cruise vows never to let an alien's boot touch Earth's soil, so here we have Chuck Norris wiping the lot of them out.

Apparently, the film was due to be a lot longer, with various subplots that flesh out our one man army's backstory and motives. But then - according to what I read online - the film-makers thought, 'Nah, we don't need any of that - just stick to the action!'

And that is pretty much what we're left with. A load of faceless badguys descend on some poor area of a civilian town and the Chuck does what he does best and ends the life of every last one. Rinse and repeat. Obviously, he has the grace to save the lead badguy until last - what hero would do more?

You could almost see this film's 'story' as a computer game. Each 'scene' is kind of like the next level Chuck has to blast his way through. All they needed was an end-of-level boss here and there with an extended energy meter and you'd have an excellent video game.

'Invasion U. S. A.' is the definition of 'mindless action.' So, if you're expecting anything even close to cerebral than run a mile. However, if you've just watched 'Rambo' and 'Commando' in the same evening and are still hungry for more, 'Invasion U. S. A.' would make a satisfying dessert.

The Boy Who Cried Werewolf (1973)

Corny, but watchable

[6/10 · 15 April 2024]

During the pandemic, hairdressers around the world were closed, meaning I couldn't get my hair cut for months. By the end of it, I looked about as scary as a 'werewolf' from this film. I may be being a little harsh, but what I'm trying to say is not to expect too many scares from this 'horror' film.

Within the opening five minutes you should basically know what you're in for. After a heavy exposition dump, delivered by a curly-haired boy, we see our first monster. It's basically a bloke in a Halloween mask (and a cheap one at that) that, at some angles, even looks more like a baboon than a werewolf! Werewolves are a difficult creature to make look believable on the big screen and it seems you either need to have a mega budget behind you, or some really inventive ways of filming, combined with practical effects. This movie has neither.

But it's not all bad. In fact, it's quite good fun - even for a film that relies heavily on a young actor to carry much of it. Yes, he's a bit annoying, but not as bad as many of a similar age when on screen. He tries to tell the local population of a werewolf ravaging the surrounding woods, but - as the title suggests - they don't much take to his tales.

There's definitely fun to be had here. It's cheap and cheesy and if you're in a forgiving mood you can certainly have fun with this one. Just don't expect any real scares, let alone special effects. For some reason the scenes which are supposed to be set in the middle of the night (as the characters even state!) are clearly filmed at dusk, or with an odd exposure setting on the film camera, making it look like dusk. I'm guessing this is simply because it would be too dark to shoot at night, but it adds to the 'low budget' feel of it all.

It's no masterpiece and possibly not even up there with the best of the werewolf genre, but if you're bored and don't have your expectations set too high then you can pass some time with this one.

Silent Predators (1999 TV Movie)

Jaws with snakes

[5/10 · 15 April 2024]

First of all, let me say how much I loved the 80s version of 'Clash of the Titans.' I don't care how cheesy it is, it was still a childhood favourite. However, it's star - Harry Hamlin - certainly fell off the radar as far as I was concerned. I'd never seen him in another film, until now. Yes, the title 'Silent Predators' certainly says 'B-movie' and for a good reason - it is one.

Its plot effectively is a load of nasty snakes gets loose in a small town and starts picking off random nobodies you won't care about. Meanwhile, Hamlin plays the local fire chief who suspects that the snakes are the cause of the recent fatalities and desperately tries to warn the authorities - unsuccessfully. What you get is - effectively - 'Jaws,' but with snakes with the local powers that be not believing the threat until it's literally biting them on the a...

When it comes to horror B-movies and snakes, I kind of expected something like 'Anaconda' (which is truly great fun - if you like your cheesy B-movies!), i.e. A giant computer-generated monster-snake devouring people hole. What I got was real snakes, generally slithering towards the actors until a prosthetic version of the reptile was shoved in for the 'kill shot.' I know it's a small thing, but if you're going to make a film with such a low-brow, simple premise as killer snakes on the rampage, you really should lean into it and make it fun. The problem is that these snakes just aren't scary. We've probably all seen large-ish snakes in the zoo and, while impressive, they're not as terrible as other movie monsters.

'Silent Predators' isn't a bad film, but it's hardly memorable. It is indeed a B-movie and hits all the beats you'll expect for a film of this genre. Good people tend to fair better against murderous snakes, while those with low morals almost always get what's coming to them at the end of a pair of fangs. If you find this film on a streaming service, there are certainly worse out there, but you probably won't remember it for anything other than the 'first appearance of Perseus' in nearly twenty years.

The Earth Dies Screaming (1964)

And if you thought 'Dr Who' was cheap

[4/10 · 10 April 2024]

I don't care how good David Tenant's turn as 'Dr Who' was, I grew up with the cheap balsa wood sets which wobbled every time a Dalek breezed past it. Yes, there were no CGI alien armies trashing New York, followed by the the obligatory 'skybeam' for the protagonist to thwart. However, they had their old, stuffy - even black and white if you go back far enough - charm.

'The Earth Dies Screaming' is - in case you hadn't guessed it by its title - is unashamedly a B-movie. I don't think anyone involved in its production was ever thinking this was going to be a classic that was destined to stand the test of time. It could have had that 'truly British stiff-upper-lip' feel about it, it could have almost slotted in somewhere within a 'Dr Who shared universe. Sadly, it just comes across as a bit dull. And cheap.

Most of the world (well, mainly England) drops down dead (?) while going about their business, leaving only a handful of survivors, who find themselves held up in a country pub. Before they really get too much of a chance to figure out the whys and hows of their situation, they're besieged by alien robots who make the Cybermen look 'high-budget' and threatening.

Um, that's about it. It's shot completely in black and white, plus it's not a long film and it goes on for a little longer where they're trying to find a way of defeating their metal and then it kind of ends. Yes, I know it's low budget, so I wasn't expecting for any sort of 'Fast and Furious' car chasing to epic battle-scenes, but it just sort of ends. And that's it. On the plus side it really did feel like a short film - hardly over an hour. It certainly won't waste much of your time if you choose to forget it. I've literally just finished watching it and I can't remember a single character's name. I think the main protagonist was old and had multiple chins. You don't get that in your average Marvel superhero movie!

Zombie High (1987)

Warning, does not contain zombies (sort of)

[4/10 · 8 April 2024]

It's never a good sign when you pause the film you're watching and expect to see the counter reading roughly an hour of the way through, only to find that you're only thirty minutes in (to a movie that's only an hour and a half in total). In short, this film is a drudge to watch.

I like to think I'm hardly a 'cinema snob.' I've watched every film with 'living dead' in the title and, as long as there's a few brains being eaten here and there I can totally enjoy a cheesy B-movie, especially if it's set in the eighties.

I don't know whether this is a 'spoiler' or not, but there are basically no 'zombies' in 'Zombie High.' Okay, so that statement may be open to interpretation, but if your definition of 'zombie' involves a walking corpse (or 'infected' person, if you're in the '28 Days Later' world) hunting humans down for food, then you're going to be severely disappointed here.

A young girl (supposed to be in her teens, but actually 26 in real life) joins an elite school, only to slowly discover that the pupils are being transformed into mindless er 'zombies.' Nothing wrong with that plot (let's face it... it's basically the story behind every variation of a 'Bodysnatchers' movie and they could be pretty awesome!). The problem here is that it's just so damn slow.

If I had to sum up 'Zombie High' in one word it would simply be 'boring.' The eighties ambiance is on full display here and everything from the sets to the music and costumes spell out this decade to the full. It also has a (pre 'Twin Peaks') Sherilyn Fenn as a side character - usually a fine addition to any cast and yet even she can't really elevate the script enough to make this worth watching.

I really wanted to like this, but it's such a slog that I can't really recommend it for anything. Not even any real gore to speak of. I guess if you like looking at eighties style sets and wardrobes then you'l definitely get that here, nothing 'horrific' in this 'horror' movie.

Highlander II: The Quickening (1991)

Worth thinking about

[7/10 · 6 April 2024]

It's worth noting straight away that 'Highlander II: The Quickening' is widely regarded as one of the worst sequels ever made. I can see where that line of thinking comes from. The original 'Highlander' film was a science fiction tale about an immortal warrior from Scotland (played by non-Scottish actor, Christopher Lambert, but never mind) who had to fight other immortals with a sword until there was only one left - the prize being mortality.

Now, baring in mind that 'The Quickening' is a continuation of that story, I can totally understand why people hated it so much - and why it completely bombed at the Box Office, almost tanking a potentially profitable franchise from the start. So, if you're looking for a 'part 2' which takes the original's concept further and runs with it then don't watch 'The Quickening.' Just stick with the original. You'll be glad you did.

I could leave the review there, or I could mention that - if you took 'The Quickening' as a 'stand-alone' story - it could actually be quite good fun. No, it's still not a great movie. But if you're definition of 'good' is anywhere near mine - which is effectively: if it entertains me for an hour and a half then I don't regret watching it, then you might actually get something out of this.

The plot may totally contradict the original, but the special effects are good, the sets are really good (for the time and minimal budget) and it has Sean Connery in it. C'mon, if you're looking for pure unfiltered 'entertainment' then what more can you want? Okay, if you're still not convinced you also get Michael Ironside as the generic villain who chews up the scenery at every given opportunity. He's clearly going for it, no matter how bad the script is.

Yes, however much you want to like 'The Quickening' it's still a B-movie and - as a result - will never be more than a 'cult classic' at best (and it's probably not a 'classic' by most people's standards!). I'm not saying it's amazing and I'm sure as hell not saying that it's anywhere near as good as the original, but all I say is that - if you can put any biases aside that you might have at the direction the film goes after the first outing - there is some small enjoyment to be had at seeing Lambert and Connery on screen for a second time. They clearly have chemistry and genuine friendship and it's a shame that it was wasted on a movie that's now only known for infamy.

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

Pretty good (most of the time)

[7/10 · 4 April 2024]

I have a weird relationship with this film. Or at least it occupies a rare space in my brain reserved for a select number of films which I can't work out whether I like or hate. Most people saw it before me and raved about how good it was. So, when I sat down to watch it, I was obviously expecting something absolutely amazing. I ended up not liking it at all. A good few years later I watched it for a second time and it was like watching a film I'd never seen before. I was cracking up at the silly jokes every few seconds and recognised it for the 'classic' that everyone has always said it was. Now, a few years later still, I've watched it again and am left with a mixture of my two previous views.

It's about a news team in San Diego during the seventies. Will Ferrell revels in playing the titular character to the extreme and it's full of very low-brow, silly humour and over the top gags. But his time as 'top dog' at the station is threatened by the arrival of a woman who may just be able to read the headlines even better than him.

Maybe this film needs time to grow on some people (like me!) as on this third viewing I was actually contemplating turning it off, but it was only the confusion surrounding how much I liked it the second time around that made me stick with it. I don't know whether it's a 'film of two halves,' but I really didn't laugh much for the first forty-five minutes (and it's only a tight ninety minutes runtime all together), but the second half seemed to pick up the pace. I found myself enjoying it more and more and was glad I stuck with it.

It's certainly not a 'cerebral' film - the gags, as I say, are the lowest you can get and I think you need to get your mind in the right gear before you can fully get whatever enjoyment you're going to get out of it. I guess I may never see it as the 'classic' that so many do, but it's silly, harmless fun in itself.

Tower of Evil (1972)

An early entry into the slasher genre

[6/10 · 2 April 2024]

Pretty people. Remote location. The cast getting picked off one by one. It can only be a 'slasher' film, only this one is actually quite early on, making it one of the first of the what we consider a 'modern' slasher film (if 'modern' can still be applied to the seventies!). It starts off with two old sailors, setting foot on an island for the first time in a while and finding a load of kids butchered, with only one surviving.

Skip forward a few weeks and the only survivor has been returned to civilisation, but in a comatose state. She can let the authorities know roughly what happened, but they need more concrete answers, so they pick a load of young people (all of which have intertwined love lives!) and send them there to investigate. Something to do with archaeological artifacts, or something... I guess it doesn't really matter!

What matters is that you get a 'who-done-it?' which will leave you guessing who's going to live and who's going to get chopped up, screaming while being knifed. And, boy, does the director like screaming. There's about a five minute montage of most of the characters screaming midway through. I seem to remember it was about that time I nipped out to get a cup of tea.

Don't expect too much in the way of gore, as the film doesn't seem to be able to produce the funds to manage much in the way of special effects. And, while we're on the subject of things and how they looked, the whole 'island' they're stranded on looks more like a set than my own living room.

All in all it feels like the cousin of a British 'Hammer House of Horror' film as it's kind of cheesy, but with a few more s3xual references thrown in as if they're deliberately trying to up the rating to an 'R' level. If you're into the genre, there's certainly fun to have here - especially if you're in a forgiving mood. Or you've enjoyed 'Yes, Minister' (the British sit-com from the eighties) and you want to see one of its stars (Sir Bernard) in a completely different role. Plus you have the 'It's...' guy from the opening of 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' thrown in there for good measure.

Late Night with the Devil (2023)

Found footage films revamped

[8/10 · 1 April 2024]

Those long-term horror fans will remember 1999's 'The Blair Witch Project' and how it brought (back?) the 'found footage' sub-genre which was a cheaper way of making horror films and stayed around for about a decade or so before the gimmick became old hat.

'Late Night With the Devil' is effectively 'found footage,' only with a nice period gloss of paint on it and presented in the form of a 70s late night American TV show, rather than the usual video camera footage. If you can get past the heavy 'information dump' which makes up the first five minutes, we learn that a late night TV talk show will do anything to save its failing ratings and so the producers conspire with the host to create a 'memorable' halloween special to scare their viewers. Naturally, they - and the audience - gets more than they bargained for.

First of all, the film's charm is in its presentation. It doesn't come across as overtly 'found footage' and the attention to detail to make it seem like it was a genuine television program from the seventies is truly great. Everyone plays their parts well and kudos to not just the presenter, but also the younger actress who plays the 'centre' of the paranormal activities.

It's quite a 'slow build' as much of the first half of the show is... well, effectively just the first half of a 'variety' TV show - not much happens that isn't supposed to. Naturally, as the broadcast progresses, things get further out of hand. There are a couple of horrific moments, but they're few and far between and the ending is beautifully chaotic.

I think it's worth noting that there's actually quite a lot of humour in this 'horror' film, making it more of a 'black-comedy horror' rather than an outright gore/scare-fest. Whether you're a fan of the found footage sub-genre of horror, were around in the seventies and need a shot of nostalgia, or just like your horror films, this film is a nice departure from your average modern horror film with no ump scares and real attention to detail and cheeky fun.

The Night Stalker (1972 TV Movie)

TV movies are not normally this good

[7/10 · 26 March 2024]

In film-making terms the phrase 'made for TV' always brings up images of a low-budget movie with a sub-standard script and nothing really to elevate it to the heights of its theatrically-released 'betters.' It seems that whatever you read online about 'The Night Stalker' it seems to mention how it was made for TV and never released in a cinema - probably because it's actually pretty good and at least worthy of a small commercial release - especially around horror festivals and the like.

It's about vampires. And whether you've seen films regarding that particular fictional nasty for decades, or you're new to the genre, this one ticks every cliche going - and yet is also enormous fun at the same time. It kind of reminded me of 'Jaws' only with a human rather than a fish. In the same way the chief of police was running around trying to convince people of the impending shark attacks, only to be met with a wall of disbelief from the powers that be, here we have a grumpy journalist trying to warn the police of the undead threat that is currently stalking the streets of Las Vegas, picking off unsuspecting women and draining them of their blood.

Don't expect too many great special effects or action-packed set-pieces, but it comes in at a tight runtime of less than the usual ninety minutes and makes the most of every second. The ghoul who is chewing on so many young, innocent necks is actually quite creepy and the reporter on his trail is likable in his gruffness. It may be a little cheesy by today's standards, but it's great fun if you're into this sort of film.

Communion (1989)

Probably better 'pre X-files'

[5/10 · 24 March 2024]

For those of you not glued to your TV screens every week in the nineties, 'The X-files' was a weekly show about two FBI agents who investigated the paranormal and, in particular, alien abductions. It ran for many seasons and, as the popularity began to wane, even became a little 'self-referential.' One of the lead actors states that 'alien abductions' have become to common in popular lore, that if you ask most people they'll be able to describe such an event.

Even my mum, who used to walk in and out of the room when I was watching the antics of Scully and Mulder, could probably tell you that thin, grey creatures with big black eyes whisked you up to their flying saucer and stuck implements up your... anyway, what I'm saying is that pretty much everyone knows what a stereotypical 'alien abduction' is comprised of.

However, back in 1989 before 'The X-files' made the genre so mainstream, you may not have been aware of this 'phernomanon.' And, because of this, 'Communion' may have actually been quite scary. Sadly, looking back at it from the far-flung future of 2024, it offers absolutely nothing new - let alone scary.

Yes, Christopher Walken is as watchable as ever, but, apart from him as the man at the centre of the alien abductions, it doesn't offer anything you probably haven't seen before. Apparently, it's based on a 'true' story. Whether you believe this sort of activity is 'true' or not is up to you. Personally, I see this film as either 'entertaining' or not. And, in my opinion, it's not that good.

Assuming you're not looking to watch roughly ten seasons of 'The X-files' to get a grip on what aliens have in store for us, if you're simply looking for another film that covers all this the I would recommend 'Fire in the Sky.' It's also supposed to be based on a 'real' encounter. Again, I won't say whether that's accurate or not, but it sure is certainly more creepy than 'Communion.'

I read online that Christopher Walken laughed when he saw the aliens' masks. I can't blame him. They're hardly in the same league as John Carpenter's classic 'The Thing' in terms of gruesomeness. The creatures' features don't move and therefore come across as little more than the rubber masks they actually are.

Overall, if you've never seen anything on alien abductions then this movie may offer the odd chill here and there and Walken is as good value for money as ever, but, apart from that, there's little here to recommend.

I Saw What You Did (1988 TV Movie)

Good concept, slow execution

[6/10 · 22 March 2024]

Did I enjoy the TV movie 'I Saw What You Did?' Yeah, it was okay. In fact, there were some very nice moments - like the concept - kind of simple really in an almost 'Hitchcock-esque' style. Three young girls, while bored at a sleepover, play a prank phone call on a stranger. However, they get more than they bargained for when it turns out the stranger in question is a little more on the homicidal scale than your average prank-victim.

It's a set-up for a pretty good thriller; it's only flaw is that it never seems to get going. The first half is effectively built up. Yes, you certainly get to know the trio of girls and you get to know a fair bit about the life of the man who is going to be the central antagonist (plus you get David Carradine thrown in there for good measure - or a pay cheque). But it takes so long for their paths to cross - and therefore any major tension, that most of the film has gone by.

You can see what's coming a mile off in terms of the overall premise of the story, so you just want to get on to the 'high stakes' element of the film. However, even at the midway point where the two groups interact, it all fizzles out again and everyone goes their separate ways.

It's not until literally the final act until the tension is really utilised. Like I say, it's not a terrible movie, but I just felt it could have been better and - perhaps worse still - I really wanted it to be better and a little faster paced. I guess there are those who will appreciate the 'slow burn' of it all and, for those, I'm glad there are those out there who could like it more for what it was.

I guess if you're in the mood for something that's 90% build-up and only a little bit 'thrilling' then this is certainly the one for you. Just know what you're in for before you sit down.

Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace (1995)

Nineties predictions of the future of the internet

[4/10 · 17 March 2024]

I remember when the original 'Lawnmower Man' film came out. There was quite a lot of hype surrounding it. Not only was it based on a Stephen King book, but it was also the first film that heavily relied on virtual reality (I don't think the original 'Tron' counted!). However, it never really set the Box Office ablaze as many thought it should. It just kind of faded out of the public consciousness, so any sequel that came after was always destined to be a 'straight to video' affair.

I'm not really sure why this film was made. It's a bit of a 'nothing-burger' really. And, not only does it effectively fall flat at every turn, but it also ignores much of what happened in the original. A group of generic nineties bad guys in suits have brought Jobe (the guy who mowed lawns in the first movie, before he got a 'cyberspace upgrade' and tried to take over the world) back to life and now he wants to get into cyberspace to take over the world? Hang on, didn't he achieve that in the first one? Never mind. Now, discount version of the original's star Pierce Brosnan must team up with the kid from 'Last Action Hero' and stop him.

I guess I should point out that, due to the story's content, a lot of computer special effects are needed for the plot - and, believe it or not, they don't look that bad.

Single compliment over - the rest of the tale is just bland. If you - like most people - haven't already forgotten the first 'Lawnmower Man' then you'll definitely forget this one. About the main fun you can have with it is laughing at how you can now apply modern day internet technology (and the fears surrounding being online) to the villainous plots the bad guys had in this film. Wouldn't it be terrible if people when online all over the world and ended up feeling 'disconnected' with their fellow real humans? Thanks, social media. And wouldn't it be terrible if you went online and had to hand over all your private details for using this website or that. Thanks, cookies.

Anyway, taking the tragically depressing irony aside, there's not much here worth recommending.

Dead Space (1991)

Warning: Do no eat Walter White

[6/10 · 16 March 2024]

There are some sci-fi films like 'Star Wars, Aliens' and 'Terminator 2' - all created before (or in) 1991. All of which are timeless and even look better than some movies and TV shows today. So, if they could produce something so great, you'd think that other movies could at least try and get a little bit close to their look and feel.

It's effectively an 'Alien' rip-off, i.e. A giant monster running round a space base (instead of the Nostromo spaceship) and gradually killing off the cast one by one. Only, instead of Sigourney Weaver running around with a cat and a flamethrower, you have Marc Singer ('V' and 'Beastmaster') wielding a puny pistol while protecting a crew of expendables dressed in true nineties wardrobe, plus an early role from Walter White himself, Bryan Cranston (who - believe it or not - manages to actually turn in a good performance with the dire script he's given).

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed 'Dead Space.' And, just to prove it, I'm going to basically list all (well, nearly all - there are probably quite a few I've forgotten) the things wrong with it.

It looks cheap. The sets are all just darkened rooms that could be the drama hall in your local senior school, just with added smoke to hide the lack of details sets.

The monster looks good. It's practical effects, but the problem is that the puppeteers don't seem to know how best to make it move. Therefore when it's on screen and shown in all its glory, it's sort of anchored to a wall with only its limbs flailing, meaning characters have to actually run towards it and let it catch them, rather than be mercilessly pursued by it.

The script is basically what you'd expect from a first-time film-studies student would write. There's nothing new and only the better actors - or should that be just ACTOR - Bryan Cranston - can make work.

The 'droid' is goofy. Again, he mask actually looks okay, but when he stands up you can clearly see it's just a man in an - albeit decent - mask.

Much of the gore is ripped from 'Alien' with the obligatory 'chestbursting' scene.

So, with all this that's wrong with it, why did I like it? Because it's dumb, cheesy and generally fun. It's not really self-knowing, but it's just a relic of a bygone age and, if you're in the mood for - yet another - 'Alien' rip-off, then this one will kill an hour and a half (or if you just want to see what Bryan Cranston had to do to earn a living before he hit the big time in 'Breaking Bad' then this is amusing).

Island Claws (1980)

If you do spot a crab... you must have better eyesight than me

[4/10 · 11 March 2024]

I always feel bad when I rip on a B-movie. Most of the films in my DVD collection involve daft rubbery monsters and screaming victims. It's safe to say I don't consider myself to have a 'high bar' in terms of the movies I like and, as long as they can entertain me in one way or another, then I'm happy.

'Island Claws' is about a swarm of killer crabs on an island. Now, I've seen plenty of normal animals, always mutated to giant levels, stalking various hapless residents. So, when that's your kind of thing, killer crabs actually sound like fun.

Only there's no actual kills for roughly the first forty-five minutes and, I know the production budget isn't huge, but you'll see where it's been spent on when it comes to our clawed antagonists. There's lots of them. Some footage of real crabs has been interwoven with the anamatronic crabs created just for this. And the puppet crabs look good. In other words the look like regular crabs. But I was kind of hoping for more. Okay, so in the final act we got a - long overdue - giant crab, but there could have been at least one who shoots laser beams from his eye stalks, or something. Did I expect too much?

So the side-crawlers aren't up to much, but I guess they're a little more interesting than the humans who run around in the dark trying not to get their toes pinched by these clawed menaces.

In short, not much happens. Yes, it's a B-movie, so most of us don't expect Oscar-worthy performances, but, for all its eighties cheesiness, it's just not that fun to watch. I know remakes are often looked down on, but this is the rare occasion where I'd actually like to see one. Killer crabs is a good - but completely - silly, idea. So if it was done with a slightly higher budget and a script which knows it's tongue-in-cheek then you could actually be left with something that's quite fun.

Alien from L.A. (1988)

What actually happens?

[6/10 · 9 March 2024]

Do you ever watch a film and really want to enjoy it a lot more than you actually did? In 'Alien From L. A.' I'm certain there's a good movie in there somewhere, but it seems to not know what to do with its own idea. It's about a geeky teenage girl from L. A. who, while looking for her missing scientist-father, falls through the Earth's core into the sub-terrainian world of 'Atlantis.' Yes, the plot is a little far-fetched, but this was the eighties and there were many a tale from that era which you had to suspend your disbelief to truly get the most out of.

Now, I don't know whether I'm being unfair on the version of the film I watched (it was on a streaming service and therefore not a 'bought' copy such as DVD or Blu-ray), but there was something really wrong with the sound. The dialogue was really hard to hear while the soundtrack blared out, obscuring what few words I could actually make out.

If that wasn't bad enough, the main character has an annoying voice. And, no, I'm not just being cruel to the actress (who's actually a model in real life!) who plays her - it's part of the story and many characters remark on it. And they're not wrong. It's the vocal version of 'nails on a chalkboard.'

But it's not all bad. The sets and the costumes found within the mysterious underground world are pretty well done, plus the direction and shots make the most of the sets and give off a nicely dystopian environment.

And so our squeaky protagonist must find her father and avoid the authorities who are looking for the titular 'alien' among their population. And she sort of does that, meandering from one close encounter with those trying to stop her to the next. Rinse and repeat.

Therefore, not an awful not a lot happens and that's the film's biggest crime. What could have been a nice, cheesy eighties family adventure becomes little more than a slog with some nice sets (and a badly-mixed audio track).

It's not terrible-terrible, certainly just about watchable, but it's just a shame that it probably should have been more of a cult classic than it actually was.

Howling III (1987)

Pretty painful

[3/10 · 5 March 2024]

I don't expect much from the third instalment in an eighties horror franchise about werewolves, but I at least hope to be entertained - even if it's on a 'so-bad-it's-good' level, I can happily laugh my way through many a dire, low budget slasher film. However, this one was just bad from the start.

I know, I know, but honestly, I really don't want to be overly harsh, but I just can't think of anything good to say about it. The acting - bad. I don't expect A-list Oscar-winning actors to be in a film like this, but the line delivery was either wooden, or the character was just chewing up the scenery to an almost comedic level. And, because it's set in Australia, there seems to be every Australian cliche thrown in there to remind you exactly where it's set.

And, I'm aware that this film isn't meant to be taken completely seriously. There's definitely a little 'self knowing' about it. And for that I understand there will be those that definitely think I'm being too down on it, but it just wasn't good. The plot revolves around an Australian girl who has lived in the Outback until her early adulthood, only to run away to Sydney and become an actress in - you guessed it - a low budget horror film. Oh, and the Men in Black (sort of) are after her.

There's no real gore, the werewolf make-up effects (i.e. A bloke in a suit) are pretty terrible and you definitely won't find anything here to be scared of. Perhaps the worst thing that really took me out of the movie was the sets. Apart from the outdoor shots of the city, every inside scene appeared to be set in someone's living room with a different coloured curtain draped over the background and a few lights shining through.

The first 'Howling' film was genuinely enjoyable. The second was campy fun (and it had Christopher Lee in!), but this one just doesn't have anything going for it. Pity. Sorry to all those who actually enjoyed it, but I couldn't be forgiving with this one.

Howling II: ... Your Sister Is a Werewolf (1985)

Charmingly cheesy

[6/10 · 2 March 2024]

Werewolf movies have a tendency not to be taken that seriously, even in the - slightly more generous - horror community. Most people tend to see 'The Howling' as a classic of the genre, so naturally it was always going to get a sequel. I watched the entire thing and I still can't quite tell whether it's actually a 'self-knowing parody' of the genre, or whether it's trying to be serious.

It starts off with a funeral where Christopher Lee (effectively playing Christopher Lee) gatecrashes a funeral where he tells a grieving man that his sister in the coffin was a werewolf and now needed to be killed (again - properly). Skip forward a few minutes and the two men (plus a woman who looks like a discount version of Jamie Lee Curtis) are off to Eastern Europe to hunt the Queen werewolf.

So the bulk of the movie is set in a land where the locals tend to speak like 'Borat' from the comedy series of the same name and our protagonists are repeatedly threatened by a series of rubbery monsters. And that's about it.

The good: the effects aren't that bad. They're practical, as was the style of the time and nicely gory for the budgetary constraints and what they're supposed to be. Plus you have Christopher Lee, whose mere presence can elevate even the most average of films to be at least watchable.

The bad: Lee's two young 'sidekicks' are pretty bland and forgettable. Plus the tone of the film is a bit hit and miss. Like I say, sometimes things feel about as serious as a Roger Moore James Bond film. Other times the film really does seem like it wants to be taken seriously in the scares department.

It's no classic, but it's definitely watchable. If you're generally a fan of cheesy eighties horror films, werewolves or Christopher Lee then you'll get more out of it than most. Oh, and it does have more different types of 'screen wipes' than I've ever seen in any other film.

Mac and Me (1988)

Help me. I liked this

[6/10 · 2 March 2024]

I guess there comes a point in your life where you realise that maybe you just have no taste. 'Mac and Me' is terrible. It was terrible when it was first released. It was so terrible it gained infamy throughout the years as to how a movie so terrible could have been greenlit in the first place. And it remains as terrible today. I did see it back in the eighties. I didn't like it. I didn't hate it, but there was so much better around and 'E. T.' was only a few years old by then and 'Mac and Me' was just nowhere near as good as it.

I don't know why I watched it nearly thirty-five years later (free on YouTube!), but I actually liked it. Yes, I know there are loads of films which you can enjoy because they're 'so bad they're good.' And this could definitely be described that way. I could leave it there if it wasn't for the fact that, even though I could tell it was awful, I actually found myself enjoying it UNironically (I need help, clearly).

Even if you haven't seen 'E. T.' you probably know the story - cute alien left stranded on Earth, befriends a young boy (government in hot pursuit). Well, someone must have copied and pasted that in terms of 'Mac and Me,' but without the decent script, special effects (and possibly been high on some sort of illegal substance at the time).

I think maybe the major 'flaw' with the film (in 1988 and today) is its weird tie-in with McDonalds restaurant - get the title - (Big) 'Mac and Me?' Yet, for a movie which literally uses a product as its title, there's actually not that many references to the fast food chain, besides the truly surreal song and dance routine roughly halfway through. In fact, if I didn't know better, I'd say the film should really be sponsored by Coke a Cola.

I can't possibly recommend this film to anyone. Objectively, it's that bad. Obviously, if you're into those sorts of 'so-bad-they're-good' films then you may enjoy it on an ironic level. But I think there will be few out there who - like me - actually claim it's an enjoyable romp, no matter how bad it really is. I'm now off to seek some sort of professional help for my clear lack of taste.

The Brain (1988)

Probably better than Shakespeare

[7/10 · 28 February 2024]

I confess - I haven't read anything by the - arguably - greatest writer who's ever lived since I was at school nearly forty years ago, so the title may be a slight exaggeration. All I know is that I was bored senseless reading about Romeo and Juliet whereas I was thoroughly entertained by possibly one of the most stupid films I've ever seen.

A giant monstrous brain (with a scary face!) is using the signal from a local television show in order to take over the world. Or something. Only one local teenage tearaway seems potentially unaffected by the hideous organ's superpowers and can therefore save the human race.

Did I mention this movie is daft? It is. In fact it's got to be one of the greatest films in its league. And by that I don't mean it's a classic of narrative storytelling and should be remembered in the same lines as 'The Godfather.' No, 'The Brain' is in a totally different league of films that are just so bad they're good. Only this one is probably more so stupid it's good.

The acting is questionable, the plot relies on major coincidences and lacks of logic to move it along and the characters are totally dumb whenever the story requires them to be. Although, genuine kudos to the film-makers for making the 'brain' itself actually quite cool - or rather disgusting, which I guess is the same thing when you're making a horror film.

So, if you're looking for something completely dumb which you just want to rest your brain to while you laugh at, put 'The Brain' on. Although please don't hold me responsible for any lack of brain cells lost to your own grey matter in the hour and a half runtime it lasts. My own brain wasn't up to much to begin with.

Greenland (2020)

Armageddon it is not

[6/10 · 24 February 2024]

I probably shouldn't have watched this film so close to 'Armageddon' - a classic 'dumb-fun' B-movie from the nineties. 'Greenland' is a modern take on a comet about to crash into the Earth, potentially wiping out the entire human race - and this time Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck weren't on hand to help out.

This time it's much more of a personal tale. It's ultimately about a family coming together and trying to cross America (and later the world!) in order to reach a safe bunker in (you guessed it) Greenland. Gerard Butler plays a father who's separated from his wife and son, but, during the story, he needs to reconnect with his family as well as ensuring their safety.

Thinking about it... it's almost like to 'disaster movies' what Tom Cruise's 'War of the Worlds' take was to 'alien invasion' movies. It's a film where you could rely on big budget special effects and set pieces, or you could use the situation simply as a backdrop to the life of one particular set of people and how they act during the carnage.

So, whether you'll enjoy it kind of depends on what you're looking for. If you're hoping for something really spectacular with loads of special effects and visual destruction (not to mention cheesy over-the-top action) then I'd definitely recommend 'Armageddon.' However, if you're looking for more of a drama then this is worth giving a go. There are a few moments of destruction (albeit some that are blatantly low-budget computer-generated) and even one that actually stood out as quite dramatic, but it's more of a drama than all out popcorn epic.

Barbarian (2022)

Delightfully twisty

[8/10 · 23 February 2024]

I'm pretty sure every review of 2022's 'Barbarian' mentions 'Psycho,' so I'll get the comparisons out the way early. It's a horror film that effectively has one long portion of the film (the first act, basically) specifically following certain characters, only for what seems like a completely different story to kick off midway through, giving most people a sense of confusion at how what they've just witnessed is related to what's happening right now.

In the classic 'Psycho' the trick was pulled by having the 'star' get murdered halfway through, bringing us - the audience - to the realisation that, actually, she wasn't the star and the new people we're going to follow through the final half is in fact the ultimate protagonist.

In 'Barbarian' - which I read online is a very loose anagram of the word 'air B and B' - two strangers find, by a 'coincidence' that they've accidentally been booked into the same property at the same time. Seeing as they both appear to be decent folk, they decide to spend the night there and sort it out with the owners in the morning. Only the house has a few secrets of its own.

I thoroughly enjoyed the film, largely because it was a rare occasion where I genuinely didn't know where it was going. Most 'run-of-the-mill' slasher films follow a set pattern of genre cliches and you know who out of the main cast will be the 'final girl.' However, here you really didn't know what the deal was when it came to the threat and how it came to be and, what's more, how is going to make it out alive - if any!

I don't know whether 'Barbarian' will remain up there with the best horror films as the years go by and cement itself as a long-standing classic. It's pretty gruesome in place and I don't just mean in term of (practical - no computer-generated, thank goodness) gore, but also some genuinely sick imagery and things the protagonists have to do to survive. But, if you're looking for something that's actually gone to the effort of trying to be different in terms of the scares it gives you, this is definitely above most of today's horror offerings.

The Northman (2022)

Brutal and brilliant

[9/10 · 22 February 2024]

Wow, I really didn't know what I was in for when I sat down to watch this. I'll confess... I didn't know much about 'The Northman' and kind of figured it was a bit of a 'sword and sorcery' tale. It isn't. Or is it?

It's about a young Viking prince who's father is murdered by his jealous uncle who then goes on to enslave his mother and take his father's kingdom. So, as spurned princes need to do, he has to grow up, get totally pumped up and go on a 'Kill Bill-esque' rampage of revenge.

The thing you need to know about this is just how brutal it is. You may have seen 'Game of Thrones' and thought... yeah, that was pretty dark, I think I can guess what 'The Northman' is going to be like. You're probably wrong. 'The Northman' is ten times more bloodthirsty.

And it's long. It's over two hours, but it doesn't drag. It's not just the acting that's great here, but also the scenery and direction that makes it epic. I understand from what I've read online that the film-makers tried to make the look and feel as accurate as possible with costumes etc, but - at the same time - it does kind of play into the supernatural - just a little.

You need to know what you're in for if you choose to watch this and, despite how you'll probably root for the hero and his cause etc, there's not really any - truly - good people during this time period, as the film just tries to depict how savage the world was back then.

If you have a strong stomach and want to see the way - some of us - lived back then, this one is really awesome.