Piranha DD (2012) review

Piranha DD (2012)

Review by George Elcombe

‘Take that, laughing diarrhoea baby’

I’ll be honest: I didn’t see piranha 3D (2010). That film looked fun, had girls in bikinis, gore, Ving Rhames kicking aquatic ass and Kelly Brook. All in glorious 3D! But alas, I missed it in the cinema and just haven’t gotten around to watching it yet. But I am a fan of intentional B movies that are just made for the sole purpose of being fun for the audience. These films don’t win any big awards but are loved by audience who don’t take cinema as seriously as the rest (pretentious film students, I’m talking about you!!).

So I heard that the plot for the first film went something like this: spring break at a lake, some divers discover an underwater cave with prehistoric badass piranha eggs, girls in bikinis get naked, the piranhas hatch and attack every thing moving, lots of gore, Ving Rhames being a badass!

So I’m expecting boobs, gore, comedy, and generally a fun movie which won’t take itself seriously.  And I should add that I am reviewing the 2D version of the film.

Plot: the film opens with a fake news broadcast highlight the events of the first film a year ago, and asking where the piranhas will appear next. Marine biologist Maddy (Danielle Panabaker) returns to her home town to discover her stepfather Chet (David Koechner) is planning to open an adult themed water park called ‘The Big Wet’. So that explains the naked ladies. However the piranhas have spawned in the local lake which the park pumps in its water, and thanks to some exposition from Christopher Lloyd’s mad marine biologist, we discover that the piranhas can swim up pipes and will no doubt attack the water park on its opening day. Oh yeh, it has David Hasselhoff as the park’s celebrity lifeguard to save the day from the piranhas.

Does this film sound serious to you? Because it’s just a fun ride!  It’s often predictable, over the top and just silly. The formula of ‘teens about to / having sex will die in a nasty fashion’ is here but we also have a love triangle between Maddy, her old flame Kyle (Chris Zylka) who’s now a crooked cop and Barry (Mat Bush), a dorky water park employee who’s handy with a trident. Makes you wonder who’s going to get the girl and what their going to do with their trident…

Unlike its predecessor, this film was shot entirely in 3D and I would have liked to have seen that version. This film is littered with gimmicky shots designed to poke your eyes out, but I would have definitely enjoyed a more immersive viewing experience, especially with the gore.

Speaking of which, this film is brutal and doesn’t hold back but is very much in the vein of Itchy and Scratchy cartoons. But with added boobies. Some moments made me laugh out loud and it pulls no punches, especially in the scene where a character looses her virginity, and the man looses, well, just watch it.

As for the humour there are some terrific one liners from various characters, especially from one Mr David Hasselhoff. This film plays up his character and the legend that he is and he has the majority of the films scene stealing moments my favourite being when a kid thinks he’s a real lifeguard.

But he is not the only actor who has surprise cameos. Gary Busey is hilarious in the films opening and Christopher Lloyd is great with his obsession with his YouTube hits and his theories on walking piranhas. Ving Rhames returns briefly for a scene which is reminiscent of Planet Terror (2007) and had me in stitches with just how bad ass he is.

Director John Gulager must have had so much fun making this film and was inspired by the sort of video nasties that I used to watch as a child featuring minimal plot, wooden acting and buckets of cheese and gore.

One plus of the film is how it builds suspense.  We all know these characters are two dimensional and mainly just fodder, but there are a few times in this film where I was sucked in  and hoping said character would survive. The soundtrack consisting of shrieking violins also helped to build the suspense but still remained cheesy and fun.

The cinematography (minus some excellent use of slow motion) and every other technical aspects of this film are generic, but I am not going to be as critical as I am towards the next Paul Thomas Anderson film (which I can’t wait for!). However my main issue with this film is the short runtime. It ended at the 68 minute mark, and had 8 minutes of bloopers, deleted scenes and a mini music video before the credits!

The film’s opening is great and the pace is good until the love triangle develops and slows things down. But then slams back into gear once Christopher Lloyd and Ving Rhames appear, and the last 20 minutes is carnage which is a joy to watch. And as tradition in these kinds of horror films: it sets up part three.

The DVD title screen has the films poster model with a montage of the film reflected in her glasses. It features hot naked girls and the Hoff, but spoils the whole film!

Dolby 5.1 is standard but I didn't notice it much. We have feature commentary by director John Gulager, producer Joel Soisson and co-writer Marcus Dunsten. I’m not a fan of commentaries, but can imagine this would be fun.

‘Behind the DD’ is a brief making of featurette which basically shows you how much fun they had making this film, but spoils the whole movie.

One extra that I think should be on every DVD is ‘The Hofftastic World of David Hasslehoff’.  Here we have another brief documentary but focusing entirely on the Hoff! He just lampoons his image, himself, and the religion of the Hoff and you get to hear him say ‘wanker’.

‘Wet and wild with David Koechner’ shows goofy interviews intercut with film clips and behind the scenes footage.

The funny and random short 'A Lesson with John McEnroe' is included and is worth a watch.

We also get two short deleted scenes and ‘Busey’s bloopers’ which prove he's crazy but hilarious, and some trailers.

Ultimately it’s a great Saturday night film which is homage to Troma and other trash cinema before it. Turn your brain off. This is an enjoyably silly and fun ride. With fish.

6 out of 10

If you like this try:

Tremors (1990)

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

Planet Terror (2007)

Battleship (2012) review

Battleship (2012)

Review by George Elcombe

“We have a battleship”

WARNING: before watching this film it is advisable that you turn your brain off. And don’t expect too much.

So how do I begin to write a review for a film where: 1) The trailer didn’t interest me at all, 2) I’ve heard from everyone I know who’s seen it that its rubbish, 3) It has Rihanna in it.

It’s a daunting task, but I enjoyed the hell out of Transformers (2007) which I still believe is a great example of a fun Hollywood popcorn summer movie. So how well do other Hasbro toy lines translate? Let’s find out.

Plot: A stereotypical British, smart sounding scientist announces that they have found a planet across the galaxy which can sustain human life. So they build some fancy radar dishes in Hawaii and send out a signal to the planet.

Meanwhile: a long haired scruffy bloke called Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch) is celebrating his birthday in a bar with his naval brother Stone Hopper (Alexander Skarsgard) when… hold up, who names their first born son ‘Stone’? Rocky or Pebbles are one thing but Stone? Really?

So, Stone is calling his properly named sibling a looser when the films eye candy Samantha (Brooklyn Decker) walks in and wants a beer and a burrito from the barman. My kind of girl! Alas, the kitchen / microwave is closed so Alex goes to get her a burrito from the convenience store across the road, which just happens to be closed. And he’s drunk. Seriously, this scene is the funniest in the movie and if the rest of this film kept this stupid tone then I would have given it a higher rating. But no. Alex gets arrested, sobers up, gets a prep talk from his brother and joins the Navy!

Fast forward a few months later and there all in Hawaii, the brothers are on separate battleships and Alex wants to ask Samantha’s father for her hand in marriage. Her father by the way is Liam Neeson (Liam Neeson) who possesses a certain set of skills and will find and kill, wait, wrong movie, he’s the fleet’s admiral so Alex has his work cut out for him. So some war games begin, some alien crafts with superior firepower land in the sea, create an impenetrable dome of no escape with just three battleships contained, and Alex and his crew (including Rihanna. Seriously, Rihanna) have to save the world from domination and rape of the earths natural resources. Kind of an analogy on America’s occupation of the Middle East really.

But very few people will watch this movie for plot. It from the people who made Transformers (2007) after all so we want cheese, explosions, excellent special effects, corny one liners, loud rock music, slow motion flags with the navy looking cool, more explosions, faceless villains and above all fun. Which sadly this film is lacking. It dragged on and by the third act I was bored. Until some old men turned up.

It’s just too predictable and clichéd; from the smart British guy, the brothers looking at each other before a life / plot changing event, the ‘alien touching the human and the human suddenly seeing the whole aliens plan to rape and pillage the earth’ which you can find in Paul (2011) and Independence Day (1996) excellent film) and the aliens have goatees. Never trust a man with a goatee.

First of all I am please to say that they worked out the grid of the original game into an interesting and kind of suspenseful action scene. The effects are great and I like the design of the alien ships, even though they reminded me of frogs. But the rest of this film is like a toast to bad acting and script writing.

The world navy meet up is called Rimpac which although a real event, sounds a bit dirty to a reviewer who grew up watching Beavis and Butthead (1993 – still going!). Hmm, lots of men at Rimpac. But we don’t get a volleyball scene; we get a soccer game with America vs. Japan. Nothing is mentioned regarding Pearl Harbour, but we have Rihanna pretty much acting like a jock on the pitch.

The cinematography is standard but the shots of Hawaii just reminded me of Lost (2004 - 2010). As in Star Trek (2009) you see a lot of lens flare. But you forget as that film is a good movie with great characters, a witty script and plot development. This film doesn’t have any of that.

Ok, so it explains why the aliens come down, what their plan is and why they erect a huge dome: but it doesn’t explain why no one on the island can see it or knows about it. It shows four alien ships heading to Earth; one hits an orbiting satellite, blows up and debris hits Hong Kong and Scotland. Erm, these ships can near enough withstand cannon fire but is incapacitated by a satellite. And did the debris circle the earth to reach Scotland? If only I had turned off my brain before watching this film these things wouldn’t have mattered.

This is just another film where I stopped caring half way through, except when some retired Navy officers turned off, but even then it was ruined by lines such as:

“You men have given so much to your country, and no one has the right to ask any more of you. But I'm asking.”

And then it got me thinking: on a naval base, where are the rest of the Navy? Who was looking after these veterans?

The DVD menu features rock music and a montage of the films explosions and some slight spoilers. But it shows the top of a building falling down in a city. I thought this film was set at sea? False advertising I say.

As a tent pole summer release from Universal Studios I expected a few trailers. We have promos for: The Bourne Legacy (2012), The Lorax (2012), Paranorman (2012), (which looks like a lot of fun) and Snow White and the Huntsman (2012). However I experienced great joy from the Universal 100th anniversary trailer which features some of the studios’ best and iconic moment from its back catalogue of some truly excellent films.

The only extra is a trailer for the tie-in computer game which is a boring looking first person shooter.

I would have liked to seen a short documentary on the original board game and how it was developed for film, but I think they might have something like that on the Blu-Ray release.

Ultimately this is just another forgettable summer blockbuster. This film should have not taken itself so seriously, allowed a bit more time spent on the script and acting (Rihanna) and remained as fun in tone as the first five minutes. As such, it sinks. And if you thought that last line was bad, go and watch this film to hear a lot worse!

One final thing: there is a fun sequence after the credits

4 out of 10

If you like this try:

Under Siege (1992)

Independence Day (1996)

Transformers (2007)

The Dark Knight Rises (2012) review

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Review by George Elcombe

‘So that’s what it feels like’

Well here it is. Advertised as ‘the epic conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy’ and my most anticipated film of the year. Does it live up to my expectations? Yes.

This is a fine film and overall I am very happy with how they ended the trilogy. The performances are fantastic, the action and story are great, it closes Bruce’s story and all gets a bit emotional at times.

But this is a fantastic film so go and see it.

Still here? Ok, we have a SPOILER ALERT!!! Consider yourself warned for the rest of this review.

Plot: 8 years after the death of Harvey Dent, Gotham city is at peace as all the major criminals are locked away. Bruce Wayne has become a recluse locked up in his mansion with the guilt of the death of Rachel Dawes. But a mercenary called Bane is coming to Gotham and building an army. It’s time for Batman to rise up once again to save the city.

Ever since The Dark Knight (2008) I have been really looking forward to this film! As an avid reader of sites such as Aint it Cool News, I’m afraid that I spoilt some bits of this film for myself and as such closed myself off a year ago from all gossip and news besides the fantastic posters and trailers. But having been a fan of the comics and Batman: The Animated Series (1992 - 1995) I knew what to expect and foresaw the plot twist where Maranda was actually Talia al Ghul. But this film had a few surprises for me and I’m glad the trailers didn’t spoil this (unlike Prometheus (2012)).

I’m glad they didn’t mention The Joker as Heath Ledger’s performance is iconic and should not be repeated within the Nolan universe. When I heard that Tom Hardy was cast as Bane I was excited as he was a brute in Bronson (2008), and fully expected the film to recreate the iconic image of Bane breaking Batman’s back over his knee. But this was slightly ruined for me with Bane saying “your body” as he done this. Personally I would have had him say it after he broke his back as it would have been colder, and Bane wears a mask so it’s not like they would have a problem lip syncing it!

So it appears I start this review talking about Bane, but he is a standout. But what’s with his accent? I’ve never heard anything like it before and I found it distracting to start with. I thought Heath Ledger’s Joker voice was unique until I saw Shoot Em Up (2007) and heard that film’s villain with the same creepy accent. But the mask is sinister and I like the design. But it wasn’t explained enough why he has it. Apparently he was injured in a cool underground prison and the morphine addicted prison doctor (Alien 3 (1992) anyone?!) caused this. But when the mask is broken it hisses out some gas that Bane needs. He mentions earlier on in the film that if he takes it off it would cause him great discomfort, but it isn’t explained! Also, I would have liked to have seen him without it and was disappointed when this didn’t happen.

However Bane is revealed to be part of the League of Shadows and the whole film is about his quest to finish Ra’s al Ghul’s work from Batman Begins (2005) and wipe out Gotham and its corruption. Thus we have this films subtext: capitalism and power. This is summed up by Bane saying something along the lines of “just because you’ve paid me doesn’t mean that you have power over me” just before crushing a greedy corporate directors skull in. Nice.

The global recession has hit us all and if it hadn’t happened then I would be working in a Soho editing house which went bust. Yet we glamorise people who are rich (see The Only Way is Essex. Actually, don’t) and see them as happy because they can buy the right clothes and things. But everyone else has to work for a living and have little to show for it. Poverty is writhe and you just have to look at last summers riots to see that what should have been the lower classes rising up against injustice and being trapped by poverty quickly descend into idiots stealing trainers and phones to increase their social status.

Which brings me to Catwoman. Some have said that casting Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle was a mistake, but the girl can act and was very professional when I worked with her on One Day (2011). Catwoman only steals from the rich for herself and never stands on the shoulders of the poor. She warns Bruce that “a storm is coming” and the lower classes will rise. But when this happens the party ends quite quickly and she sees that the class system is needed. But her performance is great and she is the best Catwoman seen on screen to date. She’s cheeky, possibly a lesbian with her blonde friend, smart and very sexy. Call me a perve but she looks great in her cat suit with her knife edged high heels.

Her chemistry with Batman is great and has some great lines when disagreeing with Batman’s ‘no guns’ policy.

Another subtext is her desire to have a clean slate and have all records of her past removed. In this digital age, he who controls and edits information has power. We can read up on anything online about anyone, and I like how this film addressed this.

As in the comics she is independent and aligns herself to anyone she can benefit from, thus leading Batman into the trap where he fights Bane. But Batman and herself make a great team and she unexpectedly comes around to help him save the city.

And save the city he does. As I knew this would be the last film I was honestly expecting Gotham to be doomed and for Bruce Wayne to die. However Batman is an immortal symbol which would live on. I heard of a new character called John Blake who is an honest and resourceful cop, so I instantly presumed that he would take on Batman’s mantle. He is also an orphan and inherits Wayne manor and the Batcave. I would love to see a sequel with him becoming the Dark Knight but believe that he will become Nightwing after the surprise reveal of his real name: Robin.

Yes folks, Robin is in this film contrary to what Christian Bale said ("If Robin crops up in one of the new Batman films, I'll be chaining myself up somewhere and refusing to go to work”) a few years ago, and I’m glad of this ‘in joke / sequel fodder’. I did also like Robin’s line about searching the sewers and being asked “did you find any giant alligators down there”. He quits the force after being effected by the rules of the law so it makes sense that he will become a vigilante and become Nightwing. I also liked the fact he doesn’t like guns after shooting two suspects and throwing his gun away. But I’m confused of how he knew Bruce’s secret identity, did I miss something?

But Christian Bale puts in his best performance of his career as the mentally and physically broken Bruce Wayne. He was under credited with his performance in The Dark Knight (2008) but shines in this, my standout moment being when he says goodbye to Alfred. Yes this film gets emotional and so did I especially when Alfred was crying over the Wayne graveyard apologising to his parents as he had failed them in protecting their son.

But it was touching during one of the last shots where Alfred fantasy of seeing Bruce with a lady, hopefully starting a family, as Alfred got closure as Bruce has hung up the cape and truly moved on to live his life without pain and guilt.

But this wouldn’t be a Batman film without some excellent action set pieces. The opening mid air plane rescue was stunning and reminded me of my skydive. I want to see this film again in Imax just for those shots. But the film truly kicks off when Batman returns (no pun intended) after 8 years on the Batpod outrunning most of Gotham’s police force. And the Bat is so much cooler than the Batwing seen in Tim Burtons Batman (1989) and I want one! We see a lot of these vehicles and the special effects used are un-noticeable. The end action set piece actually amazed me with all the tumblers, Catwoman on the Batpod, the Bat swooping in at the right moments, the bit with the bridge being blown up, and the nuclear explosion which had me think that it was the end for Bruce. But I’m glad he survived.

The Batman / Bane fight midway through the film was brilliant but I was expecting it to be a bit more brutal. But these films are not in my opinion all about the action. Director Christopher Nolan skilfully uses action to progress the story, which is what these films are all about: how and why a man dresses up as a bat to fight injustice.

Now for some nitpicky bits: it took 8 or 9 minutes for the programme to be uploaded at the stock exchange, but it changed from sunlight to total darkness during that short time. How did Bruce get back into Gotham undetected when all the bridges were down? And who told him that the bomb would detonate the next day? Where was Bane born and raised?

But I unintentional cracked up when Batman was asking Bane where the detonator was. Just watch ‘The Dark Knight Kills Christmas’ on YouTube. 

But you should ignore those things as the film is stunning. The cinematography is excellent. Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman are great and I loved Liam Neeson’s cameo, but I would have liked him to be more than a dream and a flashback. Cillian Murphy has a cameo as the sentencer, but I felt he was underused.

The dialogue is memorable and each character has a chance to shine. The story line was great and I felt it brought great closure to all the characters. It is a long film but never dragged and I was engrossed with every minute.

So in conclusion this film is as excellent as the last two. I will watch it again but the question is: is it up there with the Bourne trilogy (2002 - 2007) as a perfect trilogy: where each sequel is better than its predecessor and it wraps up the protagonists story whilst leaving the audience satisfied?

Is it a perfect trilogy? Yes. Thank you to Christopher Nolan and everyone involved with these films. And lets hope that the next reboot of Batman will be just as good.

9 out of 10

If you like this try:

Batman Begins (2005)

The Dark Knight (2008)

Alternative movie poster site

He is something I feel the need for sharing as some of these designs are just awesome!

Enjoy!

http://www.alternativemovieposters.com/tron1.html

Shanghai (2010) review

Shanghai (2010)

Review by George Elcombe

“I guess you start looking for something then end up finding something else.”

John Cusack is cool. He will always be remembered for the iconic image where he’s holding a boom box in Say Anything (1989) and his superb performances in High Fidelity (2000) and Grosse Pointe Blank (1997).

But now he is looking slightly brooding and confused as he seeks out the truth about his friend’s murder in Shanghai. But he’s still cool.

Plot: in 1941 American navel intelligence agent Paul Soames (Cusack) returns to Shanghai to discover his friend and fellow agent Conner (Jeffery Dean Morgan) has been murdered. Soames takes a job at the Herald newspaper as a cover to investigate his friend’s murder and to act like a journalist to meet the right people connected to Conner’s death. He acts as a Nazi sympathiser and befriends Chinese crime lord Anthony Lan-Ting (Chow Yun-Fat) and Japanese Captain Tanaka (Ken Watanbe) at a German Consulate event. However his investigation draws him into something much bigger on the eve of Pearl Harbour and he falls for Anthony’s wife Anna (Gong Li).

At this period in history most of China has been invaded by Japan yet Shanghai is neutral, continental if you will with its British, German, American, Chinese and Japanese sectors. Most people would rather look away from the atrocities on their doorstep rather then get involved, but as always in a time like these with genocidal tyrants, there is always resistance. Soames discovers that Anna is working for the resistance in planning assassinations of key Japanese diplomats and military personnel. Tanaka knows someone close to Anthony is involved but is unsure who it is and a game of deception begins.

I liked this film. It’s an engrossing film noir / spy caper which tells ultimately a story of the Chinese resistance during the Second World War leading up to America’s involvement. In this you have good dialogues, action, twists, suspense and the real mystery of the film is only revealed in the last 10 minutes.

But I found this to be a story about love. Love for an old friend and finding out why they died. How to love in a marriage of convenience, when all that’s left is on the surface. The love for ones country, history and way of life. And what people will do to preserve this.

Love is blind and an idea. It makes us weak and strong at the same time. This is summed up by Tanaka when talking about a captured member of the resistance:

“It's amazing how a man holds onto an idea, even when that idea is so obviously false, but I suppose it's all we have to keep us going”.

Technically I thought that the film done a great job at recreating 1940’s Shanghai in terms of sets (created in Bangkok) and costume. The cinematography is colourful when showing us the glamorous side of the city, to murky tones when dealing with the resistance. One thing I did like was the way the violence was edited in order not to glamorise it, but to show its sudden and devastating effects. One technique they used was to hold the camera above a body in black and white to recreate the scene of a photo. This worked well showing the shock and brutality of what needed to be done depending on which side you’re on.

This film has a talented cast and I am please that the main characters all had a chance to shine, even if Ken Watanbe’s character is a bit wooden.

So this is historical thriller / film noir / detective movie with an all star cast and a moderate budget produced by the Weinstein Company. So how come I have never heard of this? It was released 2 years ago overseas but never got theatrical distribution in the United States or here in Britain? I have no idea why but I think this film would have performed fairly well at the box office.

The DVD menu shows a montage of the film with a publicity stills underneath. Not too exciting. The film is presented in Dolby 5.1 and only features subtitles.

There are no extras besides a few trailers for other films, but I would have liked to have seen a documentary about Shanghai during this period, and to know what happened after Japan invaded. I would have liked to know how the cast got involved, the films reception (if any) or even a trailer for this film! Somehow I doubt there will be a special edition, but it would have been nice to have something less vanilla.

Ultimately this is a great historical thriller for those who love mysteries and period pieces. With the story unfolding as you get sucked in to the characters and events, this is an entertaining and satisfying story of a time few knew about.

7 out of 10

If you like this try:

Chinatown (1974)

LA Confidential (1997)

Revolution: The Director’s Cut (1985 / 2009) review

Revolution: The Director’s Cut (1985 / 2009)

Review by George Elcombe

"A revolution. A new turn" 

Note: I have reviewed the DVD from the dual format edition.

Well, this is a rarity. A film I've never herd of! It stars Al Pacino and Donald Sutherland and on first impressions seems to be one of those 80’s historical epics which should have won a bunch of awards. It turns out it was rushed as was a global flop which was slammed by critics upon release.

This film is a BFI (British Film Institution) edition and I am a fan of what they do. Enclosed are the DVD and Blu Ray of the film and a booklet with extensive essays, but also has a spoiler warning on the first page. Guess I’d better watch it first!

Plot: Tom Cobb (Al Pacino) and his son Ned sail into New York to sell furs during the start of the American Revolution against British rule. Ned is press ganged into joining the war and Tom is forced to sign up in order to protect his only son.

What follows is the journey of father and son throughout the war and seen from Tom’s point of view. They encounter Daisy McConnahay (Nastassja Kinski), a rich aristocrat who abandons her family to help the war effort, and Tom falls in love with her for her sacrifice. At one point Ned is captured by the British and Donald Sutherland is good portraying the stern Sergeant Major Peasy. They travel, meet some Indians and survive the war together.

Now this film wasn’t an easy to watch and didn’t grab me at all. Simply, its overlong, has bad acting, shoddy camera work and an annoying soundtrack. It uses many long takes (which in my general opinion adds realism) but unfortunately in the case with this film it makes some scenes drag. It also uses many shaky hand held shots (ala Paul Greengrass) but this makes the film look very amateurish with the camera bumping around the actors. Don’t get me wrong though as there are many fantastic shots of the American landscape. These ironically, were actually filmed in England.

However the first thing I noticed about this film is the terrible ADR (voice dubbing) sound mix. Some actor’s lip syncs are terrible and just distracts from what they are saying and the movie in general. The picture quality is grainy and I hope the Blu Ray transfer is up to scratch.

However the dirty sets, costumes and actors add a sense of realism and I’m glad this film isn’t blindly patriotic showing the struggle Americans went through to achieve independence. It shows the dark, muddy side with little hope for survival or glory.

There are many things I like about war films and I’m pleased to say that this film has them. Revolution was made to show the war from the point of view of the poor, from the gutter if you will. The soldiers fighting weren’t told what they were doing and neither is the audience.

The first fire fight is presented as a battle of statistics, with formation and calculated shooting being the winning factor. It shows the futility of war and how the government will always screw over the little man who fight and die for them. They always send the poor and the poor suffer for the rich. 

Daisy is an interesting character as she has a choice between living in a rich family and aiding her countries blind fight for freedom and ‘liberty’; a word used for men to enter their graves. She is shown as the Good Samaritan and fortunately isn’t one dimensional. On contrast the British are shown as the generic bad guys and stereotypically personified by Richard O’Brian’s Lord Hampton, who has got to have the most annoying accent I have ever heard in a film!

Al Pacino is great as his was in this era, but he needs a bit more to work with. His narration (newly added for this directors cut) adds depth and history to a country which is changing into a nation.

Like most DVD menus, this is a montage of shots showcasing some great cinematography, but for some reason the sound mutes after the first cycle.

The DVD has the standard trailer which unlike the film, made me interested in watching it. However it is full of spoilers and features a synthesiser heavy 80s soundtrack. 

However this DVD has some excellent content looking back at the film. ‘Re-cutting Revolution’ shows side by side comparisons of the original theatrical version and the shorter directors cut with interesting and insightful commentary from director Hugh Hudson. He himself admits that some scenes and shots drag on so they trimmed a lot to make it tighter, snappier and as Hudson says 'modern'.  This extra reveals amongst other things that this film was indeed rushed for Oscar season as such suffered. He wanted to re-edit this film to his original vision, and I am glad he had the chance. For this 2009 cut Hudson did indeed get his ‘new turn’.

Other extras are ‘Hugh Hudson on Revolution’ and ‘Revisiting Revolution: a conversation with Al Pacino and Hugh Hudson’. Here we discover some fascinating insights towards the production, funding and reception by audiences and critics alike. Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger were sought after for the role of Tom which I believe would have been fatal, although made more money at the box office. During the 80’s there was a huge influx of Reginist film where one muscle-bound solider disposed of the faceless enemy all for the glory of America. This film is the opposite and I’m glad Pacino got the job.

Like the revolution itself, this production seemed to be a battle with America, whom for example wouldn’t let them film there, then complained when it was filmed in the UK, casting a British man as George Washington and various distribution and critical issues.

Although this film is British, Warner Brothers only funded the film if it included a happy ending where Daisy meets up with Tom and we presume they live happily ever after. Like the similar ‘happy ending’ attached to the theatrical version of Blade Runner (1982), this ending was omitted from the directors cut as Hudson hated it. I agree, as the bleak ending matches the tone of the film and make us remember that even after the horrors of the world, life goes on.

Ultimately this film is a father and son journey across America and its history. Tom’s struggle is long, but he relates to the land and its people and wants to fight for not only the future of himself and his son, but also for the future of the nation. The ending hints that he has endured and will now do great things, possibly become a congressman, but I was left with the sense that this was just another mans story in a world where he will never be remembered.  

Just like Tom, this film drags you through the mud leaving you careless of every other character and wanting to move onto something better. Ultimately I found that in a film with this much scope, not a lot happened and this seems to be another bad thing that history has swept under the rug.

5 out of 10

If you like this try:

Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (1984)

The Mission (1986)

Man on a Ledge (2012) review

Man on a Ledge (2012)

Review by George Elcombe

“Ocean’s 21^st floor”

Just the title alone made me interested in watching this film and it has a simple yet brilliant poster of Sam Worthington (Nick Cassidy) on a ledge looking down at a crowd of police and onlookers.

Before watching this film I was thinking high concept along the lines of Phone Booth (2002), where we see a man in a tight situation with the story unfolding as the film went along. But then I saw the trailer, which shows Nick, off the ledge, being chased by police and then in a car crash.

So, I felt a little disappointed. My hope of a well crafted film utilising great writing, suspense and character development are destroyed by said trailer. Luckily for me this footage appeared in a flashback and I am pleased to say that we see Nick on the ledge for the majority of the film!

Plot: There’s a man on a ledge. At first nobody knows who he is or what his motivation is. The city’s media, public and police are focused on him and he requests ‘celebrity’ police negotiator Lydia Mercer (Elizabeth Banks) to talk to. She recently failed a cop who jumped to his death so is haunted by recent events and will not let it happen again. As the story unfolds it turns out that Nick is a distraction for a robbery happening across the street.

Now this film, although predictable, is probably best watched with little knowledge beside the title, so I’m going to throw in a SPOILER ALERT.

It stars another Jumper (sorry, couldn’t resist) as Nick’s brother Joey (Jamie Bell who is generally great in everything I’ve seen him in but underused and two dimensional in this). it is revealed that Nick is an ex cop serving 25 years for supposed diamond theft, which is all explained in the flashback and as the film progresses. It turns out Nick was set up by his police partner and some dirty cops so a property tycoon could commit insurance fraud and stay afloat during the recession. Joey and his extremely attractive girlfriend are committing the heist in order to steal the diamond and prove Nick’s innocence.

END OF SPOILERS.

So this film is a bit of a mixed bag. It’s overall a suspense thriller but incorporates some action, family drama and obvious themes our global economical state and how the rich will do anything to remain rich. I liked this focus on corporate corruption where it's always the little guys who take the hit. But the corporate company being called ‘Englander’? I love how Hollywood has Brits as the bad guy in every second film made and have subliminally incorporated it in this film too. 

It also shows how careless and cold the general public can be toward a man who wishes to end his life, with many shouting ‘jump’ and disgruntled that he has stopped traffic.

But ultimately this is a heist film nicely handled by Joey and Angie (Genesis Rodriguez). Although she is obviously there for a bit of eye candy with her cleavage constantly on display, and there’s a shot of her in her underwear. Whether this is needed or not depends on the viewer. However this heist isn’t completely believable with their seemingly Tardis like bag of tools, but is a fun aspect none the less. 

The DVD menu is a montage of shots from the film and cast, with a few minor spoilers. It uses minimal dramatic music and opens with my favourite shot of the movie: a pan from the hotel room through the window, to the ledge as Nick steps out.

This DVD has a few standard extras. ‘The Ledge’ is a short but good making of documentary which interestingly shows us that they started filming with a stage and green screen, but then decided to film the majority of the film off an actual ledge. It turns out that Sam Worthington is afraid of heights so good on him for spending so much time 200 feet above New York.

It also includes the films trailer with commentary from Elizabeth Banks that you can't turn off. I thought this to be annoying but it's entertaining and fun to hear her break down the trailer and her desire to ‘tap’ Ed Harris. A few crew interviews are also included.

Ultimately it’s another fun thriller which juggles between a no-brainer (why with all the robber’s tools don’t they wear gloves to hide their fingerprints) to an enjoyable and engrossing thriller as the film progresses. Entertaining, but not so much memorable.

6 out of 10

If you like this try:

Phone Booth (2002)

Man on a Wire (2008)

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) review

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)         

Review by George Elcombe

“Another film about a man and his monkey”

Prequels / reboots are a tricky business these days. Mostly they’re made to cash in on franchises with an existing and well known fan base, and this trend of reboots is tedious to say the least.

My opinion is as John Walter’s: Remake the bad films, leave the classics alone. The best example of this is a 1957 b-movie called Zero Hour. A thriller about a passenger flight in turmoil when the crew and passengers succumb to food poisoning. Only one man can fly and land the plane, a traumatised ex fighter pilot. If this sounds familiar, well done, you have seen Airplane (1980) which is one of the funniest films ever made! So if you are going to remake a film, do something different with it.

But we have a hell of a lot of bad reboots / remakes recently: A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010), The Pink Panther (2006) and of course Planet of the Apes (2001) where Helena Bonham Carter looks like Michael Jackson. Having said that we have had some excellent reboots such as Batman Begins (2005), Casino Royal (2006) and my favourite television show Battlestar Galactica (2004 - 2009)

I am pleased to say that this film is up there with the latter and works incredibly well as a stand alone film and within the franchise cannon and I loved the reference to the space shuttle of the (1968) original.

Plot: an excellent James Franco plays a scientist / biologist (Will) who is researching a cure for Alzheimer’s and tests his serum on chimpanzees and other simians. One of his chimps goes ape (sorry, couldn’t resist it) and ends up getting shot and killed in an investor meeting. Unbeknownst to him and the company, the chimp is pregnant and gives birth to a son who was exposed to the cure during the womb. Will takes this chimp home and aptly names him Caesar. Caesar swiftly develops near human intelligence and begins to question his nature as a person or a pet and learns about his birth and why he is the way he is. He develops his own identity and questions his existence and alienation. Following an incident where he attacks a neighbour, he is impounded in a ‘sanctuary’ where he meets other primates and the guy who plays Draco in Harry Potter. He escapes to the lab to steal the serum (which is conveniently in gas form) and infects his fellow captors whom escape in a spectacular finale.

This film is great and engrossing with some excellent actors. James Franco conveys the desperate son tying to bring back the man his father was, whilst playing a father figure to Caesar. His father played by John Lithgow is excellent also yet a little underused. There are many touching scenes with Will’s father’s condition improving with the treatment then degenerating as the film progresses, my favourite being where Caesar helps him use a piece of cutlery to eat his food.

Which brings me to the ever excellent Andy Serkis, who seems to be the go to guy for motion capture these days. Serkis’ motion capture for Ceasar is amazing but it’s the performance he gives showing the evolution of this character throughout the film into a true leader.

This film also explores a few themes current in today’s zeitgeist: ones place in society, class systems, bullying, corporate greed capitalising on untested commercial products and its possible devastating effects. I may go into further details about this some other day but good sci-fi is very much grounded in and reflects modern day issues, exploring them through fantasy aspects to give the audience something to relate to.

However the simians own this movie. Not surprising considering the title, but once Caesar gathers his troops this film picks up pace and I loved the third act carnage. I just hope they make a sequel further exploring the evolution of the simians and their culture while humanity dies. Each of these primates has their own personality and Caesar utilises each one for his army. General scar is there and if you’ve ever wanted to see a gorilla take down a helicopter, then this film show it in an un-cheesy way. As the film progresses you feel empathy for the simians as their human captors have used them for their own selfish ‘inhumane’ lust for greed, without knowing the consequences for what they have created. The next rulers of the Earth.

Ultimately this is an excellent film which asks the question of what makes us human. And Andy Serkis should have won an Oscar for his performance.

8 out of 10

If you like this try

Planet of the Apes (1968)

King Kong (2005)

Absentia (2011) review

Absentia (2011)

Review by George Elcombe

“Tunnel vision”

What is Absentia? Having watched the film, I checked Wikipedia. “In absentia” is Latin for "in the absence". 

Now I'm not the biggest fan of horror movies. Mainly because they are predictable, generic and don't scare me. It’s all about drops, payoffs and foreboding. Paranormal Activity (2007) made me jump, but I never lost any sleep over it.

However I like to go into watching horror films without knowing anything, which worked a treat for Cabin in the Woods (2012) and I am doing the same for this movie.

The DVD cover is similar Quarantine (2008) which shows a woman being dragged away. They stupidly used the final shot of Quarantine (2008) for its cover thus devoiding it all thrills towards the central character, but thankfully this image does not happen in this movie and is spoil free. So, how can I review this with out spoiling anything? Lets try.

Plot: pregnant Tricia is still holding out hope that her husband Daniel may still be alive after being missing for 7 years. Her sister Callie comes to stay to help her move on and declare him legally dead: in absentia.

However, Tricia is having visions of Daniel and Callie is being drawn to a mysterious tunnel near Tricia’s house which may be connected to a series of unexplained disappearances.

This film is interesting and takes the slow burn route with a few shocks. One shock I should have seen coming, but didn't, and at that point I became interested.

It has horror staples: haunted house, a pale ghost-like-thing, night visiony shots in a bedroom, two sisters and a mystery which slowly draws you in.

So far, so clichéd, low budget and the actress playing Callie can’t act very well. It’s obvious that the ‘ghost’ is of Daniel, but it doesn't help that he looks like Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory.

It’s also obvious who the father of Tricia’s baby is but all this is irrelevant after the 40 minute mark. Then things get interesting.

SPOILER ALERT!

Are you ready? Daniel is alive and it's now not another ghost story but a monster movie. I loved how they dealt with this. Why? Because they showed very little of the creature. It looked like practical effects with little or no CGI, just clever framing and use of the dark. I love this. The mind can create anything scarier that what’s on screen. Once you see something full frontal and especially if it’s shiny CGI, then it’s not scary. Just compare the 1982 and 2011 versions of The Thing to see my point. Actually, just watch the 1982 version.

END OF SPOILERS.

So it turns from generic horror to a thriller mystery, utilising drops, payoffs and foreboding until coming full circle at the end. That doesn’t mean that everything’s wrapped up though. I did like how the film dealt with flashbacks and ‘what if’ alternatives created in the characters heads. The events could just be made up, or it could be a more sinister reality. The film deals with how we come to terms with loss and traumatic events, how we reach for answers, understanding and closure.

The DVD menu is good and doesn’t show a lot, and doesn’t spoil anything, just a woman jogging through a tunnel. Both Harry Potter 5 (2007) and Harry Brown (2009) featured horror in a tunnel and admittedly tunnels can be an intimidating place.

I like the moody minimalist sound track but 5.1 wasn’t the default audio option on the review disk, I only discovered this after I watched the film so may re-watch it again to get the full effect. No extras were included on this disk but I would like to see a documentary on the making and funding of this low budget indie film. The legendry Kim Newman praises the film on its cover, so I would love a 5 minute interview with him discussing the film and its place within the modern horror genre.

Good horror is all in the foreboding and misdirection to achieve chills and scares. This film has it. And it doesn’t explain what or why the events are happening. It has no reason, a speculated origin and unknown motives which are all mysteries the minds of the audience will question.

An impressive and engrossing tale which is the best independent horror film I have seen in a while. For those who have seen it all and for those who haven’t.

6 out of 10

If you like this try:

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

Paranormal Activity (2007)

The Ring (2002)

Iron Sky (2012) review

Iron Sky (2012)

Review by George Elcombe

“In 1945 The Nazis Went To The Moon. In 2018 They Are Coming Back”

Do you like your movies to be fun? Seriously, there are many different types of film out there that tailor for various audiences: the Oscar crowd, the indie lover, the Saturday night movie goer, the blockbuster addict and people who just want to watch something silly and entertaining.

So, if your idea of Nazis on the moon planning to invade the Earth sparks your curiosity then you’re in luck.

In a nutshell this film is a blend of Starship Troopers (1997) and Dr Strangelove (1964), both excellent examples of political and military satire.

Plot: as established in an opening scene set in a classroom, Nazis fled to the dark side of the moon in 1945 where they somehow built a swastika themed base, several spaceships and the biggest war machine in the history of human existence.

Fast forward to 2018 where an astronaut and a model chosen to be the first black man on the moon (called James Washington) arrive to aid the presidents re-election campaign.

They discover the base and the astronaut is quickly taken out and Washington is taken captive. The stereotypical mad Nazi doctor Richter discovers that Washington’s smartphone can process and launch their warship, thus enabling the invasion to begin. Unfortunately the device’s battery dies so Nazi commander Adler and the doctor’s daughter Renate (who is destined to be the mother of Adler’s children) travel to earth to collect another device with similar processing power. Oh yeah, they also take Washington with them who is now white thanks to the mad doctor.

They meet the president’s campaign aid who decides to use them (and Hitler’s propaganda speeches) for the campaign trail, and hilarity ensues. I don’t want to spoil too much, but an invasion begins, there’s lots of dog fighting and the film gets sillier as it goes along until the bitter end when we realise how idiotic the human race is in its pursuit of war and control.

I first heard about this film a few years ago and I was hooked by the idea of Nazis hiding on the moon, and I’m pleased to say that this film had enormous support from the online community through various media channels. The fans and buzz generated an extra £500,000 towards production costs and I have to say that the CGI is impressive for an independent production. I should add that the design of the moon base and the grey lighting sets the mood for 1940’s Nazi Germany perfectly.

As I’ve stated before the films tone is generally silly, but very entertaining. It covers a lot of old Nazi propaganda and how Hitler’s goal was to unite the world in peace. It’s just that he was a genocidal maniac and his methods proved to be wrong. But this is juxtaposed by America’s dominance in the world today, mostly through force to exploit natural resources (the George W Bush is a perfect example of this). Although this film did focus on politics, some may say this needed to be elaborated on to make the film more realistic. Personally, I don’t. The satire is spot on with the Sarah Palin look-a-like being pleased with the fact that all presidents who start a war in their first term get re-elected.

The DVD menu is impressive but slightly spoilish showing the invasion, but the design mixes modern and retro and is aesthetically pleasing. The picture and sound quality are great and I especially enjoyed the 5.1 mix.

Unfortunately there were no special features on the review disk, but I hope they include the various trailers, test footage and a documentary chronically the effect that fans and social media had on the films production.

I have to say it’s a shame this film will only get a 1 day release in UK cinemas, a decision the filmmakers re unhappy about. Many friends want to see this on the big screen so I hope this film makes it into cinemas for random late night screenings.

There are wooden performances, intentionally bad dialogue and copious amounts of cheesy moments, and in that respect this film draws its strengths.

This film has been clearly influenced by Dr Strangelove (1964) and some bits are straight out of Fritz Lang’s classic Metropolis (1927), but is also full of fun stereotypes. If you are after a film that doesn’t take itself too seriously and it’s sole purpose is to entertain then you’re in for a treat.

7 out of 10

If you like this try

Starship Troopers (1997)

Planet Terror (2007)

Dead Snow (2009)

Sword for sale

Hi everyone.

Here's the photo of the sword that I couldn't upload on the Labyrinth forum. Please email me with any bids or questions at: georgeelcombe@hotmail.com

The Avengers (2012) review

The Avengers (2012)

Review by George Elcombe

"Hulk, smash"

I love summer blockbusters. Although now we don't queue around blocks anymore, the name still sticks. Its this time of year I attend the cinema most to see hyped up films full of special effects and explosions that deserve to be seen on the big screen. Pure popcorn entertainment and I love it.

Paramount does it very well and manage to drag me back to the cinema again and again to entertain me, but this film is exceptional. Yes, it's been a long time coming and has been hinted at in all the previous Marvel studios films (let's be honest; Iron Man 2 (2010) was just a long advert for this) but this, their 6th movie, is worth the build up and the best of the bunch.

Plot: Loki is after the Tesseract power cube from Captain America (2011) and is planning to open a portal and bring an army from another world to conquer the Earth and enslave humanity. It just so happens that Nick Fury has been planning the Avengers initiative for such an event, and brings together Iron Man, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Captain America, Hulk and Loki's brother Thor to stop him. This is going to be a party to remember! 

Director and co-writer Joss Whedon always does very good character ensembles (Firefly (2002 – 2003, Alien Resurrection (1997)) and none of the main characters is this film felt like they were left out with the exception of Hawkeye who was underused, although I’m glad they did shed some light on his and Black Widows past.

Each of our heroes had an informative introduction, establishing them to new viewers and reminding me why I like Tony Stark so much. Although this film clocks in at over 2 hours, it’s well paced, has you caring about the characters and is never dull.

This also has a lot to do with the epic action sequences and the humour. The entire cinema were cracking up at Joss Whedon's classic one liners and one scene involving Loki towards then end had us laughing and applauding. While the action set pieces are great and there are a lot of them, the finale being the best.

As per most Hollywood action films, this utilises the method of having wave after wave of faceless villains fly in as fodder so our heroes can do what they do best. Smash seven bells out of them, and Hulk does it the best in a rampage which was nothing less than pure joy. Overall Hulk stole the show and I hope we see more of him in future Marvel films. 

It's as great as everyone says and I love Tom Hiddleson as Loki. The cinematography is excellent although the 3D conversion is meh, the special effects are up to scratch but where this film shines is its ability to entertain.

Spoiler zone:

There is a nagging plot hole: if hulk is always angry, then why did he Bruce out on the Helicarrier? Seriously, if he's always angry then it's stupid to have him transform on it when he can just control his rage! But Hulk is fantastic in this film so I'll let it slip. Another nag is when Iron Man saves New York by directing a nuke up into a portal to the alien’s ship, where he may be trapped forever and his suit magically runs out of power. Well, the trailer showed Hulk catching him upon his decent and Iron Man 3 was recently given the green light: thus this moment has no tension at all. Nag.

Agent Phil Coulson is a fantastic character and I've enjoyed him in the previous Marvel films. Although his death is necessary for the development of this film and the unification of the Avengers, he will be missed. But I loved his interaction with Captain America and his trading card collection.

And the post credit glimpse of a future villain I have never heard of! Seriously, I thought it was Red Skull but no, it's Thanos, who we all remember from…. Erm…. I admit I love how Marvel had a very ‘grounded in the real world’ approach in Iron Man (2008) and The Incredible Hulk (2008), but since Thor (2011) opened up the possibility of other worlds, I am intrigued to see where this franchise is headed. It's a shame Fox own the rights to X Men and Apocalypse.

And that shot in Black Widow’s room when Hawkeye walked out of the bathroom, did that imply that they are more than friends? He he he.

End of spoilers.

In short this movie is as great as everyone says, and I am still loving this new Marvel franchise and excited for the next films.

8 out of 10.

If you like this, try:

The Incredibles (2004)

Serenity (2005)

The Muppets (2011) review

The Muppets (2011)

Review by George Elcombe

“I’ve made my choice, I’ve sung a whole song about it!”

It has been a while since I have seen a film with so much love in it. Yes, we have the romance element of Gary and Mary, Kermit and Piggy, but this film is a labour of love created by those who have loved the Muppets and this films one task is to spread to the world the joy that these puppets can create in all our hearts. And to make us laugh a lot!

Plot: Gary (human) and Walter (Muppet) are brothers. We see them grow up and Walter know he’s not like normal people (but then again who is?). But when he is a child he discovers The Muppet Show and like most of the world and I, his heart is filled with the simplistically silly and inoffensive joys that they bring. As they get older, Gary wishes to take his long term girlfriend Mary to Hollywood for their anniversary, but Walter is invited along so he can visit the Muppet studio tour. However, a tycoon plans to buy the Muppet theatre in a fiendish plot for oil, and Walter must bring back the Muppets for one final fundraising show. Starting with the man on Walter's watch, Kermit.

But this film is hilarious! If you grew up on the Muppets or discovered them later on in life (like some university friends) you will love this movie. Written by long term fan Jason Segel (Gary) everything you knew and loved about the Muppets is here but doesn’t feel rehashed for the sake of nostalgia. It feels fresh in today’s modern world and is very contemporary in some scenes. 

The film juxtaposes real life by showing the Muppets are gone, but ultimately not forgotten. It made me feel like a kid in some parts which is a skill few films have managed, but I felt like I had grown up and It still amazes me how something so inanimate and can be so full of life.

The songs are fantastic and well balanced, although I’m not sure ‘Man or Muppet’ is an Oscar worthy song. However the amount of well placed and well used cameos is fantastic and I want to see Dave Ghrol have his own spin off movie! But I bet you these celebrities jumped at the chance to be in this film as it really shows. And lets not forget Hobo Joe.

The ending makes us realise how much we miss and need the Muppets and while watching this film with my nephews I am glad they enjoyed it as much as I did. A sequel is on its way but I would love to see a new television show.

Overall it’s a great kids film, even for big kids.

7 out of 10

If you like this try:

The Muppets Christmas Carol (1992)

The Producers (1968)

Predators (2010) review

Predators (2010)

Review by George Elcombe

“Welcome to the jungle”

What can I say? I am writing this review as I watch the film and I’m confused. I would have loved this if I was 12 years old, but this film is an anti climax. Seriously, after the first half hour it’s limp and generic.

Seriously, I don’t care about this film or anyone in it. Yes, all the humans on the planet are mealy fodder for the beasties, to die in horrible ways for my amusement, but even when they die I don’t care. Except when Lawrence Fishburne died, but a Predator cannon shoots holes through people, it doesn’t make them explode.

Plot: a bunch of human bad asses awake while falling from the sky fully armed with a variety of weapons. Parachutes open, they land, group up, realise there being hunted and that there on an alien planet after reaching a cliff and noticing three planets in low orbit. Erm, wait. I know this is an action film but this is where I turned off. Why didn’t any of them look around when they were falling and see the other three planets in orbit? Speaking from experience, you have so much adrenalin pumping through you when you skydive that you are aware of everything around you! But you don’t even see these planets in the opening shot, there just not there. Thank you for playing us for idiots for a ‘wow’ moment later on which didn’t make sense. So anyway, they all get picked off one by one, fight a few Predators and Adrian Brody has a show down with mega Predator on steroids.

Yet again this is another poor use of a franchise which was famous for action and suspense. Granted, this has some good action scenes, but no suspense at all. The script is also shabby and I would have preferred Morpheus to have not been mad, just a bad ass. Oh yeah, there’s a bit where a human teams up with a Predator. Didn’t they see how much that sucked in Alien Vs Predator (2004)? And Adrian Brody’s gruff voice? Really doesn’t suit him.

Good points: the build up, a Predator vs a yakuza with a sword. The fact I didn’t see Topher Grace as a villain, but it was a ultimately pointless reveal. Lawrence Fishburne was underused but liked him in it. Erm, that’s about it.

Bad points: Predator dogs, Predator vs Predator, Adrian Brody teaming up with a Predator. Seriously, the monsters loose all menace at this point. And the movie is predictable as hell! Also there is a lack of Danny Trejo. Why couldn’t we have seen him with a really big knife vs a Predator? That would have been great! On paper this film should have been great. From the mind of Rob Rodriguez (just watch Desperado (1995) or From Dusk till Dawn (1996)) The concept of a Predator hunting planet is awesome. Apparently 20^th Centaury Fox just gave the filmmakers a bunch of money to make it and I admire the creative freedom.

Oh, and this is another film that is set up for a sequel which will never happen. What I would have liked? A lot more aliens. And not the one you see, I’m on about HR Gigers xenomorphs. Up in trees, picking off humans and Predators alike. One can dream of the Alien vs Predator vs Human battle royal that we deserve.

But ultimately this feels like a film long in development, rushed into production, and ultimately feels half baked.

I just hope Prometheus (2012) is better than this.

5 out of 10

If you like this try:

Predator (1987)

Pitch Black (2000)