Reviews

Aka 'Warriors of the Wasteland' upon release in the US.

From the infamous cult Italian director of such classic rip-offs like '1990: The Bronx Warriors' and 'Escape from the Bronx'. Enzo G. Castellari serves up yet another hot piping dish of post-apocalyptic mayhem which quite frankly borders on copyright infringement with other obvious US movies.

The Plot: In the year 2019 (ha!!) the world has been devasted by a nuclear apocalypse. All that appears to be left of humanity are small pockets of life that eek by as best they can. Yet despite the hardship and struggle these survivors must deal with the daily savage attacks by a gang called 'The Templars'. A group of psychotic morons that want to eradicate all humans...except for themselves of course. Only one man stands in their way and can save what's left of humanity, Max...I mean Snake...errr I mean Scorpion (no not that Scorpion). A former Templar thug turned good.

OK so let's just acknowledge the blatantly obvious straight away. This is a complete and utter rip-off of the classic 1981 Australia action movie 'Mad Max 2'. No ifs, no buts, this is literally the Italian version of that movie with minor changes. Pretty much all the same questions arise when watching this movie such as, how do they keep the cars fueled? Where did they get their matching outfits from? How do they keep the outfits so clean? Why wear the same colours? How does no one run out of bullets? And why are there lasers in this world and how are they kept running??

This post-apocalyptic world is a vast endless barren desert...clearly filmed in a quarry of some kind. Pretty much all the action sequences are filmed in and around this quarry. The good guys are a colony of religious types that just wanna live in peace. As said they all dress near enough the same with the same colour schemes (brown) and they always look very clean. Their home or base looks like a crude military camp on the outside whilst quite impressive on the inside (like a classy Tardis). But they all have plenty of guns and ammo.

On the other hand the bad guys look like religious nuts too. Well what do you expect with a name like The Templars? The bad guys again all dress in matching uniforms which are all white in colour and again always spotlessly clean. They have loads of guns, lasers, and heavily modded vehicles (all of which are totally tooled up with medieval implements of death). Now the odd thing is the leaders, or main characters, on the baddie team look like contestants from Sweden's entry to the Eurovision Song Contest mid 70's. Some serious wig work in this.

Now the lone-wolf hero, Scorpion, is your typical Han Solo clone. He wears everything you would expect to see on this type of hero from the leather pants to the low-cut shirt to show off his chest. What's more amusing is the ass strap that goes between his legs to keep his gun holster in place. He is played by Giancarlo Prete and is the archetypal Italian male (curly hair with Roman-looking features). On the flipside, we have good old Fred Williamson who's back for Enzo playing Nadir, a kind of tough lone-wolf anti-hero who doesn't really need to be in this film. Clearly Enzo wanted his American star back. But yeah Nadir is like this Jedi master type who wears this super cheap-looking plastic armour and is super skilled with a bow and explosive arrows. He merely teaches Scorpion to be even more badass.

Everything else in this movie is exactly what you think it's gonna be without even needing to watch it. There is a somewhat badass female character who can kickass but still needs saving by Scorpion. There are of course plenty of vehicle chases and vehicle-related death sequences which are quite quite hilarious in terms of basic effects but still fun nonetheless. Every vehicle in every chase sequence is clearly cruising along very slowly (you can tell by the background and long shorts). Yet they all have really silly overpowered sound effects. All the fights are very obvious and also executed really slowly. And amusingly, all the people running from vehicles run in a straight line, like in 'Prometheus'. It never occurs to anyone to run to the left or right to evade the vehicle.

Oh and then there's that one scene, yes that's right. In one quite shocking scene the bad guys have captured old Scorpion and have him strung up in their base. Now you think they're gonna torture him for info or fun, but no, they decide to assault him. Something I definitely didn't see coming.

Clearly the budget was low for this, there were limitations, but you can see everyone on Enzo's team really did put a lot of effort in and that's cool. Yes the film is a total shameless rip-off and it is essentially a bit crappy. But there is a lot of fun to be had here. The deaths are ridiculously over the top. The vehicles are EVEN more insanely over the top. 'Mad Max' up to 11! The score sounds like something from an 80's videogame, awesome. One baddie takes dr*gs. The wigs are...outlandish, and Scorpion's final outfit is something to behold. Like the young female, he too dons a transparent suit of body armour, complete with fake muscle structure. It's like 'Robocop' or a Marvel superhero but their outfit on top is transparent. The craftsmanship!

Truly a movie for the 'so bad it's good' camp. If you enjoy a good cheesy sleazy sci-fi romp with oodles of knock-off ideas that look like trash warmed up, then take a seat my friend. Only Enzo's 'The Bronx Warriors' can match this.

The second movie in the 'Class of' trilogy, the first being the 1982 flick 'Class of 1984'. None of these movies share much continuity despite having the same director (Mark Lester) and are loosely tied together, which is somewhat surprising really.

This time around in the distant hellscape of 1999 schools have become warzones full of violent uncontrollable gangs. In a highly obvious nod (or knock-off) to John Carpenter's 'Escape from New York' these schools, and the surrounding areas, have been cordoned off and there is no law. The police do not enter these zones. This is explained in a sequence virtually copied from said Carpenter flick. How they got away with that I don't know. So what to do? Well it's the future so they draft in humanoid super androids to deal with the kids. Unfortunately it seems the androids grow to enjoy their job and start killing the kids. What this part of the plan?

Man where to start! So apart from the obvious 'Escape from New York' plot vibes this movie also decides to take ideas from another sci-fi classic in 'The Terminator'. The android teachers look like your typical mid-80s high school educators on the outside for sure, but as they start to tear off their outer layers of skin we see a familiar sight. Obviously it's not all the same, these androids have limbs that are weapons and they bleed lots of thick green goo. But hot damn do some sequences look almost identical to the finale in said Cameron classic. Again I dunno how they got away with it.

The delinquents in question are naturally your stereotypical archetypal 80's/90's punks. Just look at those threads man! Wow! These guys dunno what decade they're in. You've got bandanas, skinny jeans, studded belts, chains, huge earrings, battle jackets, band-styled jackets, makeup, top hats, quarter-length coats, leather jackets, neck scarfs, flowing hip sashs etc...And everything is in an array of colours as if it's just come off the set of 'The Fresh Prince of Bel Air'. I'm still not sure if this was all deliberate because they genuinely thought it was cool and edgy, or they were just mocking the street punk genre.

These street punks are so over the top it's cringeworthy at times. It is also worth noting that these sewer urchins never appear to change their clothes, eww! I also love how these hooligans don't seem to learn with the teachers. Some of them mouth-off and get beaten by one teacher, then straight into the next class some other fools do the same thing again! Let's not forget their modes of transport, various souped-up muscle cars all decked out in classic 'Mad Max' styled armour and weaponry, because cliche!

Yeah you can't deny this movie is a quirky looker that's for sure. Taking all manner of classic imagery and sticking it together in a not-very-original plot. If it wasn't for the pretty solid effects and casting this would have been dreadful. Yes the effects are actually good. Blood, gore, guns, explosions, squibs, killer androids etc...all look pretty good in that low-budget straight-to-video shop kinda way. The bleak industrial locations also set the mood pretty well helped by that Pacific North West cloud and drizzle.

But it's the key casting that really helps this unoriginal sci-fi hokum. The love child of Corey Feldman and Stephen Dorff, Bradley Gregg, is the main badass Corey Culp (the Yanks love that name Corey, and how about that second name!). In my opinion this guy is underrated and was underused back in the day. This movie clearly shows that he could hold his own as an antihero type, and villain if needs be. What the hell is he wearing around his neck the whole time?? I also wasn't sure about this guys age here. He starts out in prison but still has to go to high school? I mean he literally gets out of jail and goes straight to school (laugh out loud).

The rest of the cast is a mishmash of well-known character actors that we've all seen in many cult movies including the short and odd-looking Joshua Miller. Blaxploitation action star Pam Grier. Stacy Keach whose character seems to have some kind of bionic eyes or something? This is never explained, but hey it's the future! There is also the always evil-looking Patrick Kilpatrick being evil as usual, and Malcolm McDowell who this time plays a good guy.

Boy oh boy this movie. Yes it's completely 100% a rip-off from so many other movies and it's totally predictable from start to finish, but it's also lightning in a bottle. The casting, the cheesy good special effects, the ridiculous action, the ridiculous costumes, never-ending numbers of gang members that appear outta nowhere just to get wiped out. And then on top of all that you've got a pretty solid creepy killer android finale to boot! This movie is literally the definition of a cult classic and if you're a certain age it's impossible not to like it, or at least respect its sheer audacity.

Well well what have we here? Another historical epic from top director Ridley Scott charting the life of French military commander Napoleon Bonaparte; or a close approximation.

I find it very difficult to try and review some historical films for the very simple reason that I don't know anything about the history of whatever it may be. I don't want to come across as ignorant but that's just the way it is, some things you know about, some things you know a bit, some things you know nothing. Obviously I have heard of Napoleon and his antics but what I know is extremely limited as I am not in any way an expert on French military or revolutionary history. I am also willing to bet that this will be the same situation for the majority of regular moviegoers the world over, and in some cases even worse.

So when it comes to watching a film like this I have to rely on certain things such as Wikipedia and various other bits of information (often YouTube videos) to delve deeper into the history and learn what was accurate, what wasn't, and what else occurred that may not have been shown. There is no shame in this in my opinion, I am simply researching and learning more about the period. It's no different from doing homework, which in my day would have been 100% reliant on books. This is the only way to learn and discover more, it's just a shame some directors couldn't do the same.

So when it comes to this epic biographical offering there is alas a hyper tonne of history to dig into involving lots of historical people, battles, wars, skirmishes, political theatre etc...To the point that it would take you potentially years to digest and understand everything that occurred during Napoleon's lifespan. Reading about one small aspect of his life will inevitably link to a specific event, which in turn will inevitably link to a multitude of people and other events surrounding them, in turn linking to more battles and more people, often covering multiple countries etc...So bottom line, I'm putting a lot of faith in Ridley Scott to deliver something that I can get to grips with and give me the basics to get me through. A condensed two and a half hour history lesson of the French revolution, give or take.

Did Scott deliver on this? Yes and no. As expected with Scott the film looks tremendous with high detail both in the foreground and background. Virtually every aspect of the era has been carefully recreated to the best of everyone's ability. Again I'm no expert but what I saw on the screen, to me, looked amazingly realistic and presumably accurate. From the basic cast iron heating system steaming away in the corner of a room; to the huge array of outfits, the hairdos, the food, the landscapes, weaponry, the various methods of transportation etc...it all looks very impressive. The only tiny quibble would be the lack of most actors going for a French twang in their dialect.

Naturally it's the battles everyone came for (all the various politics in between are interesting of course but let's be real here) and naturally these don't fail to deliver. The vast stonking scenes of war porn we get in the finale at Waterloo is what I was waiting for. Granted it is not as good or as detailed as the classic Rod Steiger epic of 1970 but I can't deny it was solid. I know nothing about actual French Napoleonic warfare and how it may have actually gone down real-time so to me it was exciting and thrilling, oh yes. Scott can certainly deliver a rousing war and this was definitely worth the wait. Charging cavalry, screaming troops, unthinkable suicidal marches straight into gunfire, thundering cannon fire, blood, thick mud, and stoic British officer types glaring at the enemy through steely eyes.

So whilst Scott is able to deliver much visual spectacle across the board, alas he doesn't often seem to deliver much historical accuracy as proven here. Stating once again I know very little about this time period but even I had to question the moment Napoleon fired his cannons at the ancient Pyramids of Giza. This was easily the most offensive of the historical inaccuracies simply because it was so blatantly false. We know there aren't large cannonball-sized holes in the Pyramids for Pete's sake. I simply cannot understand why Scott would make such a horrifically false sequence. Everyone expects there to be inaccuracies in historical films but usually not this glaring, geez!!

Other than some stand-out moments of pure inaccurate nonsense, quite frankly it's all good! I didn't expect every inch of Napoleon's life to get covered and it wasn't. After some reading there were obviously more battles, political guff, and whatnot but you can't expect everything to be crammed into a film, it's just not possible. Nor did I think more battles would have made it any better as this is supposed to be essentially a bit of a history lesson, not war porn, so we need the other less exciting stuff. The acting, much like most Scott epics, is pretty much flawless across the board really. Everyone looked and felt right in their respective roles. What else can I say here? It's a modern day historical epic, we don't get too many of those, I do enjoy them and this satisfied me. I was engaged right to the bitter end. I can't deny I'm surprised that Scott is apparently still able and allowed to make these sprawling flicks considering most of his flicks have a tendency to fail at the box office but there you go.

Not as good or action-packed as 'Gladiator', but this is a different type of animal. Not as good as 'The Last Duel' which is a HIGHLY underrated medieval epic. But 'Napoleon' is much better than 'Kingdom of Heaven' and 'Exodus: Gods and Kings'. Very much recommended if you can overlook the inaccuracies.

A long time ago in an era far far removed from the present-day shenanigans of Dr. Who there were two movies. Two movies that have been long forgotten about despite them starring the mighty Peter Cushing as the Doctor and the feverish devotion you get with modern fanbases.

At first glance I found this hard to believe, I am not a fan of Dr. Who in any way but I was surprised to find out that these two movies were kinda ignored by the fanbase. I just assumed they fit into the lore or timeline at some point back in the early days. Upon further reading I discovered that both movies are actually entirely separate from the TV series and are simply stand-alone remakes (of early series) that are not very popular with the fanbase.

Why are these movies not very popular? Well it seems parts of the Dr. Who cannon has been changed. They don't fit into the TV series timeline and unfortunately they aren't seen as being very good. I can understand this as this first adventure is pretty basic. The plot centres around Dr. Who and co accidentally getting transported to another planet somewhere, accidentally getting captured by Daleks, and having to defeat them with the help of friendlier aliens.

Right from the get-go, despite my lack of Whovian knowledge, I could tell this wasn't the same as the famous BBC show. As already mentioned Peter Cushing is the Doctor here, which is inspired casting no doubt, but you don't really get the quirky eccentric Doctor we are all used to. What we get is essentially Peter Cushing doing his usual polite and charming kooky scientist/inventor routine which doesn't really fit the bill and plays out more like a Doug McClure adventure. The plot also puts the Doctor at a point where he's just invented the Tardis so everything, again, feels closer to any manner of classic adventure flicks involving crazy machines going to outlandish places like the moon, centre of the Earth, bottom of the sea etc...

Another huge problem for this movie is the lack of scope (probably down to budget). I'm sure back in the day this may have looked impressive but looking back...not so much. The main issue being the sets, the obvious sets. Everything looks so confined with no depth or scale. This feels like a very small planet and limited adventure. All the props look flimsy and horribly fake. The costumes are typically dated and very drab-looking. The action is hokey as hell, and the Humanoid alien race known as 'Thals' look like the worst type of original 'Star Trek' alien ever.

The highlight (other than Roy Castle's hilariously cringeworthy performance) is of course the Daleks themselves. These extremely popular robotic trolleys have somehow become feared and loved by children and adults for as far back as I can remember, and I just don't know why. I can't deny they are a unique and original design and I have always liked the idea of a small alien creature having to exist inside its own little tank, but in this they are bad (not in a good way). What we really have are ropey-looking bumper cars trundling around very slowly firing bursts of fire extinguisher foam at actors that are trying to escape slowly to give the Daleks an impression of some speed, aggression, and intimidation. The result is often a giggle-inducing scene where a Dalek will attack and go after someone very very slowly whilst trying not to bump into props and scenery.

I think the real crime here is the movie is boring, nothing really exciting happens, nothing keeps you on the edge of your seat. Another glaring crime is the fact the Daleks aren't threatening at all. Sure they may have been back in the day but now? Forget about it. There is never any real peril because everything looks like a 'Blue Peter' set with the odd nice prop and one nice matte painting. Heck they even chuck in some lava lamps as set decor for flip's sake. And lastly, the main man, the Doctor, doesn't really do anything either. Cushing certainly looks the part but they give him nothing to do! Criminal! I think anyone who is unaware of Dr. Who and likes old hammy sci-fi will get a kick outta this, but in all honesty, who is in that boat being unaware of Dr. Who?

The one thing that's always kinda got me thinking when it comes to 'Ghostbusters' is this. When humans die they turn into ghosts. All the ghosts the Ghostbusters bust are in fact dead people, some are grumpy, some nice, some nasty etc...but all are dead people generally just trying to get by after they have passed on. So, when the Ghostbusters eventually die, will they get punished by God for hunting down the mostly innocent spirits of dead people? Will other ghosts take revenge on them? You'd imagine there would be some repercussions no?

So anywho, turns out the new teen team is back and now reinstalled back into the original firehouse in Manhattan, and guess what? They're bustin' ghosts just like the good old days. What does that mean? They're storming around NYC in Ecto-1, hanging out of the ambulance proton wands blazing away destroying buildings and whatnot whilst huge spooks hurtle around and no one pays any attention to it. Straight away these huge CGI set pieces make no sense. The police would be everywhere, where are they?? People would be running around everywhere terrified whilst dodging proton streams and debris, and Ecto-1 wouldn't last 5 minutes before hitting traffic or slamming into another vehicle. Yeah I know it's a movie but the original didn't do that, twas more grounded. The lack of budget to do so probably being the main reason but it's things like that that help older movies hold up in the long run.

Anyway turns out there's a mcguffin that has a nasty demon trapped inside that really shouldn't be released but guess what? The nasty demon gets released and the ever-expanding team of Ghostbusters needs to stop it before it, once again, destroys NYC. Cue the Ghostbusters epic soundtra...oh, no they decided to leave that out, ballsy move

Ever expanding team I hear you say? Yup that's right, there are about ten or so Ghostbusters now. The original classic oldies return because just like the 'Terminator' franchise and Arnie it seems they can't get past the original cast; and apart from Dan Aykroyd there's really no need for the other two. I was also thinking that Egon's ghost would probably turn up to help again if you think about it, why wouldn't he? Having a ghost on their side would give the Ghostbusters the edge surely.

The main issue with this movie is the fact that so much is happening and it feels SO rammed! As everyone has pointed out there are far too many characters and many don't even need to be there. Walter Peck is back, because of course he is, and now he's...the mayor of NYC?? How? Why? And he's STILL after the Ghostbusters? Ugh! Being the mayor I would have thought he would have found it easier to do that and taken them out already but whatever. Can't deny he still has a pretty good case as to why the Ghostbusters should be shut down, just as he did in the original movie for environmental reasons.

The characters of Lucky Domingo and Podcast are back and serve no real purpose (other than ticking diversity boxes?). Callie and Trevor Spengler are back and do nothing despite being core characters, bizarrely. Janine Melnitz returns just to suit up in a Ghostbusters jumpsuit (for the fans of the cartoon?). Finally apparent new Ghostbuster Dr. Lars Pinfield pops up seemingly out of nowhere yet has his own black Ghostbusters jumpsuit, black Ghostbusters vehicle, and STILL manages to not do much. Heck! The one new character that should have had more screen and story time, Kumail the Firemaster, was drowned out by everyone else.

As for the nostalgia factor, look I get that some aspects of the original movies will need to be revisited but once again they go overboard. We've got original 80's breakfast cereal adverts, toy adverts, a clip from the original Ray Parker Jr. Music video, some of the same catchy dialog lifted straight from the original, Venkman utilising his old experiments with Egon's colander, the same NYC library ghost that somehow looks worse than the original, the pointless mini Stay Puft men again, the final scene outside the firehouse is the same from the original, and finally Slimer is back. Ironically I actually thought Slimer looked great this time around and I really wanted to see more of him. Maybe a prequel movie about Slimer's origins, who he was in life, how he died and became the disgusting green blob.

Overall despite what I've said I did find this outing relatively acceptable. It was certainly more interesting and engaging than the last dull offering set on a farm. It did feel more like a live-action adaptation of an episode of 'The Real Ghostbusters' which isn't necessarily a bad thing, I can dig it, but maybe they should have reigned it in just a tad. In general despite all their efforts the movie still felt small in scale and had the look of being shot entirely on sets. They really didn't capture New York City like the first two movies did which is a really glaring error frankly. How can you not take advantage of NYC? It's odd, it's like the folks behind this franchise (including original stars) still don't quite get how it works or how to fully make the most of its rich material. Third times a charm?

The cool Disney adventure you probably never heard of (because it was essentially a '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea' clone that failed at the box office).

Yes another literary adaptation surrounding a tale that is very much in the same realm as Jules Verne. Initially set in England 1907, wealthy aristocrat Sir Anthony Ross sets out to find his long lost son who went off into the wild blue yonder of the Artic searching for a mystical fabled island. He hires the help of a French aeronaut who has recently invented and built a dirigible and off they sail! Destination: The Unknown!

Classic boys own adventure type stuff I'm sure you'll agree. Very much in the same vein as many many other adventure yarns that involve mysterious islands or lands lost to time that are either underground or beneath the sea or in a specific location etc...And in all honesty I'm sure you've all seen this type of thing before many many times. As mentioned this does indeed feel very much like a 'Leagues' clone and that is ultimately its downfall for me. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy it but it plays out predictably with all your typical cliches, tropes, and results. It feels a bit too ''off the fantasy production line'' if you get me. A bit too generic despite being a big Disney project.

I think the one thing this movie offers originality wise is the fact the lost land and people are Norsemen. An artic island hidden by convenient clouds that in turn also hides a lush Nordic town with lots of blonde Vikings complete with long boats and horned helmets. Usually these flicks offer prehistoric tribes or made-up barbarian-type folk with the odd monsters. Nope, this time it's legit based on real people with real references to their culture and Gods etc...No monsters or oversized lizards this time. Heck the main antagonist is merely the local witch hunter-type fella, a religious zealot.

With '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea' the main hook or merchandise factor was the Nautilus submarine, with this movie it was the Hyperion dirigible. The latter was intended to become the next big thing for Disney, an iconic symbol they would use to across all their gear including their famous parks. Can't say I blamed them either, wicked design, striking with a nice realistic x steampunk vibe. This thing dominates the early part of the movie and should have had more screen time for in-depth exploration. Alas this dirigible is all this movie offers really, at least in terms of appealing fantasy visuals. Don't get me wrong the rest of the movie is packed with effects but they're all your standard generic rear screen projection type affairs (that have aged really badly) with the odd glorious matte painting (but so glorious!).

The casting says it all really, if you ask me. Just look at the lead, Donald Sinden as Sir Anthony Ross. Now I know nothing of this actor and nothing against him but this was clearly a James Mason wannabe for Disney. The similarities are hilariously blatantly obvious from his beard, his elocution, right down to his attire. The rest of the team are actors I haven't really heard of apart from Mako and Jacques Marin who popped up in a few other lower-tier Disney kid's flicks. I think that was a big problem for Disney with this movie, no big stars, or at least no big star for either the main role or villain role. And that's it in a nutshell really, a nice family adventure, perfectly fine, nice and safe, but no where near as good as 'Leagues'. A poor mans 'Leagues' if I'm gonna be really truthful, but still worth seeing if you're into this type of fantasy yarn.

As we entered phase four of the MCU and started getting second (third?) tier superheroes that the majority have never heard of, both Marvel and Disney still managed to conjure up yet another overblown obvious CGI/bluescreen filled hodgepodge that felt no different from most of their other offerings. I was shocked! (I wasn't shocked).

So Shaun leads a secret double life if you will, as beneath his humble geeky exterior lies the son of a powerful overlord with God-like powers who runs the Ten Rings organisation. Said God-like powers come from the mysterious ten rings which bestow all the usual stuff like immortality on whoever owns them. Where do the rings come from? Don't know. Who made them? Don't know. Where do their powers come from? Don't know. How has no other Avenger thought to find these up till now? Don't know. How have these things not been mentioned until now? Don't know. Cue lots of family angst, mcguffins aplenty, a generic stage-by-stage mission leading to the big CGI finale, and of course lots of martial arts...because Chinese people!

Yep, for a movie made in this politically correct era I was actually pretty surprised at how many stereotypical Far Eastern tropes there were here. They're all here, dragons, Chinese lions, every single person being able to do martial arts, primitive rural little villages that seemingly spend all day training in martial arts, temples, wise old male Mr. Miyagi type characters etc...I mean I get it's supposed to be based around ancient Chinese culture so that kinda means you gotta have things like I guess, but I'm still surprised that it wasn't picked up on considering when this was made.

But whilst this movie did look admittedly sumptuous, it also looked like every other mystical fantasy historical flick based in Asia that I've ever seen and offered nothing new at all. The whole thing was so visually predictable and cliche Jesus! The entire thing was just a big trope, I felt like I was watching a PG version of Mortal Kombat it was so cheesy. And despite everything generally looking very nice, you still can't escape the nasty obvious looking CGI that we've come to expect within Marvel movies. These effects can range from grounded and cool-looking to plastic and fake-looking in the blink of an eye.

Another problem with these Marvel movies is the fact there doesn't really seem to be any actual stakes at hand. There is never a time when I actually felt worried or on the edge of my seat because I know very well no one of importance will die (and even if they do chances are they'll come back anyway). The whole thing feels so very safe, devoid of any real grit. Case in point, the forest that contained the maze to the entrance Ta Lo which supposedly ''eats people'', well it doesn't. In fact I'm not really sure what the threat was there, the trees just moved and covered your tracks so you would get lost? In the end the heroes just drove through the trees so it didn't seem like they were much of a threat after all.

Basically, for a movie that was supposed to be a kind of break from the norm offering muh diversity and a fresh outlook, it all seemed very by the numbers to me. The main character is of course perfect and invincible offering more powers that seemingly can't be matched by anyone else (especially characters like Black Widow who is merely a regular woman with no powers at all). Not sure how Simu Liu got the part seeing as he's the most generic looking guy I've seen in a blockbuster for some time. Cut n paste Asian guy number #5. ''Aquafina'' or whatever her stupid chosen name is, is predictably annoying and merely offers up stupid lines of so-called comedy. Tony Leung as Wenwu, the main antagonist, looked more like a mild-mannered middle-aged CEO than the leader of a massive criminal organisation. I also found his conflict between finding his wife (known to be dead) in Ta Lo, which is obviously a ruse, and his children rather tepid and forced . A lame attempt at some real emotion within this rather silly and childish comicbook flick.

There are lots of fisticuffs involving throwing people around a lot and getting slammed into the ground which usually gets zero results for anyone. And of course there are plenty of hideous hip-hop tunes because of course there is, modern youth culture. I'm still not sure why the character of Trevor returned here either. What was the point of that? He literally did nothing and offered nothing other than a small moment of continuity from the 'Iron Man' movies.

Heck, this could have been a neat 'Big Trouble in Little China' type adventure, especially given all the Marvel quirks and comedy that has been its staple for some time now. But alas this is just another limp bland Marvel action & magic flick that feels like a generic brand action figure run at this point. Yes it looks pretty but that's it! There is nothing much here that I really haven't seen before in a multitude of other similar romps (including John Carpenter's 'Big Trouble' which is infinitely better in every aspect). This is the epitome of cookie-cutter or factory product line entertainment.

The third and final movie from Hammer Productions based on the legendary folk hero of Nottinghamshire, Robin Hood. As said before these movies are not connected, no story arc is contained within this trilogy. Thing is, there is no Robin Hood in this feature, so why does the title contain the name? (obviously name recognition).

In this film we are actually given more of an origin tale. Things are changed up a bit to offer a more fresh approach and this is admittedly a welcome angle as there are only so many times you can tell the same old story which everyone knows by heart. In this take Robin Hood is called Robin De Courtenay, the cousin of Henry (somewhat good) and Roger (downright evil) De Courtenay whose dying elderly father Sir John is a wealthy Norman nobleman. Upon his death bed Sir John divides his castle and wealth between the three men which unsurprisingly angers the dastardly Roger. Roger proceeds to murder Henry using Robin's knife in order to lay the blame on Robin. Robin thusly flees into the forest and joins up with a band of Saxons whom he had helped earlier on at the start of the film.

There are mentions of Richard the Lionheart, there is no Prince John. Robin is part of a wealthy Norman family. Will Scarlet and Little John appear to be servants or retainers of Sir John and not part of the merry men. Robin's main enemies are Roger De Courtenay and the Sheriff of Nottingham. And Maid Marian has a slight name alteration and initially isn't the object of Robin's affection! Marian's own maid appears to take that role. Other characters such as Much, Tuck, and Alan-a-Dale are present and correct.

So they take some liberties with the story which is fine, but what about everything else? Well firstly casting for me was a bit of a mixed bag really. Barrie Ingham as Robin visually speaking was way off for me. This guy looked more like a smooth 60's lounge singer and far too clean-cut for the role. Sure I get he's supposed to be a nobleman here but the hair, sideburns etc...it all looked too modern-day (for the time). Obviously Friar Tuck's gonna Friar Tuck and Marion isn't hard to get right, but the rest of the gang all looked pretty generic to me, nothing really unique going on here. Don't get me wrong I'm not expecting 'Mad Max' in Sherwood but maybe something to distinguish the odd outlaw. Villain wise again it's pretty standard fair but with Peter Blythe looking a bit Freddie Mercury-esque as Roger De Courtenay but suitably dastardly. This was always one of Hammer's problems in my opinion, the era tended to shine through too much in their casting. You could easily guess this was probably made in the 60's down to the way the cast looks, a major negative for any historical feature.

There is swashbuckling aplenty for sure but it certainly lacks the spritely gloss of the famous Errol Flynn picture and their own second feature 'Sword of Sherwood Forest'; but it does easily defeat their first foray into the woods with the weak 'Men of Sherwood Forest'. The film starts off quite dark with Roger evilly shooting a man in the back with an arrow and then his servant trying to murder the child witness, but it all quickly devolves into the inevitable hammy affair you'd come to expect. Not much blood (if any) and plenty of fake-looking swords, heck they even battle it out with a pie fight in one scene! Don't get me wrong it all looks terrific as Hammer features often did, very reliable on that front, but boy are some of those Norman troops useless.

I think the one thing that kinda threw me here was the altering of the classic folklore. I get the need for a change as you can't remake the same old Robin Hood story every time but there was something about this that felt off, like a poor man's equivalent that didn't have the full rights to the story. A lot of it for me was the casting which I just didn't really connect with. They also take the odd bit of classic lore and just give it a spin such as Robin's fight against Little John now takes place inside the castle. There is also no archery tournament here but a similar setup (a fair) which sees said Robin fight against Little John, whereupon he collects a prize (not a golden arrow). They also give a small bit of backstory for how they all end up wearing green (as up until then they are all wearing various period attire) which was cool. Shame all their attire is always spotlessly clean, ugh!

Well they're definitely men in green tights that's for sure, but there isn't a great deal of robbing from the rich to give to the poor this time. A dash of period-era political intrigue and a whole lot of Robin's gang versus Roger's gang. The bad guys are easily the more interesting whilst lounge lizard Robin's boys are all a bit cookie-cutter. I didn't hate this but I didn't really like it either. It just didn't really feel like Robin Hood. I should also point out that they appeared to film outdoor locations at Bodiam Castle, the same as they did for 'The Men of Sherwood Forest'. A bit silly as you can clearly tell it's the same location and this might fool some into thinking the films are connected. Oh well.

A rather unusual and not particularly intimidating title for a horror picture. The alternate US title of 'Night Creatures' sounds better but doesn't really fit the bill. I was actually quite surprised to discover this rather tacky, so-called horror, is actually loosely based on a series of adventure books which in turn were loosely based on actual historical events of the 18th Century. Lots of smuggling going on along the South East coast of Kent back then it seems.

This creepy tale revolves around a Captain investigating a potential smuggling operation in and around a small coastal village that just so happens to have a supposed ghosty problem. The village is apparently run by the seemingly inconspicuous village parson (Peter Cushing) who, behind the scenes, does actually run the smuggling operation. The village's ghost problem appears to be a ruse in order to keep people away from their smuggling activities late at night. But does the parson hold a deep dark secret in his past?

Now I know I have given the entire game away with that little plot summary but trust me, it's all pretty easy to see right from the start. This is indeed what you might describe as a charming little British horror flick. I'm sure back in 1962 it was possibly seen as quite scary but these days it's an utterly harmless affair. Again the one thing that lured me into watching this was the usual Hammer casting of Cushing and Oliver Reed. Both actors aren't exactly rocking the boat in terms of range here but both deliver exactly what you would expect in a feature like this. Cushing of course being the highlight with his bony elongated figure and deliciously calm yet devious manner perfectly fitting the conniving parson. His hairstyle (wig) also gave the character a nice religiously eerie presence.

As with almost every Hammer film the visuals are gorgeous and really draw you in. All the sets, props, and costumes (which I'm sure are reused from other films) look wonderfully authentic although I'm also sure they're probably not entirely period-accurate. Like many Hammer productions it's all about the visuals and the thrills and not so much the historical accuracy. Nevertheless they all do the job, alas the same cannot be said for the various location shoots which border on comical at times. Clearly this wasn't filmed around Romney Marshes where the story is set and bizarrely most of the night scenes appeared to have been shot during the day and they've tried to alter the image after the fact. I guess there were issued shooting at night but boy does it detract from the atmosphere.

The ghosts or phantoms that haunt the area of actually the smugglers, and the parson, dressed in robes with skeletons painted on them with luminous paint apparently (would they have had luminous paint in the 18th Century?). These sequences reminded me very much of the silliness of 'Scooby Doo' and even an element of the Ku Klux Klan oddly enough. The scenes of these phantoms galloping across the countryside at night, their robes glowing, unfortunately looked pretty rough as the effects clearly weren't up to much. A nice idea but they weren't able to fully realise it.

Final thoughts? The film's poster is epic, it's literally the perfect hokey Halloween image for any kid's party. As for the feature itself, well I enjoyed it despite it not really living up to the creepiness the poster oh so promises. The actual story is kinda weak and you're not really sure who you should be rooting for. The big reveal surrounding the parson should have been easy to figure out within the first five minutes of the opening (making him the baddie); and the authorities investigating the town are also kinda made out to be baddies too. I guess some of the townsfolk are the goodies despite being smugglers. The atmosphere is certainly present but the final execution is lacking (along with the effects), which is a shame. The night scenes that were obviously shot during the day really spoil everything, or it did for me at least.

So I dunno if it's because I'm getting old and whatnot but this has to be one of the most confusing convoluted messes I've had the misfortune to sit through since the last Marvel multiverse mess. Seriously what did I just watch? The current trend of having a ''multiverse'' is way way WAY out of hand geez! This all reminds me of the old days watching 'Red Dwarf' on BBC2 which would often have plots involving different versions of characters and time or dimension jumping etc...And even back then I didn't really like a lot of it as it all becomes too messy and the stakes go out the window. Well low and behold that's essentially what we have now, no-stakes movies where anything and anyone goes because it doesn't matter anymore because muh multiverse.

The start of this movie was just bad, so so bad! The Flash has gotta save all these babies that have just been flung out of a skyscraper in the most epic case of bad CGI I have seen since the last DC CGI mess. I mean was it supposed to be dramatic? Surely you'd think it would be but apparently not judging by the crap visual gags and stupid faces the Flash is making. It's also the start of many many different cameos from many many different versions of characters with Ben Affleck as Batman (in the worst Batsuit ever) and Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman.

From there I just felt like I was being pummeled with a never-ending stream of more and more elaborate machinations to show Barry's past, present, and his inevitable insertion into another timeline which leads to so much multiverse madness. Honestly the sheer amount of exposition crammed into this movie is insane. But this all leads to the main reason why I watched this movie (along with the majority of people my age), Michael Keaton as Batman and all his Batman stuff. Did this suffice? Well yeah it kinda did. It satisfied me to some degree. The fact they recreated various rooms in the Wayne mansion from back in the original movies was impressive. The Batcave, a glimpse of the Batmobile, the greater use of the Batwing, a very little nod to the 89 version of the Joker, and of course more Batman 89 kickassery was all pleasing to an aging warhorse such as myself.

But that's as far as it went for me, the brief scenes of Batman 89 goodness were lovely and I found myself simply wanting to see more of just that. I wanted more nods and winks, I was wondering why Batman 89 didn't call up other characters from his timeline to help, Catwoman? I found myself also liking the various other brief alternate universe cameos we get in the big finale too. But here lies the problem. I enjoyed all these little cameos and was interested to see more of them, but I was completely uninterested in the actual main story surrounding the Flash. The entire Supergirl angle merely offered the worst CGI of the feature and I can't remember if that battle was in the original Henry Cavill movies or not (it's all one superhero blur to me).

But yeah the entire sequence where one version of Barry Allen is going back in time over and over to try and get a result where Supergirl and Batman 89 survive is pretty much a good summation of this entire multiverse craziness frankly. No stakes, and even when it appears there might be some consequences, chances are they can always multiverse their way out of it somewhere along the line. Most of this movie is a huge bad-looking CGI blur with some of the worst fight sequences I have ever seen. I know it sounds cliche to say the effects were ''like a videogame'' or ''in-game videogame sequence'' but oh boy do these fit the bill here. The movie looks truly terrible half the time with obvious CGI humans being thrown all over the gaff like obvious CGI ragdolls. Everything has that horrible plastic CGI sheen to it. The effects used to paste Michael Shannon's head into his Kryptonian battle suit were laughably bad, I could go on.

This just felt overwhelming...in a bad way. It looks like there's been a lot of thought and imagination put into the feature but that's an illusion. Essentially it's a headache of a plot trying to cover lots of bases whilst sticking lots of nostalgia and nerd treasure into the fold seemingly in an attempt to please everyone. In the end this just doesn't work, or it didn't work for me. I just didn't care, I no longer care about these superhero flicks and their hyper CGI noise. Why do the effects look worse now than they did back in 2008 with the original Marvel movies? Explain this to me. And who else was more into the Nic Cage Superman universe than everything else? All this movie did was show me how much I wanted a Nic Cage Superman/Michael Keaton Batman team-up flick, and what we missed with a Nic Cage Superman franchise.

Possibly the least known movie that contained stop-motion work by the legendary Ray Harryhausen, and that's probably mostly down to the fact his work doesn't feature a great deal within the story. This is more of a classical children's feature along the lines of 'Doctor Doolittle' (1967) where Harryhausen's animal effects are only showcased twice and not for that long.

Loosely based on a classic piece of English literature by Johnathan Swift that can both be for adults and children (although that was not the intention). As with many films like this the plot has been cut down quite a bit and focuses mostly on the first two parts of the original novel (which is made up of four parts). Having never read the original novel myself and not having any clues as to what actually happened plot-wise (although I have heard of Gulliver's travels), the fact that the film is obviously missing large sections of the original novel made no difference to me. And to be honest this fact shouldn't really affect anyone else's enjoyment either unless you know the original story well. But I think they made the right choice because you probably wouldn't be able to cram everything into one film.

The story of Gulliver's travels in this film sees him getting lost at sea and washing up on the island of Lilliput where he makes friends with the Lilliputians. Not long after he discovers he's also stumbled into a conflict between the Lilliputians and the next island of Blefuscu. Upon realising he can't handle the conflict between the two Gulliver escapes to the island of Brobdingnag, the island of giants. There with the help of a young girl, he wins over the King and his court but eventually falls afoul of the Prime Minister who accuses Gulliver of witchcraft.

The original story is supposed to be a satire on Human nature, religion, war etc...the usual stuff. In hindsight I can kinda see that now but whilst watching the movie I didn't really get that vibe. Overall the movie is definitely aimed more at the younger audience and more of a spirited boy's adventure yarn. The first part of the plot which sees Gulliver in Lilliput definitely has more iconic imagery that people will recognise from the original literature such as Gulliver being restrained with multiple ropes. There is some lovely over-the-top acting, great effects, great sets and costumes, and an engaging little plot focusing on the silly conflict between the two islands. The brief sequence where Gulliver steals the warships of Blefuscu gives us a glimpse of their people who appear to be based on Asians or Chinese people. The Lilliputians seem to have an Arabic styling about them and their dwellings which is in contrast to the more medieval look of the Brobdingnagians.

The second part sees Gulliver trapped on the island of giants, Brobdingnag. The whole Lilliput saga fades away into memory as Gulliver must now try to win the favor of the rather childish King Brob. Once again the effects, sets, costumes, and acting are all top-notch. In fact the over-the-top acting is probably the highlight of the movie. Grégoire Aslan is fantastic as King Brob, his bizarre infantile portrayal is most enjoyable with his mood swings. He kinda reminded me of Richard Lewis in 'Robin Hood: Men in Tights'. This is also the part of the movie where we see Ray Harryhausen's work with a squirrel and crocodile, the crocodile obviously being the more exciting. Despite being his early work what you get is still top quality, the surrounding sets and props all adding to the illusion perfectly.

Effects wise this film obviously is showing its age. The majority of the giant effects are simple rear projection or bluescreen effects that do admittedly look pretty ugly these days. On the other hand there is a lot of clever camera trickery being utilised to sell the illusion of size. The most obvious trick is the use of angles and positioning cameras at various heights to give the perspective of looking up or down at different scales. Surprisingly this does work a treat and with the inclusion of various props at various sizes, you have a nice overall effect.

Despite the literature this movie is based on what we get isn't really that original truth be told. The entire notion of adults acting childishly, being over-emotional and erratic, and prone to violence or anger; whilst the children in the story are much more level-headed is a somewhat common fairytale trope. Indeed this does come across much more like a classic fairytale than a sly attack on Human nature of the time, which Swift originally intended. One could argue there are offensive stereotypes within this tale but I'm guessing that was kinda the point of the original satire. It all looks like something out of a child's mind in this feature, a cobbled-together fusion of everything that almost seems LEGO-like in appearance. It all adds to the charm for sure, resulting in a very pleasant, relaxing story that's easy on the eyes and the perfect little piece of old-fashioned escapism.

Unbeknownst to me Hammer Productions made three movies based on the legend of Robin Hood. They are all separate from each other (not connected, not sequels) but this particular movie does have some connections with the TV series 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' which came a few years prior. But it's the cast in this movie that grabbed my attention.

The plot is a bit wishy washy it must be said, tends to roam about somewhat. Essentially, the dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham along with the help of the Duke of Newark, wants to steal the land of a nobleman who has recently died in the Crusades. The Archbishop of Canterbury is against this move which results in him becoming the target of assassination by the Sheriff. Oddly enough the Duke of Newark stumbles upon Robin Hood (who he doesn't recognise) and upon being impressed with his archery skills asks Robin to carry out the assassination. Naturally, once Robin realises what's going on he decides to help the Archbishop.

That is the main crux of the plot but there are some drawbacks. Firstly, the nobleman whose land is so precious to the Sheriff and Duke is unknown, we don't get any information on him other than he was the Lord of Bawtry (a small market town in the north of England). I should also point out that the Duke of Newark, as far as I'm aware, is a fictitious character for this movie which is disappointing considering all the real people they could have used. Secondly, it's weird how the Duke doesn't recognise Robin (the notorious outlaw of the time) immediately or at least suspect anything. It has to be pointed out to him by the Sheriff after the Duke hires him. Its also quite amusing how the Duke puts Robin through some trials to test his archery skills, hires him, and then puts him through yet more trials because apparently he wasn't entirely convinced the first time; and he STILL doesn't realise its Robin Hood!

Oliver Reed plays Lord Melton (fictitious again), a promising evil-looking character with a glorious slimy voice who doesn't really do anything, a wasted character. And lastly, one of Robin's men is murdered by the Sheriff. So Maid Marian desperately wants to get the Archbishop to grant freedom to his family, which kinda feels superfluous really considering men on both sides probably got killed quite often.

It's an odd entry really, no mentions of Prince John, no mentions of Richard the Lionheart except for the Crusades. I'm not sure when this story is supposed to have been set timeline-wise or if it's just meant to be a random adventure. I can't deny it looks great though. Really rich vibrant settings that admittedly don't look anything like Nottinghamshire or Yorkshire or Derbyshire but they are attractive and green. It's the usual thing really, some shots look like they could be in the correct location, others look completely ridiculous. The movie was actually shot in Ireland but honestly I wouldn't have guessed that. Still, I enjoyed the visuals very much, the interiors of castles, places of worship, grand halls etc...all looked really nice and quite authentic. Hammer sets always looked good, especially inside rustic castles.

As I said originally it was the cast that piqued my interest here. As said there is Oliver Reed playing a great but underutilised baddie. Next to him you have Richard Pasco stealing every scene with bold overacting and amusing bowl haircut. Nigel Green once again plays the strongman character in Little John with that trademark hairstyle and beard of his. Richard Greene continues his role as Robin Hood from the TV series (much of the cast also starred in that series). Definitely some curious casting for me because he looked like a clean-cut middle-aged bank manager rather than a medieval outlaw. And of course Peter Cushing can simply do no wrong. I expected a stereotypical moustache-twirling villain but I was genuinely surprised at how good his Sheriff was here. I should also add that the costumes all round were really good and authentic looking. Again I expected cliched costumes in big bold colours but no! Characters have various outfits and they mostly look suitably rough, worn, and handmade.

I'll be honest here, I fully expected this to be a horrendous fake-looking cliched mess with corny-as-hell acting, but I was wrong! Yes the story is kinda weak and I have no idea how it fits into the lore of Robin Hood (or if it even does, probably doesn't). I'm guessing its just a story someone made up for the movie and not based on any historical events or folklore. That aside, the visuals overall are very pleasing from the costumes to the locations and the wonderful interior sets. This movie looks far better than most other Robin Hood movies and, dare I say, more authentic than the classic Errol Flynn adventure. Don't go expecting top-notch action of course but what you get is perfectly acceptable. Overall this is a thoroughly enjoyable romp of the Middle Ages. Look out for 007's Desmond Llewellyn as the bloke getting shot in the back with an arrow at the start.

An eccentric millionaire rents a house that is believed to be haunted in order to throw a party and see who survives? This millionaire appears to be bored with life. But wait! There is of course a more sinister plot afoot, well kinda. Actually it all surrounds a simple murder attempt and no ghosts or ghoulies a tall unfortunately.

So spoiler alert then for this (at the time of this review) 64-year-old movie. Yes, for a movie about a haunted house and starring the King of Creeps Vincent Price, there is no supernatural activity going on in this entire movie, alas. Frederick Loren (Price) invites a small party of specific people over to his spooky soirée. They all share one thing in common, they crave money (don't we all). Apart from the obvious lure of money I'm not too sure why these people would accept such a bizarre and possibly suspicious offer. Looking at it from my own perspective, I would be highly suspicious, but anyway.

The house in question is an actual real location in LA (Ennis House) and it looks awful in my humble opinion. A large ugly concrete block monstrosity that looks like it's been built out of Lego with precast Mayan patterns on them. It literally looks like a Lego set and completely goes against the whole classic 'haunted house' theme. Especially when you take into consideration that the movie's poster showcases a more classic haunted house design. The interiors of the house also have the more classic haunted house style and appearance that most will come to expect, but again this goes against the house's ugly blocky exterior. Alas this contrast makes the interiors look and feel much more like the sets they actually (and obviously) are.

We are told there have been murders in this house hence why everyone thinks it's haunted, but that's as far as it goes. Not sure who owns the house or why they rent it but it does come with an eerie duo of house cleaners. One of which does seem to take presumed delight in scaring one of the female guests half to death by acting mightily scary at random times. I still don't understand why this cleaner did that, what was the point? Didn't seem to have any effect on the actual plot. After a few more (but not that many) ghostly encounters we eventually discover that it's all a ruse by one of the guests and Frederick's wife in order to get his wealth, a shocking revelation. But does Frederick have the upper hand?

For the most part the scares in this movie are mostly people disappearing in rooms, the odd plastic head in a box, a ghost floating outside of a window etc...For the time I'm sure it was intimidating stuff but obviously these days it's all very cute. The main money shot, if you can call it that, is the finale sequence where the supposed skeletal remains of Frederick pop up and floats around the room after his wife, eventually shoving her into a large vat of acid. Yes one room has a large vat of acid in it, don't question it. This sequence is legit laughable in all its absolute crudity and yet at the same time I'm actually impressed they had the gall to keep it in the movie! Heck they liked said skeleton so much it even features on the movie poster. The highlight of this sequence has to be a shot of Frederick standing there controlling the skeleton with the most ridiculous pulley contraption strapped to his body, apparently completely out of sight of his wife! (laugh out loud!).

In the end everything works out just dandy. Frederick successfully kills off his dastardly wife and her lover and proclaims he's ready to accept whatever justice is dished out to him. Yet despite the lack of any actual apparitions we are still led to possibly believe that the house is haunted and that Frederick's wife and lover now also haunt the house. Kinda disappointing we didn't actually get any spooks but despite that I can't say I didn't like the movie. I think this falls under the category of 'the poster is better than the actual movie'. Definitely the epitome of a Price horror flick but ultimately I kinda expected more and not quite as much low budget effects.

'Attack of the Giant Leeches' or if you like...'Giant Leeches Invade Dixieland' or 'Giant Leeches vs. The Good Old Boys'.

So back to the 50's we go with the ever-popular (for the time) monster flick. Or to be more precise, giant bug attack flick. Back in those days it was either aliens, giant bugs, or mysterious monsters. I have mentioned before in previous reviews how during this period virtually every form of bug (and various other species) was used for these types of movies. Giant locusts, spiders, frogs, birds, ants, scorpions, crabs, praying mantis, lizards etc...We've even had killer rocks and trees.

I have also mentioned in previous reviews how these movies tend to be generally exactly the same, and this is no different. Once again giant man-eating creatures are crawling around the outback nowhere near civilisation and terrorising some small all-American town. Usually it's out in the desert somewhere but this time it's deep in the Everglades. Nevertheless the townsfolk are still the same predictable bunch we always see. The good-looking square-jawed White male lead, his attractive White female companion, the elder wiser White male who explains everything (and gives us exposition), and of course the ugly chubby sceptic cops.

The plot? People start disappearing in the Everglades and no one knows why. The main good-looking protagonist and his attractive companion soon think they know but of course no one in town believes them. Eventually they manage to drag everyone (the hick cops) into their way of thinking and save the day, the end.

The monsters in question? Well they are supposed to be leeches...but they don't look like leeches. They kinda look like large squid/octopus tentacles and pretty much act like it too. The monster outfits in question are, predictably pretty bad even by B-movie standards. They appear to be simply large black bin bags or black raincoats stitched together. Yes I know that's what wiki says but that's pretty accurate. Unfortunately we don't even see them enough to enjoy their cheesy appearance, add to that how dark the picture was and it's a bit of a bust really. When we do see them you are clearly able to see it's just men in costume, especially when they 'carry' their prey away.

To be fair the acting all round is actually pretty solid considering. The budget was obviously non-existent but the cast actually do a good job and fit their roles. Leading man Ken Clark was actually pretty buffed up, can't deny a good-looking man with his Brad Pitt-esque locks. As for everything else less said the better really. The way they deal with the leeches is absolutely hilarious (just dropping dynamite randomly into the lake), and all the sequences within the leech lair are quite quite farcical to say the least. But if you're after hokey 50's schlock then you definitely can't go wrong with this one. Really could of don with more leech action though.

Fear not Ranger. Barbarian, Magician, Thief! Cavalier and Acrobat. I am Dungeon Master, your guide in the realm of Dungeons & Dragons.

Admittedly I'm not too sure if I would have liked an actual live-action recreation of the classic 80's cartoon going by Hollywood's track record on these things. I mean take a look at the small cameo we get of the classic team in this new movie. Yes we do actually see Dungeon Master's teen team pop up in this wannabe franchise. I'm sure it will have flown over younger viewers heads but to those in the know it was a fleeting moment of joy. But taking a closer look and you can see how Hollywood always manages to mess things up. Firstly the team are bizarrely older than they are supposed to be. Bobby the barbarian, Diana, and Presto all looked like middle-aged parents in costumes. Hank and Sheila looked okay but Eric they somehow managed to race-swap...sigh! Why Hollywood? The actual costumes looked pretty good though, Hank the Ranger especially.

As for this movie, well it's a pretty bog-standard mission (or level) based mcguffin search scenario. Find a person to ask for information, follow information to specific location for an item or another person. Go to next location for another item or another person etc...Eventually it all leads to end of movie showdown with end of movie big boss. That isn't necessarily a problem with this movie though as it's based on the Dungeons & Dragons franchise and that's what you tend to do. However, it does come across as somewhat overly basic and more like a generic videogame adaptation.

Visually speaking it was a mixed bag really. Like many movies these days the effects swing from being impressive in one scene to downright terrible in another. Case in point here; whilst there are some really good makeup and prosthetics effects for various fantasy characters along with some really nice-looking sets, there are also some blatantly obvious greenscreen shots and God-awful CGI. I still don't get how this happens in these big-budget movies. An obvious greenscreen shot or sequence always pulls me out of the movie, or moment.

The casting was poor all around in my opinion. Once again there seems to have been an outright obvious push to make the movie as diverse as possible whilst sacrificing quality choices. Most actors here are unknown to me but their acting skills didn't really impress, nor did their appearances in their costumes. Justin Smith, Rege-Jean Page, and the overly-used tough female character actress Michelle Rodriguez all looked completely out of place. Smith was a Black half-elf apparently, was this to rub in the faces of all the LotR's fans? I'm sorry but Elves aren't Black and neither are Dwarves. And yes I didn't like Pine's casting either, for me his face just didn't fit his character or this world. The only casting that did work for me was Hugh Grant as the slimy smarmy double-crossing Fitzwilliam, a far better villain than the actual main villain.

There were other aspects I found all too silly. I really didn't like the overweight dragon which was obviously CGI. Was this for comedy purposes? Swing and a miss. I also cringed at the all-too-common trope of using bald men with head tattoos as some kind of villainous horde of cult-like er...villains. How many fantasy movies have used that lazy idea? Geez!! Alas we also got the same for the main female baddie, bald with head tattoos...ugh! Because a powerful female sorceress has to be bald with head tattoos? She also turned out to be a really weak villain and got a blatantly nasty looking CGI ending courtesy of the CGI owlbear.

I couldn't really decide whether I liked this movie or not really. Some aspects I really enjoyed such as the various D&D species/races you see throughout, some of which looked great. I liked the settings or locations throughout, a nice range that showcased the world or realm. The hero roster was a good selection and overall the plot moved along nicely. But apart from the few things I've already mentioned there was a little too much that brought the movie down in the end. Close but overall not quite enough to grab me.

So what have we here? Well it's a Predator movie so there isn't really that much to explain. One difference with this latest entry is the fact there aren't two different tribes of Predators runnin' around. This time we're going back to the original in terms of plot and tone (although they said that about 'Predators'). This time it's Predator versus primal man...woman...girl. This time it's back to booby traps, mud, and hunting. This time it's a Predator versus a Native American girl, yup, welcome to 2023.

Now don't get me wrong, I have no issues with strong female characters, we've had many of them in many classic movies, but it's actually getting a bit old now. To add to that this female character is supposed to be really young, not sure how old exactly but she looks like a damn teenager to me. Kinda like taking Newt, adding some years, and then pitting her against a Predator. Actually that could work! Anyway the main crux (or carrot) for this entry is the fact it's a Predator vs. Native Americans. To be honest this sounds like the perfect idea for a Dark Horse graphic novel series for sure, but a full-blown movie? I just find it cheesy because you can swap out the Indians and use ANY period warriors and it would be exactly the same. Predator vs. Vikings. Predator vs. Knights. Predator vs. Samurai. Predator vs. Spartans. Predator vs. Mongols etc...The list goes and every idea would literally be the same albeit the locations obviously.

And here lies the problem, this movie isn't actually very original at all and once again pales in comparison to both the 1987 original AND the 1991 sequel (I said what I said). The plot is completely predictable naturally. The young female (with an awkward American accent) wants to be a warrior but the rest of the tribe poo poo this idea (present-day social commentary!), so she has to prove herself. At first she fails but after much perseverance and the arrival of a Predator she manages to do just that. Along the way we get various callbacks to the original including dialog, shots, and scenes. The main difference is this is a prequel so the Predator is using dated tech and for some reason looks completely different...again.

But yeah I wasn't really impressed here. The movie is surprisingly dark so you actually don't see that much gore. I get that they tried to make it look natural with natural light in the wilderness and adding to the suspense factor, but it didn't work for me. The movie wasn't suspenseful and I couldn't see a great deal because a lot happens at night. There is gore but it's almost entirely CGI which is just pathetic I'm sorry. This is why older flicks are so much better, real blood effects, practical effects, squibs etc...This is why Paul Verhoeven movies are so God damn epic. You don't ever really see the Predator's face that well again because much is set at night, and I didn't really like the new design. His mouth is HUGE! Takes up half his face and his eyes are almost on either side of his face! Didn't like the bone-esque looking mask either. Couldn't really see how it stayed on his face to be honest.

I also didn't like seeing all these wild animals getting killed frankly, kinda depressing. I get the gist of the Predator obviously but I really don't see why he would be killing wolves or snakes (I get the bear). The Predator is an intelligent species, it can tell the difference between another creature being a threat and another creature merely hunting for its own survival, right? So why would it kill these animals unless they actually attacked him, especially creatures that are so small. I mean, does the Predator have to kill every flippin' predator species it comes across in order to prove itself or conquer that particular planet??

Around the halfway mark a load of French voyageurs turn up because of course they do. Naturally these guys all turn out to be a really nasty bunch of White guys (of course) and cannon fodder for the Predator. At first it seems like there's only a handful of them but as the Predator starts wiping them out their number seems to grow rapidly (cannon fodder required for action sequences as there aren't many Natives and the Natives are of course goodies). Once again the visuals are disappointing because you don't actually see any of the kills and all the blood is CLEARLY CGI. It's also around this point where our female protagonist turns out to be a martial artist of sorts and is able to take out multiple grown men at the same time...ugh!!

Spoilers but the Predator kills himself in, what seems to me, like a really dumb way. His mask houses his laser targeting system and his wrist gauntlet fires these darts things now. So wherever the triangular red dots point that's where the darts go (homing). Well it seems the Predator forgets this and tries to shoot the female Native point-blank range without his mask on (which has been cunningly placed facing the back of his head by the female Native) so naturally the darts just home in on the back of his head and boom. Then there's the ending where our female protagonist arrives back at her camp and throws the Predator's head on the ground in front of her tribe, all of whom seem totally unfazed by the alien head at their feet. The fact she almost kills herself by trying to kill a bear when she totally didn't need to because it was just minding its own business. I get she's trying to be a hunter but come on! Weigh up the situation girl!

So yeah...overall this was a mixed bag for me. In general the visuals are nice with some lovely atmospheric location shots. The Natives all look and sound authentic as do the French men whilst the Predator certainly sounds good and comes with those nice infrared optics. Alas the movie is packed with terrible CGI, bad acting, dim visuals at key moments, and the Predator doesn't look as good as it should. They keep changing the look but the original simply cannot be beaten so why try? The real issue here is the movie is simply another retread of the same old formula but merely with Native Americans. They have to move this franchise forward, maybe into space? Maybe onto the Predator home world? They cannot keep doing the same thing over and over geez!

So if this movie confirmed anything it was one thing, Dwayne Johnson isn't a real movie star, he simply cannot carry a top-tier movie. Johnson merely seems to be the ultimate ensemble actor who can boost a franchise, but on his own, he simply ain't got the chops. The new Arnie he certainly is not, confirmed.

This character was supposed to be in the original 'Shazam!' movie but due to Johnson's ego he managed to get his own project focusing purely on his muscles...I mean the character. Further to that, this version of the movie was originally gonna have the character Shazam (from the original movie) as the protagonist/antagonist for Black Adam to fight, but again Johnson's ego got the better of him as he wanted the story to focus on him and Black Adam. And thus a problem was born. Add to the fact that DC movies generally don't do well anyway and voila!

Plot wise the whole thing is so basic and generic with little imagination in my opinion. Black Adam is accidentally resurrected from his tomb by a strong female character trying to uncover an ancient mcguffin. Black Adam is seen as a bad guy thusly the Justice Leag...sorry Justice Society (a precursor to the League) is called into action to bring him down. After much terrible CGI fighting Black Adam is found to not actually be evil but somewhat misunderstood (shocking) and they now need his help to take down the generic big evil end-of-level boss (at the end of the movie). So essentially it's just the same old guff with different characters (imagine that).

The main issue I found with this movie was the simple fact that most of the runtime is made up of the Justice Society fighting Black Adam, and that's it! The entire movie is set within this fictional ancient city which merely looks like somewhere in Egypt or the Middle East and nothing much else really happens. We just get lots of the usual superhero battle sequences involving lots of super punching and super throwing either into things or through things. No one ever seems to realise that these attacks aren't working but they just keep doing it because there's nothing else they can do, ugh! (wash rinse and repeat). The CGI effects are overall pretty terrible to boot which doesn't help matters. Everything is SO obviously CGI with that nasty plastic rubbery-looking gloss stuck alongside obvious-looking bluescreen shots and obvious sets. It sounds cliche but everything just looks like a videogame sequence. It just doesn't look convincing at all and in this day and age I simply expect more because I know it can be so much better.

Black Adam himself suffers the same problem any Dwayne Johnson movie suffers, Dwayne Johnson. In that I mean Johnson simply cannot act beyond his persona and he ALWAYS comes across as Dwayne Johnson in a costume, whatever that might be. You want a fun comedy romp in a jungle, or a ridiculous action flick with glimmering muscles then he's perfect, but that's it. Johnson trying to play it dark and murdering people just doesn't work because it just doesn't suit him. For the time being, he simply doesn't have the range.

As for other characters, let's quickly talk about the Justice Society. Boy oh boy do these guys suck. I mean seriously, talk about the poor man's Avengers. The bottom-of-the-barrel superheroes. We couldn't afford any decent characters or there weren't any good ones left so we had to use these guys, geez!! Hawkman looks ridiculous with his bird-shaped helmet adorned with feathers, he's also been race-swapped. I guess his super power is mainly flight? I guess that's useful for...flying. As her name suggests Cyclone controls the wind (Ugh!). Seems kinda useless and funnily enough she doesn't really do much in the movie because how's that effective against a Superman-type character like Black Adam? She's also race-swapped. Atom Smasher has the ability to grow to an enormous size like a giant, again pretty useless in the movie. And last but not least the poor man's Dr. Strange...Doctor Fate who funnily enough has virtually the same set of powers, I think, I'm not a comic expert. And yes I realise some of these characters appeared before their Marvel counterparts but I always found it funny and stupid how both Marvel and DC have essentially characters that mirror each other. They even have their X-Men-type ship to fly around in that is stored in their own X-Men-type mansion.

I guess the biggest disappointment here is after all the cookie-cutter spiel I had to sit through to get to the cookie-cutter finale, the big bad guy turned out to be this laughable looking Devil/Satan-esque character that looked like he was getting ready to fight Sub-Zero. Talk about videogame looking nonsense Jesus! Literally everything in this movie was the most generic of generic superhero poop I've seen so far. You could have literally had ANY superhero character in here and it wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever. The human characters were completely inconsequential, much like the plot really. And naturally you had Marvel-esque quips (which totally underscored the tone) because DC is always playing catchup despite that Marvel aspect now losing favour.

I didn't really expect much here, at this point it merely feels like they are churning out superhero movies of any and all characters simply to keep the wagon rolling. This movie is literally the epitome of cookie-cutter, paint by numbers, off the factory line etc...There is nothing here that is original and nothing here that needed to be shown. This movie simply didn't need to be made. A Dwayne Johnson vanity project that admittedly could have been something as we've all been wondering how The Rock would fair in a cape, but somehow he screwed it up and all we have left is a plain boring superhero clone of a movie. That Superman credit scene will also go down in cinematic history as one of the biggest 'what if' dead ends ever (bit like Skeletor in 'Master of the Universe'). An open ending to something that will probably now never happen.

For the longest time I mistakenly thought this franchise was some kind of horror or torture porn series like the 'Saw' or 'Hostel' franchises. For me this franchise just kinda blurred into all the other horror flicks that were being churned out around the same time. They all seemed the same with bland movie posters etc...Because of this I didn't bother with it because those things aren't really my cup of tea. Boy was I wrong!

So the plot is pretty simple. After economic collapse in the US a new political party comes into power and introduces 'purge night' or 'the purge'. An annual event where all crime is allowed for one night only with all emergency services suspended during the night. Somehow this has allowed the US to become almost crime free with almost no unemployment, dunno why. On this night a wealthy family, against all well-known recommendations and advice, allow a stranger (who is being hunted) into their home. Thusly the entire family come under siege and must survive the night from a group of 'purgers' who want the stranger (so they can 'purge'/execute him).

So overall I do actually like this movie, which surprised me. I fully went into this expecting some silly violent nonsense but I actually found myself getting sucked in and enjoying the thrills. The story is actually quite intriguing with its (admittedly) obvious social allegories but does get you thinking. Could this actually happen in reality? Yeah it could, you could actually see something like this coming about in the distant future. It's not out of the realms of possibility for sure, and that's what's so intriguing about it. It's very much like the game shows and tech we see in the Arnie action vehicle 'The Running Man' which, apart from the violence of course, have actually come to fruition. Granted it's not a big stretch or anything but the violent aspect of it could easily (and worryingly) turn up in decades to come.

The purge is seen as a way for the masses to vent their pent-up anger and for the rich to purge the undesirable (poor people). I don't really understand how that would reduce crime across the nation though. And I don't really get how erasing poor people would help because you need all levels of people for a society to function, it can't be solely rich folk. And as for the notion that everyone just stops killing each other at the sound of a loud siren is kinda daft because we all know it wouldn't stop, people would keep on going. You know you'd have to forcefully stop people. Plus I would imagine the overall damage and destruction to infrastructure would be immense. To the point that by the time you'd fixed it all back up it would be time for the next purge and it would get all wrecked again.

It is all a bit on the nose to be honest though. The affluent family are all White and pretty generic, nothing to speak of really. The only surprise to me was the young boy who suffers from a guilt trip and allows the homeless man on the run into the house. I would have expected the young girl or mother to do that seeing as women tend to be a bit more forgiving and liberally minded. As for the poor homeless man being hunted, he's Black, so yeah...on the nose with the social commentary and allegories. The purgers are also all White and from wealthy backgrounds themselves. A bunch of young adults, probably in their early twenties, their leader a blonde guy (cos blonde haired blue-eyed males are always evil apparently). So overall you have all White folk. The innocent family is White. The demented purgers are White and could easily be seen as Klan-esque in nature. And the lone character being hunted is Black (in this area at least), you getting the message?

Violence wise it's actually not as bad as I thought it would be. Standard stuff really, as you would expect, but effective. The movie doesn't need to be ultra-violent but it does need to show hints of the raw brutality that would occur under such circumstances. The finale is also quite good. I enjoyed the twist with the neighbours, the small somewhat obvious twist with the boyfriend was okay too. The fact that the homeless man turns out to be the hero in the end isn't much of a surprise though (come on people twas obvious!).

So yes like I said I did actually get on with this movie okay. Whilst it's not the most original story ever it does lure you in and keep you interested, despite being mostly predictable. The key is obviously the hot-button social allegories which back in 2013 were pretty spicy, but now in 2023 even more so! So essentially our present day is the perfect time to first-time watch or revisit this movie/franchise as (unfortunately) the plot is highly relevant.

The search for Darkness continues and presumably ends with this third part of this quite epic documentary into the 80's horror film genre. Whereas part one covered the more famous and infamous horror flicks, and part two covered the more obscure; part three seems to cover everything in between from the familiar to not so familiar (for me at least).

By now anyone watching this documentary will be well aware of how it plays out and prepared for the onslaught of information, any newbies out there buckle up! Once again the background information to every aspect of all these movies comes thick and fast like a rollercoaster. As before the doc is presented in a year-by-year format and each movie is given its own little segment which in some cases doesn't really delve deep enough, unfortunately, leaving you wanting. But in other cases you get a nice dollop of info that is just enough to satisfy. Whether or not you already know about this information is obviously the key factor in how pleasing it will be.

As I said in my review of the first two parts, the issue these days is background information for movies is (and has been) easily available either on DVD, Blu-ray, or YouTube etc...for years. Unlike the old days when behind-the-scenes footage/docs/interviews etc...were like gold dust, these days it's beyond common practice. Heck you could even argue that people aren't that bothered anymore with the advent of streaming. Actual physical copies of movies that would have extras aren't the mainstream anymore, strange as that may sound. So essentially, there is a possibility that with many of the movies you may well have seen or heard the information before, although that is less likely with some I'm sure.

Despite this the overall celebration and sheer scope of this series (and this third part) are undeniably impressive. The amount of horror actors, both famous and obscure, that are interviewed is impressive alone. The writers, effects people, horror experts/historians, directors etc...The snippets from all the movies covered or merely referenced. The larger context chapters that dig that bit deeper into specific aspects of the genre, specific actors, specific controversies etc...International horror movies and their effect on the genre. All here crammed into one documentary. I say crammed but they aren't really, this doc is over 5 hours long! But that isn't an issue either as it's perfectly fine to stop and come back another time. The segmentation of the series allows for viewings to be split.

There isn't a great deal to say here that I didn't say already for the first two parts. That's not a negative, it's merely because this is a continuation of the documentary and if you've been watching then you're obviously a fan and know what to expect. But yeah, this is a documentary on all aspects of the horror genre during the 80's and it's flippin' epic. If you like horror then this is for you. If you like some horror movies/franchises but aren't too bothered about horror overall, then you might find this a bit too much and could find yourself tuning out.

The question is, will this documentary carry on and dive into the 90's decade of horror? I hope it does as the 90's is now probably just as iconic for the genre with many true gems.

Holy pop tarts what have we here?? Another videogame adaptation AND directed by Paul W. S. Anderson??!! You're yanking my chain? Wait, and Anderson's wife Milla Jovovich is the star?! Again??!! How did I never hear about this until now? Until two years after the fact? If this was the mid-90's to early 00's this would have been EVERYWHERE! And probably would have done quite well too.

So this movie is based on a Capcom videogame series that I have never heard of where you run around battling monsters I guess, I dunno. So obviously I cannot talk about game accuracy or anything as I have no idea. As for the plot it's your standard videogame spiel really. A group of modern-day soldiers are accidentally thrown into another dimension where monsters exist and they have to try and find their way home via various subplot macguffins. You know the type of thing here, reach an ominous tower by crossing a deadly desert. Defeating big dragon-type beasts. Learning how to fight a specific way in order to defeat said big dragon beasties. Gaining the trust of various oddball locals in order to get to places so they can get home etc...

The first thing that struck me here was the visuals and special effects. There has clearly been quite a lot of effort put in here as everything looks really good. The location shooting pays off as you can actually believe the characters are in another dimension and not just a Californian desert. The combination of real-world locations and CGI works nicely here. Add to that the creature effects are also top-notch in my opinion. It's easy to think this could be a cheesy-looking videogame adaptation but no, the various otherworldly creatures all look really decent. Alas the main creature the goodies battle tends to look like any old regular dragon that could easily have leaped out of any swords 'n' sorcery-themed flick, but it looks good.

One thing that did bug me was how easy it was for bad-ass Jovovich's character Artemis to beat said monsters. We are led to believe these creatures are almost legendary and impossible to kill, hell they look it. The desert dragon thing is meant to be almost impossible to kill, yet Artemis manages it after a few hours of training from Tony Jaa's Hunter character. I mean, if he knew how to kill these things so easily, why hadn't he done it himself already?? He is the 'monster hunter' after all. It's also kinda tiresome and yawn-inducing that Artemis is such a Mary-sue character but let's be honest here, what was I expecting?

The best monsters are easily the goosebump-inducing spider creatures that swarm all over the desert when it gets dark (naturally). These things essentially act like spiders by cocooning their prey and inserting larvae into their hosts. You then get the inevitable sequence of a cocooned soldier getting overcome and eaten alive with these spider hatchlings.

Character wise the US troops are as you would expect. A typically diverse little team of guys n gals that all act exactly as you expect them to. Jovovich is doing her best Ellen Ripley here but in all honesty she does a solid job and works well within the movie. Other characters that pop up within this outworld are obviously taken from the videogame judging by their appearances and ridiculously oversized absurd weapons of choice. Ron Perlman's character looks like the epitome of a Japanese anime character, as does Tony Jaa's character and his sword. Overall it's a typical casting roster for this type of flick. A mishmash of various cult classic/pop culture names in order to gin up more attention.

For a videogame adaptation with lots of popular CGI action that you'd think would be aimed at a younger audience, the movie is actually quite dark at times. Well the first part is at least. They certainly haven't held back too much with the violence and gore and the movie is better for it. But overall the general theme here is pretty mixed. What starts off as a semi-decent 'Aliens' type clone, quickly descends into a slightly hokey Mortal Kombat-esque clone and ends up with a decidedly iffy Lord of the Rings-esque finish. Heck they even leave it completely open for a sequel, a little too open really. Why can't we have actual complete movies with a start and finish anymore?

Don't get me wrong this isn't exactly a bad movie, far from it, it's actually not too bad all things considered. There is a lot of issues here and the entire thing is unbelievably generic taking tonnes of elements from other (better) movies. But for a mindless action monster fest, it's definitely a good outing in my opinion. Definitely a surprise, especially in the visuals department.

Well this was the most Hollywoodist of Hollywood movies I've been subjected to for quite some time. Not that I'm surprised really, I mean look at the cast, literally the most generic Hollywood A-list casting you could sloppily throw together without trying. Yeah these big names should easily bring us in some dough, story? Plot? Who cares, anything will do.

So what we have here is yet another James Bond-esque, Mission: Impossible-esque action comedy (even with some blatant Indy clonage) with all the usual trimmings. Just take a look at this thing. We skip from one exotic location to another like a videogame. An artic fortress, a dense jungle, sunny Spain, tropical islands, a temple, an underground mine etc...All the while our three main characters, Dwayne Johnson, Gal Gadot, and Ryan Reynolds look super glossy and sexy. The entire movie is literally one super slick highly choreographed action sequence after another with terrible CGI effects and blatantly obvious greenscreen shots.

What's more, the action sequences are so mind-numbingly stupid and again so generic it's boring. Gal Gadot's character is obviously the best at everything because of course. Johnson is Johnson like he is in absolutely everything. Whilst Reynolds merely does his mind-mannered soft Deadpool comedy routine which is admittedly amusing at times but not original. Nothing here is original, we've seen all this before time and time again. The whole thing plays out and looks like a videogame for of pretty people with nice bods. And the entire double-cross surprise angle which occurs numerous times is not clever despite how much the writers and director think it is.

So yeah, cookie-cutter, run-of-the-mill, factory production line, wash rinse repeat etc...All these terms cover this overly unexciting mundane star-studded makeup-heavy bonanza. It's virtually 'True Lies' for 2021 except it rips off a multitude of other movies and franchises and has absolutely no edge to it, no kills, no blood, nothing. Painfully soft safe glossy fluff.

5/10.

Quick example of why this show is wrong, bad, and shouldn't have been done?

Snow Speeders. Snow speeders hovering. So they do that now? OK, so that kinda puts the entire Hoth battle in a pickle no? If speeders can (idle) hover in mid-air, then why the need for all that tow-cable nonsense?? They literally could have hovered and fired the cables, or hovered and fired at weak spots on the walkers.

Sure this would make them more of an easier target but only to walkers behind other walkers. But you could have had speeders hovering and speeders flying around as a distraction.

Just a simple highlight for you all to contemplate (as they slowly destroy the lore and canon of the classic trilogy).

This had potential, but alas they missed the mark again. Visually the movie is decent and it does capture all the famous elements of the classic Disney ride, but that's about it. Once again they have gone for a very silly spoof-type of approach with no proper story (much like the two recent modern Muppet movies).

Yes all your favourite Muppets are there and yes it is entertaining to a degree (if you can also look past the horrendously bad new voice acting of certain characters), but I YEARN for a proper Muppet movie with an actual plot...you know, like a movie should be. They have also incorporated far too many songs in the more recent Muppet flicks, this is no different. We just move from one famous ride scenario to the next with a new song, ugh!!

At the end of the day this simply feels like an extended advert for the actual Disney ride and not an actual movie (was it??). Still, at least it's better than the 'Muppets Wizard of Oz', yeesh! A far cry from the heights of 'A Muppet Christmas Carol' and 'Muppet Treasure Island'. What's the problem here?

Well what can I say? This documentary is split into two parts and overall is over 8 HOURS long! If that doesn't tell you just how much it will cover then I don't know what will (covers lots!).

What is so impressive about this doc is that it covers almost every aspect of horror, every genre, every sub-genre, even videogames for a small part. Whether you're into the classic 80's bogeymen, Italian clones and rip-offs, horror-comedy, creature features, psychological stuff, mutants, the early blocks of torture porn, or the much-hyped controversial video nasties and apparent snuff flicks, it's all covered here baby.

It really is quite impressive just how many movies get covered in this epic feature. Obviously not everything but virtually a good bulk of it. Each one accompanied by interview sound bites from various people across the board such as makeup artists, the actors, the directors, writers, fans, reviewers etc...

If a movie isn't actually covered then chances are there will be a clip in here somewhere as a reference. The only obvious downside to all this material is quite simply not every movie is given the same amount of time. Some of the more famous and infamous flicks get better longer coverage whilst others are merely skimmed over briefly.

On the other hand, for minor horror fans like myself it's a goldmine for movies I've never heard of and have piqued my interest. Admittedly many of these flicks do look pretty terrible (they haven't dated well in all honesty) but there are definitely some that grabbed me by the ghoulies.

Interspersed throughout this massive highlight reel are segments where specific people are interviewed more in-depth. There are only about four or five of these I think and mostly focus on a few big players like Robert Englund, Kane Hodder, Tom Savini etc...

Again admittedly the info you get here will be either wickedly interesting or so-so. I say this because in this day and age if you're a movie lover (or fan of anything really) then chances are you'll have probably seen and heard much of the stories and behind-the-scenes info/footage from the various people involved. After years of DVD and Bluray extras alongside loads of other documentaries, retrospectives, and YouTube content most folk will probably have seen much of this all before. That was the main issue I had with the sister documentary 'In Search of the Last Action Hero'. There was nothing new, literally seen and heard it all before, multiple times.

So don't go into this expecting all new footage from behind the scenes or groundbreaking stories from beyond the grave, a lot of it is nothing particularly new, for much of the more well-known movies at least. As for the lesser-known titles chances are it's all new, for me anyway.

Overall it's the scope of this thing that impresses so much. The number of people interviewed. The number of clips used. The editing must have been a bitch! And then there's all the copyright tomfoolery! Jesus! Or maybe not? I dunno, seems like it would be.

So, in hindsight, this is well worth your time if you're a horror fan or movie fan basically. It may take you a few sittings to get through it though, but well worth it. Oh and all footage used is uncut, all the blood and gore is right there so all the real fanboy freaks will definitely get their rocks off I'm sure.

9.5/10.