Reviews

Sometimes there are films which don't really reinvent the wheel, but take a pretty tried and tested premise and put just enough spin on it to make it different enough to watch. Well... although 'Nobody' adheres to taking the well-worn 'revenge' plot and injects it with such fun that I can't believe that anyone who enjoys the genre won't appreciate it.

If I had to sum it up, I'd say take 'John Wick' and cross it with 'Taken,' then wrap it in a 'Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul' bow and you have 'Nobody.' Bob Odenkirk beefs up from his most iconic role as 'Saul' from 'Breaking Bad' and 'Better Call Saul' and goes totally postal on some Russian gangsters once his family is threatened.

I'll say it again - the plot isn't anything you haven't seen a hundred times before, but when you have such great actors making every moment of the script work, then add some real bone-crunching action scenes and dark comedic moments, how can anyone possibly not love this? Did I mention 'Doc Brown' himself (aka Christopher Lloyd) also wields a shotgun or two in this?

Also, it's worth noting that most movies these days never seem to know when to end, i.e. They go on too long. 'Nobody' weighs in at a tight ninety minutes and never wastes a second of screen time. I guess the only negative thing I can think of is that it kind of got lost in the global nightmare than was the 'pandemic' a few years ago and never achieved the same levels of success that 'John Wick' and 'Taken' did, therefore it may not get the sequel it deserves.

'Villains' is a darkly comedic thriller that I thought I wouldn't like during part of the opening act. It's about a couple of criminals who go on the run after a series of robberies, but end up trying to hide out in another couple's house who may just actually be worse than them. My main gripe was that I didn't really like any of the characters and therefore couldn't really find anyone to root for. I'm pleased to say my opinion changed as the film progressed.

What follows is a "cat and mouse" setup and plenty of unexpected turns. Bill Skarsgård and Maika Monroe star as our hapless criminals and they're soon outmatched by a seemingly prim, but secretly twisted, homeowner couple (played brilliantly by Jeffrey Donovan and Kyra Sedgwick). What makes 'Villains' so enjoyable is the interplay between these two couples, each capable of wielding a mix of innocence and menace that flips the power dynamic constantly.

Donovan and Sedgwick deliver standout performances, making their characters unnervingly charming yet intimidating, while Skarsgård and Monroe eventually bring a grounded, relatable humanity to their roles, especially when things spiral out of control.

The "cat and mouse" game between the two warring factions shifts in unpredictable ways, pulling us along with a genuine curiosity about who will ultimately come out on top. These twists and reasonably short and sharp runtime (especially compared to the average film's runtime these days) actually will keep you guessing until the final scene.

As a die hard 'Steptoe and Son' fan of the British sit-com, I was a little disappointed with their first big screen outside (simply called 'Steptoe and Son). However, the sequel was far more true to the original vibe of the TV show.

It follows the exploits of a couple of rag and bone men - a father and son duo who, although polar opposites, never seem to be able to leave one another. The small screen series dealt out the comedy with the odd helping of black humour and dark sadness, but - ultimately - remained more weighted to the laughs.

The first film seems to veer the other way and dwell on the misery young Harold was in, depicting his father as an even more unsavory and scheming character than he normally was. The difference is with the sequel is... well, everything.

It's a better situation, has more laughs and feels generally more upbeat (which I'm guessing is one of the main requirements for a comedy!). I really find it hard to find a fault with it. I suppose I should mention that all humour is rather 'slapstick' and can be a little crude and visual. It's hardly 'high-brow' entertainment, but if you liked the series, you'll feel far more at home with this one.

Nowadays, I read online how there was originally planned to be a third in the film series, but this one actually under performed at the Box Office - possibly because fans felt like this would be more like the first one. If you like the original show, or just want a few cheeky laughs from yesteryear, I think this one is a classic.

I practically grew up on the iconic (and bittersweet!) British sit-com of the sixties and seventies. I watched them all the time with my mum and dad, eventually purchasing them on VHS and DVD. But, even when I was very little, I heard my parents talk about (what I assumed) was an episode where Harold got married. Right up until 2024 I always assumed I'd imagined that, until I bought (what I thought was the 'Steptoe and Son' film that I'd watched with my folks as a child.

What I got was, in fact, TWO 'Steptoe and Son' films (the second being the one I knew so well I could almost recite it word for word ('Steptoe and Son Ride Again'). It turned out what my mum and dad were talking about was the film. And, they were right about many things. They simply told me that it wasn't very good. Harold did indeed get married, but ended up choosing his father over his new bride.

Now, before you claim I've 'spoiled' the story with the above, I should point out that the film opens with Harold and Albert leaving the divorce courts once the marriage is over. What follows is effectively one long flashback which makes up the rest of the movie.

Now, if somehow you're unaware of the plot of the sit-com this was based on... it's about a father and a son scrap metal merchants from London. It's the typical sit-com set-up where they're stuck together and unable to leave each other. Episodes go by and nothing really changes as the plot does that trope of being reset at the end of every thirty minute story.

The trouble is with the film is that it follows this format. Not only do you know the ending if you watch the first five minutes, but you know why the marriage will fail and that everything will return to normal, only after an hour and a half, rather than the usual thirty minutes. This wouldn't be so bad, but where as the TV shows were 'laugh a minute' the film swaps the laughs for a darker, more mean-spirited tone and you'll just end up barely being able to watch the psychological torture and cringe-levels on display here.

I know I sound like I'm being overly-negative, but as it still stars the two stars from the TV show and there charisma and charm is on display at all time, meaning that it is at least watchable for that. It's definitely the lowest episode (technically a film, but you know what I mean) of the whole series, but, baring in mind that 'Steptoe and Son' is nearly perfect most of the time, the movie still stands head and shoulders of many of its contemporaries (but the next one: 'Steptoe and Son Ride Again' is a million times better than this!).

'The Lost City' is a classic case of a film where the plot doesn't break any new ground, but the charisma and chemistry of its stars manage to elevate it. The story follows a familiar template-a romance novelist (played by Sandra Bullock) gets caught up in a wild jungle adventure alongside her book's cover model (Channing Tatum) after being kidnapped by an eccentric billionaire (Daniel Radcliffe). In fact, I do believe - from what little I've read online about the movie - says it's basically the loosest of remakes of 'Romance in the Stone' (or one of the 'Romance...' films, I forget!).

Everything about it is so generic it's barely worth talking about it, however what truly makes 'The Lost City' shine, is Sandra Bullock, who, despite being a bit unlikable to begin with, becomes as charming as ever to watch. Channing Tatum, playing against his usual type, adds a goofy sweetness to the dynamic, and the two have a playful chemistry that makes their banter entertaining, but, if you've seen Brad Pitt's name on the cast list, don't expect too much of him during the runtime (no spoilers here!). Daniel Radcliffe does his best to shed his Harry Potter image and plays the villain quite quirky and fun, though his character isn't particularly complex.

For me, the film's weakest point (besides the Playstation 2 level special effects!) was a minor sub-plot with the main character's literary agent tracking her down. This part of the film could probably have been taken out completely and left the film's overall runtime a lot tighter.

'The Lost City' doesn't reinvent the wheel, but it delivers enough laughs and charm to make for an enjoyable viewing (it's certainly the type of film you could have on in the background, go out to make a cup of tea, then come back in and found you haven't missed that much and can still pick up on the plot fairly easily). If you're a fan of Sandra Bullock or looking for a breezy, escapist romp, this one's worth checking out.

'Greta' is probably best described as a psychological thriller that follows a young woman called Frances (Chloë Grace Moretz) who gets 'lured' into a friendship with the titular 'Greta' (Isabelle Huppert), who is a lonely, manipulative widow.

You can guess things don't end up going too well, but I'll give the film props for its ability to deliver tension and suspense with its moody atmosphere and eerie build-up, although the movie's greatest strength probably lies in its two leads. The two performances are nicely the polar opposite of each other.

Personally, perhaps the thing I liked best about it was that the characters make - for the most part - logical decisions, rather than falling into the typical (mainly horror) trope of being dumb, just to move the plot forward.

However, despite these strengths, 'Greta' feels like a familiar story. The "stalker-thriller" plotline has been done many times before, and this film doesn't offer much innovation to set it apart, besides the performances and few nicely creepy moments. It follows a well-worn path, and while the direction and performances elevate it slightly, it never quite shakes off the sense of déjà vu. In the end, 'Greta' is a solid thriller, but not an essential one.

I watch so many B-movie horror flicks on streaming services that, sometimes, if I leave writing a review more than a few days after watching the film, I've completely forgotten everything about it! 'Haunt' may not be perfect, but it is solid enough to actually remain in my mind after a week or so in order to comment on it.

It's made by the writers/directors behind (the far superior!) 'A Quiet Place' and although it sure doesn't reinvent the wheel, it may just stay with you after the credits roll, thanks to a few atmosphere and brutal moments of tension and gore. The story centers on a group of friends who visit an extreme haunted house on Halloween night, only to discover that the attraction is more sinister than they could have imagined.

What follows is your typical 'slasher' movie as the friends are subjected to cruel traps and masked killers lurking in the shadows. Where 'Haunt' does make its mark is in its pacing and its gnarly, practical effects and the masked killers-each with their own disturbing personas-are suitably creepy. Plus the kills are satisfyingly gruesome for fans of blood-soaked horror.

However, the film falls into the genre trope of its characters making frustratingly dumb decisions. It's hard not to roll your eyes at some of the choices made, as they often serve the plot more than common sense. This, in turn, makes it difficult to fully invest in their survival.

And yet, despite these flaws, 'Haunt' was a film that I actually watched until the credits rolled as it offered enough thrills, chills and gory fun to make it worth a watch-just be prepared for some moments of head-shaking frustration along the way.

'Severance' is a dark horror-comedy that revolves around a group of employees attending a remote corporate retreat, only to find themselves embroiled in a deadly survival game orchestrated by unknown assailants. Oh, wait, did I say 'Severance?' I meant 2023's 'The Conference.' It's a VERY easy mistake to make!

'The Convention' does break a few horror conventions here and there and maintains a balance between its gruesome moments and awkward humor. Plus the performances are solid, particularly from the lead actors, who bring at least a touch of charm to an otherwise derivative script. But most of the characters fall into that 'horror cliche' trap of being so damn stupid by splitting up at every given opportunity, making them even easier to dispatch by the masked killer.

There are some memorable moments such as the decent kills and practical gore effects, plus it does bring a bit of satire about corporate culture. However, it's now a few days since I watched the film and I'm already struggling of things to say about it. That probably sums it up best. It's not bad. It's an okay horror film and I didn't hate it, but whereas I can't really remember that much about it, I can remember plenty of great moments from 'Severance' and that was made all the way back in 2006.

'The Conference' is decent, but not a must-watch. My advice: watch 'Severance.'

Yikes, this is going to be a difficult film to review - simply because whether you love or hate it will instantly make enemies of one side of the political spectrum. I never really heard of Matt Walsh or the organisation he works for, but he's basically made a 'Borat-style' 'mockumentary' about pretending to be highly 'left-wing' and infiltrating various political events and doing interviews where he effectively mocks them. Yes, controversial. So, whether you like it or not will - most likely - depend on your view of the modern world.

Rather than shying away from some of the more uncomfortable truths which people hole today, Walsh holds up a mirror to societal attitudes about race, encouraging viewers to reflect deeply on the inconsistencies and hypocrisies often present in racial discourse.

I never picked up any hint that this film was designed to 'make fun' of any particular race, but designed more to highlight those who use race as a weapon - primarily a weapon which will make them plenty of money and get them famous. Matt Walsh never seemed to demonize any single group but rather asks us to think critically about their own biases and the societal structures that encourage polarization.

In the end, Am I Racist? Isn't really simply a film about race or making fun of anyone - it's a film about the human tendency to exploit, profit, and distort even the most sensitive issues for personal and financial gain. And, I guess the ultimate take-away I got from the experience was one where I laughed out loud - a trait I don't think I've done in a cinema auditorium for many years.

Although I'm quite a fan of Ryan Reynolds, I went into 'The Adam Project' not really expecting much, I figured it would be just another straight-to-streaming-service sci-fi flick (feel free to correct me if it was ever released in the cinema, but I certainly never saw it advertised there!). But I was pleasantly surprised to find myself charmed by its upbeat story and playful energy. From the outset, it was easy to assume this movie would lean heavily on familiar tropes, but Ryan Reynolds' ever-charming performance, paired with a heartfelt script, made it hard to dislike.

Mr Deadpool himself plays Adam Reed (or rather yet another version of the actor - yes, he may not have an awful lot of 'range,' but he's so watchable, do we really care?) who is a time-traveling fighter pilot who crash-lands in 2022 and teams up with his 12-year-old self (Walker Scobell) to save the future. The premise may sound like a typical time-travel adventure, but there's a genuine sense of fun and nostalgia that sets it apart. In many ways, 'The Adam Project' reminded me of those classic 80s films centered around kids' adventures, like 'The Goonies.' It captures that same spirit of youthful wonder, blending humor, family dynamics and heartfelt moments into a cohesive narrative that feels fresh enough to be enjoyable.

I don't know much about the film's production. Like I say... I never saw it advertised theatrically, so maybe it didn't have a 'mega-budget' behind it. Therefore, some of the special effects are a little underwhelming and the action is a tad generic. Yet, overall, 'The Adam Project' is a light, enjoyable film that doesn't aim to be more than it is. It's a nostalgic throwback to simpler cinematic times, with enough charm to win over even the most skeptical of viewers. It's a rare film these days that I reckon that pretty much the whole family can enjoy as the 'violence' and bad language is very played down and PG13-esque.

As someone who seemed to miss the original 'Firestarter' back in 84, I found the 2022 remake on a streaming service and I therefore can't really compare the two. However, this version is perfectly serviceable within the landscape of modern horror films, despite not really being a stand out which will break new ground.

Zac Efron is a father of a child with supernatural powers (his daughter can summon fire when she gets angry, in case you didn't guess). Efron is desperate to protect his daughter from those who want to exploit her dangerous powers and the actor does a decent job here, delivering a solid performance, but it's clear that the role doesn't demand much from him. He's come a long way from his High School Musical days and a more dramatic script would certainly be within his capabilities.

The real focus of the film is, of course, on the young girl, Charlie, played by Ryan Kiera Armstrong. Her portrayal is a bit hit or miss. At times, she's actually pretty watchable, but at other moments, her performance can feel a little forced or inconsistent. Given that Charlie's emotional journey is central to the story, this unevenness does impact the film's overall effectiveness.

The actual story is nothing that new, i.e. Following a child with superpowers as she struggles to control them while being hunted by nefarious forces. I guess if that's all you're looking for then you'll find a certain degree of entertainment here, even if it doesn't bring much new to the table. The film's pacing is generally fine, though it can feel a bit slow in places, and the tension doesn't always build as effectively as it could.

I'm now tempted to seek out the original as it would be interesting to compare this version to the source material, especially considering how Stephen King's work has been adapted differently across various decades. While this 2022 remake is far from bad, it also doesn't stand out in the crowded field of recent horror releases. It's a watchable film that delivers some thrills, but it's unlikely to leave a lasting impression.

It's rare that I sit and watch a film and like it and dislike it in equal amounts, based on alternate scenes. Seriously, one minute I'm really enjoying the story and the next scene drags to such a degree that it practically feels unwatchable.

Julia Roberts and Ethan Hawke are the parents of a couple of teenagers who take their family away on a break to the countryside where they rent a villa, only to find that the rest of the world is gradually falling apart due to... Yeah, I'm not trailing off for dramatic purposes - I'm stopping because, by the time the credits roll, there are no real concrete answers to any of your questions, but I think that's kind of the point.

It's a decent enough premise and has an excellent cast. However, my personal overall gripe with the story was just how much some of the scenes drag. I confess... I watched it on an online streaming service and I have a very comfortable remote control which allows me to view the movie in ten second segments. This allowed me to see whether anything vaguely interesting happened in the current scene I was watching. If it went on too long, I could skip ahead with ease. Some may say that doing this made me miss key points, but I disagree. I could tell what was going on with the greatest of ease.

With all the movies on streaming services, many don't even hold my attention until the end. Yet I'm pleased to say that 'Leave the World Behind' kept me entertained right until the end. Maybe it was the (near) A-list cast, or whether I was hoping for some concrete answers as to what was going on, but I stuck with it and I definitely don't think I wasted me time on it.

I think I'd have been bored if I'd watched this at the cinema, but, thanks to my remote control, I kind of created my own 'director's cut' of the story and, as a result, enjoyed it all the more from doing so. There are some genuinely creepy scenes which chart society's downfall - just try to roll with the poor CGI, especially when animals are involved. I actually found one scene almost too painful to watch when two of the cast members are yelling for a long time at a wood full of computer generated critters. Quite funny really - I'm surprised no one has memed that scene more!

'The Black Phone' is an odd little beast. It never seems to quite know whether it wants to be a supernatural horror film, or something more grounded in reality as it deals with both child abduction and spirits.

I'll give it credit for its visual presentation. The cinematography is as atmospheric as it is unsettling, capturing the eerie small-town setting and the claustrophobic confines of a basement where much of the story unfolds. Plus the child actors, which can often blight any major production due to their inexperience, are surprisingly strong.

Ethan Hawke, as the villainous 'Grabber,' is suitably creepy and his mask may well help him to up his character to (nearly!) the heights of other great horror icons. His portrayal of the masked kidnapper is nicely unsettling, as he switches between sinister calm and explosive violence.

But I still think that where 'The Black Phone' falters is in its attempt to blend the supernatural elements with the real-world horror of child abduction. The titular black phone, which allows the kidnapped child to communicate with the ghosts of the Grabber's previous victims, is a nice idea, but the film struggles to blend this supernatural aspect with the more grounded, psychological horror.

Overall, 'The Black Phone' is a well-shot film with decent performances, especially from its young cast and Ethan Hawke as the villain. However, its inability to fully commit to either the supernatural or the psychological aspects of its story leaves it feeling somewhat disjointed.

Hmm, yeah, what can I say. It's a 'horror' movie. Only there's not an awful lot that's horrific. Take your usual amount of twenty-somethings who are cast as high-school teenagers and present them with a supernatural threat which slowly whittles down their numbers one by one. A group of friends play a drunken game of 'Truth or Dare' while on holiday in Mexico, only to find that the game continues even when they get home - naturally, with fatal consequences. Think you know the story? If you've seen even a few movies of the same genre then you probably do.

And that's where 'Truth or Dare' falls down. It's not inherently bad. It just doesn't really offer anything any vaguely seasoned horror movie fan hasn't seen a hundred times before - and done better.

I know there are only so many different ways film-makers have of presenting - yet another - creepy tale, but some go someway to stand out. I'm a big fan of the 'Scream' franchise (yes, even the later - not as well-received ones), simply because, although they may not be anything different (narratively speaking), but at least the writers inject some 'meta-humour' into the script to poke fun at the cliches associated with the genre.

Sadly, 'Truth or Dare' doesn't really offer anything even nearly new. The characters are bland and you won't really remember any of them after the credits have rolled. If you're looking for gore then there's a little bit here which isn't so bad, but - again - nothing you haven't seen done better.

Like I say, it's not a terrible film, but I doubt anyone with an interest in horror will really get much out of it. The ending was nice (I literally mean the final scene!), but - again - the US remake of 'The Ring' had kind of already done something similar. It's an okay enough experience to have on in the background if you find it on a streaming service and you don't have to pay full price to watch it.

I've head many different takes on the third 'Deadpool' entry - some enjoyed it, others didn't. A few thought it was merely okay. I guess what you're going to get out of this film is dependent on what you stand on the franchise and superhero films in general.

If you're utterly tired of superhero films then this one doesn't offer much that's different - a supervillain wants to destroy the world and our antihero, Deadpool, must (finally!) team up with Wolverine (complete with yellow comic book costume) and save the day.

And that's it. There's absolutely nothing majorly new about this film, so you could say it's merely average, unless - like me - it ticks all the boxes you're looking for in a film. Ryan Reyolds and Hugh Jackman are great actors who are perfectly cast for their retrospective roles and they play off each other perfectly. I've always wanted to see Hugh Jackman's Wolverine get the 'proper' outfit on screen and go crazy. I get that here. Personally, I loved the Marvel Cinematic Universe up until 'Phase 4' started, so a film like 'Deadpool & Wolverine' which openly mocks how the franchise has fallen is also very welcome. Finally, the cameos. I'm old enough to recall the superheroes films of the late 90s and early 2000s, so let's just say it was great to see a few 'old friends' on screen again.

So I enjoyed it. If I had to offer any criticism, I'd say the opening twenty minutes did feel a little slow compared to the 'main meat' of the film. Plus a few scenes later on could probably have been trimmed. Overall, I'd take out between 10-15 minutes of the runtime to tighten it up. The main gripes I've seen online are that it's not very focused and if you dwell too much on the plot then it all falls apart. Okay, this may be true. So, in order for that not to be a problem - just don't think too much about the story and enjoy the excellent chemistry between the two leads and laugh at all the in-jokes based around the genre.

I did. And I loved it.

Okay, I'm starting to believe that there's a factory someone in Britain which effectively has a 'production line' which churns out low budget horror films based on source material related to children fairy tales. I'm a fan of horror flicks in general and don't mind the odd low budget if the movie makes up for it with other qualities. And not I've seen a fair few on a well-known streaming service which all basically have the same cast, the same location and, as mentioned, very loosely based on a children's nursery rhyme.

Now, if all those qualities don't unite them - they're all also pretty dire. However, this one was actually decent (and I use that word loosely!) enough to keep me entertained for the duration. But, don't get wrong - it's no masterpiece, even in terms of B-movies.

If you didn't know what the film was called, you'd probably never guess it was based on a nursery rhyme. You'd probably just think it was called 'Poodle Maniac' or something, as the killer runs around with a giant mutated poodle's head on him. Or at least it looked like that particular breed of dog. Unless anyone can tell me what other animal it was supposed to be?

A group of podcasters... do you care? Do you really need to know what the reason is that means yet another group of people are stranded in the middle of nowhere (this time in England) well out of the reach of mobile phone range, but just in reach of a mother/son nut-job combo. You won't care about the characters - two of which make up both halves of the most awkward and unlikely couple I've seen on screen in a long time. The others all just have weird accents like they're English trying to do an American accent, or vise versa.

About the 'best' cast member is the screwy mother, Mary. She chews up the scenery like you've never seen. Not a great actress, but at least memorable among the cast - I'll say that. And the gore's not bad either. It's not amazing in as much as none of the kills are particularly inventive, but at least they look realistic (as realistic as when you've just been killed by someone dressed as a half human/half farm animal).

In terms of horror B-movies I have definitely seen worse. Many I end up turning off within the opening twenty minutes. This one was bad, but it was watchable in a bad sort of way. Does that make sense?

I watch a lot of horror films - and most of them are pretty low budget. Yes, they're bad, sometimes so bad I eventually turn them off too early to even review. However, 'Curse of Jack Frost' is an especially bad type of bad. Most awful low budget straight-to-streaming-service horror movies don't show how bad they really are until at least 15-20 minutes into their runtime. Not this one - it was bad from the opening shot.

It begins with a selection of hand drawn images, which are basically one hell of a long exposition dump about how Father Christmas was once a bad-a$$ warrior fighting the forces of darkness (led by Jack Frost, in case you hadn't guessed). Now, besides going on for waaaay too long, they're played straight. The whole idea of jacked-up warrior Santa sounds like it belongs in 'South Park' to be laughed at, not a horror film in which we're supposed to be afraid of.

Then we're introduced to the usual 'flesh-sacks' at the beginning of every horror film ever made. They're there purely to die - and die they do. But, being one of the worst horror movies ever made, the 'Jack Frost' antagonist is revealed to be one of the worst-looking monsters ever. Seriously, the mask is okay if you're going to an average Halloween party, but the real problem arises when he speaks. His lips don't move. The film-makers actually didn't have the budget to animate any part of his face. It's just a mask. No more, no less - like I say... as scary as any you can buy around the end of October every year.

And that was about when I knew I was going to want to turn this film off. I stuck with it, simply because I wanted to see if it actually had any redeeming qualities. It didn't. I really wish I could get back the hour and a half I spent watching this film. It's not scary. It's not gory. It's not self-aware or in any way clever. It's really one of the worst horror movies I've watched online recently.

If you like your 'slasher' horror films well-shot and laced with vibrant colours, then you should certainly enjoy the overall look and feel of 'Maxxine' where a young actress (best known for her - er - 'adult movies' decides she wants to break into the mainstream when she bags the lead role in a horror sequel. Very meta. What you get is a wonderful blend the seedy underbelly of Hollywood production with some 1980s aesthetic - David Lynch would most likely approve! The film's commitment to its retro style is evident in everything from the neon-lit sets to the synth-heavy soundtrack, which brilliantly amplifies the tension and atmosphere throughout (and I left wanting to download some 'Human League' and 'ZZ Top.'

Charley Rowan McCain is tough as nails in the lead role, delivering a performance that balances cold-heartedness and a ruthless desire to make it all the way no matter what, with vulnerability. Her portrayal of Maxxine makes her a standout in a genre often dominated by one-dimensional characters. The supporting cast also delivers strong performances, adding depth and intrigue to the twisted narrative - kudos to Kevin Bacon and the ever-awesome Giancarlo Esposito.

The slasher elements of 'Maxxine' are satisfyingly brutal, with the film making excellent use of its Hollywood set locations for some truly memorable and creative kill scenes (even if one of the most gruesome crimes is committed by our protagonist, Maxxine, rather than the evil serial killer currently on the prowl. The gore is intense and unapologetic, perfectly fitting the film's gritty tone.

However, the film's ending is where it stumbles. The climax feels abrupt and somewhat disconnected from the rest of the story, potentially leaving audiences feeling shortchanged after such a thrilling ride. Despite this flaw, "Maxxine" remains a solid entry in the slasher genre, buoyed by its strong performances, captivating aesthetic and excellent soundtrack.

Overall, "Maxxine" earns a solid 7/10, offering a bloody good time for fans of 80s horror and slasher films alike, even if it doesn't quite wrap up a few lines of dialogue early on in the film that you think will come back later and play a major plot point - spoilers: the don't!

If there was ever a film that was supposed to be watched in between checking your social media on your phone, it was this. It's not bad, but it's sure not enough to stop me from idly scrolling through my Instagram feed!

First of all - the title. Why so long? Were the film-makers trying to be epic? It should have just been called 'Axe Giant' and be done with it. Nit-pick over... it's a horror film about a bunch of young offenders who, as part of their 'rehabilitation program,' are taken off into the woods by a couple of adults in order to do some bonding exercise, or something. Does this actually happen in real life? I've now seen it three or four times as the set-up for a horror/monster film, but assigning two full time/paid adult carers to four or five teenagers seems like an expensive way of doing things.

Anyway, guess what they meet up there? Hint: the clue is in the title. And that's where the film does show its weaknesses, i.e. The budget. It doesn't really have much of one, so all effects are the cheapest computer or stop motion money can buy. It tries its best, but, even when the gore-effects work, you won't care about the cast - the film tries doe some 'character building' early on by having each of the five kids sit round a fire and spout their back story. Nothing like 'tell' instead of 'show.'

The film also boasts most horror cliches you've come to expect from a B-movie. There's the old guy who knows more than he lets on and tries to warn the main group about the impending threat. The kids that - er - 'get intimate' in the first act. Guess what happens to them?!

But, despite all its flaws I stuck with it. When it comes to finding movies to watch on streaming service there are plenty which are so bad I turn off within the first half an hour, so don't feel obliged to be able to write a review. At least this one kept me entertained for its entire runtime, so it must be better than many. It's content - filler content for it you're bored and looking for some silly, cheesy blood and gore with a cheap-looking monster. If that's all you're after, it'll fill the time in between your social media feed of choice updating with new posts.

I decided to watch this after finding it on a streaming site and it was only when I logged on to a movie trivia website did I find I'd already watched it and rated it a disappointing 4/10. I don't know when I watched it, but I'm guessing soon after it was released on DVD, but I've completely forgotten everything about it. Now I found that it's not half as bad as I clearly thought at the time. Not that it's a classic, of course.

Anyway, five friends (two young couples and a 'red-shirt') fly to a private, yet deserted island where they have a full-stocked holiday home. Don't dwell on the hows and whys of the situation, only that the island contains a load of dogs who want to rip them apart. And these aren't just your regular pet store pooches - no, these are 'generically modified' mutts, making them ever so slightly smarter than your average canine.

Now, you may think that trying to evade a load of dogs would be easy for five humans. And it may be for you and me, but the five youngsters (one of which being a young Michelle Rodriguez) seem to be only slightly smarter than your average house pet. In fact, it's lucky the dogs often feel the need to go easy on them and just attack for a bit and then wander off for long periods of time, giving the hapless humans a chance to regroup and possibly come up with yet another hair-brained scheme regarding how to escape. There is another guy on the island - we see him and his girlfriend at the beginning, but I couldn't for the life of me work out why he was included. You'll see what I mean if you watch it.

It's not a great film by any standards, but it's watchable enough if you're looking for something not very horrific and pretty dumb. Don't worry, there's no real sign of any animal cruelty, despite the dogs being the film's antagonists. All 'man vs dog' violence is carefully cut away before you can really see it and any that you do see involves dummy dogs.

Not amazing, but definitely not a 4/10. And it's worth watching if only to see Michelle Rodriguez in a role before she truly developed her trademark scowl/sneer/smirk that she adopted for every role post 'Resident Evil' - there are a few scenes where she looks like she manages to crack a genuine smile.

I don't go to the cinema too often - largely due to the cost these days - so I like to think I'm pretty selective about what I see there. That's why I often check out YouTube reviews of a film before I decide whether it's worth watching at 'full price.' I have my 'trusted' YouTube reviewers whose tastes normally match up with mine and two of them gave 'Longlegs' utterly glowing reviews. I like horror films. I like serial killer films. And I still love Nicholas Cage from his awesome performances during the nineties. Therefore, I figured I couldn't go wrong with this one. I was wrong.

'Longlegs' is set in the mid nineties and is about a serial killer who's been operating since the sixties. Enter a young, female FBI agent who has a talent for second guessing situations - could she be psychic? Well, don't expect an answer to that one because that story thread is dumped within the opening quarter of the movie. And that's just one of the problems.

I remember films and TV shows during the nineties - two of the most iconic female FBI agents of the time were 'Dana Scully' from 'The X-files' and Clarece Starling' from 'Silence of the Lambs.' Both of them were tough and resourceful, while maintaining their femininity. It was easy to picture them as hardened FBI field agents who could hold their own during the most tough of situations. Now we come to the protagonist of 'Longlegs.' In the first time we see her in her adult form she's getting briefed among a room full of other law enforcers. She looks like she's close to tears. She looks like the sort of person who would burst into tears if you raised your voice at her. And she doesn't really change throughout the whole movie. It might not be so bad if she was some sort of 'lab geek' who wasn't really supposed to be on the front line of law enforcement, but, as someone who's supposed to be able to get down and dirty with villains, she's an utter joke.

The film seems to think that enhancing her breathing adds to the tension. This just comes off as very annoying/off-putting as her breathing is so loud at times she comes across as some sort of asthmatic. Plus she's possibly the worst FBI agent ever, always failing to call in back-up whenever she's in danger. Did she forget her radio or something?

The we come to Nicolas Cage. He's basically the biggest name in the film (and even one of the producers), yet he'd hardly in it, so don't think he alone can save it.

The above are just the main gripes I had with the film, but there's so much more than just doesn't make sense. However, credit where it's due - the film is beautiful to look at. The director clearly can direct and set every scene as a creepy work of art. It's just a pity the story (which could have worked) is just so boring and has so many plot holes.

I guess, based on the YouTube reviewers who clearly loved it, this film will definitely have its own audience. Just a pity I can't include myself in them.

I didn't know what to expect when I sat down to 'Rent-A-Pal' - it's kind of weird-sounding name could mean it's going to go either way. It's about a forty-something loner back in 1990 who spends his days looking after his elderly mother whose mental health is in a state of rapid decline - hardly a 'feel-good' movie!

Our depressed protagonist is trying to better his life by the early nineties' version of 'online dating,' in other words... renting VHS video tapes from a local matchmaking service showcasing available women. However, he's not having much luck there and happens to chance on a different type of cassette which features a man (Will 'Wesley Crusher' Wheaton) who offers to 'be your friend.'

If the average runtime for a film is about ninety minutes, you may be surprised to hear that 'Rent-A-Pal' nearly hits the two hour mark and you may wonder whether the premise of a man talking to a recording of another man on the TV can hold out for that amount of time. And, believe it or not, it can (just).

'Rent-A-Pal' is very much a 'slow burner' and not a rollercoaster ride by any shot. However, it's beautifully-filmed and the themes of loneliness and isolationism will resonate with many people. All performances contained in this film are played to perfection and I won't go into the exact details of how the plot pans out, but I will point out that if you find it listed online it will be in the 'horror' category.

It is a little long, like many movies these days. However, normally if I put myself in the editor's shoes I could probably tell which scenes I'd cut out just to tighten up the overall runtime. But, here, I really don't know which bits I'd leaving on the cutting room floor - only that towards the starts of the third act I did think it slowed down a little too much.

But, despite that, I found it a far more darkly entertaining 'horror' film than many which are simply zombie flicks or a masked killer with an axe. As long as you're not expecting wall to wall blood and guts and something far more personal and subtle, you should actually remember this film long after the credits have rolled.

You know how sometimes there are bad films and there are good films? Well... 'The Ledge' just doesn't fall into either category, instead simply ending up at exactly the midway point between the two. There's nothing terribly awful about it (for what it is), but there's not an awful lot about it that makes it stand out.

Two young women go climbing in the wilderness as a bit of an 'adventure holiday,' only for one of them to end up being murdered by a gang of four men. The surviving woman catches the crime on camera and a chase ensues - a long chase.

Nothing wrong with the premise. It's nice and simple. 'Final girl' practically starts off the film as the 'final girl' and has to evade her pursuers for the movie's runtime. But what got me was the antagonists - mainly one of them. He's bad, you see? He's bad because he does bad things - always. And he speaks about bad things - always. He does bad things to - presumably - everyone he meets. He's bad. Do you get the impression this is a bad man? He's so bad it starts to cross the line into parody when every line that comes out of his mouth is like something a pantomime villain would say. The other three guys are comprised of one who does question what they're doing (so he kind of stands out) and the other two are just generic henchmen-types who you won't even remember.

Despite its acceptable enough plot and performance from the lead, it's a bit slow. Yes, I know it's not supposed to be a 'high-octane' thrill ride and those who get the most out of it will be the ones in the mood for more of a 'slow burner.' But the film is effectively one long cliff climb. And, seeing as physics dictate that you can hardly speed up giant vertical heights, everything progresses about as fast as the 'chase' from 'The Last Jedi.' Talking of 'Star Wars,' whenever our protagonist has to make a particularly tricky grip, you almost get an Obi-wan Kenobi moment where you hear her former instructor tell her to 'Use the Force!' Or something like that.

For all its faults, it's perfectly watchable. I figured a fair proportion of it would be filmed on a soundstage, but, if it was, I found it hard to make out. The locations were made the best of and the overall look of the film was professionally done. It's not the worst film you'll ever see, but there are definitely better. I know I watched a film about climbers being pursued by killers set in Scotland about fifteen years ago. I wish I could remember what it was called. It was good though - better than this, sadly.

I think if I had to sum up 2008's 'Train' I'd simply say, 'Hostel... but not as good.' I'm not trying to say that 'Hostel' was a particular masterpiece, but, if you were in the mood for some grisly entertainment, it fitted the bill.

It's like the people behind 'Train' watched 'Hostel,' photocopied the script, changed a few things here and there and then tried to pass this off as an 'original' film. Even the particularly uninspired title 'Train' is a single word, ala 'Hostel.'

On the off-chance you're into gory horror films and don't know about 'Hostel' then it's about some American backpackers who are on holiday in Eastern Europe, only to fall foul of the locals in some of the most gruesome ways imaginable. That's basically 'Train's' plot, too. I know 'Train' is about some high school students instead of holidaymakers and the reason behind the mayhem is slightly different, but, like I say, the film-makers changed bits sporadically.

The characters are bland and the gore isn't anything you haven't seen before. Thora Birch is a decent enough actress, but she's given little to work with here, coming across just like anything other 'final girl/scream queen' from a slasher movie.

I know I'm being harsh on 'Train' and, believe it or not, it's not that bad. It's more just pointless because it doesn't really bring anything new (let alone better!) to the table than 'Hostel' managed. 'Hostel' effectively reinvented the 'torture p0rn' sub-genre of horror and 'Train' tries to capitalise on that fad. Only it doesn't have the originality, or the budget to really surpass it's predecessor.

If you like gruesome gore - watch 'Hostel.' I'm sure you can find it on one streaming service or another. 'Train' just isn't original enough to waste your time on if you're in the mood for this niche branch of the genre.

From almost the opening scene I was thinking 'Goodfellas' when I sat down to watch 'The Bikeriders,' mainly because of how it's effectively told from the girlfriend of one of the main protagonist's perspective. It certainly takes the 'gangster genre' and transplants it onto a group of motorbike riders with its gritty take into the world. Apparently, it's based on a book, written by a journalist who spent time with the bikers during the late 60s and early 70s and does a good job of capturing the brotherhood, loyalty and (occasional intense!) violence that define the biker subculture.

Tom Hardy delivers the outstanding performance of the film, not straying too far away from what he's done before with his tough-guy act as character of the club's leader. His inclusion as kindly, yet menacing adds a definitely depth to the film that elevates it beyond a typical crime drama. Hardy is definitely the stand-out, but that largely because he literally seems to have more lines to work with than the actual protagonist who, although does a good impression of a 'James Dean' type character, his lack of dialogue does wonders for Tom Hardy's input.

While the main storyline drives the story well, some of the sub-plots involving some younger gang-members feels a bit redundant initially. These narrative threads seem to not really go anywhere until they finally clash with the central characters at the end, but, until then, they do feel a bit distracting. However, as the film progresses, these seemingly extraneous elements are woven back into the main plot in a way that enhances the overall story. The eventual payoff of these sub-plots has its own merits, but you'll only really appreciate it when you know why it's been added.

Overall, 'The Bikeriders' is a great little film which I haven't seen anything like it in the cinema for a long time. It's deep, gritty, but at the same time could almost be considered a bit of a 'love story' with the central characters and their relationship which is strained when it clashes with the 'biker lifestyle.' If you like your gritty dramas, or are just a fan of Tom Hardy and decent storytelling, it stands out as a noteworthy entry in the genre.