Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016)

"When Jacob discovers clues to a mystery that stretches across time, he finds Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. But the danger deepens after he gets to know the residents and learns about their special powers."

Really fucking good! I'm amazed at how much I enjoyed this, especially considering that it's a kids' film by Tim Burton.

Obviously, I only watched it because Eva Green is in it, and she does not disappoint. In fact, I don't think I've seen her give a bad performance in anything so far. She's not as sexy as she was in "Dark Shadows", "Sin City 2", or "300: Rise of an Empire", but then again, she's not playing that kind of role this time either.

Even though "Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children" is more or less a ripoff of Marvel's "X-men", it's beautifully filmed, almost flawlessly acted, and has lots of surprises in the casting. Samuel L. Jackson chews scenery brilliantly, Terence Stamp is used far too sparingly, but you can't complain when Rupert Everett is in it too!

As expected, the characters and plot (based on yet another YA novel which I have no intention of ever reading) are a bit weird here and there, and the CGI Slender Man/Jack Skellington-wannabe (a lot like the one in this year's "Blair Witch") makes several appearances (because that's the scary thing now, apparently), but it's not an excessive Tim Burton fantasy. In other words, there's no Johnny Depp or Helena Bonham Carter being overly "eccentric" to spoil it.

I'd even go so far as saying that "Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children" is an "epic" children's adventure. A few nods to (or obvious "borrowings" from) other well known classics for the same age group are noticeable without being cliché, and it all just works. Admittedly, a major part of the story involving "time loops" falls apart under closer scrutiny at the end, as happens with every "time loop" sci-fi or fantasy movie ever made, but the target audience are unlikely to notice.

Highly recommended for all ages, and definitely one to buy when it gets released on DVD and blu-ray. If it's still playing at a cinema near you, catch it while you can.

Oh, and [SPOILER] Judi Dench's character dies in it, which is always a bonus!

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

"The adventures of writer Newt Scamander in New York's secret community of witches and wizards seventy years before Harry Potter reads his book in school."

Meh, there's nothing too original or exciting in "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them". As many have noticed, it really is like a "Doctor Who" special mixed with "King Kong" mixed with "Pokémon".

The lead who I can't be bothered to look up the name of (Edit: it's Eddie Redmayne) channels Matt Smith so much that he might as well be Matt Smith. He has the same mannerisms, awkwardness, and dress sense. He even has a bowtie, uses his wand like a sonic screwdriver, and carries a suitcase with Tardis properties. I'm not calling J.K. Rowling a plagiarist, but... yeah, this is either plagiarism or a really blatant homage, take your pick.

For those who care, Colin Farrell is more than tolerable, and Johnny Depp gets less than a minute of screen time roughly 5 minutes from the end.

Other than that, and the abundance of CGI, "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" isn't the worst thing I've ever seen. The period setting in New York works well, and I expect American Harry Potter fans will love it. But because I'm not ten years old, and I loathe all things Harry Potter, it didn't do anything memorable for me.

As theatrical family films go, it's okay-ish. The creatures aren't very scary, and the story is easy to follow. It's just so below average in every other way that it's hardly one of this year's "must sees".

Terminator Genisys (2015)

"John Connor sends Kyle Reese back in time to protect Sarah Connor, but when he arrives in 1984, nothing is as he expected it to be."

I watched "Terminator Genisys" on Friday afternoon, but I'm writing my critique during the small hours of a Sunday morning and will backdate it to Saturday night. Why? Because time travel, that's why. If any of that confuses you, you probably shouldn't watch this movie, but you can still consider my introductory sentence to be a segue into yet another half-arsed review of a PG-13 Summer sci-fi/action movie which I don't really care about.

Yes, to cut a very long and convoluted story short, "Terminator Genisys" is pretty bad apart from all the 3D gimmicks, big bangs, and explosive action scenes. Fans of "The Terminator" will not be disappointed because, let's face it, if you are a true fan of this genre of craptacular spectacle then nothing anybody says will (or should) prevent you from liking it if you want to. Moviegoers who are used to such subtle things as sympathetic characterisation or a narrative which makes any bloody sense whatsoever should look elsewhere for entertainment.

The nostalgia brigade will undoubtedly be marvelling at the CGI which makes Arnold young again and then be lamenting at how old he looks in reality. The line, "Old but not obsolete!" gets repeated a number of times to make all the infantalised middle-aged men who are watching a movie meant for children feel better about their hero and themselves. I picked up on it too and thought it was sad.

Terminator Genipiss in 3D! That's not gimmicky at all!

On the plus side, the recreation of scenes from previous Terminator movies (particularly the first one) seem spot-on to me without being able to physically compare them side-by-side. Apart from Arnie, the other actors are completely different, but as continuity has never been an important factor in the Terminator series, criticism of this aspect is redundant. "Terminator Genisys" still looks the part and feels like a real Terminator movie, and it's much better action-wise than "Terminator 2: Judgment Day". I'd rather rewatch "Trancers" or "Timecop" than that kiddified shit ever again.

The action scenes and all the clever CGI nonsense in "Terminator Genisys" are actually pretty great, and there's hardly any lag in what really only amounts to a "chase movie" overall. Among the numerous tropes, the "Which one is the real one?" gag also gets played out just to remind those of us of a certain age of how many times "The Six Million Dollar Man", "The Bionic Woman", and even "The Gemini Man" TV shows pulled the same thing back in the day. Lazy writing, clearly, but this is only another typical Summer cash-grab after all. "Iron-Man 3" was much worse, so bite me (to coin a phrase).

It's not worth trying to get your head around how the alternative timeline doesn't match up to anything already known, negates the majority of the other sequels, and won't ever provide an answer to the paradoxes about how and why John Connor can be conceived by a couple who are in the wrong time for him to reach the right age to be a leader in the future war with Cyberdyne or Skynet (or whatever the hell it is), but then again, maybe he's no longer meant to exist. I can't work it out, and I really don't care that much to try to. It's all a load of horseshit anyway.

One ironic quirk is that Matt Smith from "Doctor Who" turns up in a small but important role which made me almost chuckle. I absolutely loathe the "Doctor Who" episodes which he starred in (not only because I'm a David Tennant fan), and in my opinion, none of them make any sense either. It's not Matt Smith's fault but the writers, of course, yet it provides an unfortunate in-joke for those of us in agreement about the matter.

Nerdy computer users waiting for Microsoft's much anticipated Windows 10 on July 29th will also grin at how the Genisys operating system is worked into the storyline, but all I could think of was how "Genesis" is spelled wrong and has nothing to do with the Sega Megadrive. Didn't get the last part? It's a Brit thing, don't worry about it.

Yes, she gets nude again. No, you don't see anything.

Ultimately, the best thing which "Terminator Genisys" has going for it is the chance to see Daenerys Targaryen from "Game of Thrones" as a brunette. Emilia Clarke is a worthy new Sarah Connor in that she's much better than Linda Hamilton but not quite as strong as Lena Headey. Yes, I really liked "The Sarah Connor Chronicles", and I'm still pissed off that it was cancelled.

Emilia's acting abilities aside, she reminds me a lot of Danielle Harris from certain angles but much sexier. She kind of gets nude too, but you don't see anything because this is a PG-13. Boo! Mind you, I'm sure there'll be a porn parody. "Sperminator Genitalpiss" anyone?

But that's quite enough of that. You can watch "Terminator Genisys" in 3D or 2D theatrically if you want, or save your money for the Blu-ray or DVD later in the year. You won't miss anything important by waiting.

"Terminator Genisys" is a polished turd, but it's still a turd like every other theatrical release so far this year. It makes me glad that I'm not reviewing movies anymore.

Jurassic World (2015)

"Twenty-two years after the events of Jurassic Park, Isla Nublar now features a fully functioning dinosaur theme park, Jurassic World, as originally envisioned by John Hammond. After 10 years of operation and visitor rates declining, in order to fulfill a corporate mandate, a new attraction is created to re-spark visitor's interest, which backfires horribly."

I remember way back in the far distant past of 1993 that I was sixth in a queue of eager moviegoers over a mile long which ran all the way down the street from the cinema, past a park, and over a bridge. The original "Jurassic Park" was so hyped that the world went a little bit crazy that opening weekend for dinosaurs, and I'm proud to admit that I was part of the insanity. I may have been too old for it, but I still bought the action figures, books, and anything else labelled with the "Jurassic Park" brand.

Twenty-two years later, nothing seems to have changed apart from the age of the original audience. With box office takings of over $551 million so far, "Jurassic World" has become an unprecedented success for a third sequel, but it's not only due to my generation's nostalgia.

Dinosaurs have and always will be one of the biggest draws for audiences of all ages. Everyone loves dinosaurs! Stick a dinosaur in a movie and it's almost guaranteed money in the bank. A couple of dud sequels in the "Jurassic Park" series have done nothing to diminish the yearning to see more of the same.

Velociraptors and motorcycles are cool.

Since I'm trying to be not my seemingly negative and jaded self, let me just interject the obvious fact that "Jurassic World" is a PG-13 Summer movie meant for little kids and family audiences. As such, it's no better or worse than any other movie released to get asses on seats for money this year, and it's full of all the spectacle that you would imagine.

Unfortunately, "Jurassic World" is overlong at 124 minutes, and it often suffers both from lag and unsympathetic characters. In fact, the action doesn't even get going until around an hour in, so if you haven't seen it yet, you can arrive late and not miss anything very important. Apart from a load of exposition and crowd scenes of visitors to the new Jurassic theme park, the CGI dinosaurs mostly mill around aimlessly and aren't nearly as impressive or groundbreaking as in the original.

Chris Pratt plays an ex-marine who has semi-trained a bunch of velociraptors in one of many "Chekhov's Gun" tropes which predictably play out later on in the story. As the most charismatic actor in "Jurassic World", he tends to steal the show, especially from the younger actors who are more or less forgetten during the second-half.

Bryce Dallas Howard provides some corporate eye-candy with a heart, but minor characters and the other co-stars tend to remain minor and one-dimensional with no surprises or chemistry whatsoever. Having none of the original "Jurassic Park" cast members even in cameos, "Jurassic World" appears to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater for the sake of making everything "new".

And now for some SPOILERS. Stop reading here if you don't want to know!

Imodium Rex will scare the shit out of you.

SPOILERS

The best part of "Jurassic World" is undoubtedly a death scene at the 80 minute mark which almost rivals the opening sequence of "Jaws" (1975) in terms of excitement. Yes, it's the one with the aquatic Mosasaurus which is heavily featured in the marketing. Being CGI and rated PG-13, all the deaths are quite bloodless, but this one is rather good despite those limitations.

All the predictable fights ensue, and the Pterodactyls or Pteranodons which are a big part of Michael Crichton's novel are nicely used. Fans of flying reptiles will be pleased.

Obviously, the biggest thing in "Jurassic World" is the much touted super-dinosaur which is called Imodium Rex or something similar made-up for the sake of it. There's no great educational exploration of dinosaurs or any apparent scientific accuracy here, but the story works as a fantasy-adventure for the intended audience.

END OF SPOILERS

Overall, there's nothing really to hate in "Jurassic World", but there's not a lot that most people haven't already seen before, either in the previous "Jurassic Park" movies or clones. A few "in-jokes" and homages don't detract from the considerable retreading of the same ground as "Jurassic Park", but they don't add anything new or memorable either.

If you just want to relax, switch off most of your analytical brain functions, and enjoy a kids' movie (or have a family to take with you), you won't go wrong by choosing "Jurassic World" over the other theatrical offerings this month.

Including nods to similar scenes at the end of "Jurassic Park", this love letter to the fans (both young and old) is a worthy finale, but it will cause déjà vu.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (2013)

"When her mother disappears, Clary Fray learns that she descends from a line of warriors who protect our world from demons. She joins forces with others like her and heads into a dangerous alternate New York called Downworld."

Based on the YA fantasy-horror novel by alleged plagiarist Cassandra Clare, "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is yet another wannabe "Twilight" replacement which has turned out to be a huge flop at the box office. I can't say that I'm surprised.

Since I'm not a reader or a "young adult", I've never heard of the series of books which this movie is based on before. I also have no idea if the allegations of plagiarism against the author are true or due to "cloning" and homaging, but either way, "The Mortal Instruments" appears to be little more than a bland conflation of "Night Watch" (2004), "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Percy Jackson and the Olympians", the "Prophecy" series, and a plethora of clichéd offerings from the "demon-hunting" subgenre. Ironically, given that "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is produced by Constantin Films, there's a very slight feeling of "Constantine" (2005) about this too. Unfortunately, that's where the good stuff ends.

"The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is overlong at 130 minutes, and pacing problems don't help to alleviate the boredom between brief and confusing action scenes. Harald Zwart's previous effort, "The Karate Kid" remake, also suffered from the same issues, but it's probably not entirely his fault this time. I imagine that producer and author interference influenced things quite badly; conflation of characters, casting choices, accent changes, rewrites, and the desire for a PG-13 rating to get more asses on seats were all contributing factors.

Thus, "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is a visually pleasing big-budget production, but if you think that "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy is bad news for your bladder, this movie will literally, figuratively and actually bore the piss out of you too. I lost track of the number of toilet breaks I needed, but I think it was over half a dozen. The two cans of Rockstar which were necessary to keep myself awake took their toll, but at least I didn't wet myself like I did during "The Golden Compass" (2007), and I didn't miss anything important either.

Clary and creepy Jace share a mundane moment.

The cast of pretty "teenagers" do okay in their roles although Jamie Campbell Bower (who has been in the finales of the Harry Potter series, and played Caius in "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn") is quite creepy-looking as Jace. Not looks-wise but accent-wise, he's very Paul Bettany, which brings up another irony since the star of the show, Lily Collins, was also in "Priest" (2011).

As she's not really a teenager, there's no problem with complimenting Lily Collins for being hot as Clary. Hell, even if she was sixteen instead of twenty-three, Phil Collins' daughter would still be pretty, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. She's slightly upstaged in the sexiness department by Jemima West as Isabelle, but she uses her huge eyebrows and nearly always open mouth to good effect. The "teeth and eyes" acting-style strikes again, albeit slightly less so than in typical teen soap operas. I also have to mention here that there's nothing more confusing than older actresses playing younger "jailbait" characters, so be prepared to feel as grubby as I did for ogling them. Or not, as the case may be.

Apart from Robert Sheehan as scrawny Simon gratuitously taking his shirt off, there's nothing for girls to see here unless they like their Jacob substitutes to be less ripped. Needless to say, his underdeveloped bare-chestedness did absolutely nothing for me, and I didn't like his character.

Kevin Zegers (recently in "The Colony") is very underused as Alec, yet he's got nothing to be ashamed of. Being unconscious on a bed for half the movie covers a multitude of sins. MILF-tastic Lena Headey is wasted even more since she disappears very early on in the story, and several other underwritten characters also suffer from clearly being reduced to bit parts for their respective actors. "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" truly equals "The Twilight Saga" in trying to pack too much in and rushing through the characters, and that's its downfall.

The problem with any of these "Young Adult novel" adaptations is not only that "Young Adult" is a curiously self-contradictory term and genre which pleases nobody—least of all its target audience—but that characterisation is never a strong point. It's hard to care about characters just because they are pretty, especially if there's none of the fleshing out which presumably occurs in the original literary medium. Having never read a "YA" novel in my life, I can't honestly say if the authors of these papery abominations make more of their "Mary Sues", and I'm not prepared to infantilise myself to find out. Just judging them by their movie adaptations, everything from "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" through to "Beautiful Creatures", "His Dark Materials", "Camp Half-Blood" and "The Hunger Games" must be some very low-brow reading material in the first place. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Sexy Isabelle has a big pair of swords.

As an aside, I don't care how much flak I get for it, but the unrequited gay love triangle which I assume to be one of the selling points of "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is very bizarre and completely out of place in a movie (or book) meant for little kids. Most of the target audience simply wouldn't understand it except as an insult, or they might not notice its insidiousness at all, but others are surely going to say, "What?"—and therein lies a problem. For me, the trendy, politically correct acceptance of homosexuality shown here as something completely normal rather than applicable to a minority is about as realistic and subtle as decorating half the cast with tribal "magical sigil" tattoos. It's controversial propaganda aimed at an age group which shouldn't even have a sex life, and it's not done in way that provides any explanation for differences from the norm. Briefly mentioned as it is, the Achilles-Patroclus thing comes across as contrived as an episode of "Torchwood", especially as there's another more traditional, heterosexual, and "age appropriate" love triangle going on. If you really want children to see gay romance in a movie, you should let them watch dramas such as "Another Country", "My Beautiful Laundrette" or "Brokeback Mountain", not a kiddified action-adventure/supernatural-fantasy. No? Maybe it's they're R-rated! It's not worth pressing the point however, because there's no sexual tension or chemistry between anybody in this movie. It's all very tame.

With the MacGuffin-laden plot taking a back seat to the equally superficial teen romance, "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" reeks of blandness throughout. Rather than losing focus, it never has any to begin with, and it has no vitality, inertia, momentum or any other words which you can pull out of a thesaurus to describe its lack of "oomph". Maybe if the producers had gone for an R-rating instead of a PG-13, some realistic violence, goriness and horror could have spiced things up considerably more than the borderline adult dialogue and situations, but I highly doubt it. The bad guys are so underplayed that there's never any real threat to the safety of the main characters, and as I already said, it's impossible to care about any of them anyway.

"The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones" is insipid, often tedious, and confusing with it, so I don't recommend it at all.

Los Últimos Días (2013)

"2013. A mysterious epidemic spreads across the planet. Humanity develops an irrational fear of open spaces that causes instant death. Soon, the world population is trapped inside buildings."

It's taken me almost a week to get through this Spanish sci-fi adventure, but don't let that put you off because it's not a bad one! For a number of reasons in real life including the heat and babysitting someone else's three cats, I just couldn't get into this movie as much as I wanted to.

Having finished it only a few minutes ago, I don't think we have a classic here, but "Los Últimos Días" (which you don't need to be an Einstein to translate as "The Last Days") is another competent apocalyptic fantasy from David and Àlex Pastor. As a similarly themed but totally unrelated follow-up to "Carriers" (2009), the generic plot is, once again, more concerned with separations and reunions than anything too cerebral, although if you like this subgenre as much as I do, you'll be pleased with it overall.

Starring Quim Gutiérrez (yes, that really is his name!) as Marc Delgado, and José Coronado from "The Body" (2012) as Enrique his companion, "Los Últimos Días" is nicely acted but very reminiscent of "The Happening" (2008) at times. With no reason given (but some ecological ones suggested along the way) for why the world's human population has started to drop dead from agoraphobia, our heroes' quest isn't for answers or a cure however, but mainly to reunite Marc with his girlfriend Julia.

Rather than being sci-fi per se, the story is set in the present and plays out as a kind of one-sided ancient Greek novel with various problems for the protagonists to overcome. Despite frequent flashbacks, the focus is on the male-bonding between Marc and Enrique in ways which shamelessly homage "The Edge" (1997) while being completely different in intention. I'm not going to spoil it for you, but one scene and its aftermath is a very recognisable borrowing.

To offset the clichéd sausagefest, female eyecandy is mostly provided by gorgeous Marta Etura from "Sleep Tight" (2011) as Julia. Unfortunately, she has very little screen time compared to the importance of her character. To compensate, the two or three fans of "[REC]³ Génesis" (2012) will be pleased to see Leticia Dolera as Julia's friend Andrea, especially as she briefly gets to kick ass again!

Beards are very popular in Spain.

The rest of the cast is comprised of Spanish TV actors (mostly from soaps and miniseries) which is de rigueur with these Barcelona-based productions. Spain is now as guilty of overusing their limited supply of actors and actresses as much as Australia, but I'm willing to let that slide. I've recently become very biased in favour of Spanish movies due to their consistently beautiful cinematography and solid characterisation which makes everything in modern American movies look cheap, soulless and amateur.

As most of the claustrophic action takes place in tunnels, sewers, and stairwells, the balance between unrealistic sources of light and being too dark to see what's going on is handled perfectly. There's none of the Zippo lighter being able to illuminate a whole room nonsense here, and bless them, our heroes even mention that trope and find an inventive way around it! There's not a great deal of humour, but there's a lot of such wittiness in the dialogue if you're open to it.

The make-up/wardrobe crew are also to be congratulated for making Marc and Enrique look progressively and realistically filthier. That's the thing here though; there's so much realism that the ridiculousness of their situation can almost be forgotten. Further attention to detail in the set dressing certainly helps to make everything more epic, and it's only a couple of CGI-enhanced views of the city outside which ever give away the modest, non-Hollywood budget.

Inevitably, for all of its good points, "Los Últimos Días" is still not without a few lapses in logic and some blatant contrivances, but it's very easy to willingly suspend your disbelief and just enjoy the ride. Thus, I have no problem with recommending "Los Últimos Días" as a rental or even a purchase once it gets an official US release. At the moment, the only version available is an overpriced Blu-ray import, so you may want to wait for a while.

World War Z (2013)

"United Nations employee Gerry Lane traverses the world in a race against time to stop the Zombie pandemic that is toppling armies and governments, and threatening to destroy humanity itself."

It's not often that a Summer movie is so boring that I can barely bring myself to write a review of it, but "World War Z" has easily earned that dubious honour for this year. I'm not so secretly still hoping that someone will announce how the movie is meant to be a high-brow meta-parody of the zombie subgenre just so that I can stop feeling disgusted with myself for wasting two hours on this utter shite. Given its lack of tension or scares, the unintentional laughs which certain scenes are likely to provoke suggest that has to be some multi-million dollar trolling, right?

Very loosely based on a novel by Max Brooks which I've never heard of and have no intention of reading, "World War Z" is little more than several CGI-fuelled action set pieces (which are given away in the trailer) padded out with a whole lot of nothing else. Fundamentally, it's a big-budget attempt to cash-in on the success of "The Walking Dead" and all the other apocalyptic-virus/zombie movies which sheep-like teenagers have ironically bought into.

The running zombies from "28 Days Later" (which I also loathe) are back again, but this time they have a hive-mind like ants or the numpties who waste all day posting on Reddit. That, in itself, should give "World War Z" a minor claim to originality except not really. If you ever watched a certain episode of "The Burning Zone" TV series back in the day, the concept of a sentient virus has been done before but better. It's not exactly a new idea. Philosophers have been speculating about this very thing, vis-à-vis mankind's relationship to the planet, for centuries.

The other big difference between "World War Z" and the thousands of zombie clones already in existence is that this movie is appropriately named as a cure for insomnia. I assume once again that the "Z" is meant to be some kind of in-joke about sending the audience to sleep rather than standing for "zombies" or Z-grade which it most certainly is.

Glasgow has become so Americanised!

Contrivances abound such as using the liability of an asthmatic kid to bring Brad Pitt's character into a direct, street level confrontation with the world gone mad, but the worst part of the "adventure" (for that is what it is) is the wild goose chase all over the world to find the answer to how the outbreak started. It serves no purpose other than to show zombies running amok in more countries.

As with every Summer movie, there's lots of gunfire, vertigo-inducing aerial shots, huge explosions (including the obligatory exploding helicopter and a plane crash), and it's all very loud. Unfortunately, even with the mid-range turned up to deafen everyone, Brad Pitt is still a mumbler, the African actor who plays his United Nations boss has an accent that's almost impenetrable, and the lack of characterisation means that nobody cares what anyone is saying anyway. Apparently, the actors were told to improvise their own dialogue, and it shows badly. Just a minor quibble, but isn't this why movies have writers?

With its predominantly blue, green and beige palette, and no bright red blood or gore to get excited about, "World War Z" is particularly bland visually. The camerawork is awful, some scenes are way too dark, and the quick cuts in the action scenes mean that its impossible to tell who is doing what to who. The fact that so little time is spent on characters who randomly appear only to disappear again just as quickly render the whole movie emotionally inert so why would you even care in the first place?

Characterisation is actually so flat that if you aren't looking out for it, you're unlikely to catch the name of Brad Pitt's character let alone anyone else's. It's Gerry, by the way, but I couldn't tell you the names of his wife or children despite the story pointlessly cutting back and forth to them onboard an aircraft carrier. Whoever his ginger-haired wife is, she doesn't do anything except look mopey and hug her greasy-haired brats so what's the point of her? Gingers have no souls anyway and neither does whoever made this horrible movie. Ah yes, it's Marc Forster, the same guy who made the equally unwatchable "Quantum of Solace". Case proven.

I could bitch about "World War Z" all day, but I'm not going to. Nine paragraphs is more than enough to critique a boring, PG-13 rated zombie movie which wouldn't even be worthy of the SyFy channel if Brad Pitt wasn't involved in it. Forget the 3D gimmick too, it's a waste of the extra $3 which you could use to buy a DVD of a real horror movie meant for adults instead.

Although I could have summed-up "World War Z" in one four-letter word with an optional seven-letter expletive preceding it, I'll leave it with an even better three-letter word:

Meh.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)

"In this spin on the fairy tale, Hansel & Gretel are now bounty hunters who track and kill witches all over the world. As the fabled Blood Moon approaches, the siblings encounter a new form of evil that might hold a secret to their past."

Sometimes there's nothing wrong with a bit of low-brow, action-horror full of CGI if you're in the right mood for it, and that's precisely what you get with "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters".

Directed by Norwegian Tommy Wirkola, who was also responsible for the dreadful and vastly overrated "Dead Snow" (2009), "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" continues his love for over-the-top gore and allows him to throw in some light-hearted touches which make it a rather fun experience if you are the kind of person who can switch off your brain enough to enjoy the ride. It's not a movie which will stand up to any kind of critical deconstruction because it's predictable as can be and contains so many anachronisms that it makes "Van Helsing" look like a historical documentary in comparison.

Of course, it's impossible to say anything about "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" without mentioning "Van Helsing" (2004). Both movies are firmly in the "fantasy action adventure" category, they look almost identical, and, to be honest, if it hadn't been for Stephen Sommers, I doubt that this genre of movies would still have a market. There really are some people who actually like "Van Helsing" and, presumably, the Paramount and MGM executives have been looking for a way to emulate Universal's cash grab for some time. Thus, "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" has similarly cool weaponry, wire work, and CGI in bucket loads. What it does differently, however, is up the violence and profanities. It's also a lot quicker over the ground.

Don't go into this thinking that you are going to see the quintessential dramatisation of the "Hansel and Gretel" fairytale or you will be severely disappointed. That part is dealt with so quickly that it's almost shameful. There are so many ways that it should have been lengthened to show the kids being tortured and force fed by the cannibal witch that I'm sure someone will do precisely that eventually to redress the balance. The Brothers Grimm are probably spinning in their graves at the liberties which have been taken here.

"Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" isn't really a film that's either about kids (except as a plot point) or for kids anyway. It's only meant to be a throwaway, January, popcorn flick which showcases the talents of Jeremy Renner ("Hawkeye" from "The Avengers") and gorgeous Gemma Arterton (from "The Disappearance of Alice Creed") as they get into some severe badassery in an overblown 3D pop video. As someone who has already learned to expect very little from Paramount and MGM, I can't say that there's anything wrong with them making a film like this at all. I'm only surprised that they didn't wait to release it during the Summer.

While "Haweye" and "Alice" turn in some fairly decent and potty-mouthed performances, this isn't a film that's concerned about acting or characterisation so much as it is about stunts, automatic weapons, and spectacle. It easily excels in all three of the latter and makes an ideal replacement for the "Underworld" franchise. Just like "Underworld: Awakening" (2012), you really need to see it in 3D for the full experience even though the gimmicky effects are too fast and too dark in some places.

For me, Famke Janssen stands out the most as Muriel the evil witch, but that's probably because I'm biased and fancy her even with her horror face on. Your mileage may vary especially with Pihla Viitala looking equally lovely as the good witch Mina. It's a pity that Ingrid Bolsø Berdal isn't allowed to have a glamorous moment, but that's karma paying her back for being in "Chernobyl Diaries" which I still haven't managed to get through. If I want to see Ingrid looking hot, I'll just rewatch "Cold Prey" anyway.

I would like to say something good about Derek Mears (Jason Voorhees from the "Friday the 13th" remake) as Edward the troll, but I can't. I'm not sure how much of his costume is practical and how much is enhanced with CGI, but it's not really important. Either way, his character is rather pointless after one scene and isn't a million miles away from being a clone of the Frankenstein monster from "Van Helsing".

A lot of stuff is shot against a green screen which makes a bit of a mockery of the location filming in Germany, but to give credit where it's due, the forest and faux mediaeval village setting look perfect. If you want all the "smoke and mirrors" spoiled for you, watch the video below.



I highly recommend "Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters" particularly to "horror-lite" fans. If you fancy a bit of instantly forgettable fun this weekend, you could do a lot worse. At the very least, it's a mainstream theatrical release which delivers a substantial amount of adrenaline-pumping entertainment.

Hearts and Armour (1983)

"Bradamante, a woman wearing an invincible suit of armour, is travelling the countryside at the time of the Crusades. After ending up in the middle of a web of romantic and cultural tangles, she finds herself in love with a Moor prince, while one of the Christian knights has fallen in love with a Moor princess. Others, however, are against the cross-cultural romance, and Bradamante's love is soon forced into a duel to the death. Will she ever be with her true love?"

Do you remember "Hearts and Armour" from the '80s? No? Nor do I much except that it was the second VHS tape that I ever bought after "Flesh + Blood" (1985). I'd never heard of it before, but the original VHS artwork looked similar so that was enough for me. I practically threw my pocket money at the guy in Blockbuster and ran home thinking that I'd found treasure.

Of course, once I put in in my VCR, I was very disappointed. Although "Hearts and Armour" promised lots of former "Charlie's Angels" star Tanya Roberts (who shows more than she ought to if you watch carefully), I wasn't so keen on Barbara De Rossi, the terrible dubbing, or the really jarring editing. Allegedly, "Hearts and Armour" was cut down from an Italian miniseries, but I've found no real evidence of that. Basically, it was a cheap piece of trash designed to cash in on "Excalibur" (1981).

Nearly thirty years on, I can't say that I've grown to love "Hearts and Armour". It's still horrible, Bradamante (Barbara De Rossi) looks very uncomfortable in her suit of armour, and the fight scenes are ridiculous. There are some nice gory bits with dismembered limbs flying about in the battles, but this isn't really my kind of thing at all. As much as I can appreciate the work that went into making the costumes as historically (in)accurate as possible, I couldn't care less about the Crusades.

Barbara De Rossi also played Helietta Canins in "Vampire in Venice" (1988) which is the sequel to the terrible remake of "Nosferatu" starring Klaus Kinski. That's much more my cup of tea although I can't honestly say that she's any better in it than in this. Let's face it, she was cast in these movies because of how she looks rather than for any other reason. Strangely, I don't have any problem with that at all. Barbara De Rossi was quite the hottie back in the day.

Because I don't pay attention to crap, I can't tell you who played any of the knights in "Hearts and Armour" except by grabbing their names from the IMDb. Ronn Moss plays Ruggero (the pony-tailed object of Bradamante's affections), Rick Edwards is Orlando, and Maurizio Nichetti is the scruffy, little magician called Atalante. As for the others, who cares? It's not like they've ever been in anything else anyway.

The cinematography isn't bad despite attempts to ruin it with the panned-and-scanned VHS transfer (as yet there is no DVD available), but the acting is so dreadful and the pacing so slow that the overall atmosphere is one of boredom rather than excitement. I nodded off several times during the epic ordeal of trying to rewatch "Hearts and Armour" and even had to have a proper sleep before my numbed brain would allow me to complete it.

Unintentional laughs are created by the pompousness of the dialogue and the inclusion of a Samurai warrior for no good reason at all other than he's another kind of sword-fighter. Some of the action scenes do indeed liven things up for a few seconds, but "Hearts and Armour" even makes the "Deathstalker" sequels look good in comparison.

If you've never seen "Hearts and Armour", I'm not going to recommend it to you. Just knowing that something this awful exists should be enough to satisfy your curiosity.

King Kong (1933)

"A film crew goes to a tropical island for an exotic location shoot and discovers a colossal giant gorilla who takes a shine to their female blonde star."

Although "King Kong" hardly counts as a horror movie and is more of an adventure story, it was groundbreaking at the time, and is still one of the greatest monster movies ever made. I've already reviewed it on one of my other blogs (which I have now abandoned), so I'm just going to repeat the bulk of that post again with a few changes.

I have always enjoyed this version of "King Kong" more than any of the lacklustre sequels, clones, or modern remakes. I'm not sure what it is about the stop-motion animation or the improbability of any of it which appeals to me so much, but maybe it's because I first saw it on television when I was a child. It brings back cosy memories of random things like making toast in front of an open fire while the wind whistled outside, cuddling my first cat, collecting comics, and looking forward to a future which turned out to be not so great.

Even without the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia, I still appreciate everything which the then uncredited directors did with "King Kong" as they made a timeless story which has enthralled generations ever since in whatever format they've watched it on.

As an adult with the luxury of DVD, I've noticed a few things which a lot of people might not pick up on, although not the alleged "nipple shot" of Fay Wray as she gets out of the water at one point. I was stupid enough to fall for that hoax and spent some time fast-forwarding, rewinding and freeze-framing the DVD, but all I got was a pixellated blur at best. To be honest, I don't really need to see Fay Wray's nipple to enjoy the movie, especially as I most certainly saw Jessica Lange's in the 1976 remake.

No, what I noticed most was how incredibly flawless Fay Wray looked in every scene. This really was the time of beautiful film stars, not ones covered up with so many layers of make-up that they don't even look real anymore.

Of course, the other outstanding thing from the movie was Kong himself. I have very little knowledge of exactly how much work went into his scenes but, without even looking it up, I could tell that it was a lot. Yes, I know that's kind of a redundant sentence, but I would estimate that many thousands of hours were put into animating Kong using one tiny movement at a time.

"Jurassic Park" may have had more bells and whistles, not to mention a plot which borrowed heavily from "King Kong", but nothing is more amazing than seeing a giant ape fighting dinosaurs from back in the 1930s. Even watching "Metropolis" again fairly recently, although obviously not quite the same thing, really highlighted the artistic skills which have been lost in this age of computer generated images.

I'm going to wrap this post up with the biggest message that I got from the whole thing. Basically, back in the '30s, Americans must have thought it was their God-given right to invade other cultures and steal their monkeys. You would have thought that a film like this would have at least given them a good warning to stop, but alas, it still goes on and the whole country has more entitlement issues than ever before. Even in the midst of now being a third-world country itself and suffering from the worst economic crisis since the time "King Kong" was made, still nobody seems to have learned their lesson. Just replace giant monkeys with oil and you've got a great political allegory here.

But I've digressed. I'm all about the movies not politics even though there are socio-political implications to so many films which we all take for granted.

Having said that, isn't it strange that Kong climbs the Empire State Building with his beloved or that the Twin Towers replaced that symbol of capitalism in the 1976 remake? Obviously, it was intentional in both cases.

I'm giving "King Kong" a huge 9 out of 10 for being as enjoyable today as it was when it was made. I wish I could say the same for Peter Jackson's remake. but that one is best forgotten about.

It's Caturday! The Ghost and the Darkness (1996)

What's this? Is Dr Blood really starting a post without a YouTube video or an Amazon affiliate link? Has the updated Blogger interface finally kicked in and the end of all good things begun? Nope, I just couldn't find a decent trailer and I don't have the patience to look up the Amazon code for a movie you will never buy anyway.

Yes, it's Caturday! This is the day of the week when the internet goes dead, all the cats which run the internet go out to play, and nobody reads blogs. So, just for the sake of having a weekend post, I watched "The Ghost and the Darkness" AKA "Jaws on land with lions not sharks" ('cos, like, land sharks would be stupid, yo!).

In case you've never heard of it, yes, indeed, "The Ghost and the Darkness" really is an African-based version of "Jaws". Having never read the true story which this is based on ('cos, yeah, I'm ignorant), all I watched this for was the lions. I LOVE LIONS! I love lions almost as much as I love other cats... or tigers. Actually, I'm not much fussed about tigers since they are bigger, smellier and I don't like sugar on my cornflakes. No, I'm lying (lion, geddit?), of course, I love tigers too. It's cougars that worry me.

So anyway, I got this DVD from the pawn shop a couple of weeks ago because I'd never seen it (did I mention that I love lions?) and stuck it in my bedroom DVD player for the cats and me to fall asleep to. Well, that was the plan.

In the sweltering heat, three stretched-out heaps of fur (shut your dirty mind, right now!), soon fell asleep without even noticing that the movie didn't get past the menu screen. When I (one of the furry heaps) woke up, I realised that the DVD had an error on it so I had to put it in my computer to play it instead. It came up as "undefined" rather than "DVD Video" but it still played. I have no idea about these things. I just buy them and watch them.

Anyway (again), I started watching it and it was all yadda, yadda, yadda, with Val Kilmer doing the worst Irish accent I'd ever heard and Tom Wilkinson being an asshole. Then the scene changed to some nonsense with Emily Mortimer who I fancy, want to feed, and detest the scratchy voice of, all at the same time. I really hoped that was the end of her part in the movie and I was glad that she disappeared until right at the end.

So I'm watching this historical, period piece, drivel meander on for another 15 minutes until Val Kilmer's character killed a lion which I knew wouldn't be the man-eater since this is "Jaws" all over again, right? It trundled along with more padding and two-dimensional characterisation until, at 32 minutes in, this happened:

I was all like "YEAH!" and "KEWL!" and, the lion was all like landing like Kate Beckinsale in "Underworld" but like tearing people apart and stuff... but then I realised that I wasn't a 12 year old girl and stopped thinking like that.

The action was as short lived as the acting careers of the lions' dinners and it was another 15 minutes until something happened again. I had noticed a pattern forming in which the action scenes with lions were occurring every 15 minutes and it was amusing me how poorly constructed and obvious this method was.

At the 45 minute mark, the Christian missionary guy who was quite likeable got his throat ripped out (which was lush!) and, thus, it was revealed that the first lion wasn't the killer and now there were two more. Nature abhors a vacuum which is why you don't interfere with cats and their territory but all these people were pretty dumb anyway.

The lions, in reality named Bongo and Caeser [sic], were renamed "The Ghost" and "The Darkness" by the superstitious natives who were building a bridge. Did I not mention that the whole reason any of these idiots were in the middle of nowhere was to build a bridge? Well, probably because that trivial detail didn't interest me. Like I said, I only wanted to watch this for the lions.

A curious thing was that Michael Douglas was given top billing in this yet it was almost an hour before he appeared. I know he produced this garbage but you can take vanity too far. His character was completely fictitious, called Remington (either after the gun or the typewriter), and was basically Quint but less boozy and a little bit brighter. He still wasn't all that bright though.

I'm not sure when this happened ('cos I was dozing again) but Quint, I mean Remington, shot this lion and Patterson (Val Kilmer) finished him off. THE BASTARDS! Two against one? So not fair. Yeah, ok, so the lions had eaten hundreds of African and (bizarrely) Indian bridge builders without so much as indigestion but they are LIONS! Who cares about people when you have LIONS?

The amount of stupidity in this movie, what with making a giant "inhumane" cat trap, a wobbly bridgey-thing which you just knew anyone shooting a gun from would fall off, and, then, finally, to climb a tree to escape a lion... HELLO! A lion is a big CAT! What do cats do? They climb trees, yeah?

I was past caring at this point. The glorious scene of Emily Croaky-voice and her baby getting eaten had turned out to be a stupid dream, the great white hunter Remington had disappeared in a bloody crop circle, and, since I'd lost all the enjoyment that I was previously having, when it came for Colonel Patterson to get the movie back to historical accuracy by finally shooting the lion, I was just glad that it was all over.

Everything ended all nice and happy, the bridge was built, the Pattersons and their sprog were reunited, and the lion skins were taken to a museum in Ohio or some such nonsense.

Do I recommend this film? No. Even if I hadn't seen "Jaws" and all its sequels, this would still have been pretty desperate stuff. On the plus side, it had lions in it.