Bad Milo (2013)

"A horror comedy centred on a guy who learns that his unusual stomach problems are being caused by a demon living in his intestines."

If you've ever wondered what would happen if you mixed "Office Space" (1999) with "Basket Case" (1982), "Bad Milo", the latest horror-comedy coming to VOD services in a couple of weeks' time from Magnet Releasing ("the genre arm of Magnolia Pictures"), is the answer. According to their official website, "Bad Milo" will also be released theatrically on October 4th, but I'd hazard a guess that it'll be limited.

As usual, some unscrupulous screener-monkey has already uploaded "Bad Milo" to the streaming sites. I would moan about how it's about time that distributors stopped giving out screeners willy-nilly to all these lame horror bloggers who either just want freebies or to upload the movie illegally—especially as I've never asked them for anything myself—but as it's only from Magnet Releasing (who kept following and then unfollowing me on Twitter every 2 days until I blocked them), and I hate horror-comedies, I couldn't care less. "Bad Milo" isn't something which I would have gone out of my way to watch otherwise.

It's not that "Bad Milo" is badly made or anything—in fact, it has very good production values for a low-budget comedy full of puerile toilet humour—but it's a one-trick pony. Once the "hilarious" joke about a demon that lives in a guy's ass has been beaten to death (almost literally!), this predictable crap has very little to offer other than remixing scenes and elements from more famous movies in ways which frequently cross the line between homage and blatant ripoff.

As you can see in the picture below, Milo the ass-demon looks a lot like Baby Sinclair from the kids' TV show "Dinosaurs" (1991). He also has the big-eyed cuteness and a few other characteristics of Gizmo the Mogwai from "Gremlins" (1984). Writer/director Jacob Vaughan's influences are extremely obvious, especially his homages to the more evil gremlins, "Ghoulies" (1985), and Belial from "Basket Case". Basically, the horror parts are a throwback to all the little creature/puppet movies of the '80s, and consequently, "Bad Milo" brings nothing new to the table here whatsoever.

Everybody Loves Milo.

Clearly, "Bad Milo" is a product of the same creatively bankrupt culture which allows these so-called comedies and parodies to elude prosecution for copyright infringement, and it begs the question of how much is really "fair use" before someone starts throwing the word "plagiarism" around? When you can so easily identify the "borrowings" from other movies, how is that not theft? At the very least, it's extremely lazy filmmaking. If Mike Judge, Joe Dante, Frank Henenlotter, and Charles Band gave Jacob Vaughan their permission to "re-imagine" their movies then forget I said anything, but I highly doubt that such a thing ever happened.

Apart from casually noticing that the lead, Ken Marino, is channelling Ray Romano and Zach Braff at the same time (which may just be his normal acting style for all I know), it's pretty obvious to me that the situational comedy of "Office Space" forms the core of this movie. There's the slimy boss (in this case played by Patrick Warburton), firing/leaving interview scenes, embezzlement, retribution, and all the poetic justice of "Office Space", plus... wait for it... Stephen Root aka Milton "Stapler" Waddams is in this too!!!

Since I'm considered such a pariah by modern filmmakers and the distribution companies that I had to watch the "Bad Milo" screener semi-legally, the irony of the whole situation isn't wasted on me, but I'm still going to call this movie out for its lack of originality even though I haven't been swindled out of anything other than my wasted time. Needless to say, I didn't find any of it particularly funny.

The scenes with Peter Stomare (Satan from "Constantine") playing the new age therapist/witchdoctor Highsmith are mildly amusing, and I thoroughly enjoyed ogling Gillian Jacobs who plays Ken's sexy wife Sarah. Other than that, you can shove "Bad Milo" up your ass!

Smiley (2012)

"After discovering an urban legend on 4chan's /b/ board of a demented serial killer that has nothing but a carved 'smiley' on his face, Ashley, a mentally fragile teen, must decide whether she is going insane, or is the next victim."

Every so often I'm forced to watch a horror movie directed by someone I've never heard of and starring a load of people I've never heard of either. Sometimes it's a necessity for writing this blog, but occasionally I just do it for the lulz. Thus, when the chance came to see a movie about a supernatural serial killer on the internet who does it "for the lulz" too, I was intrigued.

Apart from Roger Bart (formerly the creepy pharmacist who fancied Bree in "Desperate Housewives" as well as one of the sickos in "Hostel 2") and Keith David, I honestly have no idea who any of the other cast members are, whether or not they are real actors or YouTube wannabes, or anything other than a vague recognition of a couple of their names.

Allegedly, one of the cast members is named Toby Turner, and he's big on YouTube for something, but I couldn't even tell you what he looks like or who he plays. Shane Dawson is more obvious as I've seen his picture floating about on the internet before yet have never watched even one of his YouTube videos either. From his limited acting ability in "Smiley", I probably never want to. As a non-actor, he isn't that bad, but he's a lot older, hairier, fatter and uglier than I thought a popular YouTube children's entertainer would be. His character name of "Pedobear" might be an in-joke based on his fanbase of 12-14 year olds. If there's something more to it than that, I didn't understand it.

In case I start to sound too negative, let me just say that I didn't hate "Smiley" or anyone involved in it. In fact, I really liked it as a "meta" movie about internet trolling. We all love to troll "teh interwebz", don't we? Imagine if the misery we like to inflict on others with our keyboards could manifest itself in physical form and you get the premise behind "Smiley". I thought that was kind of great.

I can haz cheezburger now? Oops, wrong meme.

Even though "Smiley" first appears to be little more than a ripoff of "Candyman" and the "Bloody Mary" urban myths, it's actually a bit cleverer than that. With a couple of twists at the end, although derivative of "Scream", "April Fool's Day" and "Urban Legend", "Smiley" is quite successful (yet overambitious) in what it sets out to achieve. As a horror movie though, maybe not so much.

It's probably not going to win any awards for originality, scares or gore, but it's still a decent looking movie with good production values, not too many lags, and only a few moments of dodgy camerawork. Unlike the current slew of "found footage" crap, there's certainly no need to take any dramamine before watching "Smiley" unless the jealousy that someone who you don't think deserves it has managed to get their horror movie released theatrically makes you nauseous.

Of course, "Smiley" has some flaws especially in the dialogue which may be a tad too unnatural for most people's ears. If people on the West Coast really speak to each other like that, they need slapping. It's a debut feature by somebody just out of film school, Michael J. Gallagher, who has been lucky enough to be able to make it so you have to make allowances. As much as I will always bash the talentless handycam brigade with their backyard "zombedy" epics, "Smiley" doesn't fall into the same category. It looks like it had a fairly decent budget for one thing, and there's obviously some technical ability behind the scenes.

The killer actually looks pretty good too. I think he'll be a poster on a few people's walls before too long especially if this becomes a franchise. As ever, the characterisation doesn't have much depth to it, and quite a few of the characters are instantly dislikeable, but that's always a bonus for a jaded movie reviewer looking for something to write about. For those people who loathe Shane Dawson's antics as a YouTube money whore, seeing him get his comeuppance is a nice piece of wish fulfilment which will most certainly drive his haters to this film only to be quite surprised.

To give more credit where it is most certainly due, Caitlin Gerard, who plays Ashley, is highly watchable and gives an outstanding performance. Looks-wise, she isn't my cup of tea although I'm sure the intended audience will find her incredibly hot. If I have a type, it's not mental, skinny blondes who scream, cry a lot and smash their laptops to pieces, but to each their own.

I'll take the one on the right, please.

Ashley's brunette friend, Proxy (stupid name but whatever), is sensationally gorgeous. Melanie Papalia is her real name (in case you wondered), and having looked it up, I think it's one to remember. Although I'm torn between her and Nikki Limo (who plays a babysitter at the start) for the "best looking chick in the movie" award, she definitely made "Smiley" more enjoyable for me. She can really act too, and I can't wait to see her in more movies.

As I said right at the beginning, "Smiley" is full of unknown actors, actresses and YouTube "stars" who you either may or may not recognise. The only big YouTuber who I've ever watched regularly is iJustine and, unfortunately, she isn't in this. That was a missed opportunity and a bit of a shame. If she had been in it, maybe the "real critics" wouldn't have been so harsh about "Smiley". Having accidentally read the titles of their critiques, I wonder if we've even watched the same film because I enjoyed it. Although everyone has an opinion, most internet critics aren't honest and a lot have become negative just to stir up controversy and more pageviews. The irony of that in reference to the subject matter of "Smiley" won't escape anyone.

Without checking, I can almost guarantee that Bloody-Disgusting, Dread Central and Ain't It Cool News will be overpraising "Smiley" as the second-coming in horror movie form just to get their names on the DVD artwork. Unless, of course, they didn't get a kickback (in which case they'll be hating it too). "Smiley" is a good film, but please take their nonsense with a huge pinch of salt. Better yet, ignore it altogether if you don't want the hype to spoil it for you.

If you love the internet, like to hang out in video chatrooms or just generally surf YouTube, you'll get a lot of entertainment out of "Smiley". It's not ideal for the older generation or hardcore horror aficionados, but if you are lucky enough to have it playing in a movie theatre near you at the moment, I encourage you to check it out... for the lulz. =)

Abby (1974)

"When a minister's wife becomes posessed by Eshu, the Nigerian god of sexuality, an exorcist is called in to drive the evil spirit away."

"Abby" was one of the first horror movies which I learned about from reading an old copy of "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide", obviously, because of its position in the alphabet. I'd never actually seen the film and had always assumed that it had been banned due to its similarities to "The Exorcist".

Of course, "Abby" wasn't really banned, and it has been circulating on various bootleg VHS tapes and DVDs for years. The whole myth about Warner Bros. winning a court case and getting the movie pulled from cinemas has a grain of truth to it, but in fact, nobody ordered all copies of it to be destroyed. It's just that AIP, who owned the rights, never bothered to put out a decent copy of the film and figured quite correctly that the whole exorcism fad of the early '70s was well and truly over anyway.

Basically, "Abby" was a low-budget blaxploitation version of "The Exorcist" with several similar scenes to the latter. Carol Speed played a possessed adult which was a lot different to the child possession of "The Exorcist", so I have no idea how Warner Bros. got any part of their lawsuit to stick. Imagine if one studio tried to sue another over slasher or zombie clones nowadays, it would be laughed out of court.

Having finally watched "Abby" on YouTube just because I was intrigued to see more of William Marshall who played "Blacula", it was a serious case of "What the Hell did I just watch?" for me. Marshall was completely out of place and the whole film was horrible in every way possible.

Now I know that the budget was limited but $200,000 was a lot of money back in 1974 even so. There was really no excuse for the acting to be quite as bad as it was, for the poor cinematography, the crappy effects, or the horrendously bad edits.

In fact, the only part of "Abby" which wasn't terrible was the "Starsky and Hutch" style music, but even that was also incongruous in what was supposed to be a horror movie. Because there was no atmosphere, nothing apart from a brief scene in the basement even attempted to be scary in any way, shape or form.

Abby's possessed voice sounded like a rather lewd cartoon character (which makes a lot of sense considering the credentials of Bob Holt who provided it), and her transformations from "good Abby" to "possessed Abby" were largely based on the use of some badly applied grey make-up and some fake bushy eyebrows. Carol Speed wasn't all that hot anyway, so, to me, she looked as if she was trying to be scary all the time. Joan Ray who played Sue Preston, the wife in the couple who got a shocking piece of marriage counselling, was far hotter.

One thing I noticed earlier on was that there was a lot of food in "Abby". The family started off by chowing down on an obvious bucket of KFC, then, following what looked like a dinner of pork ribs and collard greens, the next scene had the women preparing even more chicken in the kitchen. Unfortunately, that scene ended with a nasty flesh wound for Abby before I could find out what they were making.

As you can tell, I wasn't overly interested in much to do with the story itself, especially as it kept on lagging. It really ran out of steam for me at the 40 minute mark when Abby escaped from hospital and went on a drinking and sexing rampage across Louisville. A smoking hearse was a real WTF moment at one point which made absolutely no sense at all.

Worse was to come when Abby's brother, a detective, fired his gun twice in a bar to clear it. I may be wrong about police procedure from the 1970s, but I'm sure that act would have had the whole place swarming with dozens more cops and the loss of a certain black detective's badge. Cops in horror movies are always stupid anyway and I mentally switch off whenever the action changes to anything to do with them.

And so, when the final exorcism happened, I couldn't make head nor tail out of what they were all talking about. It was hardly the Rituale Romanum which we all know from "The Exorcist" and was some kind of African thing which was, I'm sure, just complete and utter bullshit.

Anyway, despite its considerable flaws, I did manage to get all the way though "Abby" in one sitting (with a few toilet breaks). I'd class it as an "interesting" movie for anyone who is really into the "Blaxploitation" genre, but it isn't much good if you are looking for scares.

The Hunger Games (2012)

"Set in a future where the Capitol selects a boy and girl from the twelve districts to fight to the death on live television, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the latest match."

Nearly every YouTube trailer for "The Hunger Games" says "Embedding disabled by request" so obviously even Lionsgate are ashamed of this crap.

I'd rather re-read "The Long Walk" by Stephen King (alias Richard Bachman) and I hate reading books.

That is all.

Let Me In (2010)

"A bullied young boy befriends a young female vampire who lives in secrecy with her guardian."

No, I haven't seen this. It isn't even released until October 1st. I'm not ever going to watch it either.

When I first heard that there was going to be a remake of "Let the Right One In", I honestly thought it was a joke. Unfortunately, it has now become a reality and it disgusts me.

Why would anyone feel the need to remake one of the most perfect Swedish vampire movies ever apart from the slightly dodgy CGI cat scene? And now it seems that Eli really will be a girl rather than a castrato just to completely dumb things down for the masses.

Honestly, if subtitles are that much of an effort to read then do yourselves a huge favour and learn how to read and write in the first place rather than whining about it until some other moron has to remake every foreign movie for the hard of understanding. What next? Remakes of the entire collection of Jean-Luc Godard or Ingmar Bergman classics?

For those of you who loved "Let the Right One In", just watch the trailer and weep over the terrible casting and piss poor hack job that the director of the equally crappy "Cloverfield" has made. I wonder how many hundreds of times the characters will shriek and cry, "Oh My God!" in this travesty?

I suggest you boycott this film at the movie theatres and then let it rot in the bargain DVD bins in 6 months time alongside all those copies of "The Fog" and "Psycho" remakes that nobody in their right mind will ever buy.

Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010)

"While still out to destroy the evil Umbrella Corporation, Alice joins a group of survivors who want to relocate to the mysterious but supposedly unharmed safe haven known only as Arcadia."

I love Milla Jovovich, but she really has to stop making these crappy "Resident Evil" sequels. "Resident Evil: Afterlife" looks good, but it has no real plot worth mentioning, and will just make you wonder why you wasted another hour and a half on this rubbish.

There is no attempt at characterisation whatsoever in this sequel and, unless you've watched the first three films, you'll be completely lost as to what is going on. Even if you have watched the first three films, you'll probably still be left clueless because this film has only a passing resemblance to anything "Resident Evil" related in the first place. Yes, it all looks the same, has far too many "Matrix"-style, slow-motion action scenes, some weird creatures created by the T-virus, and all the other stuff, but it just doesn't have the "survival horror" feel of the previous movies or any of the games. I'm sure even devoted "Resident Evil" fans are disappointed too.

Before this I actually enjoyed "Resident Evil: Extinction" even though it was just another zombie film. I even bought it on DVD. I won't be buying "Resident Evil: Afterlife" when it comes out though as it had nothing in it worth watching again. Ali Larter looked amazingly sexy and really put Milla Jovovich in the shade this time round, but that isn't a good enough reason to want this film in my collection.

I suppose I enjoyed the action scenes and the 3D shenanigans, but they were all just set pieces which didn't have a real story behind them. There's lots of "Equilibrium"-style gun play and creatures which could not possibly exist being shot, blown-up and hacked to pieces, but it all felt empty and soulless. I really wanted this to be the best "Resident Evil" film so far so I was very disappointed that it turned out to be one of the worst.

As much as I want to write a really long review tearing everything apart and explaining how derivative it all was of every other sci-fi/zombie "survival horror" story out there, I really don't want to waste any more time on "Resident Evil: Afterlife" than I already have. I still think Milla Jovovich is gorgeous, but she's never really been able to act much. These big-budget, computer-generated farces won't do anything to change that one way or another.

Train (2008)

"In Europe, a group of American college athletes unknowingly board a train that will become one deadly ride."

Well, I'm nearly at the end of my series of torture movies which I'm sure is a relief to everyone not least of all me. There's only one more to go after this (excluding the "Saw" franchise which I'll probably never review) but it's a good one and I can take my time over it.

I'm not going to spend very long reviewing "Train" though because it just isn't worth the effort. It's not a remake of "Terror Train" thankfully but it's yet another ripoff of "Hostel" with all the xenophobia about Eastern Europe and all that other nonsense.

The best way of describing this film is to rename it as "Turistas on a Train". That's all it is but with the gorgeous Melissa George replaced by a really butch looking Thora Birch.

There were some really nasty torture scenes as usual with varying levels of ridiculousness and the story was entertaining enough if you don't think about it too hard but, honestly, it's so far beyond unoriginal that it's actually boring to watch.

I'll just do a brief recap of the main points of the film. A team of American wrestlers (I kid you not, this is supposed to be a sport!) go out partying and miss the train to their next event. Knowing no Russian, their coach shouts his mouth off about nobody being able to speak English and an older yet still attractive Russian woman helps him out by telling him which train they should all take.

From then on it just gets silly. When asked for their passports, they all happily surrender them for "safe keeping" to two lecherous train staff even though everyone on the planet knows that you never give your passport to anybody when you are abroad ever.

Next the team members start disappearing one by one and find themselves being taken to the back of the train where they are cut up for their various organs without anaesthetic, realism, suspense, or any acting ability whatsoever. It's all so horribly derivative that it just makes you want to laugh no matter what vileness is depicted on screen. There's everything from a "Wolf Creek" head-on-a-stick moment to various scenes of ripping out eyes, castration and all manner of mutilations in between.

During all this Thora Birch manages to avoid capture by the Russian woman (who turns out to be a doctor) and her lumbering assistants. Honestly, you won't know whether to laugh or cry, switch it off or kick your TV screen in. If you've actually bought this DVD then I think you'll probably want to do all of those things to some extent.

The funny thing is that even though everything in "Train" is so mediocre apart from the gore, there's still enough there to make you want to watch it all the way to the end just to see what happens. It's completely predictable though and not at all memorable. It even has an epilogue where you are supposed to think about how "badass" Thora Birch will be after surviving all this horror. That's nothing compared to how badass, or maybe just plain bad, you will feel if you endure this entire movie yourself.

It obviously had a pretty good budget but it still looks all grainy and cheap like the "Saw" sequels, "Captivity" and others of that ilk. There's nothing you can say about the acting really because nobody does any worth perking up for. The Russians are actually Bulgarians so they don't even need to fake their accents and everyone else just does as much as the script allows them to but no more. There is actually such a complete disregard for characterisation that it's impossible to care about anybody or what happens to them. I didn't think there could ever be a film like this which would be poorer than "Hostel" but now I know.

The bottom line is that if you want to see a complete ripoff of every other torture porn movie that has gone before with the events all taking place on a train then this is for you. If you are tired of seeing people being tied up, hung from chains and meathooks, screaming as big chunks of their bodies get ripped or sliced off, then give it a miss. Actually, I'll probably never get completely tired of seeing any of those things but it's all to do with context.

If you know someone who has never seen a horror movie before then slip them this and prepare to laugh when they tell you how it was the most horrible and disgusting thing that they've ever watched. For those of us who have seen the same thing done better many times before, it will still be the most horrible thing we've ever watched too but for completely different reasons.

InCRAPtion (2010) - Movie Review

Plot: NONE whatsoever. Just make it up as you go along like the director did.

Tagline: Paying $10 to be this bored is a crime.

Review:

There's something very wrong with people. I've known it for a while now but I thought it might be me who was the mental one not them. But as the only Classically trained horror movie reviewer on the planet, I thought I'd give this so-called "Science Fiction" movie a try and see if I could figure it out. I couldn't. It's crap. I'm still sane and everyone else who thinks this film is the second-coming in celluloid needs to be locked up for their own safety.

I'm not just saying this to get a rise out of people. I've wasted over two hours of my life on this confused mess of filmmaking with no entertainment value whatsoever and I feel it's my right to tell people what I think. In fact, it's more than my right, it's my duty to warn people not to waste their money watching "Inception" at all because it's all a hoax.

"Inception" is not a movie at all but just a bunch of disjointed set pieces that wouldn't fit into any other movie all joined together to use up a load of money and fool the public into spending more money to see it. It's as bad as getting people to believe in wartime that their silk knickers were being turned into parachutes or their knives and forks were going to be made into bullets. It never happened. You were conned. If you paid to see "Inception", you were conned again. You'll believe that man walked on the moon next.

Was this some master plan to boost the economy I wonder? You have to hand it to the producers or the Illuminati who control Hollywood because they've created a scam of such epic proportions that people are right now voting a load of 10s and 9s on all the movie sites to keep this junk in vogue. Theories abound on the ending as if it even matters and hordes of sweaty teenagers are begging their parents for money to go and see the most intellectual film of their lives. Boy, are they in for a shock.

Is it mass hysteria or was there some subliminal message being passed through the movie into everyone's unconscious? Was this an "inception" for real? Let me tell you what I got from the film - NOTHING!

I didn't buy into all the pseudo-Platonic mumbo-jumbo about different levels of reality or dream states and I certainly didn't get any enjoyment out of being treated with such contempt by one of the most inadequate directors since Ed Wood. Actually, that's an insult to Ed Wood. Christopher Nolan is up there with M. Night Shyamalan in the "creator of the most boring, meaningless drivel" category.

For the first 40 minutes of the film my mind refused to work at all. All it could do was scream, "What's going on?" There were no answers. All I was getting were mumbles from some unintelligible Japanese guy, some words about nothing I could understand from that kid from the Titanic movie who I thought had retired, and then that awful Juno girl appeared being just as bratty as she was in every other movie that she's been in. Yes, I know their real names but I don't even care. One trick ponies like this need to be put out to grass not given more roles. Anybody else would have been more watchable. ANYBODY! Even a Baldwin or an Arquette! At least it didn't have that weird looking mannequin with hooded eyelids from "28 Days Later" in it... oh GOD, yes it did.

Things started to pick up a bit around the 50 minutes mark. I still didn't know what was going on but I've seen "eXistenZ" with the delightful Jennifer Jason Leigh in it so I felt safer. This was going to be a mixture of that story plus "Dreamscape", "The Thirteenth Floor" and presumably "The Matrix". I thought I might be able to get some answers at last to what was going on at the beginning. But again I was wrong!

Mannequin Murphy was kidnapped and being asked for numbers, the Japanese mumbler was on the ground dying and everybody was talking about Limbo. I saw no reason for dancing and I was pretty sure this wasn't a Catholic film since Mel Gibson wasn't the director. What was going on? Next they were in a hotel and Titanic-man was being all aggressive looking while telling Mannequin that they were in a dream. Well, good for them. For me, I was in some kind of nightmare. Juno was looking pretty though.

And then things really went mad. There was a van full of all of them turning over, a snowy James Bond mountain lair thing and they were all there too, and yet they were all still in the hotel. Then they were all fighting in mid air and walking up walls, and well, I just wanted out.

At this point I decided to mentally retreat back inside myself and think about different flavours of English crisps. I was savouring the thought of Prawn Cocktail while Titanic-man was shouting a lot in three different locations, and bullets and snow and God knows what else was all flying around everywhere. Then he was with his wife who had some kind of accent, maybe French, and she was dying. I have no idea why or how and I didn't care. I remember some talk of her thinking that the real world wasn't reality and jumping off a building to get back to Barbieland or whatever the hell it was but here she was again? How? Why? Again, who cares? I kept checking my watch but it seemed to be going backwards. I tried to sleep but some monstrous CGI kept appearing and waking me back up again.

Did I see some guy pull out a bazooka gun thing from the "Predators" movie?

More stuff was happening on screen, bullets, car chases, some talk about fathers and empires... It was all over my head. Oh, they decided to show a James Bond movie in the middle. Yay! Skiing and guns and Bond music. Why? They kept talking about "kicks". I know I wanted to kick someone.

Mannequin Murphy got shot. Yay? Juno started yapping about defibrillation and being all authoritative. I have no idea why since all she did was ask questions every other time she was on screen.

Then the wife was back again playing with a doll's house and it seemed Titanic-man killed her with a spinning top. Floating bodies got put in a lift, a van fell off a bridge and there was more shooting in James Bond land.

The van went underwater and everybody got wet. But, yay for them, they had a scuba tank and they all got out apart from Titanic-man who got himself drowned again. Typecast?

The next thing I knew, some old Japanese guy who mumbled even more than the original mumbler, mumbled something to Titanic-man and they all woke up on a plane. Where'd the plane come into it? Did I blink and miss it? Probably.

Mercifully, the film was at an end. Titanic-man didn't hit an iceberg this time and was now back in America, Michael Caine had two kids which he gave to him for some reason and there was a spinning top on a table. Ok then...

What did I learn from this? Well, your ass gets pretty numb after more than two hours of sitting in a cinema seat and you should never get the $7.50 size of Pepsi if you only have one bladder. Was I supposed to think this was the greatest movie ever made? I think not. Was I supposed to wonder if the final scenes were real or a Bobby Ewing dream? Why should I even care?

I didn't understand any of it, didn't enjoy it and I couldn't hear half of what anybody was saying in it because of some irritating background music that never seemed to stop.

The only thing I got from it is that I would probably bang Juno if I got the chance or the blonde from the hotel that turned into a guy. Yeah, I know, but beggars can't be choosers, right?

So guess what I'm rating "InCRAPtion" on the IMDb?

Doomsday (2008)

"A futuristic action thriller where a team of people work to prevent a disaster threatening the future of the human race."

Total crap from start to finish. This is yet more proof, as if any was needed, that Neil Marshall is totally incapable of making a decent horror movie and should give up now.

Let’s look at his track record. "Dog Soldiers" was hardly inspirational unless you are really into soldiers fighting werewolves, "The Descent" was only interesting to fans of butch lesbian potholers, and now this awful ripoff of half a dozen better genre films has pretty much destroyed what little credibility Neil Marshall was trying to build up as a director.

Out of all the things to do, why did he try to mix "Resident Evil", "28 Days/Weeks Later", "Escape from New York/LA" and the "Mad Max" trilogy all in one film? Did he think we wouldn’t realise? How stupid does he think his audience are? Or was it supposed to be a parody? If it was supposed to be a parody then it certainly wasn’t funny.

I’m giving it the 1 out of 10 rating because I quite liked the idea of Scotland being sealed off from the rest of Britain. I can quite understand why Hadrian had the wall built originally, and I know that it was in every Englishman’s mind after "Braveheart" came out that we should probably build it back up again. A better idea, of course, would just be to build a 20 foot high wall around Neil Marshall to stop him making any more films.

I just couldn’t believe what I was watching. Rhona Mitra as a one-eyed Snake Plissken wannabe demonstrated the subtle lack of any acting ability whatsoever that has become her trademark, while the rest of the cast ranged from "who can be the biggest looney" to "I’ve got my money so I’ll just shout and swear a lot". Yes, Bob Hoskins, this means you!

I’m dying to see if John Murphy sues Tyler Bates over the "28 Weeks Later" soundalike background music. I wouldn’t be surprised if this doesn’t incur a few more lawsuits for plagiarism too.