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.

Kick-Ass 2 (2013)

"The costumed high-school hero Kick-Ass joins with a group of normal citizens who have been inspired to fight crime in costume. Meanwhile, the Red Mist plots an act of revenge that will affect everyone Kick-Ass knows."

I'm writing this while still buzzing from the post-movie adrenaline rush—and a can of green apple Rockstar Supersours—so this is not going to be a review as much as gushing fanboy-ish praise for a much darker and more adult sequel than I ever imagined "Kick-Ass 2" could be.

Having barely registered the first "Kick-Ass" (2010) as anything more than a quasi-hipsterish hack job meant for teenagers, the change of director and screenwriter has allowed levels of ultra-violence to rival something which Tarantino would be proud of. "Kick-Ass 2" has lots of bloodshed, multiple murders, and even an attempted rape! It's nearly as ridiculous as an exploitation movie, and I love it!

The cinematography is very good with only a few fight scenes where quick cuts make it hard to tell what's happening. It's not as bad as "The Dark Knight Rises" or "Iron Man 3", so be grateful. The effects are decent throughout, and some of the kills are extremely brutal. Although even more blood and gore would have made me ecstatic, there's enough for an R-rated movie, and it's guaranteed to upset some people. Jim Carrey refused to promote "Kick-Ass 2" because of the violence, but that's his problem. It's doubtful, but I hope there will eventually be an "Unrated Version" which will add more meanspiritedness.

Of course, "Kick-Ass 2" is aimed primarily at the now three-years-older teenage crowd who enjoyed the first movie more than I did, so there are some kiddified comedy bits which are mostly based around Hit-Girl's attempts at fitting into high school. As a fully grown adult of another gender and country, I can't relate to any of that, but I can acknowledge that the "gross-out" puking and defecating scenes are amusingly over-the-top. One thing is for certain, "Kick-Ass 2" is definitely not aimed at little kids, prudes, or comicbook-reading manchildren. Apparently, the latter really hate this movie, as do the mainstream "critics", but that's because they have no taste anyway. Anybody over the age of 12 years old who reads "Spider-Man" and "Batman" comics regularly obviously suffers from some kind of mental retardation, so I couldn't care less what those people have to say about anything.

Unlike the comicbook fantards, I can't find anything wrong with "Kick-Ass 2". As an action movie, it all works, but I suppose you do need to have seen the original for everything to make sense. There are minor attempts to bring a new audience up to speed with who is who, but "Kick-Ass 2" is a faster-paced sequel rather than a standalone story. Given the time that's passed, it's probably better if you don't watch the two movies back-to-back because of the change in tone.

Yes, that is Jim Carrey on the left!

Acting-wise, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Christopher Mintz-Plasse are much the same as before, but "McLovin" is maybe more comedic than strictly necessary as a supervillain. Jim Carrey is completely unrecognisable in a role which proves that he can genuinely act when/if he wants to, and Chloë Grace Moretz steals the show yet again. She overuses her cute, wide-eyed expressions, but she's absolutely fantastic for a 16-year-old. I'm almost looking forward to seeing her in the "Carrie" remake now.

John Leguizamo has an important supporting role and continues to talk out of the side of his mouth like a champ, Iain Glen has a nice cameo as a mafia boss, Olga Kurkulina is fearsome as Mother Russia, and Morris Chestnut (aka Luke from the first "American Horror Story") replaces Omari Hardwick as Detective Marcus Williams. In another cast change, Todd is now played by Augustus Prew instead of Evan Peters. I can't say that I noticed the difference. I was too busy ogling Lindy Booth as Night Bitch, Lyndsy Fonseca as Katie Deauxma, and Claudia Lee as Brooke the bitchy popular girl. Oh yes, there's a lot of lovely eyecandy here!

While "Kick-Ass" is a semi-parody of more famous superheroes, "Kick-Ass 2" continues that idea although only pays lip-service to a few of them. "Batman" gets a couple of explicit mentions, not because Big Daddy's oft-shown empty costume looks just like Batman's but due to a minor character using his backstory. The nerdy Marvel homages and in-jokes are mostly part of the plot itself rather than shout-outs, yet it's easy to spot them all. If you're inclined to see the whole thing as a rip-off or a clone, it won't disappoint you in its lack of originality. You could also criticise "Mystery Men" (1999) for the same reasons and the things which both films share. Superhero movies are all the same anyway.

Despite the dangers of vigilantism being more of a contrivance and a satirical afterthought than in "Mystery Men" or "Kick-Ass", there's a bigger message here about being what you are meant to be and doing the right thing no matter what the rest of society thinks. Thankfully, that message doesn't extend to encouraging the lameness which cosplayers indulge in though, and their childish "dressing-up for Hallowe'en everyday" bullshit continues to be ridiculed throughout.

As a massive snark about cosplayers, geeks, nerds, teenagers, pop-culture, and American society in general, "Kick-Ass 2" surpasses all expectations. No wonder they had to film it in Toronto instead of New York! Since infantilisation, pussification, entitlement, selfishness, lies and injustice have now become the American way, "Kick-Ass 2" has a counter-culture message which will be hated by its lampooned targets and is subversive enough for me to wholeheartedly support.

I'm not going to deconstruct or spoil anything else for you because you need to see this movie for yourself. I don't often recommend non-horror movies, so just watch it, okay?

Kick-Ass 2 kicks the original Kick-Ass' ass!

Pacific Rim (2013)

"As a war between humankind and monstrous sea creatures wages on, a former pilot and a trainee are paired up to drive a seemingly obsolete special weapon in a desperate effort to save the world from the apocalypse."

Do you want to know what irritates me beyond belief? Films like this and the fanboys who overpraise them.

For a start, "Pacific Rim" is a kids' Summer movie meant for little ADHD kids who like lots of robots, whirling things and huge explosions. It's not meant for adults even though there's a growing subculture of "weeaboo", "otaku" (Japanese for "idiots"), games console loving, overweight, comicbook convention nerds who all live in their parents' basements, grow neckbeards, and refer to the big robots as "Mecha" for some reason that I don't fully understand.

"Pacific Rim" is clearly not a movie meant for anyone of my generation (or the one below) except that a few sad acts who think it's hilariously ironic to praise utter shite have bought into it. It's those same hipsters who think that "Sharknado" is "kewl" and spend their entire lives collecting other ironically named movies and little dollies of Japanese cartoon characters. I despise them all.

So guess what I thought of the film after having been duped into watching it by Cosplaying internet friends who need to stop playing dress-up and grow up instead? Yes, that's right, I HATED IT!

Having never been a fan of Billy the Bull (Guillermo del Toro) or Michael Bay's "Transformers" movies, and being a hater of 99% of sci-fi movies anyway, there's nothing in "Pacific Rim" for me other than a lot of boredom.

I tweeted my displeasure throughout the movie, but I'm not going to repost all my Tweets this time. I may have only done that twice before, but the novelty has worn off. However, because it's Saturday, it's hotter than balls again, my neighbours' noisy brats are screaming outside my window, and I can't be bothered to dissect a movie from a genre that I have no interest in, I'm going to give you a list of bullet points of everything wrong with "Pacific Rim" instead of writing a real review.

SPOILERS FOLLOW.

Everything I hated about Pacific Rim.

I have no idea who any of these people are.

• Rated PG-13. Gah!
• Pathetic faux Jap-comicbook crap turned into live action for little kids and weeaboos.
• The rift in time and space which aliens pop through sounds just like "Torchwood" 6 years ago.
• Naming the robots after an alcoholic beverage was a smart move, but even if I was drunk, I still wouldn't enjoy this movie.
• The alien monsters look stupid and are named after turds.
• 75% of the film is all "yak yak yak" with no action.
• Unrealistic, clichéd dialogue.
• It's 4 days too long! Actually, it's only 2 hours, but it feels like more.
• Gormless-looking Owen from "Torchwood" is in it... as a German.
• Psycho Sean Slater from "Eastenders" is in it... and he clearly still has anger issues.
• Basically, Billy the Bull got the cheapest actors possible and spent the majority of the budget on computer game effects.
• Ron Perlman got millions of dollars for showing his big hairy face for all of 5 minutes.
• It's a sausagefest! No eyecandy for heterosexual men.
• Memento Mori (or whatever her name is) isn't bad looking if you like that kind of thing, but I don't.
• No sexy fun time or other nudity.
• The acting is horrible. The accents are all over the place.
• Americans playing Brits, Brits playing Australians, Brits playing Americans, Australians playing Americans... and they have Asian surnames because presumably there weren't any male Asian actors available at the time.
• In the fight between Psycho Sean Slater and the other guy who looks just like him, you can't tell who is who.
• It's "Starship Troopers" but without the humour or exciting action.
• The scientist isn't Doogie Howser but he still mindmelds with an alien.
• No characters worth caring about.
• Psycho Sean Slater kisses a dog. Typecast much?
• No originality whatsoever. The plot is much the same as "Oblivion" but without Tom Cruise or the twist.
• The action is like watching the cutscenes from a computer game which somebody else is playing.
• Big robots that weigh more than several skyscrapers are (and have to be) carried into position by little tiny helicopters which could never support their weight in real life.
• Making tunnels under the city for people to hide in saves a fortune on CGI-ing little people.
• Watching two guys wearing spacesuits play Dance Dance Revolution inside a giant robot while fighting the "Cloverfield" monster is not fun.
• Almost as many buildings get destroyed as in "Man of Steel".
• Too many quick cuts, too much confusion, and it's hard to tell who is doing what to who or why.
• No one cares about who is doing what to who or why anyway.
• The cooler robots get destroyed before they have chance to do anything.
• It's all very, very loud just to keep you awake.
• 100% predictable and instantly forgettable.
• I would rather watch WWF/WWE with two fat dudes in Godzilla suits fighting each other than this crap. Same result too. Dull and fake.
• The Asylum could make a better movie. Oh wait, they already have: "Atlantic Rim".
• "Pacific Rim" is more boring than "World War Zzzzzzz".
• Even "Iron Man 3" is better than this!
• Inevitably, there will be a porn parody and a sequel.

I could go on, but you get the idea. I don't have anything good to say about "Pacific Rim" whatsoever.

Transformers + Torchwood + Cloverfield + Starship Troopers + Oblivion + cheap TV actors (and a couple of former Eastenders) + CGI robots fighting CGI monsters = Pacific Rim.

Don't waste your money!

Man of Steel (2013)

"A young itinerant worker is forced to confront his secret extraterrestrial heritage when Earth is invaded by members of his race."

Due to unforeseen circumstances yesterday with storms knocking out my internet connection, I couldn't post this review as a "Fantasy Friday" update where it belongs, but since it's more about aliens anyway, I now have the first "Sci-Fi Saturday" post in months. It's not that any superhero movie meant for 10-year-olds and 40-something comicbook nerds is a priority for me anyway, so who cares, right? I'm not a fan of Superman in the first place.

Back when I was the right age, I saw "Superman: The Movie", but I wasn't impressed. Out of all the superheroes, Superman always struck me as a bit of a wussypants, and Christopher Reeve only confirmed my prejudice. I mean, he has every superpower possible and could rule the Earth if he wanted to, yet he chooses to hide behind the bumbling façade of Clark Kent (as if people can't tell it's the same guy with glasses!), and just stops a few "bad guys" from time to time. It's pathetic! Superman and everything he stands for makes me want to puke.

I never watched more than one episode of the Dean Cain version because of his girlie voice and the fact that Teri Hatcher makes me cringe, and I certainly never watched "Smallville" either. I've seen parts of the other Christopher Reeve movies, but my interest came and went with Ursa (Sarah Douglas) in the first sequel. Thus, even though I'm not an authority on Superman, I've seen enough to know what it's all about, and I just don't care for it. As flawed as it is, I prefer "Hancock" (2008).

The trouble is that I sometimes have to watch other genres when the horror genre dries up just to keep abreast of who's who and what's popular. I'd be an even shittier reviewer if I only watched horror movies and nothing else. Thus, I gave "Man of Steel" a chance to change my mind about Superman.

Unfortunately, apart from Antje Traue looking hot as Faora-Ul (an updated version of Ursa), Zach Snyder's "Man of Steel" is easily the worst Superman movie ever made. While I can appreciate the darker tone and Michael Shannon's exceptional performance as General Zod, there's nothing here story-wise that I haven't seen before. As dated as they are, I would've been better off rewatching "Superman: The Movie" (1978) and "Superman II" (1980) instead of this "Transformers" wannabe.

"Man of Steel" features such things as disjointed storytelling which is ridiculously hard to follow, visuals which might look spectacular but make no sense, a script written by Christopher Nolan so you know it'll be crap, and lots of CGI buildings being demolished... but that's about it. With a running time of approximately three days, it's far too long and monotonous with it. It's all bang, bang, boom like a Michael Bay film with 90% of it made of swirling computer-generated battles, explosions, and gut-churning aerial shots of places which don't even exist.

It's not worth mentioning the big names who have small parts in "Man of Steel" because the only fun for anybody is spotting them and thinking, "Oh my God, so-and-so looks so old now!" I'm not going to take those suprises away from you. Just enjoy them for what they are, and savour the brief moments with Ayelet Zurer who plays Superman's real mother (Lara Lor-Van) at the start because she's really beautiful. She can't act, but she looks great.

I didn't think there could actually be a more disappointing superhero movie than "The Dark Knight Rises", but there is now.

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.

Iron Man 3 (2013)

"When Tony Stark's world is torn apart by a formidable terrorist called the Mandarin, he starts an odyssey of rebuilding and retribution."

Since I reviewed the original "Iron Man" movie years ago and then decided not to ever review "Iron Man 2" because it was a load of arse, I can't say that I was expecting anything more out of this second sequel. With such a low opinion of this dreck, I wasn't disappointed either. "Iron Man 3" is yet another big-budget, kiddified superhero movie for tweenagers and 40-year-old comicbook nerds who still live in their parents' basement.

The funny thing is that even I kind of enjoyed it in places although the story is really only a cobbled together version of elements from "Batman Forever", "The Dark Knight Rises", and Pierce Brosnan era James Bond with loads of CGI robots and explosions just for the hell of it. To say that 'Iron Man 3" is like a Michael Bay film but with slightly better dialogue is the best way I can think of describing it.

As usual, lapses in logic and plot holes abound, characterisation is minimal except for Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), and the acting skills of everyone except Robert Downey Jr. are completely lost among all the bang, boom, bang and special effects. There's nothing really wrong with any of that in a Summer movie though so it's not worth criticism. This isn't depressingly dull Oscar material after all.

I liked seeing Rebecca Hall from "The Awakening" (2011) even with an American accent. There are a lot better uses which that sexy mouth of hers could be put to instead of over rhotacization, but she does a good job nonetheless. Between her and Stephanie Szostak, there's a bit of a battle going on as to who is the hottest actress in the movie. Sorry, Pepper Potts fans, but until the very end of the movie, it's never likely to be Gwyneth Paltrow.

Guy Pearce is okay as Edward Nygma, I mean Aldrich Killian, and it's a shame that he never made more films in the same vein as "L.A. Confidential" when he was top of his game. Seeing a great actor like this, and also Ben Kingsley, reduced to playing about in movies for little kids is sad. Paul Bettany only used for the voice of a computer? That's just a crime.

If you're looking for a fun night out with lots of action, nothing heavy to think about except the nauseating patriotic messages, and the kind of world-travelling changes of location like Bond movies used to have, then "Iron Man 3" is for you. You'll get a bit of a post-movie buzz out of it for sure.

If you leave before the end credits, there is even the false hope for a moment that this is the last we'll see of Iron Man getting everything destroyed and then putting it all back together again for a while. That's something pretty great in and of itself.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)

"Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, discovers vampires are planning to take over the United States. He makes it his mission to eliminate them."

As most of us have learned from Timur Bekmambetov's famous Russian movies, just because there are vampires in them, it doesn't make them horror. Also, just as "Night Watch" and "Day Watch" were fantasies with some cool action scenes, it's no big surprise that Timur Bekmambetov (aided and abetted by producer Tim Burton) has done more of the same.

To bring in another of his films, "Wanted", for comparison, the action scenes in "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" are an identical mixture of slow-motion and ramping but with really annoying quick cuts this time just to spoil what little enjoyment there actually is.

In fact, the whole movie suffers from being far too quick over the ground. As amusing as the title may be just to poke a bit of fun at one of America's dead kings, you might at least still expect a decent amount of backstory and fleshing out of the character. There is some, but it's very rushed. Alas, the Abraham Lincoln in this story remains as one-dimensional as the one in the history books who nobody outside of the U.S.A. even cares about.

Although this was all based on a novel (for those strange people who can read such things), if the screenplay by the same writer is anything to go by then I'm glad that I didn't bother struggling through such antiquated papery crap. I know people are moaning that the film isn't as good as the book, but I simply don't believe them.

Of course, "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is nothing more than a silly Summer movie for kids with too much money who want to leave their brains outside the cinema and chomp down as much stale popcorn as they can. Think in terms of "Van Helsing" or those horrible new "Sherlock Holmes" movies and you can guess the rest.

This isn't meant for hardcore horror fans or anybody outside of the same target audience as the one for "Twilight". No, the vampires don't sparkle in this but they do come out in daylight and aren't any scarier than the "bad vamps" from Stephanie Meyer's imagination. They are about as effective as those feeble offerings too.

Highlights are the special computerised effects which would be great if only things would move slowly enough to be able to get a good look at them. There's a scene with stampeding horses and another with a train which are more than a little confusing with who is doing what to who and why.

The much publicised axe-wielding, "axe-fu" or "axe-kata", is quite neat to watch but, again, it suffers from not really being able see anything gory. "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" feels like a PG-13 movie which accidentally got an R-rating for having a swear word and a flash of boobies.

There is blood in this but it's your typical vampire bite on the neck kind of blood. Everything else is CGI with very occasional practical effects. It all looks good. The make-up, costumes and period sets actually look great, but it's all "style over substance" anyway.

I'll give some credit to Benjamin Walker in that he looks the part in the make-up and uncomfortable clothes, but I wish somebody had let him do some acting. The same can be said of the rest of the cast who also seem to only be there to play dress-up.

Fans of Mary Elizabeth Winstead (from "The Thing" premake) will be pleased to see her again in a quite inconsistent role as Mary Todd Lincoln. I have no idea if Abraham Lincoln was married, but I assume he was and they had to fit this almost superfluous character in somewhere. She doesn't do a lot, but the one scene where she kills a vampiress isn't too bad.

Rufus Sewell plays the part of Adam, the head vampire, really well, but doesn't get enough time on screen to be memorable. He's also completely upstaged by a fellow Brit, Dominic Cooper playing Henry Sturgess, who, if there is ever a sequel, is bound to be in it.

Anyway, I don't want to give any more spoilers away since "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is now showing at a movie theatre near you and, even though you will undoubtedly be disappointed, you'll probably still want to watch it.

Prometheus (2012)

"A team of explorers discover a clue to the origins of mankind on Earth, leading them on a journey to the darkest corners of the universe. There, they must fight a terrifying battle to save the future of the human race."

God, I hate sci-fi. I really, really hate sci-fi. In fact, if I was given the choice between watching another sci-fi movie or listening to the entire Justin Bieber discography, I would choose the latter. And, no, I'm not a Belieber.

What makes sci-fi even worse for me is when it crosses over so blatantly, as "Prometheus" has done, into the horror genre. Yes, I know that this is just an "Alien" prequel of sorts and "Alien" was a "slasher in space", but it still ruffles my fur considerably.

You see, if you are going to do good sci-fi, i.e. science fiction, then it should at least have a resemblance to something which scientifically could exist or happen. Just setting a horror/action movie on an impossibly huge spaceship or alien planet does not make it science fiction. Any intelligence behind the science and the fiction has now gone in that scenario, and the result loses the letters to match. Sci-fi is the shorthand for this dreck.

But, of course, I'm not a science fiction fan anyway. For instance, when I heard that Ray Bradbury passed away last night, I thought, "Yeah, I know the name but I've never read any of his books". RIP Ray Bradbury, by the way, but I only know his work through the TV adaptations and a couple of "Twilight Zone" episodes. What does he have to do with "Prometheus"? Nothing, really, except that I'm probably not the only one who saw echoes of "The Martian Chronicles" in it.

The work of Ridley Scott, however, I am very familiar with. I've watched a good 70% of his movies since 1977. Some I liked and some I really didn't care for at all. To cut a long story short, yes, of course I loved "Alien". There's always an exception to every rule.

Anyway, without further ado, let me tell you what I thought of "Prometheus". Yes, I've seen it already, don't hate me, and don't read any further past the next picture if you don't want any spoilers.

Mixing an unhealthy dollop of Erich von Däniken's "Chariots of the Gods" into the same universe as the "Alien" quadrilogy wasn't a bad idea. I saw that coming eventually. I didn't expect it in a movie from the creator of the franchise, but given the same theme about seeking out your creator from "Blade Runner" (1982), I can now see how that happened. Unlike the creationist backstory of "Prometheus", this was simply evolution.

As a firm believer in a Divine Creator rather than the unproven theories of evolution which schools are still teaching their slack-jawed inmates as if they were scientific fact, I was very pleased to see this subject given some reasonably serious treatment on the silver screen. Ridley Scott wimped out here and there with what could have been a very good debate in favour of a Summer action movie, but it was nicely played and has certainly got the nerds talking. Unfortunately, most of the nerd talk has been about all the homages to Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey", but there's no accounting for taste.

I didn't understand all the wiggly worms in a box thing at the start until much later and then I had to think some more about it. I'm still a little bit puzzled (no pun intended) by how a certain Rubik's Cube turned into a Powerpoint projector. I still can't get my head around how Guy Pearce was made-up as an old man and completely wasted in his role. Some things, however, are best left as mysteries when it comes to Sir Ridley Scott's movies. I'll never understand how the electronics were supposed to function in the Voight-Kampff machine in "Blade Runner" or how the Spinner cars were supposed to fly, but I could take an educated guess about all these things, I suppose.

One thing I'll never understand though, is how a team of space engineers, scientists, and, generally, well-trained, intelligent astronauts, could behave as stupidly as the ones in "Prometheus". Decent acting aside, all the characters were dumber than a box of space rocks. Of course, they were only there to die.

None of them really stood out except as clichéd ciphers for the various tropes and action set pieces. Michael Fassbender was pretty good in his role, but he wasn't really any different to any other android in the "Alien" movies. Charlize Theron's role as Meredith Vickers was somewhat inconsistent, but that can be blamed on the script rather than her performance.

The only character who I did like was Lisbeth Salander. Oh, I mean Elizabeth Shaw, don't I? I always thought she made chocolates. Whatever the case, Noomi Rapace can do no wrong in anything as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if she can't do an English accent, she's a very attractive woman and has been chosen for some exceedingly badass roles. Don't believe she's a badass even after "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"? Just wait until you see, in "Prometheus", how she gives herself a surgical abortion without a moment's hesitation and then goes on to be even more badass without needing any recovery time whatsoever! Even the Chuck Norris memes couldn't equal that.

What increased my enjoyment of "Prometheus" was, of course, all the spectacle. Things were huge, spaceships and aliens were enormous, it was all very cinematic. R-rated deaths, improbable monsters, acid burns, flame throwers, big explosions, blood, gore, and slimy stuff... yeah, this was the stuff I've missed about Summer movies for years. Actually, that's not true, what I missed was having a decent story behind it all. I didn't get that here either really or, rather, I did but it wasn't an original one.

Don't believe the other reviewers who say that "Prometheus" had a weak plot. There was nothing weak about it at all. It's exactly the same story as "Alien" and nobody complains about that movie! Let's look at the similaries: A massive spaceship with its crew in suspended animation goes to a planet full of parasitic aliens, they wake up and unwittingly bring the deadly creatures aboard their own vessel, get infected and killed one by one, while, in the background, a creepy android and a corporation with its own agenda put everyone in even more danger, everything gets blown up, self-sacrifices abound, and only a final girl survives. Everyone can now, please, quit their bitching about the plot!

The nerds and fanboys will still be on every message board moaning about the big, black, spidery-looking aliens with three sets of teeth not being in "Prometheus", but who cares? Really, who cares? There weren't any cats in it either. However, there were wormy things, acid-spitting snakey things, a baby octopussy thing, and a great, big squid with loads of eyes and teeth which looked like something out of H.P. Lovecraft's imagination. I see nothing to complain about there at all.

The effects used in "Prometheus" were, of course, incredible. To me, it was a beautiful looking film although, possibly, a little bit too dark in some places and too clean and bright in others. I don't know all the ins and outs of the technical stuff or how any of that stuff was achieved, but, like everyone else, I can imagine that it cost a lot of time, hard work, and more money than I will ever see.

Did I like "Prometheus". Yes, grudgingly, I suppose I did. Will I buy it when it comes out on DVD? No, I won't. Basically, if you already have the "Alien" quadrilogy, you've seen all this has to offer before but with different characters and actors. If you are a huge fan of the "Alien" franchise then, of course, you'll want this too even if it is only for completeness.

Should you go to the cinema to see "Prometheus"? Yes, definitely. No matter how good your home cinema set-up is, you aren't going to beat seeing this movie as nature intended. "Prometheus" is, quite simply, one of the "must see" theatrical releases of 2012. It's just a pity that it was sci-fi.

Super 8 (2011)

"After witnessing a mysterious train crash, a group of friends in the summer of 1979 begin noticing strange happenings going around in their small town, and begin to investigate into the creepy phenomenon."

It may not really be a horror film, but everybody is already writing about "Super 8" so I thought I'd better add my two cents as well. I'm going to cut right through the chase by telling you straightaway that J.J. Abrams has pulled off the impossible and created "Cloverfield for kids". Yes, it really is that bad.

Unlike "Cloverfield", there isn't any more of that motion-sickness inducing camerawork to get upset about. Instead, J.J. must have been watching his collection of Michael Bay movies as he's learned new ways to totally annoy his audience. Not content with just having people running in all directions screaming, now we have massive CGI mechanical things and monsters to worry about too with an abundance of explosions and lens flares.

What we have here is a typical Summer movie which tries its hardest to homage its producer Steven Spielberg's movies from the '80's but has the feel of something from the '90's, the decade that nobody cared about. All the caricatures are rolled out to show parents how they shouldn't be and to give mischievous children yet another excuse (as if they need one) for adventurous misbehaving.

"Super 8" is supposedly set in 1979 and, although the mention of a Rubik's cube is anachronistically a couple of years ahead of its time, the kids are all into making their own little zombie film using the popular "Super 8" home movie camera of the title. Did kids in America really do that? Although I can't relate to it, I do remember that Super 8 was big in Britain in the late '70s with lots of 10-year-old wannabe filmmakers sending in their feeble efforts to Michael Rodd's "Screentest" on BBC1. I'm sure everybody remembers the kid who sent in short stories made up from animating his Action Man (G.I. Joe) figures nearly every week. I never had a Super 8 camera, but I did pick up a couple of projectors from a boot sale back in the '90s and had loads of fun watching the 20 minute version of "The Creature from the Black Lagoon" until the bulbs exploded. But I digressed.

Obviously this nostalgic setting is something important to J.J. Abrams as his idol Steven Spielberg is well known for making films at an early age. Abrams, on the other hand, was more into music as a child which leaves me slightly bemused as to why none of the kids are into playing instruments. This is Abrams' film and not Spielberg's, isn't it?

Since I'm on the subject, you have to marvel at the score which sounds just like "E.T." (1982) in places while annoyingly like the "Pretty Women" song from "Sweeney Todd" (2007) in others. The music actually threw me right out of the film as I kept thinking, "Where have I heard that before?"

Of course, what you really want to know about is what happens and what the big reveal is. Well, apart from the train crash which you can see in the trailer and the whole fictional town of Lillian, Ohio, coming under attack from an escaped alien trying to make his way home, there's nothing much here for anyone with a reasoning brain. You can already guess that it's going to be a twist on Spielberg's own E.T. story coupled with Richard Donner's "The Goonies" (which was also written by Spielberg) and not much else.

The kids aren't too terrible as actors though the only one who really stands out is Elle Fanning. I have no idea what any of the others' names are or even what their character names were now that the film is over and I'll be damned if I'm going to try and play "match up" with a cast list to try and work out who was who. There's a fat kid, a short kid, a tall skinny one with glasses, yeah, you get the picture, plus a more normal looking one who provides the main focus of the story and has a bit of a love interest going on with Elle Fanning's character for as much as anyone cares. It's little kids for God's sake! It's not as if they are going to do the nasty right there on the screen or anything. The older sister is hot enough to do something but not in this PG-13 rated crap so why even bother to give her any screen time?

I'm not going to spoil it for you too much even though this film starts with a train wreck and, after a good first twenty minutes, then becomes one itself. Suffice it to say that you've seen the extra terrestrial monster before and it looks just like what a fusion of the creative minds of Abrams and Spielberg would come up with.

The final third of the film loses any interest that the group of kids were originally generating and, after a couple of "Jurassic Park" moments, the ending follows along the same lines as everything Abrams has ever done. Oh, yes, there will be scratching of heads and disappointment.

I hated this predictable and completely unoriginal rehash of everything that Spielberg already entertained us with in the '80s, but I'm not sad about it like some people will be. I never liked any of those movies to begin with. I was already into far more adult horror when I was supposedly the right age to appreciate them, and I expect the majority of kids today are the same way. "That sucked!" is already on the lips and fingertips of texting tweenagers emerging from cinemas everywhere.

"Super 8" is a soulless film that could only be enjoyed by really little kids at best which is a shame because, with a decent director who knew how to do endings, it could have been wholesome family entertainment for everyone.

Alternatives are:

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?

Inception (2010)

THIS IS NOT A REVIEW!

"In a world where technology exists to enter the human mind through dream invasion, a single idea within one's mind can be the most dangerous weapon or the most valuable asset."

I haven't seen this film and have no interest in seeing it either. I'm only writing this because I just know that reviews of 'Inception" are going to start appearing all over horror blogs and sites even though IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HORROR!!!

Having checked out the IMDb, it is quite possible that "Inception" is one of the best of this year's "Summer blockbusters". I'm a bit incredulous at how it has received a rating of 9.3 out of 10 when most of the reviews on the IMDb say it's "nearly as good as The Dark Knight"!!! WTF??? "The Dark Knight" was an absolutely awful film and is up there with "Batman & Robin" for being one of the worst Batman films that I've ever had the misfortune to watch. Yeah, Heath Ledger was good but the rest? Give me a break.

So from Christian Bale growling through one terrible movie, Christopher Nolan thinks he can cast another actor I can't stand, Leonardo DiCaprio, and make Sci-Fi now? I might have had more interest if Ellen Page and Cillian Murphy weren't in it either. Can you imagine the torture of having to endure all three of those "actors" for nearly two and a half hours?

Seriously, there is something wrong with people who rate these massive CGI-filled abominations. I've seen the trailer and, yes, the computer effects are well done but they are still COMPUTER EFFECTS! It's lazy and they always look fake even though the technology has improved enormously since "Jurassic Park" and Missa Jar-Jar Binks or whatever the hell that thing was called in George Lucas' re-raping of "Star Wars".

But I'm not a filmmaker, I just watch a lot of films. I pay my money and that gives me the right to bitch and moan about whatever I want to when it comes to my entertainment. I can't honestly say that I would make a movie any differently to the ones that are being released lately but I can say that I wouldn't put an ass-numbingly long borefest such as "Inception" into movie theatres in the middle of Summer.

I don't know if any of you have even seen this film or if, like me, you have about as much interest in it as watching "Marmaduke" in a cinema full of cellphone wielding eight year olds. Personally, I want to see a nice big fat juicy ADULT horror movie again soon rather than having to rewatch my DVD collection over and over because there's nothing new or good out there.

Yeah, I'm on a rant here. I don't want any more remakes, PG-13 horrors with overly loud noises instead of atmosphere, or groups of friends with camcorders pretending to be actors and flooding the Netflix warehouse with self-made DVDs of their infantile crap. I want a real big budget horror movie and I want it now! Monsters, ghosts, vampires, even witches, I'll watch just about anything. No more virus movies or pretty teen slashers though, puh-lease.

Will I ever watch "Inception", do you think? Of course I will when it ends up in the $5 Wal-Mart bin in six months time. Until that day comes, I'll just watch my old VHS tape of "The Thirteenth Floor". After all, it's exactly the same story, isn't it?