sa420

I have previously been impressed with quite a few of Netflix's movies. Not today, however.

This movie had a decent idea going for it, yet was dull and ugly to look at, looking very much like it was filmed on a trading estate in Grimsby, full of dull, depressed-looking people and with a depressing green tint to much of the photography. (Matrix, much?)

Here we have a magic, retro, cassette-tape mounted, text-based computer game that hurts people. Not that you would ever get RSI playing this one because you only ever have to enter single phrases...single phrases that HURT folk in the real world! Maybe this was what the MCP, from "Tron", had in mind all along for "The Users".

So, once loaded, the game (called "Cursr") gives you seemingly simple and innocuous prompts, i.e. "POO" or "WEE"? >

But choosing either causes a "Monkey's Paw" or "Wishmaster" situation in which the choice is twisted to cause a violent end...to someone ELSE! Not much jeopardy in that really, is there? That other person is usually within the immediate vicinity (no sure how far the curse reaches) and suffers the consequence of your input! So what?! If it's hurting someone else, big deal! I can do that ALL day!

The only time the player is subjected to discomfort is if they don't choose an option, whereupon they are beset upon by a loud noise (which turns out to be Garth Marenghi shouting!).

So if they input "POO", the other person will do something like defecate out all of their innards, or get smothered in a gurt clump 'o shat...to death!!!

Put in "WEE" and they will probably drown in their own tinkle. Or be compelled to urinate on a live wire or something. It's all very broad and unpredictable...and naff.

But the thing that REALLY made me mark this movie down was the inexplicable and unnecessary (and totally unconvincing) "American" setting. "New York" via the M4 to Slough.

It's a massive pet peeve of mine when low budget UK productions try to pass themselves off as American ones. Especially when they use recognisable British-only actors in the production. 'Tis folly and it fools no one!

The script seemed to have been written by someone who had read a book called "How To Copy Wot Amerikans (from Ameriker) Do In Films...Badly! - Teenagers Edition".

Apart from Iola Evans, who I am not familiar with, the remaining British cast, including Eddie Marsan, Asa Butterfield and Angela Griffin are well-established actors in the UK and this made the choice of accent more puzzling/ridiculous. Even the device used, on which to play "Cursr", is a wafer-thinly disguised Sinclair ZX Spectrum 128k+2/+2a (though it seemed fused with the idea of the 8-bit Amstrad home computer of the time, with its green monitor), which was predominately a UK/European home computer. And blimmin' ace, at that!

Maybe "Cursr" should have been a demonic and angry version of Sir Clive Sinclair, distributing copies of the game in a flaming, infernal, hell-hound-pulled Sinclair C5. As he sits, upright inside, shaking his fist at his victims with one hand, and doing that Eric Morecambe thing with his glasses, with the other. "Grrr... This'll teach you for making fun of the 128k +3!" He'd snarl!

I think the only things American in this movie were a Ford Mustang Cobra (with "realistic" New York "license" plate, and the ONLY clue in the movie that this is specifically supposed to be set in NY) and a Ford Crown Victoria Police car (sans authentic NYPD livery). Oh, and Robert Englund's voice.

Butterfield was the only likeable actor in this, with Griffin playing a convincing council estate (Oops!, I mean "New York slum") druggie Mum and reliable Marsan doing his best with a silly accent and dubiously-plotted motivations.

Evans was dull-as-dishwater as the protagonist. A typical perpetual victim and miserable as sin. Didn't care about her or her junkie mum. I was genuinely disappointed when it was revealed that Griffin survived her fall from a multi-storey building window, after being terrorised by a giant 8-bit rat. Just like in real life, the wasters always find a way to survive whilst bad fate befalls those that live more cleanly.

The spiteful nature of the "Cursr" game was actually okay, but the outcome of some of its more unpredictable "choices" ("Shall we take a break?" - for example), though nasty to watch, seemed a bit poorly thought out and not nearly clever enough,

This movie also suffers from "Where the hell is everybody?" syndrome. Apart from the principles, there are no crowds or extras to be seen. No other cars on the road. Do our protagonists live in a world where they are the only survivors of COVID or something? Maybe it's an alternative world where people from the UK think they are in the US! "Hey man! We're TEENAGERS from AMERIKER!!"

In fact, the bits we see at the Marsan residence REALLY reminded me of "Vivarium". A sort of claustrophobic weirdo house which teeters on the verge of reality and suburban prison. Why can't the Marsan family leave the house and get help? Only Marsan is playing the game and, as he claimed, after he made copies of "Cursr", it left him alone. Why are his family (who hate him) happy to live (seemingly only in the kitchen...no other rooms in the Marsan house, then?) in fear of him with bits of Gardener's Weekly stuck to their face? How long have they all been stuck in the house, and why?

Couple this with the dingy, ugly photography and OBVIOUS UK locations, this movie makes me feel like I've been through a Seasonal Effective Disorder episode.

The finale was based on, what seemed to be, the principles of turn based strategy games, amalgamated with the laws of "I'm rubber, you're glue!"

"Take THIS!!" (She shoots herself)

(HE is wounded by the gunshot)

"Arrrgh!... No!... YOU take THAT!" (He stabs himself)

(The stab wound appears on HER neck)

"Eeeek!... Oh yeah?...how about THIS?" (She shoots herself again, ad nauseam etc.)

Novel I suppose, but Marsan clearly had the upper hand, actually succeeding if not for a true Deus Ex Machina-derived demise.

Pretty terrible and compounded by (I can only assume) the director's peculiar decision to try (and fail) to convince us that this was an American production...which I cannot stand.

Hey, but I liked Cursr's "skull" motif...that was good! Oh, and the good old nostalgia-inducing Speccy "loading" screens and noises...hooray! Extra points for that!

I wonder what rating "Your Sinclair" would have given "Cursr"?

...NIGHTMARE FUEL!!!

Coupled with Alan Howarth's chilly synth, Warlock's Myers comes off as a terrifying inhuman automaton.

The way I interpret this Myers is that, he has just realised that he is indestructable (from being shot "SIX TIMES!!!" and surviving) and by the end of this movie, instead of employing full-on stealth, he is not afraid to attack people full on in the open in front of others. (Myers seemed to always attack from the rear (apart from Bob) in the first one.).

Either he becomes supremely confident or I think that maybe, with each critical hit he receives, he becomes less human, his soul leaking out with his blood. I know, in Halloween Kills, there is the theory that each time Myers kills, the killing makes him less human. I disagree and think it is the amount of times he receives (otherwise) fatal injuries that allows him to trancend mortality. There is no fury or sound from this Myers...just a stone-cold, sleek Great White shark in a mask and overalls.

Some genuinely chilling images of Myers (seeing his silhouette slowly stalking down a darkened hospital corridor and seeing his silhouetted shadow stood behind a hospital screen, lit from a window behind) and even seeing his eyes does not ruin this Myers.

I watched this movie with a neighbour once, and they were SO terrified afterwards, they would not let me leave them until their parents got back. They thought that Myers would pop out from anywhere or everywhere.

The gore scenes are nasty and clinical (the worst being a genuine needle in the arm drawing blood IMO) and the tension in the climactic chases is top-notch. Myers never breaks from a trance-like stalk but, I guess with his knack for sabotage and traps, he never needs to run after Laurie Strode, as she is pretty much trapped wherever she goes.

This movie looks fantastic, which Dean Cundey's sterling photography on display and an engaging cast which features some of the loveliest looking nurses I've ever seen in one hospital.

The combination of all these factors installs a genuine sense of dread as, once again, Myers slowly closes in on his target.

Of all the incarnations of Michael Myers (the collaborative efforts in John Carpenter's Halloween, mostly credited to Nick Castle, definitely make that Myers the most traditionally and classically spooky) I know that a real-life encounter with Warlock's interpretation would be the one that would cause me the most panic-ridden trauma...and brown trou.

Fun Mediterrainean romp with an American film crew making a Nico Mastrakis type of action/romance movie in Rhodos.

From Dave Morgan's smooth intro song (sounding a bit like a mellow "Sweet Freedom" from Running Scared), explaining the basic plot, to the lovely photography of the Greek island, this a great summer movie to just chill and absorb.

I really enjoy these American Abroad movies and this one actually seems to have a sister movie, "Pretty Smart". A few of the same foreign and domestic actors appear in both moves and it was also made in '86!

THE BAD: One sequence, involving a chainsaw, is a bit clunky and TBH, corny.

Brad Zutaut's portrayal of Scotty is one of the rare times when you side with anyone over the protagonist. Scotty comes across as one of those selfish guys who laughs at other's misfortune but cannot take a joke on himself. His nemesis Sean (Curt Wilmot) comes across as a much nicer guy and it is usually Scotty that provokes Sean into defending himself.

The sound quality is a bit trebly.

THE GOOD: Director Mark Griffiths hires some great local Greek talent and George Gifos, Alexandros Mylonas and Giorgos Kotanidis portray memorable and likeable characters, with Mylonas playing Brucie, an exceptionally likeable and charismatic crew-member.

James Karen plays the director, Logan, with superb energy and zest, lifting all the scenes he is in.

Curt Wilmot, as Sean, proves that he has very funny bones. As co-writer of this, he probably gave himself the best lines. As the "baddie", he's too likeble. One scene in particular made me laugh out loud, where his head suddenly appears through a hole in a tent to gawp at Zutaut and Fabiana Udenio's sex scene. Another funny moment is when a burly Greek bouncer calls him "Gayboy" in garbled english.

Brenda Bakke is likeably childish as Scotty's gold-digging fiance, Morgan and Sam Temeles is an improvement over Courtney Gains' interpretation of Rag/Raggs. So much so that I would rather have seen more of Raggs than Scotty. Raggs here is an easy-going joy (and kind of reminded me of Bob Grant's portrayal of Jack in "On The Buses" for some reason), and not a selfish, smug git like Scotty.

Sorrells Pickard and Roberta Collins reprise their roles from the first movie, and also have an (mostly) easy-going charm about them, whilst Louise Baker also returns in this movie. Is she the same character from the first movie? Possibly.

Overall, this movie has a laid-back charm and you can tell that the filmmakers had great fun making it. You almost feel as though you're on holiday with them.

Makes me pine for 80s exotic holidays!

It certainly deserves more than the 3.2 average it has received.

"And the subject is...'Scary Stories'!"

The majority of Scare Me plays like an extended and fx-driven section of the popular improvisation comedy "Whose Line..."

You half expect Clive Anderson to appear...along with Richard Vranch at the piano!

Basically the story has a stripped-down, improvisational feel that, at first, is a little disappointing. However, the two leads are obviously masters of their craft. The guy being genuinely funny and the girl being cute, funny and condescending in turn.

Their anthology of horror tales are aided, technically, by lighting and sound effects (very stagey) and, like traditional portmanteaus, are of varying quality. The only difference is that the tales are told and acted out by the storytellers, and not played out as dramatic sketches ala..well any portmanteau I can think of really. Imagine "Jackanory" but filmed in a huge log cabin and where the storyteller is not confined to a single chair, but acts out improvised stories using the whole space of the room. The action never cuts away from the storyteller or their audience.

There is a nice addition of a pizza delivery guy, about midway through the movie, who adds welcome zeal and enthusiasm to the proceedings.

Its a shame that the movie resorts to a pro narcotic stance, revealing one of the two leads (the Mary Sue) to be a habitual cokehead.

The ending twist was disappointing and went against the grain as I felt that the two leads had a fun rapport. To have one show genuine menace against the other felt disjointed and I half-expected and wanted this sequence to be another played-out horror story with both leads contributing, back and forth, to the narrative.

However, it did spring to mind that maybe, the entire movie situation was actually played out in the mind of the Driver (a writer herself) character that popped up in the beginning and end of the movie. Maybe this is the actual twist, in that she actually has "her" book published in a mid-credits sequence. It is implied that she found a notebook of ideas (written by one of the leads) and plagiarised it for her own ends. However, the owner of the notebook (which is the catalyst for the final acts' nastiness) is still very much alive at the end of the movie and would have realised that the Driver's stories were ripped off. So maybe the Driver's book was actually the story as shown in the movie to us, the viewer, and everything we have witnessed is a fictional possibility as dreamed-up by the driver.

Overall, Scare Me is a tad too long for what it is (an hour and 3 quarters) and is going to disappoint the crowd it's marketed at. Which is a shame as it is fun and very well acted and photographed.

All that's missing from it is Ryan Styles doing a hoedown...

This is probably the best Saturday Morning kids show since TISWAS! Saying that, the first show that I caught, I thought that they were trying too hard to be funny...trying to be like TISWAS.

I was hooked after my second viewing.

McCourt and Wood throw in sly innuendo's that kids don't understand and adults can enjoy. It can be a little controversial at times which is exactly what is needed to be successful and to garner a cult following (which it has).

Amazingly, there are never celebrity guests (apart from the comic relief shows) as Dick and Dom favour their guests to be regular viewers (kids).

Throw in some cartoons, which I think detract from the fun of the show but I guess the guys need breaks every now and again to prep the next slots etc.

The regular characters are funny, including the ugly cat, the diddy Dick and Dom in the cupboard, the Farmer Guy, and the games, particularly Bogies, are top notch genius.

Another hilarious sequence is the Bungalow Loft bit. It's absolutely demented and capped off nicely by a Benny Hill-esque dummy Dom falling down the steps from the loft to the ground below.

The insanity is just non-stop.

I have found, this year, through observation, that this show has a few things in common with the old ITV show "Your Mother Wouldn't Like It".

The Producer, Steve Ryde, used to be in that show and also "Palace Hill" (two excellent shows), the farmer guy is played by Ian Kirkby who played Loaf in Your Mother Wouldn't Like It and the Turtle thing that pops out of the toilet and masticates it's victims after telling them a poor joke, is quite similar to the Tapeworm puppet/character from Your Mother Wouldn't Like It, which also delivered poor jokes.

Forget the wannabe's on the other channels, Dick and Dom are genuinely funny even to the point of appearing crazed at times. I think Ant and Dec ought to be cowering in fear for their jobs with Dick and Dom around! Sick, Twisted, Mucky, Hilarious...Dick and Dom In Da Bungalow...It will be a long time before there is a Saturday Morning show as entertaining as this.

BOOOOOOOGGGGGGGGIIIIIIEEEEEEESSSSSSSS!!

It makes me laugh when I read bad reviews of this movie. No one claimed it was a classic, no claimed it would win awards or prizes for depth of storyline etc.

What it does have is earnest performances, fantastic fx, amazing score and very pretty photography.

Yes, laugh at the shadow of the camera (in the days before monitors) during the race scenes, at least they bothered to use real cars on real roads at high speed, unlike pathetic cgi cars (fast & the furious, 2 fast 2 furious, gone in 60 seconds) with crap physics.

This movie is totally innovative, nothing like it before or since and there are a lot of techniques used in this movie that I haven't seen bettered since. The bit where Jake's scrambler breaks into 4 meteorites still looks great, the tasteful re-animation of the Wraith mobile after crashes (nowadays that would probably be done using reverse photography).

The action scenes in Mad Max & Mad Max 2 are sped up and look ridiculous. (Watch the bit in Mad Max 2 just before he crashes his Interceptor...you'll see.)

The acting is pantomimish (baddies=very bad, goodies=very good) but that is the style of this movie. We know that these actors are capable of more in-depth characterisations, but this is a shallow b-movie. That's all it's supposed to be. Anyone who watches this movie and expects anything other than popcorn fodder is an absolute idiot. Moaning about technical problems and poor acting only makes you look like an idiot. And let's face it, even today's biggest blockbusters are chock full of mistakes and glitches.

You don't watch a Carry On movie and then say "Oh, that was quite unrealistic, and the acting is bad." That's the point. It's silly farce. You're not supposed to take it seriously!

I'm also aware that Charlie Sheen hates this movie and he must have good reason.

Strangely enough, I'm surprised that this movie was not seized upon by the pompous comic book brigade! I guess, if it was a little more Gothic and The Wraith was brooding and had a troubled back story it would have been more accepted. I'm glad it didn't and wasn't.

If it was made now, it would have stinking CGI fx and too much back story.

It's a bubblegum movie. You don't like it, don't watch it. As a b-movie for it's time, it is a technically superior easy watch which still towers over many newer movies of the same genre.

The Crow? Pompous nonsense!

Hellboy? Crap!

The Wraith? Know's it's place and doesn't try to overstep it's mark!

And for people moaning about rubbish acting, check out Matthew Barry's performance when Billy Hankins realises Jake is his brother. It's an amazing, emotionally charged moment. I dare you to disagree and if you do you must be tripping.

Stop henpecking this movie.....it's ace, I tell you...ACE!