adamscastlevania2

Since as far back as the late 1970's there have only been a handful of strong entries for Bond. The series was lost in the 80's with too little bite coming from the tail end of Moore's output, and too much of it for most people's taste from Dalton's "Licence to kill". Then, like Bond himself, the series then was gone without a trace until a highlight in "Goldeneye" awoke and it was good to have the killer back once again; but it didn't last. The following entries are largely forgettable and nothing more than throwaway entertainment. "Casino Royale" was yet another new clean slate and things looked promising once again, that was until "Solace of shaky cam" got rushed out and hopefully for the last time pulled the spy toward being nothing more than a Bourne wannabe. Now though things are looking promising, and all I can say is it's about time. Sam Mendes has driven the series back on form with two of the better entries in decades. This like the great "Skyfall" has what's needed to make a good Bond film. It has the action, the style, the fun, the locations, the women, the bad guys, with sheer bags of quality to back everything up. This doesn't top "Skyfall" which would have been hugely difficult, but it gives Bond something he hasn't had for far too long: A strong back to back big hitter.

(85%) A wonderfully handsome Gothic horror that may not be the most scary film ever made, but it is by far one of the most visually stunning. The cast is top notch with big names at every turn, but it's by far the look and atmosphere dripping down from nearly every shot that's the most captivating. Even with elements of Tim Burton and Poe, this is very much a Del Toro film with its sharp attention to detail, strong build-up and painful touches of ultra, almost exploitation levels of violence that always seem to shock, yet never spoil the general quality feel. His direction is impeccable as the film and its characters are allowed to breath and have room to move and everything is far from just being a long series of dumb jump scares. There wasn't a great deal of horror released around Halloween 2015 (thanks to Mr Bond) but this will likely be one of the best entries of the year. This level of superbly crafted minute detail is what big screen entertainment is all about.

(68%) A well made space survival adventure that mixes Apollo 13, Castaway and Interstellar in a very watchable treat that marks a lighter entry into Ridley Scott's filmography. The pacing is sharp, the performances from the strong cast are solid and this never becomes anything other than a likable sit. Unlike something such as Castaway the plot is more required to follow both the captive (Matt Damon) and the rest of the cast who's only objective is to try and help rescue him, so there is a fair amount of switching between the two focal points rather than pure Matt Damon in space trying to get by. Without doubt this is a band apart from the lesser films of the year, but I doubt it will top my list mainly because for me it came and went without hardly any lasting impact. So by the end it is enjoyable while it lasts with plenty of heart and entertainment value, but it didn't send as many shock-waves upon me as it did so many others. Nice throwback soundtrack though.

(56%) A throwback of sorts to 1970's B-pictures focusing on street brawling, ex- cons, and borderline insane gangsters. Michael Jai White doesn't stretch his acting ability here, but his fighting skills are fantastic, it really is totally believable watching him take down the biggest guys you could ever imagine. The plot has been done many times before (see Van Damme's somewhat better AWOL) but I happened to enjoy the simplicity this has in bounds. This may not be anything special overall but it's so damn entertaining and watchable plus the fights are well done and there's plenty of them. So for a decent effort that passes more in that it fails and will run down 90 mins very quickly meaning this is well worth a spin.

(65%) After the somewhat disappointing feature-length video game footage that was Avengers 2 comes this step in a fresher direction. First of all it's nice to get a super hero who is just a normal guy and not a thunder god, multi-billion dollar businessman, or genetic freak of nature. And like a lot of these super hero movies the original origin story always seems to be the strongest because they have the best story arc, so we'll have to wait how Ant-man 2 will stand up in the next few years. This may not be a contender for the best super hero movie, but it is very watchable, consistently entertaining, and with a solid line up of screen talent in which the great Michael Douglas is given plenty of screen time. It's also a good fun watch with plenty of good humour and a lighter tone that works well. This won't last forever in the memory or make a massive mark on the year's best films, but a zesty trip to the cinema awaits all.

(5%) An amazingly bad and impossible to remember title for a pretty awful film. This is very much something that starts poor and never really recovers with its terrible script, lack of ideas, bad acting, and total sense of pointlessness. The concept of turning themes taken from the family film Jamanji and turning them into an adult horror movie could have worked out, but it would have needed more capable hands than the hacks who produced this mess. Robert Patrick is the biggest name here, though his character is largely pointless as he dips in and out of scenes like a drunk who can't find his way home, while most of what happens to the other characters is so poorly crafted that you begin to stop caring way before they even begin to get hacked up. There are some messy gore effects here and there but not enough to warrant this even close to a worthy watch. Stay away.

(67%) Watching this very odd film is a real eye opener. Adam Sandler does something he very rarely ever does: he actually tries without being trying. Here he's funny, interesting, there's no laziness or stupid voices, and above all else he delivers an honesty very good performance. So the big question really is why Grown ups 2? This may be a masterpiece compared to most of his back catalogue, but this still has a couple of issues surrounding its frantic nature at times being a bit too grating to watch. There isn't a whole lot of depth to the plot, but there's lots of little nice touches throughout meaning this is something I'd happily watch again and see something new that I'd missed. This is certainly well worth a look simply just to see another, very fine side of the largely wasted talent of Adam Sandler.

(67%) With lowish expectations due in no small part to the so-so reviews I trundled to the cinema (cheap day special) for at best some mild entertainment and not a whole lot more. Though what I got was quite rare these days: a genuinely nice surprise. I have seen this twice now and I stand by my claim that this is one of the best movie adaptations of a fairy tale out there. What I like most of all is that it's a film for the whole family to enjoy, from little kids, teens, to adults, there's at least something here to keep almost anyone amused. This isn't of perfect of course, for instance the plot is a little wonky and you could pick this apart if you wanted to, but the fact remains that this is still a well- paced, action-packed, well-made, well-shot, at times quite creepy hit that I will stand by as a unloved entry into the fantasy genre.

(56%) A rather silly, yet entertaining comic horror that offers more than its fair share of cheap laughs and a quite large amounts of blood and gore. The thin plot and half ideas may have better suited a short, but if it's a variety in monsters you want then this has a good number featured in small sub-plots, though as usual with these things some are better than others while none are actually very good. There's a few famous faces popping up here and there, a good dose of quality throughout, and the direction has the feel that it was done by someone who actually cared. Overall a worthy, though not essential light-hearted sit for any 1980's horror fan.

(79%) A remake?/sequel? that really, really goes for it full force in the face and in doing so largely impresses, yet doesn't quite take the crown of the very best of the series which is, and probably always will be, Mad Max 2. Tom Hardy fills the role that Mel left behind in the mid eighties, though this time Max hardly has more than a few lines of dialogue in the entire film, but then he was never a big talker, with a bulk of the attention and lines left for solely Charlize Theron's character. This is a visually epic looking film with TONS of loud, fast well shot action, though I missed the more subtle elements of the other instalments that this doesn't have as much of. Plot wise this is a near remake of beyond thunderdome with a few different ideas running through, some of them good, some not so great. In terms of all-out action this is a must watch. It's hugely entertaining and very well made, it's also worthy of the Mad Max name, which is probably its biggest accomplishment.

(50%) This may be the most all over the place movies of recent years that if it wasn't for the fact that it's based off a real life story would be as toxic as nuclear waste. As at its heart there's a morality tale here quite unlike any other, and if it wasn't so confused it could be considered almost dangerous. For the fact remains that fighting fire with fire only leads to lots and lots of burnt dead people. This wants to be part drama/part intense action, but the drama side lacks true depth and the action is too badly shot to have any lasting impact, though this isn't a bad film by any means. Butler is well cast as a born again ex crook who takes no bull, and there's hardly a dull moment throughout with something always just around the corner. Overall a watchable time passer with a fair amount of meat on the bones, but it's not quite all there.

(28%) An honestly not all that bad TV killer rat horror flick that has nothing to really offer but a mildly entertaining, all be it forgettable sit. The cast of unknowns do a decent job and unlike something like Sharknado this doesn't feel the need to add lots of pointless cameos from stars at the lower end of their career. How scary you find this film depends upon your own opinion of how you happen to find rats, but there's not really anything here to get under one's skin as it's all a bit clean and safe. Overall this never drops down too low in the quality department to overly feel like a waste of time, but this still doesn't really need to be seen by anyone bar those slightly drunk during the wee hours of the night.

(39%) I wasn't too sure if this was the original (which I haven't seen) or the sequel, but to be honest I really don't think it matters in the slightest; though why didn't they just call it "The collector 2" is beyond me. What we have here is a rehash of 80's slasher gore mayhem, only the killer here wants to kill everyone he possibly can get his claws on, not just a select few teens. Most of the film takes place in a dark, grim building in or at least near a town/city that appears to be a magnet for many, many disco kids. Only when the collector strikes not one of them appears to make a swift escape. Plus the fact there's always one person outside every night spot throwing up into the street, so couldn't they raise some kind of an alarm after hearing their friends getting chopped up from inside? You can tell this is from some of the minds of the later Saw movies, not because it is shocking or scary, but because it's just so stupid. At certain parts you wonder how nasty is it going to get, well the answer is not really all that much. Sure there's some blood and gore, but this is too low rent Hollywood to get upset about. Even thought this isn't very good, I'd still kind of like to see the original, which is at least something positive to say.

(50%) For a TV movie this is worthy of at least some acclaim as it is quite a well made piece, but the fact remains all too clear: it's way too damn long. There's a fair bit to like here from the decent cast right though to the generally good direction and decent scares, but when your 90 minute horror flick elapses even biblical epics then something is not quite right. There's some memorable scenes here, and some impressively crafted sections, but the scenes of David Soul trying the very best he possibly could in closing the stupid doors to his Jeep have always somehow always stood out in my mind as oddly very funny. If you have three hours to kill this is by far not a terrible way to spend it, and this is one of the better horror TV movies ever, but three hours is a long, long time.

(53%) Could the original live up to all that build up in all those many, many films? Well it got close, but not quite as it was near impossible. So how does its sequel fair? Well instead of Thor having something to do with the world nearly ending this time it's old iron balls, but apart from that this is more or less a sliver of super simple plot stretched out for well over two hours. Because the story is so narrow and the length is so long this feels the need to stuff as much comic book based claptrap as possible meaning much will go over most people's head with things just sort of happing without any real logic. Oddly though this doesn't feel like a comic book of the screen, much more a video game with tons and tons of CG based action interrupted only by character interactions that feel more like cut scenes than actual parts of an actual movie. Much of what happens takes place in many different locations throughout the world, but there's so little sense of the vast distances between them that they may as well be in the very next room (or studio). Though with that said the good cast do attempt to bring something out, but there's so little substance that it's a losing battle (both Thor and captain America in particular do very little indeed besides fight robots). In terms of very basic entertainment this does the job, but in terms of anything deep, interesting, or memorable there's next to nothing to see here meaning the inevitable next entry really needs to get its act together otherwise the series has no future.

(53%) First of all I've never been a huge fan of the hapless broadcasting buffoon, his TV shows in the nineties were fine in small doses, but never anything I felt I must watch. So despite the good reviews I wasn't a big enough fan to grab myself a cinema ticket, and by and large in hindsight I'm glad I didn't. Not that this is a bad big screen effort, it's just that the show worked on subtlety with very little actually happening, this in an attempt to be more fitting for the big screen has tonnes, so something has been lost along the way; but then again the TV show was if anything a little too subtle and sluggish at times. Overall this is something that Partridge fans will cherish, but it doesn't do a great deal to win me over.

(40%) A film that only Ken Russell could have gotten away with as it's so campy, over-the-top, and silly, yet it's still oddly worthy of a look, which for a film staring Hugh Grant is really quite rare. The plot works as well as an inflatable pin cushion and is best just letting it go in one ear and out the next, the characters are have little to no depth, while on the other hand the performance from Amanda Donohoe is worthy of a watch alone as she largely semi-nakedly vamps the movie up to eleven. For a horror film this isn't frightening in the slightest, and I doubt it was ever really made with the sole intention to scare, rather to entertain. This really isn't a must watch at all, but there is some fun to be had here if you can catch it.

(61%) A very watchable popcorn thriller with neat direction, good production values, a degree of bite, fine support, and a strong leading performance from Bradley Cooper. The premise is implemented well even if the script wants to get absolutely every last drop of use it possibly can out of it. There's a clear warning about drugs that runs through, but you would be hard pushed to call this a valid morality tale which in the balance of play is a good thing. This despite being far from great is certainly worth a look for its sheer style and was at least partly worthy of the massive attention it had ladled upon it upon its release.

(66%) A sequel that for many many years never looked likely to happen. Jim Carrey turned his nose up to millions of dollars by not agreeing to sign a contract for the likes of The mask 2 and Ace Ventura 3. Jeff Daniels is a well respected actor who doesn't really need to rekindle past hits, while the Farrelly brothers have dipped down to such low levels that even recent past glories feel like a long time ago. Now there's a touch of desperation about this entry that the original never had one ounce of, yet I still took more from this than I had once feared. For me there's enough laughs, some of them big, for the most part this works, and it's just nice to have Lloyd and Harry back for one more time, even if they resemble cartoon characters even more than they did the first time round. This isn't by any means as good as the original, it's also much more gross-out in nature and certainly rough around the edges, but as a B-side with it's own charms and solid entertainment value this for me hits the target even if said target is pretty low.

(6%) It's films such as this that twist the knife more so than overly generic zombie pictures because this has some ambition, but the absence of any clear ability to implement the ambition into a good watch is so evident. The plot is pretty simple stuff, but it's so poorly told that this pushes tolerance levels and by the time characters start to get dropped off one by one their demise cannot come quickly enough. I'm not one to moan about limited visual effects for as long as the the rest of the film is to a decent standard, which this isn't, so for starters the green screen effects are at times dire, and the CG bees or whatever they are look as though I rendered them, which overall is odd because certain parts of the film look fine. So overall a film with an ounce of talent stretched over a barren gulf of sheer lousyness.

(54%) A film that shows "good" old boy cowboys in maybe the worst light possible as nearly every person featured bar a few Mexican characters are portrayed as huge and total b#stards. The guy that carts main character Joe to Texas is a git, the barman he meets is a turd, while everyone else is if anything even worse. This may not look up to much on the outset, but for a lowish budgeted 70's martial arts spaghetti western hybrid I enjoyed its simple charm. This is a little rough around the edges, though it moves along at a good pace with never really a dull moment throughout. There's plenty of fights, lots bad guys getting what they deserve, a sweet romantic sub-plot, and best of all: it's fun to watch.

(62%) An entertaining portmanteau based spook show that passes the test of there being more good sections than bad, in fact none of the segments are what I'd call being of poor quality. The cast has a few famous British faces including the always fun Terry-Thomas in one of, if not the best section of the whole piece. Dr Who star Tom Baker also appears. All the stories are interesting enough with good pacing to each meaning this never really drags once; although it must be said that this isn't a very scary film and I doubt anyone ever lost much sleep over it. There is a bit of blood and gore, not a lot though, but this is still an entertaining watch that is worth tracking down for fans of classic British horror.

(68%) Before the days of the Expendables movies came this all-star action adventure featuring a cast on the more ripe end of the life line. This really is a red blooded slice of beef of a film meaning there's tons of action that doesn't shy away from the blood and guts of combat and there's a great feel of one of those old war comic books about it. Despite the really strong cast this is a film you watch more the action than the performances and the fact that it tells its simple plot so effectively. Without doubt this is one of the better men on a mission movies and well worth tracking down for all true action film fans.

(40%) One of those movies in which the makers spent ten times more time and effort in one single effect sequence than the entire script, as this has some of the very worst lines of dialogue in any film outside of the Star wars prequels. Nic Cage really earned his pay cheque here not through his performance but through his epic level of fitness, there's hardly an ounce of lard on him, which again doesn't really add anything to this hollow, somewhat silly film. It's best to think of this more as a big budget B- movie than the mass of other stronger Marvel movies. This isn't anything to really shout about, though I largely found it to be harmless fun and as such I highly doubt this is anywhere near to being the worst comic book effort.

(13%) Once the dust settles on this Aussie outback horror all it can muster is a deep(ish) dose of disappointment, and by halfway through I'd have happily taken a basic Duel knock-off over this messy waste of effort. This tries to be a mix of both Duel and the largely forgotten The car, only more bloody. Sadly this is not as good as either of those films by some margin as they had an element of mystery to them, this is just confusing with its questionable ideas, most of them bad, and by the halfway through this becomes a trial to sit through. The young cast are fine and some ideas may have worked better in more capable hands, but this breaks the low-end movie sin of the fun level never being greater than the flaws.