And The Hits Just Keep Onnnnn Coming...

There are a very small collection of movies that I have been witness to, in a packed UK cinema, that has led to a very unusual response. Cheering. While this might happen a lot in North America, where audiences are naturally more comfortable at expressing their delight in public, this is extremely rare in Britain.One of those occasions was watching Aliens, at the moment Ripley emerges to confront the Alien Queen with the Powerloader. Another was in What's Love Got To Do With It, when Tina Turner finally starts fighting back against bully Ike. And then there's the climax to A Few Good Men. But more about that in a second.

Based on the stage play written by The West Wing's Aaron Sorkin, A Few Good Men is a drama set within the US military legal system. Tom Cruise and Demi Moore are Navy lawyers representing two soldiers who killed an under performing fellow grunt in, what is essentially, a court room thriller. Rob Reiner, directing the last in a line of hits that started with Spinal Tap, expands the story in a pleasing cinematic manner while delicately balancing the dramatic fireworks and the lighter character moments. Wisely, he lets the cast of characters tell his story, and with a cast this good, it's a hell of a good story.

The three leads are on top form; each using their familiar screen personas to positively support the plot. Cruise is grinning and cocky, which builds nicely into his character's arc. Moore* is both sweet, vulnerable and in-your-face tough...perfect as Cruise's number two. And Nicholson is Nicholson; he's only in three scenes, but his Colonel Nathan Jessop practically devours the rest of the movie. If the rest of the cast (including Kevin Bacon, JT Walsh, Kevin Pollock, Keifer Sutherland, Christopher Guest, Noah Wylie, Cuba Gooding Jnr, Xander Berkeley) weren't on form, they'd have been in danger of being overshadowed completely.

The plot has two templates. The mythic sea tale (fitting for a navel Officer) which has a naive boy leaving 'home', confronting the monster and resolving his mandatory father issues, to return a responsible man...a hero. There's also the classic court room drama which shows us from the outset an irrefutable legal case (we witness the murder at the beginning of the movie) only to have our perceptions challenged as the movie progresses (just like the other court room classic, Twelve Angry Men).

And that finale. It all leads up to one exhilarating confrontation between Cruise, who's trying to make his witness confess, and Nicholson who maybe just too powerful (in authority AND personality) for Tom to handle. As with any great movie our heroes are beaten down but keep fighting back, despite the odds. So when victory explosively appears (all initiated by a subtle purse of Cruise lips as he's about to deliver the killer blow) it's a hell of a rush. A classic from start to finish and one of my three favorite Cruise movies (and considering he's made a LOT of good stuff, that takes some doing).

* I adore Demi Moore. This was right in the middle of her screen Goddess period where she was by far THE sexiest thing on the silver screen. Unfortunately, when she started to exploit her own sexuality in movies (Striptease/Disclosure) the appeal of her onscreen persona started to diminish, along with her popularity. Then she started making crap (although I have to admit the definition of Goddess still applies...Aston Kuchner, you git).

Pity These Fools

This was supposed to be the year that Hollywood studio, Twentieth Century Fox, started hiring talented directors with whom they would not bully, or interfere with, in order to produce a higher quality of blockbuster than they were used to. Alas, with The A-Team, the movie adaptation of the popular 80's TV show, it's business as usual.

The Fox mandate is to produce product that is as broadly entertaining as possible, thus creating the biggest potential possible to generate revenue. Risky creative decisions are minimised and storytelling that might dissuade certain demographics are discouraged. Hiring hip, gritty director Joe Carnahan (Smokin' Aces / Narc) seemed like an inspired choice to give this reboot some genuinely fresh substance. But alas, either by his own doing, or by the usual massive studio interference, The A-Team is generic as dishwater. There's nothing in the editing, camera style, location, plot, lighting or music to distinguish it from any other big budget action thriller out there. The plot is too contrived and complicated and the CGI is middling to poor, at best.

Worst of all is the cast. They're really not bad at all. But when your going up against the original 19880's cast of Peppard, T, Bennedict and Schultz you better have something spectacular. They don't. Liam Neeson is solid as Hannibal but lacks Peppards swagger and charisma. Bradley Cooper, as feared, plays Face as an annoying Jock; a loud obnoxious Yank with no self awareness of what a jerk he is. Rampage Jackson is fine as T but just doesn't have Mr T's iconic personality. Coming the best off is Sharlto Copley as Murdoch, claiming all the best lines and winning by default because he's the only genuinely likable member of the cast.

What works? Well Patrick Wilson (from Watchmen/Hard Candy) shows his versatility by getting stuck into bad guy duties, chewing the scenery whenever he can. There's a fun sequence with a parachuting tank (when the effects aren't ruining it) and it has a fun, light tone on occasions. The problem is it wants to adhere to the Fox template of 'all things to all people'. So it's neither a thriller, nor a family adventure, nor a comedy....and the result is a perfectly enjoyable but instantly forgettable affair. Say what you want about Charlies Angels, but McG picked a style and stuck to it, rather than the bland indecision on display here. After the long development period, this is a major disappointment.

Gimme Shelter From The Tudors

Shelter wants to be an Asian horror movie really badly. So badly that it was released in Japan before it was release anywhere else, in fact. Julianne Moore plays a psychologist who's brought in by her father to assist in an intriguing case of Jonathan Rhys Meyers who has multiple personality disorder. It's a slowly developing mystery (who is he really, is he ill or is he faking, how many personalities does he have) that unravels like most Jap-Horror...slow takes, trips to the countryside, spooky shadows and revelatory searches through old newspapers, google and microfiche.

The whole film has an unassuming air of confidence around it while the principle cast lend gravitas to the spooky goings on. It's the same old, same old at the end of the day but it could be worse. The Jap-horror which it mimics is still far superior but it'son the same level as Orphan and much better than recent offering The New Daughter.

Wet Your Pants With Mr Pricklepants

A Pixar movie is about the closest you'll get to a sure thing in the world of movies. I've not yet seen Cars, but the remainder of their 10 movies are fantastic. From A Bugs Life, Finding Nemo, Wall-E and my person favorite, Ratatouille, they've always put a good story in front of any other consideration. Original Toy Story director has stated that there are three things you need to make a good movie:-
1/ A great script
2/ A great script
3/ A great script

Point taken John! But it's true. And from experience, story, to Pixar, isn't an adventure or a quest or a battle or a challenge. It's the emotional journey that characters travel on. THAT's what they concentrate on. THAT's what makes Pixar films compelling. And it's becoming a lost art in Hollywood. But Toy Story 3, again following Woody, Buzz and crew, is a further example of the joys one can achieve if you put effort into a script. The latest, and likely the last, sequel takes the ideas about loss and rejection that were in the previous Toy Storys and pushes them much further. The Toys owner Andy has grown up and is going to college and, as a result, the film explores the themes of life and death, heaven and hell, and about 'letting go'....not only a mother accepting her son has to move on, but a boy accepting that he has to let go of his childhood (and his toys). And it's beautifully played out through the Toys adventures.

There's a great Prison Movie template on which the film is structured and the script has fun playing around with some of the cliches of that genre. Of the new characters two stand out; Timothy Dalton's preening thesp Mr Pricklepants and Michael Keaton's vain Ken doll, delighted that he finally met Barbie so he can share his wardrobe with her.

The rest you know. Brilliant story telling that's as visually satisfying as it is emotionally compelling. I haven't seen the other two Toy Storys for a while, but the slightly darker tone and more complex mature themes, make this my personal favorite. Oh, and the Spanish setting on the Buzz Lightyear figure is so comically spot on, that it blows most 'adult' comedies out of the water.

Two Guys, A Girl & A Gang War

There's a lot of my favorite directors that had to wait for their second feature film before crafting a classic. Spielberg had Jaws. McTiernan had Predator. Nolan had Memento. Cameron had The Terminator. All had established themselves with smaller films before knocking it out of the park with their follow up. Same goes for John Carpenter whose debut feature, Dark Star, failed to wholly capture the spirit and style that would define the director's body of work. But with his 1976 follow up film, Assault On Precinct 13, he certainly hit the nail on the head.

A stripped down, contemporary retelling of Rio Bravo, Assault shows off everything that makes Carpenter films great...and does them as well as anything he's ever done too.

1/ It's dripping in atmosphere and suspense courtesy of Carpenters trademark long takes and an eerie score (a discordant, oscillating, electronic note that plays disconcertingly for minutes at a time).

2/ It's got that Western vibe, not only in the story department, but in terms of the look too. Dean Cundy lights LA like some desert wasteland on the California/Mexican border.

3/ Like all good Westerns it's about the tension between 'civilization' and the 'wild west'. Austin Stoker is the cop who, despite growing up in a rough neighbourhood and working in a a white dominated workforce, has persevered within society's rules and won, is always doing the right thing. Then you've got the murderous gang outside who clearly have no values or morals, killing Disney child-actress Kim Richards without emotion (in the film's most shocking moment). In between you have the classic Western anti-hero, here played by Darwin Joston (like Ethan Edwards, Shane or The Man With No Name) who, when push come to shove, do the right thing...but just aren't 'good' enough to live amongst civilized folk.

4/ Just like the shooting style, dialogue is minimalist and character is built by looks, glances and action rather than extensive backstories. We learn as much about criminal anti-hero Napoleon Wilson by what he doesn't say, as what he does. His catchphrase "Got a smoke?", isn't just a request...it's a way of provoking a response from people so he can judge their character.

5/ Carpenters score is stupidly effective. The main theme is one of the coolest ever committed to celluloid and helps give the film it's own unique identity.

6/ Structurally it's a film of two halves. The first moving the chess pieces into position while introducing character, location and situation. The second is the drama of the siege as our heroes overcome trust issues and tough moral questions to battle the tide of thugs that tries to breach the station. There's obviously a Night Of The Living Dead influence here as the emotionless gang members could easily be substituted for zombies.

And finally, Darwin Joston, as Napoleon Wilson. Snake Pliskin is cool but Wilson is definetely on the same ultra cool level. The confidence of the delivery, the smart, perfectly delivered one liners and little things too. The surprise he shows in others when they decide to trust him....and the surprise others show when he shows he's more decent then they'd anticipated. If there's a tragedy in this masterpiece it's that Joston never made it to the big time.

Extraordinary Non-pleasures

There aren't many actors that I would watch virtually ANY film they're in. Sad or not, Arnie, Stallone, Fillion and Faris are a few that I'd watch any old crap that they'd appeared in. For the former two, it's more of a sense of loyalty. For the later, I like what they do as they can lift any project with their mere presence alone. Harrison Ford is part of the former. Apart from Crystal Skull, the screen legend has had few hits over the last 15 years, and even less acclaim (Hollywood Homicide/Firewall). But, when he puts the effort in, there's still traces of the man who played Han Solo to be seen.

Extraordinary Measures, Harrison's latest self produced drama, is all that you heard it would be; an inoffensive Hallmark TV Movie about a father's (Brendan Fraser) attempt to produce a medicine for his dying kids. To do so he teams up with grumpy genius, played by Harrison, who has the know how, but not the business fundraising savvy, to create the new drug. It's solid drama, with a gently line in humour, and which is prone to large dollops of sentimentality.

Best thing about it? Harrison Ford. The older and grumpier he gets as a person...and the more he's able to channel that into his acting, the more of a return to form he approaches. With the JJ Abrams scripted Morning Glory next in line (in which he plays a pompous windbag presenter) and Jon Favereau's Cowboys Vs Aliens (in which he plays a baddie/anti-hero) it looks like he's finally ditching the good guy persona and embracing characters that are a little more interesting. The trick for Harrison is choosing equally interesting movies in which these interesting characters can thrive. Extraordinary Measures, while in no way terrible, is not one of these movies.
Good luck Mr Ford.

Are You Watching Closely?

Why hasn't anybody told director Christopher Nolan that your not suppose to make your audience think...let alone make art films at a blockbuster level. But that, it seems, what he's intent on doing. Nolan has two type of narrative in his films; either a relatively straight forward, linear narrative (like The Dark Knight or Insomnia). Or there's the non-linear, fractured narrative. The latter is used, not to confuse, but to artfully communicate a particular idea in the story. So in Inception, Nolan uses five simultaneous events to communicate the concept of dreams within dreams. In Memento he tells the narrative in reverse using 10 minute scenes, to communicate the idea of short term memory loss. And with his period thriller, The Prestige, he unfolds the narrative in such a way as to resemble a magic trick.

As with Inception and Memento, The Prestige requires your FULL attention (indeed, the first line of the movie is, "Are you watching closely?") It follows two 19th Century magicians, Christian Bale (a brilliant magician who lacks theatricality) and Hugh Jackman (dependant on colleague Michael Caine for his tricks, but a talented performer) who fall out after a tragic event. Their contempt for each other is later overshadowed by their desire to perform the ultimate illusion, The Transported Man; both consumed by how the other performs their version of the trick.

Basically it's a tale of obsession as we see how their lifelong commitment to the world of magic takes it's tolls on their relationships and morality. As with all Nolan movies its compulsive viewing as Nolan gives us scenes throughout the two men's relationship, hopping backwards and forwards between years and continents, but in an order that gradually enlightens...gathering momentum until we're as desperate
for answers as the two obsessed leads.

On a production level the film is flawless, with cast and crew working in perfect harmony. But it's director Nolan that's the real star and it's a tribute to him that we don't work out the magic trick (or one of them, at least) until the very end. Original, classy, mentally stimulating and absorbing.

The Reeds = No Weeds

The Reeds is a cheap British horror film directed by a bloke that has four Eastenders episodes to his credit. But don't let that put you off. Will Melor (from the BBC's Two Pints Of Larger) and chums head off for a weekend boating trip. Then, in the midst of their floating reveling they get lost amongst the reeds. Then it all goes a bit wrong. Boating accidents, a nutter with a shotgun, and some cannibalistic teens all conspire to make sure the group of party goers will have the most difficult time finding their way safely to freedom.

On occasion it tries to be too clever for it's own good, but not enough to ruin the whole thing. There's enough style, intrigue, screaming and gore to keep you involved up to it's creepy conclusion. The biggest question about The Reeds doesn't concern it's possible supernatural elements but rather cast member Anna Brewster. Can anybody tell me what accent the Brummy lass is trying to put on 'cause it was unfathomable to me?...

No Sleep Till Alaska

Given that director Christopher Nolan's career is somewhat stratospheric at the monent following the massive sucess of The Dark Knight and the recently released blockbuster Inception, it's interesting to go back to his often overlooked 2002 thriller Insomnia. A remake of the 1997 Norwegian movie of the same name starring Stellan Skarsgard, it follows two detectives who travel, on loan from L.A., to Alaska to help the locals solve the crime of a teenage girl's murder. The senior cop, a stunning Al Pacino, is distracted by allegations of evidence tampering which is made worse by his inability to sleep during the Alaskan summer nights, where the sun never sets. Then things go a bit pear shaped.

It's not as tricky as many Nolan movies, lacking the novelty structures of Memento or Inception, or the flashback nature of The Prestige or Batman Begins, but no less compelling. As is usual for a Nolan movie, the film gradually introduces the storytelling elements before developing them in a fast increasing, snowball pace.
Aside from Pacino (on top form here as his cop, Will Dormer, slowly unravels) everybody involved is superb. Hilary Swank get the difficult role of making her naive Alaskan native both a eager student and a excellent detective in her own right. Robin William, as the killer they are hunting, delivers an almost sympathetic performance that's in no way showy or mawkish.

As with all Nolan films it's about a bloke trying to overcome major psychological issues in order to achieve some order of piece. As you'd expect it looks and sound beautiful (courtesy of regular collaborators, cinematographer Wally Pfister and composer David Julyan and plays with all the elegance and subtlety of the rest of his body of work. A great film that is a regular visitor of my DVD player.

Freddy Goes Shark Jumping

After the critical and box office disappointment of Part 5, Freddy's Revenge The Final Nightmare was supposed to be the ending of the popular franchise on a crowd pleasing high note. Alas, all New Line could manage was a gigantic turd.

The intention was to give Freddy a big, spectacular send off. But some poor decisions, starting with the hiring of New Line exec Rachel Talahay to direct the film, created what is undoubtedly the worst entry in the franchie.

Virtually everything is bad. The direction looks like that of a blind student...and that goes for the lumbering editing too. The casting is terrible with a forgettable lead and his wooden teenage pals. Alien/Bond legend Yaphet Kotto is wasted in a small low key role while female lead, Lisa Zane is schizophrenic throughout. One minute she's pretty good, the next she's as wooden as wood. One minute she's attractive, the next she's manish. Tom Arnold, Rosanne Barr and Johnny Depp make forgettable cameo's leving the always excellent Robert England to do the heavy lifting.

After a promising start, the plot descends into farce. We're supposed to believe that Springwood has turned into an infamous town of childless zombie adults. The established rules of dreaming and Freddy's powers are utterly ignored meaning that most of the film doesn't make sense. Freddy can now just willfully appear in the real world, even if no one is dreaming. The ending, in which Freddy is finally killed for good (yeah, right) is weak, not measuring up to his far more imaginative demises in every other film of the franchise. Oh, and it's way too obvious that the last 10 minutes were meant to be viewed in 3D. There's way too many scenes of characters waving spears and baseball bats in front of the lens in an effort to impress a long vanished audience.

Worst of all, the tone is completely misjudged. Where previous directors were able to balance the film's horror elements with black humour, Talahay just goes for a silly, roadrunner vibe that sucks all suspense from the movie.

There is some good that lies deep within this mess.There is an attempt to add some history and mythology to the Freddy lore. So he we see his human life before being burned alive, beginning as an abused child (by step-father Alice Cooper!), as a troubled teen and as an abusive husband. He's also given an daughter. And finally, his dream powers are explained by some wishy washy, dream demon, possession, mumbo jumbo. It might be bullcrap, but at least they tried.

Thankfully, Wes Craven was on hand to wrap up the Freddy legacy in a more fitting manner.

July Pick 'N' Mix - Batman Vs Du Furher!

It had to happen sooner or later, but here's a Mel Gibson/Christian Bale Rant mash up...


EMBED-Mel Gibson vs. Christian Bale - Watch more free videos

How Can The Same S**T Happen To The Same Predator Twice!

Let's face it, 1987's Predator is a B-movie. It's a cheesy concept, with a cheesy script with a corny-as-hell cast. But...despite all that, John McTiernan came along and directed the living crap out of it. Here was a movie that should have been one of the most ludicrous pieces of trash of the decade and instead came a dizzying entertaining action thriller....exciting, original, stylish and even funny.

The fun, but not nearly as great, sequel took the original concept but changed the tone to something that was less grounded in realism to one of over exaggerated bullshit. The original took corny actors and made them real. The sequel took real actors and made them corny. Both films worked, but McTiernan's approach was the far better choice.

So with Predators, the Robert (Sin City) Rodriguez produced sequel goes back to it's roots. Back, not only with it's jungle setting, but with it's serious military thriller tone as well. Like the first two movies it remember to gather a great cast, this time with two central characters, instead of a central 'Arnie'-type lead. So in comes the steely, gruff Adrian Brody as mercenary Royce who does what any lead is required of in these films...make the audience and his companions want to follow him. But Royce is a Predator in his own right, sometimes just as ruthless as the monsters hunting him. So the script wisely provides a counterbalance in the form of Alice Braga's Isabelle, someone equally capable in combat but with a more humane outlook. Both are excellent.

With many of the cast not expected to reach the story's conclusion, director Nimrod Antal rounds out the rest of the Predator's prey with strong memorable characters from Topher Grace's mild mannered doctor, Danny Trejo's Mexican bad ass, Walton Goggins morally void convict and Oleg Taktarov's Russian soldier, amongst others. Only Mahershalalhashbaz Ali's freedom fighter fails to rise to the top. All get memorable moments such as Louis Ozawa Changchien's Yakuza showdown with one of the hunters (it's been suggested that SvP: Samurai Vs Predator might be a worthy sequel!)
Inflatable fatty, Lawrence Fishburne turns up in a mid-movie cameo, and delivers an off the wall performance as Predator killer Noland.

The first half is perfect, with mystery, action, humour and suspense all present in equal measure. After a mid movie breather (reminiscent of the cellar sequence in Spielberg's War of the Worlds) the movie kicks back into high gear. If there's a criticism, this final stretch isn't as relentless as it was in either of the first two Predator sequels.

Predators feels very much like the legitimate, proper sequel to the first Predator movie. There's references aplenty from dialogue clips, music cues and familiar locations that will make fan boys giggle while the story takes the Predator mythology and expands on it, introducing new aspects of Predator culture and their hunting methods. It feels like the type of movie you would want to put on immediately after watching the 1987 original. And when it's release on DVD, I'm certainly going to do that!

Not as good as McTiernan's classic, but then again, what is. But it's an extremely entertaining sequel that made with an appreciation for the first Predator movie, as well as a respect for exploitation movies and sequels in general. While this film doesn't lend itself to a sequel directly, I'd gladly see a follow up of some sort, based on the quality on show here.

Jude Law Steals Ladies Hearts (Literally)

At first glance Repo Men seems like an original movie (apart from a passing resemblance to the organ donor sketch in Monty Python's Meaning Of Life). And in a world where sequels and franchises rule and where everything is adapted from PlayStation titles and books to comic books and board games...the original screenplay is a rare thing. But look a little closer and Repo Men betrays it's origins.

Like 2009's Gamer was a reworking of The Running Man, Repo Men is a reworking of Logan's Run. In a future society, two close male colleagues enforce certain important laws. When one of the lawmen starts to see things from the criminals point of view, he goes on the run, finally deciding to bring down the whole rotton system.
In Logan's Run, the law was mandatory death at 30 years of age. Here it's the compulsory repayment of artificial body parts or, like a house or a car, the item will be forcefully repossessed (even if it means your death). There's also elements of Fight Club, Minority Report and Brazil that surface throughout the movie...so there's not much room for originality.

But that's the end of the bad news. Repo Men is a violent, gory, black humoured science fiction thriller like RoboCop or Running Man...something you don't see that often in this age of PG-13, teen targeted shoot 'em ups. The cast are great with Jude Law playing both ends of the spectrum; as the immoral, deadly Union man and as the haunted fugitive he becomes. Forrest Whittaker is comfortable in asshole best friend territory while Liev Schriber and Alice Braga lend spirited support. Thematically it satirises private health care (especially the old American system where a National Health Service didn't exist) and questions whether citizens should simply accept unethical systems imposed on them by society.

Perhaps too grim for mainstream audiences, this is a funny and fast paced thriller that's worth checking out. You may know the story's destination but, like myself, I'm sure you'll enjoy the journey.

Groundhog Day In A Cardboard Box

Primer is a curious, micro-budgeted science fiction drama that caught the attention of the world in 2004 when it won the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival.
It follows 4 friends that, in their spare time, try to invent stuff in the garage of Aaron's house. Aaron and best mate stumble across a side effect to one of their experiments and decide to cut the other two out while they develop, the mysterious 'box' for themselves, while attempting to understand the practical applications of their discovery.

As an audience, we're made to work at deciphering the film...often not being told what the experiment initially is or what the ramifications are. Like a documentary without narration, we're allowed to observe and figure it out for ourselves. But essentially, the lads discover time travel and decide to give it a whirl... in a series of carefully thought out, 6 hour jaunts into the past. But like Groundhog Day and The Butterfly Effect...time travel isn't as simple as they expect.

It's an interesting, authentic feeling take on the subject which explores the repercussions on their lives and that of their friends and family. It's not always easy to follow, not only with the logistics of each experiment, but also in keeping track of the subtle variations of the timeline which are created with each journey into the past.

Intriguing, but not entirely successful.

Not Enough Room To Swing An Alien

With the resurrection of the Predator franchise being released in cinemas this weekend, I'd thought I'd get in the mood with a previous Predator movie. Having watched the original movies recently, I'd felt it was time to give one of the AvP movies another chance. For me that leaves just one choice as I HATE the most recent franchise entry AVP:R (zero personality characters in a small Canadian town...no thanks). That leaves Paul W.S. Anderson's AvP: Alien Vs Predator.

Now, for you to enjoy this movie you have to look at it in a certain kind of way. If you watch AvP expecting the serious, thrillerish tone of the Alien franchise, you're going to find this seriously cheesy. If, however, you anticipate the a B-movie romp in the vein of the Predator series then you're in with a chance of getting this.

The script very carefully balances the requirements of both franchises. From the Alien side we have an Alien Queen, Eggs, Chestbursters and Alien Warriors. Cameron's trademark blue photography is aped, there's the narrow corridors, mandatory face-off with the final, surviving alien. And you have a female lead in the capable hands of Sonaa Lathan (yes, Cleveland's wife Donna in The Cleveland Show).
From the Predator series we have the Predator's and their technology (invisibility cloaks, spears, laser guns, spaceships), their links with Earth history, an elite team for them to butcher as well as the code of conduct their culture demands.

Oh, and both series films usually end with a massive explosion!

Just like Freddy Vs Jason, the script also has to balance confrontations between the two monsters while never allowing one to outshine the other. After all, how unfair would it be to an Alien fan if the Predator won (or vice versa)! Sacrilege!

Anderson does a solid job keeping the plot moving and the production values are very high, especially the special effects which vere towards practical creature puppets rather than CGI. Apart from the supurb Lathan, only Lance Henriksen and Anderson regular Colin Salmon stand out. The rest of the cast are boring, boring, boring...especially male lead Raoul Bava. There's no tension in the dark corridors and little excitement when the action finally does arrive. Anderson's aim is to shock and awe...not to tell a gripping story. But he does a solid job built on the foundations a solid plot.

The best bit? When the Alien and Predator first go head to head, obviously. You've heard the phrase 'not enough room to swing a cat'? Well imagine that scenario put in to practice...but instead of a cat, imagine an alien. Yeah man!

New Improved Ewok Burger Recipe

Good ol' Return Of The Jedi. Once the often ridiculed member of the Star Wars family...until the prequel trilogy came along and put everything in perspective. Now it's embraced as part of the original three movies...the Holy Trilogy, if you will. As an early teen Jedi was my favorite movie of all time...until I developed a more critical sensibility...and a love of R-rated action (Mr Cameron, Mr McTiernan, Mr Donner...I thank you). But despite it's flaws, Jedi is still a corker of epic proportions.

The negatives are plentiful:-
1/ The plot, complete with a Death Star to destroy, is just too similar to the first movie.
2/ The first quarter, comprising of the rescue of Han, is a bit slow. Who'd have thought that it would take Mark Hammil to make an appearance to get the momentum going.
3/ The production design is the weakest of the trilogy. The Jabba Palace interiors are positively bland in comparison to, say, Mos Eisley in Star Wars.
4/ Similarly, the lighting is way too flat and conventional. Compared to Lucas's documentary approach in Star Wars and lush hues in Empire, Alan Hume's approach is just OK.
5/ The same can be said for Richard Marquand's direction. Solid, but there's little flair.
6/ Once rescued, Han not only loses his cynical edge...but has very little heroic to do. Thank Jebus he formulates the plan to gain entry to the bunker!
7/ Ewoks. They do work within the context of the movie and they are convincing as an living, breathing alien life form. But did it really have to be teddy bears? Even 27 years on, this seems like a blatant merchandising exercise rather than a genuine story choice.

But the pluses far outweigh the negatives.
1/ The effects are the best of the whole saga. In fact they still stand up as some of the best committed to celluloid. Whether it's the cutting edge 'go-motion' creature effects, the flawless model work in the climactic space battle or the attention to detail of the Endor conflict, it's still dazzling stuff.
2/ The action is first rate. The Rancor. The Sarlacc Pit, The Speeder Bike chase and the whole finale...cinematic action at it's finest.
3/ Speaking of the finale, this is where Lucas's multi story editing comes into it's own. All three parts of the climax (space battle, land battle, saber fight) all interlock and bounce off each other brilliantly.
4/ Luke's story, the centre point of the classic trilogy, is the best handled part of the plot. Now that Lucas has completed Revenge Of The Sith, the plot has added emotional weight as Vader's story comes full circle.
5/ The special edition revisions are the least intrusive here than in the other two movies. In fact, John Williams re scored victory music is a vast improvement over the cheesy Ewok song that previously existed. However the extended dance sequence in Jabba's Palace is wholly unnecessary.
6/ The mission to Endor has a nice World War II vibe, riffing on the men-on-a-mission style movies like The Guns Of Navarone and Where Eagles Dare.
7/ Princess Leia. Slave Girl outfit. Mmmmmmm.

So not perfect but still better than most movies. Why? Because it's STAR WARS!!! Like you really needed to ask.

Freddy The Fetus

All franchises reach the point where they run out of steam. It might be the first sequel (Ghostbusters II), or the sixth in the series (Saw VI), but at some point the loyal mass audience that kept a franchise alive will realise they've seen this shit before, and abandon the latest sequel. That's what you have in the case of A Nightmare On Elm Street 5 - The Dream Child, a movie that tries to desperately convince you that it has something new to show you, and a compelling story to tell...but it's really just doing the same old shit.

It doesn't do everything wrong. Robert England's on cracking form as Kruger and the producers wisely bring back the surviving cast members of Part 4, thus providing a sense of continuity and an upping of the stakes, as we're emotionally invested in those characters already. Just like the hiring of Chuck Russell and Renny Harlin for the previous movies, Stephen (Predator 2) Hopkins is snared to bring a now mandatory MTV flair to proceedings.

But the film has several major flaws. Hopkins, although constantly inventive, is perhaps too distracted by the effects and photography to bother about the characters. So it ends up looking arguably the most stylish of the series, yet the audience feels distant and detached from the plight of the teen heroes. And story wise, it's a bit of a let down. It's the first Elm Street movie that feels like a Friday 13th feature; monster finds a cunning way to resurrect itself, goes on a murder spree, then is killed once again by another devilishly inventive plan. It's adds nothing new to the mix...it's just rehashing the predictable formula. The ending too, is a let down, as heroine Alice, her dreaming, unborn child(!!!) and the spirit of Freddy's Nun Mommy team up to entrap the dream monster. Frankly, I have no idea what was going on.

A good film to look at, but one that is quite difficult to watch in one sitting as it has the least engaging plot of the franchise so far. I say, "so far", as the next franchise entry was Freddy's Revenge....

Gladiator: Rare & Under Appreciated #6

No. The other one. It would be slightly inaccurate of me to call Ridley Scott's Roman masterpiece 'under appreciated'. When I say Gladiator, I am, of course, referring to the gritty 1992 boxing drama starring James Marshall (he of Twin Peaks) and Cuba Gooding Jnr (pre-Jerry Macguire Oscar glory).

It's the tale of a down-on-his-luck, poor, white teen who moves to Chicago with his dad, from a 'nice place'. With his father always out on the road trying to earn back money, trying to pay off his extensive gambling debts, Tommy starts at his new rough, inner city school and instantly falls foul of the local gang members. Then he attracts the attention of one of the promoters of the local underground boxing circuit.

Just typing that premise makes me realise it's a miracle I even watched this formulaic movie. But watch it I have and love it I do. Where new action directors of the time used smoke machines and neon in every frame, Rowdy Herrington goes for an ahead-of-it's-time, bleached colours, gritty approach. The story moves at a swift pace and there's plenty of grounded drama to hold the attention. The cast are mostly to be credited with this. As Tommy, James Marshall plays him as the quiet, unassuming man-with-no-name...not entering into conversation or being drawn into confrontation until it's absolutely necessary to do so. Fortunately he's got enough screen presence to pull the internal, introverted character off. Robert Loggia chews the scenery as the promoter while Cuba Gooding Jnr is his usual charismatic self as a fellow boxer. Finally The Big Boss is played by the mighty Brian Dennehy, as imposing an opponent here as he was in the classic First Blood.

The icing on the cakes comes in the form of a cool Brad Fiedel score (he of Terminator fame) which provides a contemporary vibe which stops things from getting too 'Rocky'...and the pop/rock soundtrack which contains some cool Warrent and Adamski tracks.

A great little movie this...one that's far more entertaining in the flesh than it is described here. Seek and thee shall be rewarded!

Midnight Sting: Rare & Under Appreciated #5

I just love caper movies. Whether it's the gang of cool criminal trying to pull off one last heist or the lone cop trying to outsmart the scheming thieves, there's something about a good caper that's as enticing as diamond cocks are to Bella.

Midnight Sting appeared in the UK in 1993, following it's dismal showing in the USA under the title Diggstown (the fictional town in which the story takes place).As as the title suggests it's a movie about con men. In this case James Woods plays a recently released from jail con man, who teams up with buddies Louis Gossett Jnr and Oliver Platt to to take the boxing obsessed Diggstown for all that it's worth. Woods bets slimy town owner, Bruce Dern, that Lou Gossett can win 10boxes matches against any 10 Diggstown residents, within just one day.

The film takes it's time to set up the larger than life characters as well as anticipation for the big fight day. But, as with all caper movies, the entertainment comes from seeing whether our heroes can pull off their ambitious scam against a villain who just might be more intelligent, more cunning and more downright dirty than they are.

Although the film has zero visual flair, director Michael (The Golden Child) Richie gives it a beautifully balanced tone, somewhere between drama and comedy, which means by the final bout, you'll be cheering Old Lou to win. And besides, when Woods is at his arrogant, sweary, charming best...how could you not want to see this mini classic.

Oscar: Rare & Under Appreciated #4

Certain directors simply lose the ability to make great movies. Either the inspiration leaves them, they mature past the mindset that created their best work, or they over (or under think) the creative process which initially created such great works. John Carpenter is one. Spielberg was nearly...but pulled it back with Jurassic Park. It looks like M. Nighy Shyamalan is going to be the next one to fall.

John Landis is one such flailing director. Once a God helming classics like The Bluses Brothers, Animal House, Trading Places and American Werewolf. Then came duds like Beverly Hills Cop III, Innocent Blood and Blues Brothers 2000...films that still had traces of the old Landis...but all the subtlety and grace had gone. His last great effort was way back in 1988 with Coming To America.

However, before the rot truly enveloped him he gave us Oscar, a Sylvester Stallone star vehicle based around a farcical French stage play. It's generally hated simply for the fact that it stars Stallone trying his hand at comedy (and if you've seen Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot, you'll know how disastrous that can be!). But take a closer look and there's a little gem to be found.

The script is what you'd expect from a French farce with a large ensemble of characters getting their identities mixed up and intentions confused with scheming, double crossing and stupidity the order of the day. Then Landis works his magic. He gives us a cast that are (mostly) adept at this type of comedy. And he weaves his mastery of the composition and timing of cinema comedy. It's the speed of an actor's delivery, the exaggerated body language they use, the importance of reaction shots, the balancing of tone (playing it straight...and at the same time ,totally absurdly), the post-modern exasperated looks...directly into camera, the quirky musical inspired moments and the surreal cutaways to inanimate objects.

Stallone gives the film a strong centre around which the talented cast revolve (Tim Curry and, Landis regular, Peter Riegert are outstanding) but he doesn't always understand the kind of stylised acting that's required of him (he moves around too much when a more still delivery would create more gags). But he pulls off a few corkers, to his credit.

If you've avoided this because it's a farce, chances are you won't like it. But, if you've so far avoided this because of the Sly factor, then I urge you to reconsider.

Flux Capacitating In The Hot Tub

This is the same old story. You know the one. You watch a movie trailer...for a comedy, let's say. You watch it and the film looks crap. It's a silly concept and has Chevy Chase in it...it's bound to be funny. But the trailer never makes you laugh...and it's supposed to contain the best bits of the movie, to convince you to go to the cinema to see it. No ta. No tonight thanks.

Then you watch the film and it's great.

And that, in a nutshell, is Hot Tub Time Machine. John Cusack, his nephew, and his two mates go to their old mountain resort where they used to hang out as teens. They get in their hotel room's Hot Tub...and end up in 1986. Then add the Back To The Future plot. Sit back and enjoy.

What's unexpected here is how tight the script is, how well cast the actors are, how sharp the gags are (it's great to have a comedy with profanity and jokes for adults...that's the crude ones, to be clear). Finally, Steve Pink the director knows how to direct comedy with the whole enterprise having a John Landis vibe about it (spit takes, surreal moments and deadpan gazes directly to camera).

It's not big and it's not clever. And Chevy Chase isn't funny. He never has been. But it's rare to find a comedy that works, these days. And any movie where you're hotly anticipating Crispen Glover violently lose his arm in a violent accident has to be at least checked out.