Hayden-86055

Curse of Bigfoot is a curious and awful horror film. Edited from an even earlier 1958 film "Teenagers Battle the Thing", makes it a disjointed and nonsensical film that drags its heels at every possible turn. For example, the first nearly 11 minutes consist of Bigfoot slowly walking to a house and killing a woman off-screen (of course, none of the actual deaths are shown onscreen). One particularly funny moment was the Director's insistence at showing the house where Bigfoot is walking to in like 10-20 different shots.

The rest of the film is pretty dull, one interesting fact is that actor Dave Flocker, who is in the 1958 film actually returns for this film.

1/10: I can't really think of any positives for this monster flick, except for the fact that it made us laugh a few times due to its awfulness!

Hot Fuzz is amazing and had me and my friend laughing throughout. The chemistry between Simon Pegg and Nick Frost is golden, and the dialogue is surprisingly clever. As is the murder mystery type plot. Pegg's character has such a different mindset than in Shaun of the Dead, but the character is still very similar in terms of personality and chemistry with Frost's character that it can basically be a direct sequel.

The characters are amazing, and it was great to see so many familiar faces. Timothy Dalton, Jim Broadbent, Paddy Considine, Martin Freeman, Olivia Colman, Bill Nighy, David Bradley, Stephen Merchant, Steve Coogan, and more!

The action scenes are exciting, the jokes all land, the soundtrack is surprisingly good, and the cinematography is super clever.

10/10: One of my new favourite comedy films!

This film was a hilarious watch. It's not so much a sofa at all, but a recliner. The acting and dialogue is atrocious. The characters don't have much uniqueness, except one "Inspector Gravy" because of his name. The sofa is the best character.

The plot is rubbish, but the best bits come in when the sofa goes about killing people. In an especially brilliant scene the sofa stalks its victim back to his Mum's house, somehow manages to reach the second floor window...from the street, and murder him. The design of the sofa is also brilliant, with his little beady eyes and tiny mouth; every time the sofa stares another victim down I could not help laughing.

3/10: A technically dreadful film, that is an absolute blast with friends.

Creature from the Black Lagoon is a film that has objectively not aged well. The acting is average, the soundtrack is not great and the costumes are hammy. However, we can appreciate how much of a film from its time it is.

The plot is very simplistic, with the crew going to find a prehistoric beast of the amazon. The characters are weak, with little individuality. The film does not benefit from being in black and white, with the underwater scenes losing value in the dull colours of light and dark. The monster is very much of the 50s, and whilst being iconic is also obviously a an in a suit.

I somewhat enjoyed the film, but it shows its date and there is not too much to separate it form the other 1950s horrors. Its individuality is certainly nothing special or extraordinary.

5/10: An average monster thriller, forgettable and seems silly to a modern audience. It gains points for being an old film that tried new ideas. The underwater shots are poor to a modern audience, but would have been interesting to a 1950s viewer.

Tales of Robin Hood is a bad film, with a small amount of positives. The plot is terrible and is made up of an unaired three episodes of a cancelled tv show. Allegedly, there is about eight to thirty two minutes of missing footage, which I doubt makes the film any better, but it's out there somewhere. On the other hand, this might be all they shot. The best bits of the plot is when it follows the classic story of Robin Hood, the fight on the bridge with Little John, meeting Friar Tuck, and the archery tournament. Unfortunately, all three events are much less fun than in the amazing 1938 Errol Flynn film, and definitely worse than the masterpiece that is the Richard Greene tv series.

The original plot ideas are quite rubbish, although I suppose it is sort of interesting that Maid Marian is the ward of someone other than King John. Maid Marian in this film is uncharismatic, unlikable and rude. She actually is quite happy to let Robin Hood go to his capture and death until one of Robin's men tells her he loves her and she does a random 180. Keep in mind this "love" comes from a conversation that ended in Marian slapping Robin and Robin acting like an angry little incel and promising to keep Marian against her will until she likes him.

I watched the colourised version, which was pretty good, even if they didn't colour Robin in green. But the usual version is in black and white. Another thing I hated was the sword fights, that generally lacked energy except for a couple of shots that were exciting, and the music is a poor mimic of the 1938's. Friar Tuck also seems to have a split personality and one second acts incredibly creepy and off putting, and another moment is actually the funniest character in the film. The actor playing Robin is wooden, with the best actor probably being Englishman Paul Cavanagh; who plays the evil Sir Gui, yes, you read correctly. Gui. Not Guy, Gui; Sir Gui. I don't know why he's called that, but he just is and Guy of Gisbourne is nowhere to be found...more to the point neither is Prince John and I actually think King Richard is already King in this version.

Onto the few positives. The sets are not bad and I enjoyed the scene where Robin meets Little John and where they get the guards drunk. Friar Tuck distracting the guard with stargazing was actually quite funny too. The dialogue is pretty decent in places, but the wooden delivery puts me off. Sir Gui is a half ok villain but does not get enough screen time. The fact that this tv show turned tv movie was made before the Richard Greene one is something of note though.

3/10: A poor rehash of the 1938 Hollywood masterpiece.

Ah, Cocaine Bear, the peak of cinematic achievement. It promises two things, and two things only: Bear and cocaine. It delivers on both accounts. That in my books, is a winner.

The characters are somewhat funny and I liked the individuality of them. The bear is a character on to itself and the mix of CGI and practical effects was refreshing. The music was average at best, and the plot is bare-bones and simplistic. But it is actually (sort of) based on a true story so I guess they're going off of that. There are a few good jump scares and wondering who would be caught next by the bear was quite exciting.

6/10: A decent mix of comedy and horror, with some interesting characters but lackluster plot and unambitious storytelling and cinematography.

Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer and the Island of Misfit Toys. It's quite a mouthful of a title and the film is filled with completely crazy content, the "tooth mobile" a mobile dentist surgery. A talking kite, crazy villainous blimp and Jamie Lee Curtis voicing a Hippo Queen (she is one of the best bits of the film!)

The songs are ok for kids but don't hold a candle to the original and some of them are very slow paced, dull, and obvious filler. The animation is actually quite atrocious, even for 2001; but luckily very young children won't mind.

The toy taker is genuinely quite a good villain, his theme tune is top notch and Rick Moranis' voice acting helps a lot. His evil scheme is very simplistic and the plot overall is bad, but I liked how he flew round on this demonic fever dream type zeppelin airship, that looks like it's about to bomb whatever's underneath it.

5/10: Terrible animation, a generally bland plot (apart from the Toy Taker and Queen Camilla!) and childish songs. But, contains lots of kooky and crazy elements that do make it a fun watch.

3096 days is not an easy watch by any means, I wouldn't even say it's a particularly enjoyable film considering how it's based on a true story (that does have a somewhat happy ending!) of a kidnapping and being held hostage for almost a decade.

The biggest positives for the film is the strong acting performances from both the lead characters, Thure Lindhardt is detestable as the evil Wolfgang and Antonia Campbell-Hughes is very good as Natascha Kampusch, showing a resilience towards her abuse. The cinematography, music and sound design could have been a bit better, but the parasitical relationship of the two main characters is the film's main focus.

Some of the other reviews for the film on here do make me worry, with some even defending Wolfgang's repeated sexual assaults as "forbidden love". An absolutely vile idea. If you're going to watch this film keep in mind this is a real victim and romanticising abuse can have a real life effect on victims.

7/10: A powerful documentation of one of Austria's most horrific modern crimes.

Aladdin and the King of Thieves is very, very good for a straight to video Disney sequel, featuring all the voices from the original 1992 epic, including Robin Williams. John Rhys-Davies as Cassim, The King of Thieves is a welcome edition too.

The songs are better than in Return of Jafar, sure, the villain may be a little weaker and less iconic, but the plot is so much better. The soundtrack is also very strong. The animation is also stronger. Also to be commended is the extremely good pacing, fitting a fine story into just 80 minutes!

Some things I didn't like the in the film is the fact that Jasmine is still sidelined as a main character, the plot is a bit predictable after we find out one big reveal regarding Rhys-Davies' character, and some of the dialogue is a bit simplistic. Apart from that, it's a great film without reaching masterpiece status.

7/10: If Return of Jafar is a low 6, Prince of Thieves is easily a high 7.

Me and my friend watched Alice in Terrorland primarily for the reason that Jon Paul Gates, who is an icon, is in it. That was our first mistake, the film is extremely dull and forgettable. With few scares and even fewer Jon Paul Gates (so sad!) What it does have going for it is its pretty good cinematography and interesting colour scheme.

The plot is confusing and unexciting, but at least they tried more than the average low budget horror flick of "this is a spooky house, here are some ghosts, be scared!" I liked the costumes in part too. But these few positives can't excuse such a dull, forgettable and lackluster film.

3/10: Such a dull film can't even justify its short run time.

Barbarian Queen 2 is a film that is better than it has any right to be. The dialogue is poor, the budget must have been roughly £7.83, and the cinematography is bog standard at best. But there are many admirable qualities about this film that makes it incredibly entertaining.

The characters are surprisingly well developed and have their own motivations, the two main villains, the evil King and his advisor are actually quite well acted. Roger Cudney plays a good villain. Cecilia Tijerina also stood out as the arrogant, violent and spoilt daughter of the evil King. The costumes are not bad for the budget either.

Lana Clarkson is fine as the lead, and is given more to do in this film than in the original, and her relationship with baddie turned goodie Knight Aurion is much better than the cardboard cutout she's in love with in the 1985 film. However, I must stress that despite this film being called a sequel, it's a sequel in name only. All the characters, including Lana Clarkson's are new.

The action sequences are cheesy and hilarious to watch, and I liked that there was a lack of gratuitous nudity. Which is surprising for a Roger Corman film.

6/10: Far better than the original, not bad at all for an 80s sword and sorcery film and the characters are all well designed, memorable, and unique.

Evil, or "Ondskan" in Swedish, is a masterpiece of a tv show. Based on the best selling novel, the show fully encompass the themes and tone of the book, whilst cutting out some of the sillier plot points. It's telling how good a show is when, like me, you binge all six episodes in one evening!

I think this version is superior to the already brilliant film from 2003. The relationship between Erik and Marja is better developed and a lot of the other characters are more fleshed out owing to a longer run time in comparison to the film. The teachers are given more depth in the series, especially Tosse Berg, the sports coach. Pierre is given a lot to do as well. However, I preferred the villainous and abuse enabling headmaster from the 2003 film, and I'm not sure which of the evil step Fathers were played better. Although, I did love that Gustaf Skarsgard, who played the main bully, Silverhielm, in the original film also plays the abusive Step Father here.

Erik's backstory is told properly here as well, unlike in the film where it's skimmed over, and the cinematography and sound design are brilliant here. Some of the acting may have been better in the film but the dialogue and atmosphere in the series is unbeatable.

10/10: A masterpiece of a series, and I feel sorry for people outside Sweden who haven't heard of it, or can't find where to watch it.

Barbarian Queen is a lot better than I thought it would be, the costumes and sets are good, the villain is surprisingly competent as a character, and there are lots of sword fights. Which, as a fencer myself, I love.

The plot is the usual fare, stop the tyrant, rescue the lover. Although, this time there's a bit of a twist in that instead of rescuing the princess or girlfriend, it's the man who needs rescuing. This feminist undertones are themselves undermined by the frequent and often obviously forced nudity. Since Roger Corman played a part in making this film I'm sure this comes as a surprise to no one though.

4/10: An entertaining, if very cheesy B movie flick. With some nice costumes, action sequences and acting that leaves much to be desired.

Evil is a very good, Oscar award nominated Swedish film. It follows Erik, a downtrodden teenager with a strong sense of justice and morality who is taken to one of the finest boarding schools in the country where he begins to be picked on by these disgusting, snobbish, bullies.

The film is at its best when it highlights the contrast between the sophisticated and tyrannical Sixth formers, and Erik's friends. Erik has a strong sense of right and wrong, and he unlike the others he won't let himself be bullied. Like with many private school cultures, the teachers allow and even encourage this sort of behaviour, the fault of any mishaps always being blamed on the bullied instead of the instigators. The headmaster allows the bullying to happen, and there's a racist teacher who also permits it. Jews are briefly shown to be a target of the bullies, and the head bully, Silverhielm, seems to be at the least xenophobic as he mocks Erik's Finnish girlfriend. The plot is very strong and satisfying when Erik gets his revenge. The acting is good, but it's not always easy to tell how good it is for non Swedish speakers. One criticism I have of the film is that apart from Pierre we don't get to see many of Erik's other friends developed.

9/10: A really great film, with strong positive messages, an amazing plot, and fine characters.

Killer Bees is a pretty rubbish film, with a bland plot and dull characters. The main characters are a romantic couple called Victoria and Edward, two very boring characters, but at least they're both likable people. The special effects in the film are very, very poor, and using the word "special" to describe them is an insult to the word special.

The soundtrack is terrible, the plot is bare-bones and a poor attempt at excitement, and the film's logic is laughable. There are few positives to say about this film, but I appreciated some of the actor's bravery in being covered in real bees. Even if the bees were soothed first, and there was at least an attempt at a plot. Obviously the film having almost zero budget mustn't have helped either.

2/10: It gets a point for an ok performance from Gloria Swanson and the fact that they at least attempted a twist ending.

Jamie Lee Curtis leads in this unique horror film set in a desolate American coastal town. The film is well shot with some excellent settings, although if this ever gets a modern remake I would love if they really emphasised the isolation of the coastal setting more so than they did here. The plot is quite good and I loved the frightening imagery of the ghostly killers emerging from the fog and the mystery is heightened when the vengeful ghosts kill without showing their faces. However, I often found parts of the film drag on, and the film is in the awkward sort of time period between the decade of the first modern-type horror films in the 1970s and the ultra gory and silly 1980s flicks.

Some of the characters were quite forgettable, and whilst the film is iconic in its themes and plot, a lot of the actual film is forgettable. None of the characters particularly stood out to me as iconic.

The soundtrack is phenomenal and interestingly enough is composed by the director John Carpenter, a veteran of the horror genre with other iconic films like The Thing (1982) and Halloween (1978). I haven't seen either of those films yet, but would like to soon.

7/10: Worth a watch, especially for fans of John Carpenter.

The Woman in Black 2 is good film, not as fantastic as the first one, but still great as sequels go. Unlike the first film, which was set in Victorian times, this one is set in the 1940s at the height of the second world war.

It could be argued that Woman in Black 2's story is more engaging than the first film's as it focuses on a wider range of characters. One criticism of the original film (that I completely disagree with) was that Arthur Kipps spent too much time walking around the house, hasn't anyone heard of building tension? But here, there is less of that.

The cinematography is amazing and the film is beautifully shot and looks absolutely gothic and gorgeous. One critique I have of this film that makes it inferior to the 2012 classic is that it relies too much on jump scares to frighten the audience, in the original it's often what the characters don't see that frightens us the most, the woman in black eerily staring at Arthur from the shadows was more chilling that a Woman-in-Black-induced-nightmare (never thought I'd use that phrase) where the villainous ghost randomly dresses up as a Nurse(!?) to scream at the protagonist. Eel Marsh house is still as creepy as ever.

The plot is good but could be better, and without spoiling things the ending has an actual build up, climax and satisfying conclusion. The soundtrack is suitably scary, but not as good as the 2012's one.

7/10: Definitely worth a watch for fans of the original. A film that absolutely oozes with gothic terror.

Beverly Hills Cop is a brilliant film, basically a masterpiece. The casting is genius, the characters are hilarious and fresh, and music is phenomenal and iconic, and Eddie Murphy is at his peak! Judge Reinhold and John Ashton are excellent as his two side kicks, and especially considering how different Rosewood and Taggart are from one another, Taggart especially makes an excellent contrast to the laid back, witty and clever Axel Foley. Steven Berkoff makes an excellent villain too, and is easily the best baddie in the trilogy, his scenes ooze with contempt and I always like it when the villain in a comedy film is played completely straight.

The film is very well paced and edited to perfection so that it doesn't get boring. And the jokes are hilarious (especially the bath robe ones!)

9/10: A must watch for Eddie Murphy fans!

Consent is a very well made film about sexual assault and rape culture. The characters are believable, the situation is believable and, I imagine, this happens far too many times to count in real life where the perpetrator gets away with it completely.

The acting was good, but as with many BBC and Channel 4 Dramas it could have been a little better. The camerawork was good but definitely gave me more of a low budget tv series than a film.

Despite the technical flaws the message is extremely important, and if we continue to normalise such misogynistic behaviours.

8/10: It should be shown in Sixth forms around the country.

Beverly Hills cop 2 is basically a carbon copy of the 1st one, but worse in almost every way. It's great to see the original trio returning, and Eddie Murphy is still really good as Axel Foley, but the plot is disappointingly stale and the jokes are no where near as funny as in the original.

Axel also seems a little less likable in this film. The main villain, played by Jürgen Prochnow, is good but very underused and the climatic fight in the film is miles worse than in the 1st film. It's difficult to enjoy this without comparing it to the original, which is fair and beyond better.

5/10: Average comedy flick that has a great star, but a poor plot, dialogue and lack of originality. Still reasonably funny in places due to the chemistry between Axel, Rosewood and Taggart.

Son of Godzilla is a rather weak film, but it is very enjoyable. Baby Godzilla is hilarious and you can tell that the parent Godzilla is so done with him for 90% of the film!

The plot is barebones, as can be expected, and is mostly spent either chasing the Godzillas or the Godzillas fighting some huge giant ant or the like. The acting, whilst not amazing, was not too bad, however. And, I really enjoyed the practical effects, even if they were very corny (Godzilla is a man in a suit!). It's a very funny film to watch drunk too.

4/10: Entertaining monster flick, with a silly plot, an even sillier pair of monsters and good effects.

Ratatoing is a film that exists. It shouldn't do, but it does exist, so I had the misfortune of being able to watch it. The animation is terrible, the dialogue is awful, the music nearly makes your ears bleed and the acting is better not talked about. Oh, and the plot is dreadful.

Ratatoing starts off at a restaurant (named the Ratatoing by the way) where the first five minutes is spent complimenting the food, that is apparently wonderful but it's full with maggots and worms and flies. Which I guess the rats eat, so it's ok? I'm not quite sure, it's a very weird start to a very weird film. The next however long is everyone starts asking for the secret ingredients for the food, it was very dull.

The rest of the film is basically just the rival restaurant owners trying to find the secret of how good the food is (the actual secret is that Ratatoing isn't even cooking their own food) and it's all dragged out over nearly fifty minutes, when it could have been condensed down to twenty, easily.

1/10: It actually hurt me inside to watch. Zero enjoyment from this film.

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas is a good film, the acting is solid, the cinematography is nice and the music is passable, if not amazing. Unfortunately, the film is also extremely historically inaccurate, makes little sense, and has led to a whole generation of school children being taught the wrong thing. Which as a soon to be History teacher, is a huge shame for me.

For example many students believe that the film and book are based on a true story (they are not!!) think that it's possible for the Jewish boy, Shmuel, to sit around all day doing nothing without anyone seeing him or forcing him to work. Also, the fact that Bruno can sit at the edge of a camp and easily dig his way in without a guard noticing is also ludicrous to the extreme.

The characters are good, but make me uncomfortable. I do not blame any of the actors in the slightest, and I'm sure they thought the film would bring positive educational values to Holocaust education, even if it doesn't. Vera Farmiga plays Bruno's Mother, Elsa. Elsa is portrayed as extremely sympathetic, despite being married to a Nazi Officer, hating Jews and only showing disgust when the Jews are getting gassed, disliking mass murder is no where near a basis for human decency, and in the real world she would still be a despicable person, but for some reason within the film she is portrayed as heroic...it's stupid. The ending of the film where the focus of sympathy is given to the Nazis is quite disgusting too. Although, scenes such as where the Jew Pavel is beaten to death, and the gas chamber murders at the end do portray the true horrors of the Holocaust effectively enough.

Bruno is well played by Asa Butterfield, and the only reasonably accurate character is the evil and sadistic Lieutenant Kotler, played very well by Rupert Friend.

Another focus of my dislike is the author of the novel, John Boyne. Boyne has contributed to what is essentially misinformation when it comes to the Holocaust, which is very dangerous. His sequel to the Boy in the Striped Pajamas "All the Broken Places" written in 2022 was complete tripe as well.

5/10: As a drama it works well and the acting is good. But the historical inaccuracies, misinformation and making the Nazi characters too sympathetic bring this film down a lot. Make sure you're educated on the Holocaust before watching this.

Downfall is an amazing film, Bruno Ganz is absolutely amazing as Hitler, and at portraying pure evil in human form. A lot of previous films inaccurately portrayed Hitler as some sort of cartoonish super-villain instead of the charismatic, enticing and well loved leader he was. Hitler came to power through the vote of the common man, not through tyranny, and portraying his appeal is crucial to understanding how evil this vile man really was, he was possible the most evil leader to have ever lived.

Bruno Ganz deserves huge amounts of praise for his role, just as Ralph Fiennes does in the equally brilliant 1993 film Schindler's List. Also of note is the lesser known, but no less brilliant, Ulrich Matthes, who plays Joseph Goebbels to an unsettling perfection. Hitler's decline into madness and delusion has never been shown better on film. The cinematography is claustrophobic and whilst it sometimes has an almost tv series type feel, this is never enough to diminish the plot or acting. It's a shame the extended edition hasn't been released with English subtitles, really.

10/10: Essential watch for any budding historian, or history student.

Return to Oz is an extremely weird film, the atmosphere is so bleak I'm surprised it even tries to link to the original movie, and many of the themes on show are very adult and not for children. I'm confused to think why Disney studios thought this would have an audience!

Where the film excels the most is the almost post apocalyptic feel I get from it. The Emerald City is in ruins and its residents are either dead or turned to stone. The visuals are fantastic, gothic, and dark for a lot of the film, which I absolutely love, although the plot sometimes doesn't match the darkness of the tone and visuals and often tries to insert childish humour or silly jokes in an otherwise extremely serious film; like it's trying to appeal to both adults and children and sort of reaches a weird middle point where it's not able to decide which direction it fully wants to go in.

The plot is fine, the music is decent and the costumes are actually quite great, but there are some elements that drag out too long or are not explained well enough.

Fairuza Balk's Dorothy is very solid and another standout actor is Nicol Williamson, who plays the evil "Nome King" to perfection. As well as his other role as the villainous Doctor in Dorothy's real world.

6/10: An extremely weird film, with some excellent visuals that deserve praise. But a plot that (whilst average and not bad) drags, and an uneven pace with an annoying sidekick (why pick an irritating chicken over Tonto?!) All in all, a good film.