Judgment Day (1999)

Ah 1999, I...vaguely remember that year. Or rather the end of it, you know it the whole Y2K Millennium Bug and end of the world prophecies, whether that be the technological apocalypse, the Rapture, a meteor, or the popular zombie apocalypse. Hey, the zombies are coming, you better have your zombie plan ready. Alas that isn't what this next film is about, though the end of the world theme is fitting for the year. Though the Antichrist doesn't make an appearance, stupid lying tagline.

No we instead find that an asteroid fourteen miles long (They made a really big point about this, remember, the one that wiped out the dinosaurs was only six miles long) is on its way to Earth. The military send out agents to pick up Doctor David Corbett (Linden Ashby), arguably the only person on Earth capable of developing something to stop the asteroid. However a cult, lead by Thomas Payne (Mario Van Peebles), kidnap him in order to stop him from stopping the asteroid. Not sure how the cult knew about the asteroid, but anyway. Agent Jeanine Tyrell (Suzie Amis) is put in charge of a rescue, joining forces with prisoner Mathew Reese (Ice-T) with only three days to find him.

The plot is okay. It's a rescue operation in a race against time. The problem is that it plods along, there is no real sense of direction that the film is going in. Even when a lead becomes a dead end, low and behold Tyrell and Reese are suddenly on another lead which popped the Hell out of nowhere. There's a few action scenes which seemed forced than anything else; though I do love the fact that Payne at the start is filmed saying 'we don't have gun factories, so where do they come from? Surely an authority figure is to blame' and then five minutes later he has a grenade launcher. Then again that shows that he's (probably) the reason why guns are in the community. Also he is the leader of a cult, all cults have an armory. There isn't really a sense of danger either, any problems are normally solved by either luck or consummate ease.

The acting...is okay. No-one really does anything bad, but they don't do anything spectacular. Although saying that, Peebles I thought was really good. He was charming, he was sophisticated, he basically showed why he was the leader; he basically has a silver tongue, he's a smooth talker, he can manipulate people. An actor who was surprisingly in this was Tommy 'Tiny' Lister as Brother Clarence. Again, I thought that he was pretty good, he certainly played the obedient servant well and was able to portray the right emotions when necessary.

In all honesty, Ice-T was probably the weakest of the cast. Well, him and Amis. Even Coolio as Luther and Dartanyan Edmonds as Damon in the supporting cast stood out more than our two heroes. I suppose it's because of the script and how everything basically went right for them than the actual acting. The characters themselves do have potential to shine, but the result isn't as bright as they should be, though we do have...some stereotypes in here.

The effects. Ooh boy. Well, the gun fights I suppose are pretty standard as well as explosions, again not great, but when it comes down to most of the other stuff, it's pretty bad. The asteroids look fake, and I mean really look fake. Then again it's a low budget B-movie in the late 90s, what else would you expect?

To be honest, this film is disappointing. It certainly has flaws, what movie nowadays doesn't? But I actually expected a lot more of this. So it was made in the late 90s, but I was expecting something like the 1980s action flicks. Compared to those, this film didn't really bring anything new, just more of the same thing we saw in the 80s (If this film WAS made in the 80s I'd have given it some slack). But the film isn't entirely awful, I actually quite liked it. It certainly shows potential, if it had a bigger budget, maybe some better acting, the kinks worked out, it could have been a really good film. It's certainly watchable, I'll say that and I will say give it a try, just don't expect much of a masterpiece.

Trailer Park of Terror (2008)

What is up with film makers and audiences? Who made the first torture porn film? Why did they think that audiences would love watching people get tortured over a long period of time? Why are they made? Why do we watch them? The video nasties of the 1980s (In particular cannibal films, as well as 'I Spit On Your Grave'), then a resurgence in the noughties with the 'Hostel' films, Turistas (Or 'Paradise Lost' here in the UK and Ireland), and of course 'The Human Centipede' films.

And here (Based on the Imperium comics of the same name...apparently. I've never read said comics so that most likely affected my viewing. Can't find a copy anywhere though) a group of delinquents lead by pastor Lewis (Matthew Del Negro) shelter at a trailer park run by Norma (Nichole Hiltz) after their bus has a bad case of crashing into another truck. As the title of this film suggests not all is right with this trailer park, and the group are hunted by a group of evil rednecks.

To be honest I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. The story focuses more on Norma and her..."family" than anything else, the group who we're supposed to follow are more pushed to the side. There's a certain charm to our villains compared to the bland, unmemorable or downright hated members of Pastor's group. Only ONE character, Bridgette (Jeanette Brox) who is likable, and even then it's hard to root for her.

There isn't really much of a story, it's just watching people get killed in bizarre and brutal ways. No, seriously, some of the deaths are bizarre. I won't spoil any of them, I'm sure you'll know them when/if you see them. But they certainly are brutal, it's one of those films where you cringe at seeing them, but surprisingly laugh about it. Well, laugh at one or two anyway. But with that being said there really isn't an aim for this film, the characters seem to be so stupid that escape isn't really an option.

The gore is...well...gorey. But unlike 'The Human Centipede 2' it actually puts effort into the other aspects of the film. More for the villains of the film, but at least it deviated from the gore. The effects certainly look real, thankfully, at least it isn't CGI.

The acting I have to say was pretty damn good, much better than what you'd expect from a film like this. Hiltz shines through them all as Norma, but her fellow trailer park members also share the same charm and energy needed for their roles, especially Myk Watford as Roach, the guitar wielding...undead guy. The only real weak links would be a few members of the Pastor's group, in particular Ricky Mabe as Michael, and Hayley Moarie Norman as Amber, who, at times, you forget are in the film.


So, this film was pretty good. But that's really only because we tend to like the villains attacking the characters we don't like. Hey, kind of like the sequel to 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. But for the most part, there isn't really a reason for this to exist. The story teaches us nothing, but then again it's the kind of film that's designed to entertain rather than teach.

Although...it does slam a moral message right at the end.










Spoiler Section

The ending is weak. It really is. The way the film builds it up, the ending is so disappointing. I'll explain, after the Pastor and all of her friends are killed, Bridgette is confronted by all of the trailer park undead. Norma is happy, until Bridgette yells at them to just kill her and that all she wanted was for people to like her for what she is rather than what they want her to be.

And this works.

Seriously? I mean, this relates to a similar rant that Norma shouts to the trailer park residents, since they treated her with disrespect, and therefore Norma saw a resemblance to herself in Bridgette and that's what led her to let Bridgette go. But seriously? That is what saves Bridgette? When I first saw this with a group of people, you have no idea how much negativity was given to this ending, how much moaning was...moaned. They might as well have just ignored her cries, or faked her out and killed her anyway. Anything than what we actually got would have sufficed.

And that's the moral of the story? Be yourself? Be proud of who you are? What a crap moral to put on the end of a torture porn movie! Hey Amber, be proud of the fact that you've had more guys than the number of letters I've typed in this review. Alex (Ryan Carnes), be proud of the self-centered bastard you are. Hey Tiffani (Stephanie Black), be proud of the fact that you're so desperate for crack you suck the dicks of random guys behind a fuel station!

Of course I may be blowing this out of proportion. Maybe a feeling of self-hatred IS the reason why these kids are on the path of self destruction. Maybe if they had just believed in themselves and liked themselves for who they are they wouldn't have gotten into this mess.

Oh my God I just talked myself into liking the ending.

The Ward (2010)

Do you know what I haven't done for a while? A film about a haunted asylum! Yeah there aren't enough of these is there? And with this film we see John Carpenter returning to the director's chair since 2001's 'Ghosts of Mars', having since worked as...something other than director on 'Vampires: Los Muertos'...um...okay, 'Halloween: Resurrection'...um...okay, and the remakes of 'Assault on Precinct 13' and 'The Fog'. Not boding well.

Kristen (Amber Heard) burns down a house. Not realising it's a crime, she is arrested and committed to an asylum, where she meets Iris (Lyndsy Fonseca), Sarah (Danielle Panabaker), Emily (Mamie Gummer), and Zoey (Laura Leigh), all of whom are being treated by Doctor Stringer (Jared Harris). However, an evil presence is lurking in the hospital and is hunting the girls. It's a good thing they're the only patients in this hospital, or others would have been in danger as well.

This is pretty much a meh film. Not entirely sure why Kristen was sent to an institution simply because she has memory issues; she seems to be perfectly sane, the only indication is when Kristen was struggling when the police arrested her. Apart from that though the film is wonderfully written, providing the necessary character development and allowing the plot to flow. There are some unnecessary scenes, some of which feel like they were thrown in there for the Hell of it, but overall it is written well.

As I said the characters are developed, you do learn about them, though at the same time not a lot. But it's not just that, at best they're likable, at worse they're bland. They've all got their own traits and personalities but no-one really stands out except Kristen and Stringer. The staff, namely Roy (Dan Anderson) and Nurse Lundt (Susana Burnley), as well as Stringer himself, are normally seen as stereotypical "oh they're nuts we don't care about them" people. Stringer though is only seen doing this a few times, almost as if he's working in the shadows.

Now, the reason why Kristen and Stringer are the only real stand out characters, is because of the acting. And because Kristen is the main character. Heard is an outstanding actress who mostly dominates the scenes, while Harris is pretty much the best acting talent in this film, performing brilliantly as Stringer. Actually I have to say I liked Anderson's role as Roy as well, he's just not given enough screen time seeing as how he's a minor character. Everyone else though, they're okay, they're not bad, nothing spectacular.

The effects I will say do look really good...I can't think of a reason why, but they are good. I think it's more the make-up actually rather than the effects. Carpenter tries to use as little effects as he possibly can and this comes off remarkably well in the film.

So, you'd think this is a good film. Good acting, decent plot, great effects/make-up. But, bizarrely, it kind of isn't. I guess it's because it's all been done before, the scares, the story, nothing new is brought up, and that just makes this film really unmemorable. This is one of those films that really deserved more than this. I suppose it could be a good introduction to Carpenter for newer audiences, but it still isn't a classic compared to 'The Fog' or 'Halloween'. It's a so-so movie, one you can watch, but not one you'll be raving about.






Spoiler Section

You already know what the twist is don't you? Before you even buy the film you know what the twist is. Why? Because it has been done before! Kristen, or rather Alice (Mika Boorem) has a multiple personality disorder; basically everything was in her head. And, as I said, this was pretty much what anyone watching it was expecting.

That being said there are some clever bits involving this, namely how the personalities see everything else, like the hospital staff; initially we see them as jerks, but once Alice has been brought to the surface, we see a much kinder side of them. Though it doesn't explain why, when we see multiple personalities in a room, Stringer moves his face to talk to them; if they were all in the same body wouldn't he just stare straight at one person rather than tilt his head in another direction? And Alice was 'killed' when the other girls put a bag over her head, which doesn't explain why her face looks like it has been burnt off.

Basically, it there are some clever bits and some stupid bits when you think about how the twist affected the film.

Victim (2010)

You know, when someone direct messages you on Twitter saying "Check out Victim 2010' don't do it. If you do you might come across some king of monstrosity which might keep you up at night.

We follow...Young Man (Seriously, he's credited as that) (Stephen Weigand) who is kidnapped by Doctor Rudolph Volk (Bob Bancroft) and his ogre of an assistant Mr George (Brendan Kelly). What does Volk want with the Young Man? What exactly is Volk up to? And does it have anything to do with the video we saw at the beginning of the film?

This film, this film is weird. I can't really talk about the story without hinting at major spoilers, so I'll leave that till the spoiler section at the end. I will say that the acting is pretty good, in particular Bob Bancroft who managed to portray a very sinister individual. However, when he tries to express any other emotion, he tends to fall flat. Brendan Kelly can do particularly well as the mute Mr George, but he can't seem to get the right emotion from time to time. Stephen Weigand meanwhile, is pretty bad all round.

Then again not much is given with their characters, Volk is only interesting when in eccentric mode and we don't really learn much about Mr George or Young Man to really care. Hell, we don't even learn Young Man's actual name, nor do we know why George is helping Volk. Volk's motivation you sort of learn as the film progresses, but there is a big contradiction, again it'll come up in the spoiler section. In fact you care less and less about Young Man as the film goes on.

There is one other main character, Detective Janet Corwin (Stacey Haiduk) whose character is weird. She's there to provide hope for Young Man, but her interest in Volk seemingly comes out of nowhere. That and she is virtually bland, all we really know is she wants to go to Florida. Haiduk doesn't really seem to know what to do with the role, she just goes along for the ride really.

Actually for the story, I can say that I kind of respect where it goes, how it pushes the boundaries, but it doesn't really pull it off well. When Volk's objective is revealed, for a thriller film it really is downright disturbing. And with a short cast list there isn't the classic 'kill them off to raise tension', and Volk's plan goes along with hardly any problems so escape seems impossible.

But overall, it isn't exactly a good movie. For a large part not much happens, but the film does crawl under your skin. It's kind of like 'Twilight', there's a good concept, but it's held back by everything else. The acting is poor, the overall story is poor, not much goes for the film. Now for the spoilers.








Spoiler Section

Volk's objective to brainwash Young Man into becoming a woman. I am dead serious. And not just any woman, but his daughter. Why? Well, Volk's daughter was sexually assaulted, and Volk wants to inflict the same pain onto the person who did it.

And that works against the film because you get a feeling that Young Man was the rapist before it's even revealed, which makes it a lot more difficult to like the guy. Along with that, by the time Volk's master plan is about to be executed, it virtually isn't Young Man anymore, so technically Young Man isn't suffering the same pain, its this whole new personality that's suffering.

So, a bit of a flawed story, but really, it's a passable film. I'm not going to watch it again in a hurry, but it's passable.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

"Space. The Final Frontier". Never has four words been so iconic, the second these words have finished someone will continue with that speech. Then again Star Trek is one of the most famous franchises out there. As we all know the franchise got rebooted...sort of, with the successful 2009 film and now comes the sequel.

The Federation comes under attack from a rogue agent, John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). Fleet Admiral Marcus (Peter Welles) orders Kirk (Chris Pine) to take his crew on the USS Enterprise to chase him down.

That's probably all I can say with spoiling it.

As the title suggests the film is a lot darker than it's predecessor. It explores love, lost, sacrifice, deception, consequences, courage, it blends all of this into a fantastic piece of storytelling, as well as putting in some humour, some brilliant action scenes and some unexpected surprises. It successfully grabs your attention, it draws you in.

The characters are all still exceptional, in particular Harrison who is a much more tragic villain than he is originally made out to be. But that doesn't stop him from being one of the most cold and calculating villains to ever grace the silver screen. That's actually what I love to see more in villains, not that they're strong, cruel, sadistic, but their intelligence.

Meanwhile we see a more vulnerable Spock (Zachary Quinto), a more developed role for Scotty (Simon Pegg), and a more vengeful Kirk. In all honesty I felt Uhura (Zoe Saldana) was underused, and I'm not particularly a big fan of Saldana's. Don't get me wrong, I think she's good, not great. In fact now that I think about it we see a...trying to think of the right word here, a more desperate side of all the characters, and even from minor supporting characters.

But that's really all down to the acting. Saldana, as I said, I think she's more good than great, but in her role as Uhura I actually like her, it's just a shame she isn't really that developed. Everyone else though is superb, particularly Quinto towards the end and, of course, Cumberbatch who, at times, dominated the scenes. As mentioned even supporting cast members were brilliant, like Peter Welles, Bruce Greenwood as Admiral Pike, and Alice Eve as Doctor Sexy. I mean, as Carol Marcus.

The effects are superb, from space battles to on foot battles to the ships themselves. You know how I feel about CGI, so, like I mentioned in my 'Avengers' review, if I actually loved CGI effects then they are more than perfect. In fact I'd probably say that the effects in '...Into Darkness' are better than those in the 'Avengers'. Hell, the landscapes look spectacular. Every single effect looks physically real, it looks genuine, it looks superb. And then there's the make-up which was astounding, especially concerning alien races.

Let's just get down to it, this film is awesome. The acting is terrific, it has a storytelling masterpiece, the effects are outstanding, it's basically an awesome movie, and is a top contender for best film of 2013. If you haven't seen it yet, go and do so.