Slump at the Pump Film Reviews!

Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Fri, 17 May 2013 17:51:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Kirk & Spock et al enter the dark

What's it all About? The usual suspects are all back on the bridge to boldly go where no one has gone before. In this case, they actually go where they've gone before ie, breaking rules, travelling at warp speed and punching people in the face. This time there is supposed rogue agent on the lose added to the mix.

Doesn't this guy know how doors work?

Best bits? The scene where The Enterprise plummets earthward with little to no power is exhilarating and tense and has sensational special effects.

Did it make you think thoughts? This experience started off with a whopping 6 trailers to get me in the mood. The Hangover III (awful), Enders Game (awful), After Earth (looks okay but will be awful), Fast and Furious 6 (cheesy fun), World War Z (awful) and Man of Steel (this has me super excited). I mentioned these trailers as it seems to be the norm nowadays to completely spoil any surprises for upcoming films by chucking every last twist, turn and cameo into the trailer. Fortunately the Star Trek trailer didn't go down this route mainly due to it being pretty terrible with super fast edits and stuff exploding that left me with a feeling of, 'what the hell was that all about?'. In this case a good thing though as it didn't ruin any surprises for the film itself the biggest of which is the identity of one of the villains. Avoid spoilers if possible and you'll get more of a kick out of it.

More lingering Enterprise shots

The film has a great opening sequence that throws the viewer straight into the action as the crew of the Enterprise try to save an indigenous population form impending doom. The action is fast, furious and ends with a moral dilemma that has an impact on later developments.

If you stick J.J Abrams on scriptwriting, producing or directing you know you're going to get something good and that's the case here. (the fact he's attached to the new Star Wars flick is exciting indeed) Everything seems spot on and although there are stretches of talking heads and playful banter, none of it drags on or impedes the ensuing set pieces. The performances are good, the script helps obviously, and we get a mixture of light hearted comedy, drama and anguished filled bad guys bent on the destruction of our heroes.

Future Spock rears his head again and has a conversation with young Spock but the resolution of that is left dangling. There's also a good bit towards the end that riffs on a previous 80's Star Trek flick but reverses two specific to great effect which I won't spoil here. It's just a shame that the 'event' isn't permanent as this could have continued into the next film much in the way it did in the 80's versions. If this all sounds confusing you'll know what I mean after you've seen it.

Necessary? You be the judge

There are a couple of missteps though. As much as I like Cumberbatch, his villain comes across as very 'pantomime' and most of his dialogue is delivered in such a way as to make it a bit too cringe worthy.

We have Sherlock in custody

Another criticism is that it didn't feel at all like a sequel. This is good in a way as it lets newcomers jump straight in without needing any prior Trek knowledge although it does mean that we see virtually zero character development and progression of story lines. I imagine that given time, it will also suffer a similar malady to the first installment. I've now seen the first one twice but, if quizzed, wouldn't be able to tell you what it was about or what happened. It's all kind of generic and melds into one big sci-fi space war thingy. Oh yeah, the Klingons are woefully underused as well.

More of these guys please

Would you watch it again? Sure would.

Rating (out of 100%): A great flick and my only concern is that the franchise will continue to not bring anything new to the table. That said, I give Into Darkness a beam-me-up 90%

Iron Man 3 (2013)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Wed, 08 May 2013 10:28:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: The Golden Avenger vs domestic terrorism

What's it all About? Iron pants is back and this time he faces the threat of The Mandarin, a terrorist who has targeted the president of the united states. When Tony Stark's bodyguard, Happy Hogan, gets roughed up Tony dons the suit and takes the fight to The Mandarin.

Best bits? The bit where Pepper gets Iron manised is pretty cool but otherwise best bits are thin on the ground.

Did it make you think thoughts? Let's get the good out of the way first. Downey Jr is ace as Tony Stark. His casual, playboy super-mechanic is played to perfection and he manages to make Stark extremely likeable considering he's a bit of spoiled brat with a superiority complex. Unfortunately it's all down here from there and as a warning, SPOILERS WILL FOLLOW.

In a nutshell, the script is poor, the plot is poor and the direction is suspect. The actors do the best with what they've got and ultimately you can't fault their performances. Cheadle is good comedy relief and I thought we'd be seeing him in ass kicking action as The Iron Patriot but alas the film makers had other ideas.

I knew it would be a long 2 hours when at the beginning of the film we see Tony getting dressed in his new suit of armour by just pointing at it and having it fly through the air in individual bits before it attaches itself to his body. One major beef I have is with the portrayal of The Mandarin. The original comic book version of this character is Chinese in origin and megalomanic in nature. He is a super intelligent, highly skilled martial artist and has ten power rings that grant him extraordinary abilities. I appreciate that not all things in comic books will translate well to the big screen but what they have done with him is a travesty. I was appalled when he appeared on screen with a horrible american accent and no power rings. The reason for this became clear with the twist when it was revealed he was just an actor 'playing' the part of The Mandarin. When Ben Kingsley reverted to his english accent and actor guise I sighed such a sigh that I think I annoyed the only two other people in the cineplex. From this point on the film was dead to me.

With this shambles in place, we see the real villain is Guy Pearce's Aldridge Killian. A wet drip of a man who becomes all powerful when he takes on the extremis project. This extremis makes men (and women) near indestructable, gives them the ability to regrow limbs, makes them able to survive being shot, burnt, exploded, tasered ad infinitum...yawn. It's never explained how though save for some backstabbing science chick who reveals it's all in the 'dna'. The bit where the main bad dude breaths fire though? Wow, mega Ugh. Also, all Killian wanted to do was sell his extremis human weapons to the worlds arms market so why he had to go through the palaver of kidnapping the president and creating The Mandarin I'm not entirely sure. I don't think the screen writers were either judging by the crap job they did with the script and story.

The end action scene is horrible with the president strung up Jesus like and has way too many Iron Man suits clogging up the screen. Why didn't he just call for all those automated suits earlier when he really needed them? Maybe Mr Stark isn't a super genius after all. Oh yeah, and what was that whole bit with the kid about? Tiresome and pointless. Overall the action scenes suffer from a trend that I thought the movie business had grown out of, that of super fast editing that makes it almost impossible to tell what's going on. Terrible.

Here's the thing, I'm a big comic book fan and before all the chumps out there start banging on that, 'He's just a raging fanboy who would never be satisfyed,' you should all know I really liked the first Iron Man and even the second one that most people hated on. Whereas the first film was fresh and new, this just seemed like a Hollywood cash-in. More than anything I came away angry. Angry that all involved would make such a pile of dog turd and angry with myself that I was sucked into the hype that it would be a rollercoaster thrill ride. In fact I had more of a thrill on the pedestrian style monorail at Chessington World of Adventures last week. On a side note, I must say that for pure ride enjoyment, Thorpe Park is the place to go. Rush, Stealth, Detonator and Nemesis are all fantastic. Chessington is great though if you want a bit more bang for your buck. There's a zoo, aquarium, sealion shows, a mini safari and loads of other stuff to keep the kids busy.

My best advice to people would be to check out the Extremis comic written by Warren Ellis and drawn by Adi Granov and also Joe Casey and Eric Canete's Enter The Mandarin which will give a much better interpretation of what this story is all about.

Would you watch it again? The Chief's main premise for whether or not a film is good is it's rewatchability so no I wouldn't watch again. Either of the Fantastic Four films, Daredevil and even Elektra are better than this.

Rating (out of 100%): Man this sucks balls hard. I give Iron Man 3 a game-changing (and not in a good way) 28%

The Three Musketeers (1993)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 20:54:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Those pesky Musketeers are at it again

What's it all About? Yet another retelling of the Dumas Musketeer tale that changes things to become a bit more movified. The first 20 minutes are pretty much a scene for scene facsimile of the 1973 version. Then some big changes occur. Cardinal Richelieu and Rochefort have more predominant roles and instead of the Queen having an affair with the Duke of Buckingham, it is now the Cardinal who wants to unite France and England to depose the King. He has the Musketeers disbanded and only our three remaining swordsmen (and D'Artagnan) can fight together for King and country.

Best bits? Nothing to see here

Did it make you think thoughts? From the outset this film establishes itself as a light hearted, chuckling, true Disney affair. With this in mind I thought there would be heroes punching villains and using the hilt of the sword to knock foes unconscious. It was surprising then that the film depicts lots of killing, stabbing, sword slashing and a particularly gruesome iron maiden scene. I was confused. Oh well.

Looking at the action scenes, they do their job but have no choreography that shows off the abilities of the musketeers. That is, our heroes just fight like normal guys. It's fairly common practice in action films to portray the hero as a super dude who has crazy ass moves and dazzling skills. Our boys however, fight as if they've just finished their shift at the local burger joint, picked up a sword and fancied duelling some mustachioed villains. Boring and lame.

The set pieces are ok but there is one that sticks out as being truly abysmal. The three ~~stooges~~ musketeers and tag-along D'artagnan are being pursued by Rochefort and his band of horsemen. The muskies decide to de-board their horse and carriage, set it alight and roll it down the hill towards the enemy. How will the enemy avoid this? All well and good but then consider the fact that it's not a narrow path that the flaming carriage is hurtling down but in fact a massive, and I mean massive wide expanse, effectively a field. I surmise it would take approximately a 15-20 degree turn either left or right for Rochefort and his goons to steer around the wheeled doom that is heading towards them but they inexplicably turn around whilst shrieking like girls and ride in the opposite direction. Words failed me at the time and all I could muster was a loud groan.

The casting crew need to have a long hard look at themselves as well. Charlie Sheen? Now, stick Chuck in a comedy ala Hotshots and it's a winning combination. Make him have to pretend he's a 17th century French swash-buckler and there's a well deserved combination of egg and face. Oliver Platt fares no better and there's something about Sutherland that just rubs me the wrong way (I think it's his face, acting, posture and voice).

If you see this man, Slumpy commands you to punch him in the face

Tim Curry is the only stand-out performance. His Richelieu is all evil Disney cackles and laughs and loves protracted bouts of exposition where he delivers his plans like a Bond villain before his inevitable comeuppance.

The only thing better than the 1973 version is that the story is easier to follow and perhaps makes more sense.

Would you watch it again? Nah, this is a pretty poor effort.

Rating (out of 100%): It's a romp that is easily forgettable so with that in mind I give it a lacklustre 45%

The Three Musketeers (1973)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 12:45:00 +0000

In 8 words or less: Boozing, gambling, fighting. The life of a Musketeer

What's it all About? The oft-told tale by Dumas of deception, cunning and quests for power in 17th century France. Evil Cardinal R (Chuck Heston) intends to take the Queen's position of power next to King Louis XIII by revealing details of her affair with the English Duke of Buckingham. On the side of the good guys are the self titled Musketeers (Reed, Chamberlin and Finlay) along with bumbling hopeful D'Artagnan (York).

Best bits? The first 20 minutes are cracking. The slapstick comedy elements are stop on as D'Artagnan travels to France to become a musketeer only to anger Porthos, Athos, Aramis and the vile Rochefort.

Did it make you think thoughts? Wow, they sure flounced them costumes up in the 70's, didn't they. This film certainly looks the part with it's spectacular looking gowns, feathered hats and top notch tunics. No computer generated imaged here obviously and the sets look particularly authentic.

These boys sure do love cash and cleavage and to be honest they don't really give a monkeys about serving their king and this is one of the films failings. Scenes of gambling, boozing and cavorting are prevalent and definitely sidetrack the movie from it's main focus. There are also a few too many plot threads and non-needed characters that left me wondering why certain things were happening and characters motives. This also meant that the film was about 20 minutes too long. With so much going on, the two main villains get too little screen time to ham it up liked I'd hope they would. A missed opportunity.

Interestingly, during filming the producer shot two films at the same time without telling the cast. In 1974 The Four Musketeers was realised, a film the cast weren't aware of as they'd only been paid for one flick and not been told about it!

Captain Hook maybe?

Would you watch it again? Probably not. They are some good scenes and York is excellent but it just felt a bit like a rambling adventure film without much adventure.

Rating (out of 100%): Although this is considered somewhat of a classic by many, it must be remembered that The Chief is not the many. I was bored during too much of this film and therefore give it a French-bearded 48%

Worse than: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Better than: The Three Musketeers (1993)

The Untouchables (1987)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:14:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: 'G-man' Elliot Ness vs Al Capone

What's it all About? With police corruption rife, federal agent Elliot Ness and a small team attempt to strike at the heart of organised crime by bringing down the big dog himself, Al Capone (played brilliantly by Bob De Niro)

Best bits? The films closing 10 minute train station scene is full of tense, suspenseful drama and is a real tour de force.

Did it make you think thoughts? Connery won the best supporting actor Oscar even though his Irish accent is one of the worst ever in movie history challenging Pitt's effort in The Devil's Own, Cruise in Far and Away and Lee Edwards in Blown Away. Oh well, we know that the Academy is pretty clueless. In fact, this film is full of strangeties. Not only did Connery somehow win an Oscar but the film also snagged one for Best Original Score. Surely only because it was by Ennio Morricone as most of it's up beat, friendly-feel jingles seem wildly out of place.

This guys head is about to be introduced to a baseball bat

By all accounts, the majority of the story is fictionalised but that's ok as the action and drama is quite exciting and entertaining throughout. It's fairly operatic in nature and De Plama's standard style-over-substance routine is evident but slightly reigned in by the David Mamet script.

'Do you feel lucky punk?'

Would you watch it again? Yeah, it's ok, if a bit long, but it's light hearted, in places, take on gangsters v cops is good Sunday afternoon fare.

Rating (out of 100%): I give The Untouchables a bootlegging 68%

Better than: Dick Tracy (1990)
Worse than: LA Confidential (1997)

G.I. Joe Retaliation (2013)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:05:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Rock lays the smack down on Cobra

What's it all About? It's dual threat time as the covert ops team known as G.I. Joe continue their fight against Cobra but now also have to contend with clandestine forces within their own chain of command.

Best bits? Cobra Commander is cool.

Did it make you think thoughts? Two plots threads are followed up from the first film (Zartan impersonating a high ranking official and the Snakes Eyes/Storm Shadow history lesson) but to be honest a casual fan diving straight into this will easily be confused. That said, it's 50% sequel and 50% reboot. Yes, some characters return but lots don't and we are introduced to a multitude of new heroes and villains the main of which is Roadblock played by Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson.

Confession time. Back in the day I was a big wrestling fan and one of my faves was none other than The Rock. I liked this guy:

What I'm now not a fan of is this guy.

The stupid grinning, the cheesy posturing, the crumby film choices, bleh. At least in this flick he keeps it to a minimum but he still hams up most scenes.

If you're reading this you should know I'm a big Joe fan which is grounded in the fact that I have all the comics dating back over 20 years. Here's a sample of my custom bound hard cover collections.

I even use to buddy up with Slumpy president Ben to create battle scenes with our action figures. Hoo Rah.

Action figure set-ups!

With that in mind, this film was always going to be a tough sell and after hating the first installment on it's release, but then warming to it on re-watches, I was cautious about this one. I'm sad to say it's actually a bit worse than the 2009 flick. The action is even more over the top, the fight scenes are shot so fast with that super-choppy style of editing that I couldn't tell what was happening, the sub plot with Snakes and Stormy is hard to follow (if you're not a fan with knowledge of their history) and features a very bizarre cameo by RZA and the script is pretty woeful. In short, the film is firmly aimed at the pre teen crowd who will no doubt lap it up.

Would you watch it again? I would but only because I'm a fan of the source material and I'm hoping it will grow on me.

'Aren't you a little short for a ~~storm~~...Snake Eyes?'

Rating (out of 100%): There's bound to be a sequel but for now I give this latest G.I. Joe a, 'Here's hoping for some Dreadnok action in the next one' 50%

Star Wars: The Clone Wars Season 2 - Rise of the Bounty Hunters

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:12:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Another season of balls-out Star Wars action

What's it all About? The war between the Republic and the Separatists is still raging across the galaxy.

Best Episodes? Wow, this is very tough to call. There are 5 distinct multi part stories here amongst a few one-offs. Episodes 5-7 (with ep 4 being a prologue and 8 being the epilogue) feature a brutal planet assault that is a mix of Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan. It's balls-out-the-bathtub action and the frenetic tempo is visualised to perfection in crystal clear high definition. The detail is also immense as highlighted by the markings on the side of one of the aircraft ala WWII bombers.

Episodes 12-14 focus on Obi Wan and new character Satine Kryze the Duchess of Mandalore. The script for this eps is brilliant with loads of verbal sparring between the two who obviously have a history. The main plot point here is that of Deathwatch, a subversive Mandalorian group who are very Boba Fettish and who's leader uses a black lightsaber. Awesome. His fight scene with Obi Wan is very stylish and excellently choreographed.

Did it make you think thoughts? As opposed to those terrible prequels, this production is Star Wars. Great characters, cracking plots, killer scripts and a fantastic balance of action, politics and drama. All the signature Star Wars elements are there as well. Panning shots of awesome cityscapes, countless ships docking on landing platforms, traitors at every avenue and C-3PO yelling 'We're doomed!'

Satine - Senators, I presume you're acquainted with the collection of half truths and hyperbole known as Obi-Wan Kenobi?

Obi-Wan - Your Highness is too kind

Satine - You're right, I am

There is a shift in this series that focuses less on clone troopers and the droid menace and more on the Jedi and the rise of the series sub titled, bounty hunters. Anakin also continues his descent to the darkside as he tortures and murders with care free abandon. Some of the scenes are actually quite dark and sinister and much more suited to adult viewers.

A King Kong-a-like 2 parter follows the traditional big ape arc almost to the tee. A strange beast is found on a desolate world and once confronted is captured and taken back to Coruscant for study but lo it escapes and wrecks havoc in the city. There is even a moment when the beast climbs a tower and roars in defiance at the buzzing fighter ships.

I noticed that during this season there was a move towards stepping away from the standard serialised animation formula. This season, is violent, thought provoking, shocking and also features quite a few horror elements. There are clear moments of suspense and tension, shadowy figures, psychological horror and even a couple of slasher style scenes as clone troopers get picked off one by one.

The only misstep is new bounty hunting villain, Cad Bane, who manages to be both irritating and grating and appears in too many episodes.

Would you watch it again? Sure will. This is an improvement on season 1 and I eagerly await season 3 which I'll get started on later this week.

Rating (out of 100%): If you can't wait for the new Star Wars films that are in pre production, you should sate your thirst by checking out this excellent series. I give season 2 a whopping 94%

Braveheart (1995)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 18:44:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Aussie/Scot Gibson shows he's no cunning linguist

What's it all About? As a nipper, William Wallace's family and friends are slaughtered by the treacherous King Edward I. Wallace goes overseas and returns to raise an army in an attempt to unify the Scots and defeat the evil English.

Best bits? Dodgy accent aside, Gibbo's rousing speeches hit the mark with heart felt passion and inspiration.

Did it make you think thoughts? Say what you want about Gibson as a person, he maybe a loony tune but he can make a pretty good movie. I always use to be of the opinion that Braveheart was a fairly rubbish film and only decided to re-watch it as I was off and it was on tv. It actually stands up pretty well and I enjoyed most of the 3 hour runtime.

Gibbo screaming 'till he's blue in the face

The scale is impressive as Gibbo tries to create an old fashioned epic in the same vain as Spartacus. He succeeds in some if not all avenues. Slow motion must have been the flavour of the month as Mel splashes it around with gay abandon which amounts to overuse and sucks the life out of some scenes and makes dramatic moments tedious.

Praise should go to the cinematographer who captures the rolling Scottish landscape with lush panning visuals. The numerous fight scenes are also a highlight. Vicious, bloody battles that showcase the horrors of war. The editing in these scenes is particularly impressive.

'Look at my gigantic pole'

Would you watch it again? It's a proper rainy afternoon matinee flick so probably.

Rating (out of 100%): Not the oscar worthy flick that the academy deemed it to be (although it must have been a weak year seeing as Babe was also up for best pic) but a solid romp. I give Braveheart a mud slinging, freedom giving, English killing 67%

The Foot Fist Way (2006)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:00:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: King of the Demo...Tae-Kwon-Do that is

What's it all About? Fred Simmons (McBride) runs a Tae Kwon Do school but not everything is hunky dory. His marriage is on the rocks his self confidence is shot and his martial arts hero is a turns out to be tool.

Best bits? When Fred tries selling his car there's a good little back and forth with the prospective buyer.

Did it make you think thoughts? Sure did. I always thought I liked Danny McBride but I've discovered I'm not really a fan. Cameos in Superbad, Pineapple Express and Tropic Thunder (all rubbish films btw) all made me laugh but recent appearances in Your Highness and 30 Minutes or Less made me cringe. With this in mind I thought if I delved into his back catalogue I might find a gem and added to this I'd heard good things about Foot Fist. Sadly it was not to be. This is just a poorly made, unfunny film that has no real redeeming qualities.

'I will beat your ass little kid'

I think the film makers were going for a Napoleon Dynamite vibe with a kooky off beat lead character and not much plot. It that was the case it worked but it's now also made me question whether or not I should re-watch the aforementioned ND as maybe I'll now think that is turd as well.

The film flip flops between Fred being an inept joke of an instructor to him being competent and worthy of his skills. Strange. Ultimately I just didn't get it. What I mean to say is, I understood what was happening on the screen but I didn't understand what the point of it all was or what the film makers were trying to achieve.

'Your Kung Fu is weak'

Would you watch it again? No.

Rating (out of 100%): This falls down on the main concept of what a comedy should be. It's just not funny. I give The Foot Fist Way a two-footed 32%

Worse than: Talladega Nights: The Ballard of Ricky Bobby (2006)
As good as: Beverley Hills Ninja (1997)

The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Everyman Denzil defuses underground hostage heist

What's it all About? A guy and his goons hijack a subway car and demand a cool 10 mil or they'l start offing the hostages. Yawn. Oh yeah, the head scum bag Ryder (Travolta) will only talk to train dispatcher Walter Garber (Washington).

A Chief pet hate. Movies that feature civilians with guns

Best bits? None come to mind.

Did it make you think thoughts? Within 30 seconds of this film starting I knew it was a Tony Scott flick. Slo-mo, sped-up, fast edits, blurry shots, it's all there and it's all very repetitive.

I was initially intrigued where this was going as I knew nothing of the original flick but it quickly turned into a run-of-the-mil hostage heist movie. Obviously with this being a Hollywood production it was inevitable there would be a twist and I waited patiently. I waited and waited and when the credits rolled I was still waiting. Hhmm.

'You make a lot of films, you gotta expect some to be turd'

Among all the mudanity we get a copy of the, wildly superior, John McLean-Al Powell dynamic from Die Hard with Travs refusing to speak to anyone but Denzil who is strangely at ease chatting with the terrorist. Also, why is no one on the train scared of the guys with the guns threatening their lives? In fact everyone in the whole film exudes a sense of clam and composure. Maybe it's a New York thing.

As the film neared the end I was still struggling to understand what Travolta's ultimate plan involving stocks and shares was. I shall lump it in with, why does toast always fall butter side down? as an unexplained mystery.

'What was my plan again'

Would you watch it again? Nah

Rating (out of 100%): The main problem here is that nothing interesting happens. It is literally a paint by numbers affair. It's not a complete turkey but doesn't add anything new or exciting to the genre. I give The Taking of Pelham 123 a lacklustre 55%

Better than: Under Siege 2: Dark Territory (1995)
Worse than: Die Hard (1988)

Lincoln (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Honest Abe or honest bore?

What's it all About? Can Lincoln push through the amendment to the constitution that will make slaves free men? It's kind of a pointless question really as we all know the answer.

Best bits? I wouldn't that there's one particular highlight but the overall package is very well produced.

Did it make you think thoughts? Let's get one thing straight, Day-Lewis is one hell of an actor and here he puts in another stellar performance. I can't say whether or not he nails the true Lincoln persona as I have zero reference point for knowing how this great historical figure actually acted but I do know he's probably already written his oscar speech.

The War Room. 'Get me those votes'

Elsewhere Tommy Lee Jones is miscast as Senator Thaddeus Stevens. I'm not sure what it is but I just can't take him seriously in that role. On the positive side, Sally Field is great as Mrs Lincoln. Fiery, powerful and a fantastic foil to the stoic single minded Mr Lincoln.

This Gordon-Levitt guy pops up everywhere

My main beef with this film is that not much actually happens. Don't believe all those glowing 5-star reviews that you'e undoubtedly seen on the tv, the web and in print proclaiming this as the greatest thing since sliced bread for it most certainly is not (that award goes to either peanut butter or Batman). A more accurate description would be that it plays like a dry history lesson with an over abundance of talking heads which is a shame because what I really wanted was a cradle-to-croak biopic not just a snap shot section of Abe's life.

It may sound like I'm giving this a bit of a bashing but I did like it and Spielberg has crafted a compelling if not fascinating look at a key moment in American history.

Oops, wrong film

Would you watch it again? Probably, if it was on at Christmas I would have it on in the background.

Rating (out of 100%): Two films delving into the horrid world of slavery have been released recently and this is the second best one. I give Lincoln a good but not great 72%

Better than: Amistad (1997)
Worse than: Django Unchained (2012)

Gunfight at the O.K Corral (1957)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:30:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Wyatt & Doc shoot 'em up

What's it all About? Marshall Wyatt Earp (Lancaster) and gambler/gunslinger Doc Holiday (Douglas) are worlds apart but end up in an unlikely alliance in this 'town based' western.

Best bits? While some hoodlums shoot up the town, Doc is sitting rock steady playing cards and telling the dealer, who is shaking and cowering, to deal the cards and get on with the game. Ice cool playa. There is also a fantastic scene in the barber's shop.

Did it make you think thoughts? There are two cracking lead performances here. It's a stand-off between bravura egos as the pair swagger and stride around every scene. Lancaster was arguably the bigger star but for the Chief, it's Douglas who steals the show. His tortured gambler is strong, resolute and stoic but hides an inner turmoil that threatens to destroy him.

It's also important to note that this was a big budget production and it shows. Sets are lushly constructed, colours vivid and the cast is all on top form. Even a young Dennis Hopper impresses as as a gunslinger who is conflicted by doing the right thing and standing tall with his cattle rustling family. Commercially the film did very well at the box office and sent the making of B westerns into decline.

Would you watch it again? Yeah, it's a great interpretation of the classic gunfight that is well worth yout time.

'No gambling here missy'

Rating (out of 100%): I really enjoyed this. It might be about 15 minutes too long but even then I give Gunfight at the O.K Corral a rootin' tootin' 82%

Better than: Wyatt Earp (1994)
As good as: Tombstone (1993)

Force 10 from Navarone (1978)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:30:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: A poor man's Dirty Dozen

What's it all About? The Force 10 squad led by Harrison Ford is tasked with blowing up a bridge in Yugoslavia. Tagging onto this group is Robert Shaw and his buddy Edward Fox who have a separate mission to route out a traitor and eliminate him.

'We're gonna need a bigger gun'

Best bits? There is a great scene where a captured Force 10 execute a cracking bluff to convince their German hosts that they are deserters and not on a top secret mission to cripple the Nazi war effort.

Did it make you think thoughts? This is one of those 70's ensemble cast pieces that popped up a lot in that decade. Harrison Ford, Robert Shaw, Edward Fox, Carl Weathers, Barbara Bach and Richard Kiel are all on show. Weathers appears to still be playing Apollo Creed with his, angry, shouty 'you done me wrong' Sergeant Weaver, Kiel is in Bond-villain Jaws mode except now he has a sketchy Yugoslav accent, Fox is excellent as the stiff upper lipped straight man and explosives expert Miller and Ford and Shaw display great chemistry as they repeatedly clash and unsurprisingly then buddy-up.

'Cut yourself shaving?'

Would you watch it again? Probably not. There are too many other better war movies out there.

Rating (out of 100%): A solid if not spectacular war movie that stretches on a bit too long. I give Force 10 a young-Han-Solo-outing 50%

Worse than: The Guns of Navarone (1961)
Better than: Attack Force Z (1982)

Pearl Harbour (2001)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:04:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: War movie with added love story

What's it all About? Set at the start of WWII, a couple of young hotshot pilots enlist in the airforce but things turn sour when Rafe (Alfleck) volunteers to go overseas and help fight in the Battle of Britain. When news reaches the States that Rafe has been shot down, the love of his life Evelyn (Beckinsale) falls into the arms of Rafe's best friend Danny (Hartnett). Oops. After the Japanese launch a sneak attack on the Hawaiian US naval base in Pearl Harbour, America officially enters WWII.

Best bits? The dogfights are very well done with some great sequences of aerial combat.

Did it make you think thoughts? Yeah, never listen to the Mrs. I'd never seen this before as I had heard it was rubbish but my better half (cough, cough) convinced me it would make good Sunday evening viewing. The first hour is filled with so much cheese I felt like I had enough calcium to last a lifetime. Once the action kicks in, things pick up a bit but the whole Cuba Gooding Jr shtick fees like a tacked on way to show that African Americans played their part in the war effort. Unfortunately it comes across as clumsy and hamfisted.

Run Affleck, run

Whilst watching it struck me how similar this was to The Dark Knight. Both films have a perfect end point, the Joker/Batman showdown, and here it is the bombing of Pearl Harbour. It's a shame then that both films add on a third act that overpowers the natural ending and thus is a big anticlimax. In this case it's the B-25 bombers flying to Tokyo on a reveng mission. It's all a bit heavy on the US war effort propaganda. 'You bombed our military base you dirty foreigners. We bombed your city full of civilians. We're heroes.' Ugh.

Luckily I had my laptop on showing some American football playoff action as well as a juicy rump steak accompanied by curly fries, onion rings and some buttered peas to soften the blow of this hamfest. Top draw.

Would you watch it again? No

Rating (out of 100%): Too long, too much schmultz, too much bad acting and script. I give Pearl Harbour a don't-waste-your-time 30%
Worse than: Top Gun (1986)
Better than: Being in WWII

Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God (2005)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:11:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Here we go again....Oh dear

What's it all About? The bad dude from the first film (no not Jeremy Irons, we're talking about his right hand man whose name escapes me) is back in a quest to take over the land. Booorrring.

Our plucky band of adventurers

Best bits? None. The effects are even worse than the first instalment. In fact this resembles a no-budget straight to dvd hamfest. I actually quite like the poster though.

Did it make you think thoughts? See this link: Dungeons & Dragons (2000)

'Can you believe they paid me for this? The fools, ha ha ha'

Would you watch it again? No

Rating (out of 100%): This scores a couple of points based on the fact it has some comedy value. 6%

Dungeons & Dragons (2000)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:54:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Awesome fantasy dragon tale........erm...no.

What's it all About? An evil, vengeful sorcerer wants some kind of power rod that will help him control dragons and thus rule the land (maniacal laugh) Only some annoying teenage vagabonds an elf and a dwarf can save the day. Lord of the Rings this ain't.

~~Best~~ Worst bits? All of it.

Shouldn't this guy be in the Crystal Maze?

Did it make you think thoughts? There's an important question that need to be answered here. What the hell were you thinking when you decided to watch this Chief? Hhmm good question Chief. Why thank you Chief. I was under the impression that even though this was widely regarded as absolutely terrible, I would find some joy in it's fantasy sword and sorcery element. Oh dear, how wrong I was. Nothing like the fabulous cartoon or the long standing role playing game the only purpose this film served was to waste 107 minutes of my life. Oh yeah, what the hell is Jeremy Irons doing in this?

What do you mean this isn't the Tolkien book adaption

Would you watch it again? Ha ha, good one.

Rating (out of 100%): Terrible direction, script, acting, choreography, effects, plot, lighting, sound direction, screenplay, cinematography and costumes. Worst film ever? Maybe. I give Dungeons & Dragons a Christmas ho, ho, horrible 3%

Avoid any movie with this clown in

Star Wars: The Clone Wars Season 1 (TV)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 17:02:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Animated Star Wars...Nuff said

What's it all About? So, after the 'luke' warm reception to the 2008 feature length animated Clone Wars movie, Lucasfilm thought it would be a good idea to launch a new animated series. Hhmm. I made the decision to avoid this and plodded on with my 'clone free' star wars existence. It was around one month ago that I decided it was time to give the three prequel films, The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith (it's understandable if you've wiped their names form your memory) another shot at glory. Sadly they still left a bad taste in my mouth. However, it was around this time that I also remembered there was an animated series that was still being made. I donned my protective gear and made the brave decision to have a peek-a-boo. It was one of the best decisions I've ever made.

Best Episodes? Any eps directed by Dave Filoni or Brian Kalin O'Connell are very solid. Tresspass is set on an ice planet that evokes memories of Hoth and we even see some clones wearing what will one day become Snow Trooper outfits. Very cool.

In Cloak of Darkness we get to see the deadly assassin Asajj Ventress in all her dual lightsaber wielding glory.

So, is this a good show or what? From the outset the show attempts to impart 'character' to the varied personalities on display and as far as characters go, there are many. Jedi, clones, senators, civilians, assassins, droid commanders, crazy aliens and the usual wretched hive of scum and villainy are all represented and all justify their inclusion. In particular, the clone troopers who all have the same facial features are made unique by their nicknames, differing hair cuts, scars, and markings. This helps to show a human side to the republic army when compared to the standardised swarm of the droid army.

Introducing.......Domino Squad

The series start off quite episodic with little or no connection from tale to tale. There is however the over arching theme of the republic and the separatists fighting a long drawn out conflict across the galaxy. Most episodes revolve around a small outpost or planet under attack from General Grevious and his 'clankers'. A relief effort is then co-ordinated with Anakin and Obi-Wan taking centre stage. The good news here is that, unlike the movies, Anakin is actually a likeable character and not some stuck up brat with a superiority complex. Obi-Wan is pure gold. Staunch, stuffy and with excellent comic timing he steals most of the scenes he is in.

'Anakin & Obi Wan on top form shocker'

It's hard to pick out any low points as there are so few. Several comedy moments fall flat, mainly those involving droids, and a couple of characters are just plain silly such as the looney tunes-esc Dr Nuvo Vindi and the Clone Wars animated film reject, Ziro the Hutt. However this a small price to pay for what is an outstanding show.

Animation wise it's a mash up between traditional and computer generated with a splash of manga for good measure and it works a treat. The action is fluid and swift and packs a real punch. The show is not for the faint hearted though and those thinking this is purely a kids 'toon are sorely mistaken. Political intrigue, corruption, back stabbing and all the horrors of war on up on the screen and in your face. People die and the good guys don't always win.

Overall the main thing it does right is that it feels 'Star Wars-y' which was always going to be the biggest challenge.

Would you watch it again? Absolutely. When I'm done with series 5 I'll go back and re-watch them all to pick out my favourite ever episodes.

Rating (out of 100%): This show is a revelation. It's everything I want in a 22 minute cartoon and it does the impossible by making me care about the clone war period, a feeling I thought I'd never have after the detestable prequels. I give season 1 of Star Wars The Clone Wars a more than justified 91%. Right, I've got a couple of eps to go before I finish season 2 and I can say it's even better. Watch this space.

This show, watch you should

Total Recall (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:18:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Sci-fi Colin does sci-fi Arnie

What's it all About? Set in the future where there are scant few habitable locations, The United Federation of Britain is fighting constant battles with a resistance movement intent on bringing the corrupt corporation to it's knees. Enter Doug Quaid, a factory worker who unlocks hidden knowledge on a visit to memory implant centre.

Best bits? This film looks great. Very nice futuristic feel and some quality special effects.

Did it make you think thoughts? Sure did. I expected to hate this. A tacky remake with the annoying Colin Farrell and no doubt rubbish special effects and plotting. To my surprise none of that was the case. It rattles along at a good pace with well choreographed fight scenes, a functional script and exciting action pieces.

This doesn't happen

Some might say it's pretty much a direct 'copy' of the original 1990 Arnie flick but that's not a bad thing. Yes, a lot of the scenes are the same and at first I was thinking, 'Man, this is just another one of those pointless remakes of ye olde classics' but after a while I got right into it. Good stuff.

This does

There's a nice bit of eye candy as well in the shapely forms of Jessica Biel and Kate Beckinsale which never hurts.

Women driver, look out!

Would you watch it again? Yeah I really liked it.

Rating (out of 100%): Miles better than Looper, this is definitely worth a watch. I give Total Recall a stuck-in-the-memory 75%

Looper (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:17:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Need someone offed? Use time travel

What's it all About? Crims in the future use illegal time travel to send people into the past to have them disposed of by 'loopers'. Joe (Levitt) is one such looper who freaks out when his future self appears before him ready for execution.

Levitt doing his best Bruce imperssion

Best bits? Jeff Daniels is good in his all-too-brief screen time

And again....what a jawline

Did it make you think thoughts? Wow, sure did. How can so many reviews be so wrong? Everywhere I look I see high praise flinging reviews. Everyone I know who's seen it says 'this film is amazing'. The one residing factor I can take away from this is that my belief that the public cannot be trusted has been confirmed.

Here's another one

I knew I was onto a loser in the first 20 seconds when the lead character explains that future criminals need to use time travel to dispose of dead bodies. Wait a minute, huge criminal empires can't dispose of bodies? What kind of joke outfits are they running? Also, if they persist in this time travel looping nonsense why not either kill the person before they send them back in time to avoid the 'oh no he's run away' dilemma or even better why not just send them back to the Jurassic era and have a T-Rex munch them up.

One more

Aside from Jeff Daniels, the one tiny bright spot is that Joseph Gordon-Levitt does an ok job in the acting department but why oh why did the makers decide to add those facial prosthetics to make him look like a young Brucie. He looked awful and it really put me off. Add in the fact that his character is wildly unlikeable and we're left with an odd choice of 'hero'.

Oh yeah, Bruce seems to feel, physically, anything that happens to Joey but how come when Joe falls 50ft out of a top floor window onto a car, Bruce is absolutely fine? Hhhmm.

Other notable flat spots. The middle section is flabby, the end unsatisfying and the 'kid' part of the plot terrible.

Here's Bruce to show us how it's done

Would you watch it again? Nope

Rating (out of 100%): A message for film makers everywhere. Unless you have the words Back to the Future in your title, don't bother including time travel. I give Looper a dismal 25%

Skyfall (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:29:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Who is the best of M's agents?

What's it all About? MI6 is under attack from an unknown assailant. Bond and co must find him and shut him down.

Best bits? The opening chase scene is good and overall the acting is solid.

Where's your helmet young man?

Did it make you think thoughts? Loads. SPOILERS will follow. There are many things I didn't like about this faux Bond film. Firstly, after the opening sequence (which I'll admitt is fairly entertaining) we find that Bond is a hoboish drunk living on a beach, ugh. Then, when he is brought in he is shown to be unfit and can't fire a gun straight. Bond should never be made to look this weak and dishevelled. He's also sporting a grey stubbly bear. Oh dear. As far as the script goes, it's fairly poor and the direction is not good either. Mendes may have solid directing credits on his CV such as Revolutionary Road and American Beauty but he is completely the wrong choice here. There is a silhouetted fight scene in a tower block that looks so out of place it made me cringe. Also there are too many lingering shots and attempted thought provoking conundrums, meh.

There had been a lot of talk about how good Javier Bardem is. Well, he may be a great actor but here he's saddled playing a truly pathetic Bond villain. It's almost as if the film makers have Jokerfied him up in an attempt to make him the new clown prince of crime. It didn't work. Throughout the film he is dubbed a genius and his scheme may have been intricately planned but when he launches his coup de grace attack on M at the court hearing it's all a bit slap dash and reeks of amateur our.

Looking sharp!

Bond's final plan is idiotic. Rather than take M to a secure location he decides the best place to go is his old Scottish home in a bid to lure out Silva (Bardem). Great plan genius. A lone farmhouse in the middle of nowhere with a couple of shotguns and a retired gamekeeper against twenty plus hired goons with automatic weapons a helicopter gunship. Oh yeah, that's when Bond goes all A-team and jury rigs the house with traps. Ha ha, unintentionally hilarious.

Overall, my main beef is that it just does not feel like a Bond movie. There are only two 30 second scenes where I felt like this was part of the fifty year film franchise. The bit where he gets in the Aston Martin and the scene at the end with Moneypenny, the padded double door and the briefing room. All too little I'm afraid.

Would you watch it again? Only if I'm doing a complete Bond watch involving every film. Otherwise, no. Is this the worst Bond film ever? What you have to do is think, 'Would I rather watch Thunderball or Diamonds are Forever than Skyfall?' If the answer is yes, as it is in my case, then Skyfall plummets into worst-bond-ever territory.

Rating (out of 100%): As an action film I give this 40%. As a Bond film I give it 0%. If you or anyone you know claims to be a Bond fan and you/they think this is amazing I feel sorry for you as you obviously know nothing about cinema. Right I'm off to watch a couple of real Bond films. Live and Let Die followed by The Spy Who Loved Me.

Teeth (2007)

noreply@blogger.com (Emma) — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:52:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Toothed pie eats willies

What's it all About? A girl (I've forgotten her name, the characters are somewhat irrelevant in this film - there's a woman with teeth in her lady bits for gods sake, names are beyond this one), has been born with a genetic mutation - vagina dentata; originally thought to be a greek myth but as this film clearly shows, is actually a hard fact (no pun intended).

"Sex!"

To add a further deep twist to this bloody tale (sorry), mrs teeth pie herself is part of 'purity' group. A bunch of teens committed to their keeping virginity until marriage who get together and chat about it. Remember all those teens who went mad for the Jonas Brothers and their purity rings? Yeah, bit like them...but maybe even weirder and less into pop. Unfortunately for our toothed protagonist, despite committing to purity, horny young teens and pervy men just want to get it on with her. But unbeknown to them, the 'monster' insider her will quite simply bite off anything put up there that she's not ok with. And she's not ok with any of it - she has the ring remember?! (ironic? possibly).

You literally have no idea what you're getting yourself 'into' young man.

The film climaxes (look it's really hard not to pun here!) when her mum dies. This is a sub-plot that doesn't get much attention and is somewhat jarring to the story, but serves its purpose for her to get her sweet sweet revenge on her evil stepbrother who's been an ass their whole lives by perving and sleazing over her. How does she do it? Why by popping on a white virginal dress, seducing him and using her nippy unmentionables to get that penis right off him...the part where it 'falls' out of her and then gets eaten by his dog perhaps wasn't in the original game plan, but hey, it all added to the 'moment'.

"It's gone! Muuuuuuum!"

Best bits? (Even the questions are punning with me tonight!) hmmmmm...I'm not really sure there are best bits in this one, it's more of a film watch spent somewhere in-between frowning and laughing at the sheer ridicule. I suppose once you get into it, you kind of get convinced that it's quite a cool way of getting revenge on a sleazy predator - 'I bet you weren't expecting that!' type moment - a comedy trombone wouldn't have been out of place in some of those scenes.

"Yeah, I'm into all this willy choppin' now."

Did it make you think thoughts? Yes. I am glad I don't have teeth in my pie. Oh and I will be fine if I never see a film with multiple penis' not attached to their owners ever again.

Would you watch it again? Erm no. It's a novelty, a bit like eating a chocolate Peppa Pig.

Rating (out of 100%): Teeth is a great comedy b-movie horror. It does everything it should - silly storyline, completely ridiculous in every way, bad acting and nothing really making sense. So in the context of its genre I'd give it a fanny-faboulous 62%

Resident Evil Afterlife (2010)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 11:25:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Alice fights zoms in desolate future...yawn

What's it all About? Word of a safe haven has meant survivors are seeking out 'Arkadia' in search of protection, food and shelter.

Run Alice, run

Best bits? An ok fight scene with a brute berserker in the showers is perhaps the highlight of a lacklustre 'noon-evil' film with no scares.

Can I 'axe' you a question?

Did it make you think thoughts? At the start of the film why is Alice is Japan? How did she survive the totally brutal plane crash? Where does her constant supply of lipstick come from? I had these thoughts among others. Chief video game protagonist, Albert Wesker, is back and in full on game mode. Mutating, not dying, quipping, not dying again, you know the drill. It's a more unbelievable film than the rest (not that they were realistic in any way) and shows that the franchise is really starting to flag.

Opticians appointment for Mr Wesker

Would you watch it again? Probably not

Rating (out of 100%): Jovovich is good as always but isn't given much to work with. I give Afterlife a 'please don't come back for more...whoops you have done' 35%

Hypothermia (2010)

noreply@blogger.com (The Chiefdog) — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:07:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Man in black bin bags scares locals

What's in the lake? Don't worry it's just a rock bottom budget special effect

What's it all About? Two families are fishing on a frozen lake when they discover more than they bargained for in the form of a prehistoric creature swimming in the water.

At least Michael Rooker doesn't get stinkpalmed

Best bits? The poster is brilliant. Kind of like those 80's horror posters that were hand drawn and looked like the film would be a scarefest but were in fact pants.

This guy should have stayed at home

Did it make you think thoughts? Yes. 1. The title doesn't even make sense. No one gets hypothermia. 2. 73 minutes. Are you kidding me? That seemed like an age I can tell you. 3. Worst rubber-suited monster that looks like a man in a black bin bag ever? It's up there.

Would you watch it again? Hell no.

Yowza, it almost looks real!

Rating (out of 100%): A lot of the time I like a good B-movie that tries hard but is obviously crap. Not here. Woeful on all counts. I give Hypothermia a freezing cold 8%

Witchboard (1986)

noreply@blogger.com (Darren Woolridge) — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:26:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Fake 80's ghost boy terrorises Tawny Kitaen.

What's it all About? An annoying man brings a Ouija board to an 80's party and they contact the spirit of a dead boy (like we did in the eighties). Tawny Kitaen then gets a bit obsessive about using the board to contact the boy. Is the ghost boy, David, who he says he is? ... I smell a possession coming on.

Neighbours lighting.

Best bits? Best bits? David gets a couple of kills in, mostly by dropping things on people. There's also the oddest falling out of the window scene that I've ever seen.

Window Fall. Actual Speed.

Did it make you think thoughts? What a strange 80's curiosity this is. The kind of film, that if you had seen it when you were 8, it would never leave you. Not at all scary now, as it's just acted and produced too weirdly, but all part of what makes these films special.

Terrifying...

Would you watch it again? I will! What an odd film.

Rating (out of 100%): 52% You'd probably enjoy watching this repeatedly to pick up on all the weird acting.

Poor Tawney, after David turns her shower temp up... (really)

Halloween Resurrection (2002)

noreply@blogger.com (Darren Woolridge) — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:51:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Myers is back again.

What's it all About? Three years after the events of Halloween Water (H2O) Myers (who apparently wasn't decapitated at the end of the aforementioned film) finally catches up with his sister, Laurie in a hospital escape showdown which is directly lifted from Terminator 2. Then the actual story kicks in... An internet entertainment company founded by Busta Rhymes and Tyra Banks sets up a Halloween Webcast show in the Old Myers house with a handful of fame-hungry teens, each fitted with a personal camera to stream their actions to this thing called the World Wide Web. Oh, there's also some kids at a rubbish party watching it on the internet and they end up helping somehow.

Buster's unusual presenting style.

Best bits? I liked how dated all this technology stuff looks in just 10 years. The words 'state of the art' are thrown around everywhere. Not quite as good as the immortal line "Look! An interactive CD ROM!" from Jurassic Park though.

Even if this is dated and a bit rubbish and hilarious. It's still only the forth film in the Halloween series to be competently put together. So it wins a lot of points for that.

Even the Sexpest from American Pie makes an appearance.

Did it make you think thoughts? Michael Myers, the internet and reality TV isn't the recipe for success. A film maker needs to start again with a film set in the 70's directly after the first movie. It's the only way to fix the legacy of Myers then we can put the rest of these films in a box named 'curious oddities'.

A penis joke, presumably.

Would you watch it again? Probably. It was pretty funny... Busta Rhymes doing Kung Fu on Michael Myers? Amazing.

Gimmie Some Mo'

Rating (out of 100%): 54% It's fun, and entertaining, but make no mistake. This is not a masterpiece.