Gallowwalkers (2013)

Is Snipes in jail? what's the story with that these days? anyway somewhere along the line he managed to star in this rather nifty sounding western set film. The people behind this have clearly got a franchise in mind, a possible comic book/graphic novel future, toys, videogames, sequels etc...there is a clear aim in the way this has been made. Basically if you take 'Priest' and 'Blade' and mash the two up you kinda get an idea of what they went for.

Really this is more 'Blade' than anything if you ask me, its Snipes as a familiar character accept he's dressed as cowboy and he's taking down undead cowboys. There is lots of blood and gore, the main bad guy is white and has the obligatory sexy evil female sidekick, gunshot action is usually in slow motion and lots of freaky makeup/prosthetic work on some bad guys making them look like mutants. The final end credits are done in a neat animated fashion very similar to the beginning credits in 'Priest', virtually copied.

The plot is nonsensical and never really explains itself at all. I think Snipes character is suppose to be cursed because his mother was a whore and thief. She was gonna be hung for her crimes but the Sisters of San Diablo (?) find her and teach her the secrets of the dead? all this while pregnant with Snipes character. So this some how curses Aman (Snipes) and every person he kills comes back from the dead, odd curse, what if he became a banker and never killed anyone?

The rest of the plot is the standard western guff about Snipes love being raped by a gang of bad guys, but not killed, she's actually fine accept she has a kid. He then sets out to kill them all, does this, but they all come back to life so he's gotta do it again. Its not much of a big deal because these undead guys are still easy to kill and Snipes has no problem doing it. Not sure how they managed to stretch this into a film really as he kills the main bad guys easy, could of done it in five mins, nothing holding him back at all.

So many weird plot holes and unexplained ideas though, its really poor. Unsure if this may have been because of Snipes tax issue during the making. Snipes main sidekick in this film is completely unexplained. He frees him by killing a posse of lawmen for no reason at all! isn't Snipes a good guy here? aren't the lawmen good guys? won't they now come back to live and try to kill Snipes? and why free this one guy?

There is so much more that makes no sense here. Why do the bad guys comes back with no skin? why are lots of people in this film blonde? (wearing ridiculously bad blonde wigs), when Snipes character kills the living bad guys in a flashback why is he all painted up like an African warrior? why does one bad guy have a huge misshapen head like an orc from LotR? why does one bad guy have two lizard tails sticking out the back of his head and how the hell does he skin a lizard to use as his own skin?? (scale difference much?), what exactly is the bad guys main intention here apart from bringing his son back to life? and why does one of the bad guys come back all dressed up as a Cardinal? I mean seriously...that buckethead character and his over sized metal Ned Kelly helmet? utterly stupid, looked like it was gonna fall off at any moment. A bit Mad Max-ish too.

I guess on the plus the film looks good, twas filmed in Namibia and there are some glorious landscapes on show. The location really works well as an American wild west setting, sprawling and barren. The director also has an artistic eye for sure, some nice shots in places, lots of sweaty facial close ups like all westerns tend to have. Admittedly they do (at times) give a really nice glossy professional look, they almost make the film better. One shot in particular sees a lone gunman standing on some rail tracks, he looks to the horizon to see the shimmering faint silhouette of a hand rail car and its passengers slowly approaching. Very 'Lawrence of Arabia', very atmospheric and beautifully shot using the Namibian heat.

So this film has been in limbo for along time, we've all heard its crap and truthfully...it is! The visuals are slick, the blood n gore do add some fun here and there (very good makeup on the skinless villain at the start) and Snipes does look quite natty in his cowboy getup with that nice stylish white goatee. Problem is its completely dumb, messy, unexplained and evidently trying to jump on the undead bandwagon AND the popular comic book adaptation visual style bandwagon. It just comes across as a poorly crafted rip off of some other films.

3/10

White House Down (2013)

Over two hours!? really?? for this??!! well don't say I didn't warn you. So lets dispense with the formulaic statements that we all know are bound to crop up here, I will say this only once (maybe). Its 'Die Hard in a building', or more specifically 'Die Hard in the White House'. We all know this so lets get it out there now, difference is this time we have a duel on our hands.

Again I think we all know this but here we go, 'White House Down' vs 'Olympus Has Fallen' FIGHT!! So yeah the plot, errrmm...its exactly the same as 'OHF', bar a few obvious directions its exactly the same damn film. Terrorists siege the Presidents big white house and take it over, this equals massive amounts of death and destruction the likes of which John McClane hasn't seen since 'Die Hard 3'.

Its hard to believe this film almost follows the exact same path as 'OHF', almost scene for scene I kid you not. Despite different events and character routes these films are the most identical films I think I've ever seen! the gunship sequences are so suspiciously similar its not even funny.

This film starts off idiotically, Tatum is trying to get a job with the secret service based at the White House, apparently you can bring your kids to these highly classified job interviews. All this simply because he's having daughter issues and wants to impress her, riiight. He fails to get the job so off they go on a tour of the White House where they bump into the President, riiight, do I go on with this?

The film continues to be idiotic as a group of terrorists casually waltz in and begin to take over the most protected and highly watched building in the world. Again we are shown how terrible the secret service undercover guards and military personnel are at their jobs by being killed instantly and very easily. Everyone is killed and its up to Tatum to save the day, the hook in this film is his sidekick for the most part is the President. Unfortunately they have decided to make the President of the USA more like a buffoon and the comedic half of the action duo. Now of course in reality I'm sure the President would be useless in such a situation but was all the stupid Chris Tucker-like humour required?? I'm surprised Tatum doesn't slap him across the face like a bitch at times.

Although yes I admit a butch President running around gunning the bad guys down would be equally daft so maybe that was the right choice, but just less goofy perhaps.

This is where this film has gone horribly horribly wrong, an attempted action film which can't decide how serious its wants to be. There is a lot of death, action, explosions, carnage etc...but there is also cringing hammy dialog and moments of humour that make you think you're watching a PG-13, oh wait...it is a PG-13. This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the semi serious action and death on view. 'Lethal Weapon' has both elements but its still an adult film which works well, this is just awkward and goofy, very goofy.

Of course I realise its not meant to be a serious film, you take it at face value as with any other action flick. The problem is it pails in comparison to the earlier version 'OHF'. The Butler vehicle is the perfect example of how to make a thrilling action film about terrorists for adults (as it should be) and no silly comedy. This film is the perfect example of how not to make an action film about terrorists by aiming it at a wider audience with the PG-13 rating, this equals mediocre gutless shenanigans.

I mean lets take a sequence for a moment. The action sequence where Tatum and Kato are speeding around in the Presidential limo on the White House grounds. What on earth is that about?? they are literately driving around and around in circles with these heavily armed jeeps firing a minigun up their ass. Hundreds of civvies, press, police etc...are all standing about by the gates and watching this go down as if it were a show! watching these vehicles merely go round and round with bullets flying everywhere! I mean hell, this film doesn't even look that good compared to the other version, granted the CGI isn't great in either films but nothing seems to be explored here. It feels confined and limited (despite the budget), the siege isn't really that marvellous, fights/gun fights seem average, the bad guys don't really feel bad enough, on the whole it all feels underwhelming and not much of a spectacle at all.

I felt James Woods was held back from being a really nasty piece of work, we all know Woods, we all know his fast cutting verbal, come on! There was a great chance for a villain there, alas they didn't take it.

Had 'OHF' never existed then this film would obviously fair much better, it still wouldn't be great because of the crapness but it could be seen as more fun. Unfortunately the other film shows this film up extremely badly by giving Emmerich a visual lesson in how action films should be made, how it should be done. On a final note just how old is Gyllenhaal exactly?? she looks about forty years old Jesus! what the fudge!!

End of the day it does what it says on the tin in a slightly light-hearted watered down fashion, but 'Olympus Has Fallen' simply does it way way better, period.

5/10

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993)

The long awaited third sequel...well sorta, after the surprisingly popular half decent first film and the fun arcade fighter-like sequel, the third film limped along. Obviously trying for a fresh look and idea the Turtles find themselves being zapped back in time to feudal Japan mainly to capitalize on their martial arts background. The film was also kinda known as 'Turtles in Time' which was the title of the second scrolling beat 'em up for the SNES fighter back in 92.

To be honest I can see why they would make this move story wise, the Turtles do have that Eastern mythology to them so naturally they would fit well in the land of the rising sun. Its basically all about swapping places in time, the Turtles must travel back in time and exchange places with some elite warriors to save April who accidentally got swapped with a Prince whose father is a Shogun (I think). So what we end up having is a nice lighthearted out of time culture shock routine for both the Turtles in ancient Japan and the Prince and his warriors in present day New York.

So what can you expect? well its pretty clear really, there are lots of hokey, silly, childish fight sequences where the four heroes battle Japanese warriors of various kinds. Lots of visual cartoonish humour, prat falls, rude jokes and talk of pizza. On the flip side back in New York we see the out of time strangers coming to grips with TV, pizza, modern music, night clubs, bars, drink etc...its all very cliched, very cheesy, very hammy and massively predictable but its suppose to be.

The visuals still look nice if you ask me, nothing special, feudal Japan is realised well with lots of hilly rocky green terrain and a nice fortress set. All the extras look fine in their traditional outfits accompanied by traditional weaponry, they all speak Japanese (no subs) and they all take their roles seriously enough to make the ride enjoyable. Sab Shimono as Lord Norinaga looks great in his role and gives a decent performance, easily the best, he actually gives the whole thing a much needed boost of realism. The Turtles don't quite look as good as the previous two films, Henson's boys aren't behind the magic this time and you can tell but its still OK (they look quite good in their samurai armour). Splinter still looks the same which is good and its nice to see Koteas back as Casey Jones albeit in a minor background role.

Not as good as the first two films but I still enjoyed this to a degree. Its meant for kids in every way and is in no way suppose to be anything remotely serious of course. Its still heavily based around the cartoon series which isn't a bad thing but I just feel had they used Shredder, Krang, Bebop and Rocksteady as the villains, still using the feudal Japan setting, we could have had a much better film.

The whole trilogy really missed Krang, Bebop and Rocksteady, all three films are a nice adaptation of the cartoon series and don't disappoint in all honesty. Sure they get more childish one by one but they still work both visually and simply for fun. For what they are, the approach and style of the franchise, they are perfect, perfect pop culture of the early 90's.

5.5/10

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze (1991)

I haven't seen this film in eons and good golly its dated heavily, there is some serious nostalgia here folks. Straight away in the opening credits I knew I was gonna like this, the small sequence montage in New York is simple but brings back many memories of the era...boom boxes!

From there we see a very young Ernie Reyes, Jr. sporting a stylish mullet and delivering pizza to an address. When he gets there he discovers its being robbed by a large group of masked men and decides to take a few of them on. First impressions...holy Air Nikes Batman! this kid got game!! he kicks ass and then some! But more thugs arrive, its at that point the turtles stroll in behind Reyes (just out of focus), leap over his head, the image freezes and the classic Turtles logo/film title appears emblazoned across the screen in bright bold colours. It looks fantastic and is a glorious little moment to get you hyped.

What I like about this silly film is the fact it follows on from the original perfectly. It starts from where the last film left off, the Foot Clan are reforming, Shredder has reemerged from his apparent death, the turtles are hiding out at April's and everybody is talking about the events of the last film. So it feels very comfortable for the viewer, as if it were the next day in the adventure.

Most of the cast have returned which is also a big plus, only April has been recast and Casey Jones doesn't turn up at all which is a shame (no mention of him either which is the only continuity issue). The turtles themselves are pretty much the same, only Corey Feldman didn't return to voice Donatello but the other voice actors remain. Visually the costumes are again the same but with small touch ups that enhance their appearance. The animatronic heads are much sharper this time around, the lips sync nicely with the dialog and the actors inside seem to have much more range in movement (amazed they can do backflips so easily!).

The bad guys are awesome in this film, you gotta love Shredder, the guy just looks so damn cool in that outfit. I like that they haven't changed it either, if it ain't broke don't fix it, and it looks awesome. We don't really see Shredhead do much this time but his presence is always felt, the dude only needs to look cool, that's all that's required. The Super Shredder sequence? videogame much?? its so totally in tune with the videogame aspect its untrue, utterly preposterous sure but visually so damn cool. I love how they hyped up his armour for that, even though it doesn't make any sense, why would his armour mutate? surely it would simply get destroyed as he grew bigger like the Hulk. Meh it looks super awesome so who cares.

The only let down for me (and everybody else at the time as far as I'm aware) was the lack of Bebop and Rocksteady. When Shredder gets hold of the ooze and turns two unknown creatures into monsters everybody was ready for Bebop and Rocksteady, who else could it be?? I remember my heart sank when they turned out to be these fresh newly created creatures. Despite the disappointment you can't deny they look terrific, a bit Godzilla-ish in concept for one perhaps, and the other just seems like a big werewolf (possible idea rip from videogame Rampage which was popular in the late 80's).

The animatronic puppet work and bodysuits in this film are truly fabulous it must be said. Sure they all look rubbery and clumsy but its the craftsmanship involved that impresses, the detail, the facial movements, the time and effort put it. This is why films like this far outweigh many modern kids flicks because they are real, plus its all Jim Henson's Creature Shop work so that explains the high levels of quality.

The first film was very enjoyable and to be honest I expected this to be a poor follow up. I'm still amazed today that this film is actually fudging tops! It looks like a videogame in every scene but to a degree that's kinda what you expect really so no problem. Its a much lighter affair than the first film yet manages to show much better fight sequences (with less weaponry) probably down to the fact the costumes are better this time around.

So yes its aimed more at kids this time with more slapstick and tomfoolery but its better in visuals, effects and characters if you ask me. A few downers aside like the hideous Vanilla Ice sequence and lack of Bebop and Rocksteady, this film delivers on pretty much every level offering some great comic book/videogame goodness that actually works! I just can't help but like it.

8/10

Sliver (1993)

Ah yes, back in the early 90's Sharon Stone had the reputation of being Hollywood's dirty star, thanks to 'Basic Instinct' and this. At the time I was a young teen and Stone was notorious for her antics on film, we all talked about her, we all wanted to see her films, Stone was the pinnacle of naughty films we weren't allowed to see.

Apparently the film is based on a novel of the same name and I'm sure the book is much better than this film. Its basically a murder thriller in a tall apartment block. Stone has just moved in, there's a young stud on one floor who fancies her and a middle aged bloke on another who fancies her too. One of them killed the previous owner of Stone's flat (yes in the UK we say flat), choose between the paranoid loony or the enormous peeping tom.

I admit the film does well in hiding who committed the murder (and the other one during the film), you're never really sure which of the two chaps did it right up to the end. Tends to swing from moment to moment, one minute you think its Baldwin, the next its Berenger, nicely done I guess.

The thing is the whole film just feels like its capitalising on Stone's previous massive hit 'Basic Instinct'. If they had another female lead in that role I just don't think it would have attracted the same publicity. After all this was Stone's sex sequel, her second big sexual escapade and boy did they nail that home! I mean the film is reasonably enjoyable but its merely one sex scene after another, once Stone's character meets Baldwin's creepy duck faced character it just becomes one sweaty sex sequence followed by some dialog, then another sweaty sex sequence etc...It does actually feel as though the director is simply giving you a breather from playing with yourself with some boring plot, until the next big tissue inducing sequence (its not that dirty by the way).

Gotta give it to Baldwin, he really does come across as a slimy creepy pervert that you know not to trust. Whether that was good acting or just the way he is I dunno. I quite liked the sub plot revolving around his electronic spying, you know its gonna play into the murder plot because he has cameras in every nook n cranny of this building, kinda obvious what will happen. Berenger is OK as this jealous oddball who breaks into peoples apartments all the time, a bit bland though, kinda plays it safe with his performance, nothing too special. A bit sickening watching both these guys trying to schmaltz their way into Stone's knickers, I wonder if the script is the same as the book?

Stone moans, groans and exposes herself well throughout, nothing more, she does exactly what you expect and its pretty much all she can do. Really it just feels like a quickfire follow through after Stone hit the big time, its very simple in premise and hardly a thriller in any aspect if you ask me. Its not even that sexy really, I don't wanna see Baldwin's sweaty ass! Some nice visuals though, a bit noir-ish I guess, soundtrack is a little haunting also, so not all bad. The films title suits the content perfectly, you really do feel like you need a shower after this sleazy affair.

5.5/10

Disclosure (1994)

The third film in Michael Douglas' sex trilogy, this has always kinda amazed me really seeing as the guy is hardly good looking. Yet I remember this film well upon release, the films poster was raunchy and everybody was talking about the sex scene with Demi Moore. The films main plot was also a big talking point, sexual harassment of a man in the workplace...by a higher grade woman. A concept that was deemed to be impossible and rather un-PC.

In all honesty the film was pretty much sold on that one sex scene. But it wasn't even a sex scene, it was more rough and dirty, clearly made to be scandalous and edgy, and it worked. I can't deny its a sexy sequence especially with Moore's provocative and dominating dialog at the same time...'you just lie back and let me be the boss'. 

This film really brought Moore to my attention. Her dominance and bitchy attitude is incredibly sexy and could easily cause any man a huge moral dilemma, and I guess that is the entire point.

After this scene the plot gets nasty as Moore's real character is exposed and she tries everything in her power to bring Douglas' character down. Its all about lies, accusations, trust and mainly power, who has the power, are women as powerful as men in business? or do they actually have more power? Its an interesting premise which works well and does open your eyes somewhat. Does this happen in reality? to be honest I'm sure it does as in this modern age equality laws for the sexes can easily swing in favour of the female in cases just like this (evidence depending). Bottom line it can/could be very easy for a female in the work place to cause a lot of trouble for a man without the need for immediate hard evidence.

As for the film, I think its very good, it grips you and makes you feel uncomfortable. Personally I felt quite nervous throughout the whole film, it really did make me squirm, kudos to everybody involved for that achievement. I also felt compassion for Douglas' character, I wanted him to succeed and prove himself innocent, the direction and performances are very good and all help in locking you in with the plot. Moore really does the powerful bitch role well, its hard to like her here despite the fact most men would have let her 'rape' them in that one sex scene (I know I would have).

Its a performance driven film and I think everyone nails it. Sutherland as ever is well cast as the boss, never sure whether he is up to something, always looking kinda shifty, a corporate boss who appears friendly on the outside but cold and merciless on the inside. Kudos must also go to Roma Maffia as Douglas' lawyer, I think her performance is the best in the film! Her character knows how to play the game, she gives you the viewer confidence, she relaxes you because you know she knows what she's doing, plus she looks like a lawyer too.

I'm sure many people will be able to relate to situations like this in their own work place. I think the whole atmosphere of taking sides, rumours, the little digs, plotting, wild accusations, betrayal, the private chats with superiors etc...all are created well within the film, its quite grounded and realistic if you ask me.

I think this film ranks highly alongside 'Fatal Attraction', that film exposed the possible flaws in equality between the sexes on the homefront (trust issues), whilst this film exposes it in the workplace. A very good tense legal thriller set completely within the professional world where men supposedly reign supreme. Add some gritty sex, gritty dialog and some fancy visual technology effects (amusingly dated now) and you have a decent drama.

7/10

Sahara (1995)

Remake of the 1943 Bogart film which I haven't seen so I can't compare, but believe it or not its actually a really decent film that boasts some great performances, great location work and a nice overall look of realism with uniforms, weapons and vehicles.

Belushi takes the lead as the American Sgt. Joe Gunn (nice butch name there) and really does well with his role, he's strong decisive and all American as it should be god damn it. He is accompanied by a decent assortment of character actors portraying a selection of allied soldiers from various countries including France, England, Australia and Sudan. Each of the soldiers also come from different regions in each country eg. Yorkshire and London in England.

The film is your classic gung-ho, manly, machine gun totting heroism which could easily be a propaganda tool if you think about it. All the allied soldiers are salt of earth stand up blokes who think nothing of fighting till the bitter end, standing alongside their Sgt.

Yes its a bit overblown and not too realistic as this small bunch of gruff fellas take on a whole German battalion in the middle of the Sahara (within an ancient ruin) simply to halt their progress because the Germans think there is a water filled well there. But the simplistic plot and abundant all American stars n stripes mixed with various nationalities and their own patriotic views as they band together to stop the Nazi war machine is well presented with some exciting boys own type action sequences that would make Indy proud.

With the odds stacked against them I think you can guess this small band of brothers fate, unless you've seen the Bogart version then you already know but do you really think Uncle Sam's boys would fail to stop the Germans here?

7/10