Project ALF (1996)

So back in the late 80's there was this TV series that starred what was essentially a Muppet. But this was not just any Muppet oh no. Firstly it had nothing to do with Jim Henson and was not a Muppet, and secondly this fuzzy character was completely politically incorrect. The absolute horror!!

So ALF (Alien Life Form) was an alien from the planet Melmac that crash-landed on Earth in typical alien fashion. Not only did he crash-land on Earth, he crash-landed right in the garage of a nice middle-class suburban American family called the Tanner's. Upon discovering that ALF (real alien name Gordon Shumway but affectionately known as ALF) was harmless and friendly the Tanner's hid him, essentially making him a part of their family. And from there we got a 4 seasons of wacky alien hijinks as the Tanner's try to keep ALF hidden from the government and ALF merely tries to fill his eight stomachs and make some money on the side.

This movie followed on from where the TV series left off (an unresolved cliffhanger) and sees the military getting a hold of ALF and taking him away for experimentation under the orders of Colonel Milfoil (Martin Sheen). Basically Milfoil wants to exterminate ALF because he sees the alien as a threat. On the other hand two other military scientists don't want to see ALF executed because its against his alien rights, it would be cruel, and humans could learn from him. So the duo decide to help ALF escape and go on the run. Eventually they seek help from an ex-NASA scientist (Miguel Ferrer) who seemingly wants to help ALF but also turns out to have his own dastardly plans. So its all very corny cliched and stereotypical stuff.

So let me just get this out of the way first. ALF was one of those US shows of pure genius the likes of which we'll probably never see again. The show was for the family but probably swung that little more towards the older age range because of its dry witty humour. The kids loved ALF of course but his cruel, sarcastic, mocking, cutting quips were anything but childish and would probably be deemed offensive today. I guess you could kinda say Married with Children was a similar type of show in the sense that everyone could enjoy it, but it was clearly aimed at the older age range overall (and it was also highly offensive by today's standards).

Of course the puppet of ALF was the standout feature of the show which was surprising if you think about it. Here was essentially a rather daft looking puppet that was fat, had a long snout, big dark eyes, big pointed ears, covered in thick brown hair, and had a kind of curtains style mop on his bonce. Just like any Muppet he was limited in facial movement and could only move his head arms and hands as his bottom half was never shown (he was always behind something). But it was never really about his look, it was all about his attitude, his biting satire, and his goofy voice all provided by creator Paul Fusco.

This movie starts off on top form showcasing ALF at his witty best whilst being experimented on. This initial sequence which shows ALF being questioned by various scientists is easily the highlight of the movie and gives you what you crave, ALF at his most cynical (and food obsessed). Dr. Warner the first scientist to question ALF (Ed Begley Jr.) gets accidentally electrocuted to death whilst trying to remove a warning sign off an electrical piece of equipment. From there on ALF constantly refers to this incident sarcastically (mainly out of fear and pure bewilderment) because the following scientists try to cover it up as a nothing burger (secret military facility you see).

Word Association Test:
Scientist: 'Left' - ALF: 'Overs'
Scientist: 'Sunrise' - ALF: 'Breakfast'
Scientist: 'Square' - ALF: 'Meal'

Scientist: 'Are you hungry?'


The scientist continues...
Scientist: 'On' - ALF: 'Off'
Scientist: 'Up' - ALF: 'Down'
Scientist: 'Toast' - ALF: 'Dr. Warner'

Alas the movie does tend to deteriorate pretty quickly once ALF is broken out of the military facility. One reason for this I believe is the fact that when ALF is outside or on the move its hard to do things with him because he is a puppet. You always need something for him to stand behind, lean against, sit on etc...I think this limited the movie as once ALF is out it becomes a chase flick. Now whilst you could say that the Muppets prove this can be done effectively, you still have to accept that many scenes in Henson movies work when the Muppets are indoors on a set of some kind. Plus the Henson movies probably had a much better budget than this movie.

As with the Muppets the people behind this movie do know their way around puppeteering and I assume worked on the TV show previously. ALF is shot well and still looks as good as you would expect. I can't recall the TV show too well these days but I'm sure ALF probably looks better than he did on the show given the circumstances. There aren't too many special effects aside from ALF of course. Like the Muppets there is the odd shot of a short person in a full body suit for the odd long shot or brief walking shot of the alien. And much like the Muppets it does work...unless you go back and rewatch it over slowly.

In general the humour becomes more mundane and predictable as the movie progresses. The usual situations where humans are at first shocked by ALF, then realise he's harmless and slowly accept him...whilst still in shock. Yeah its kinda amusing but gets old fast. The setup ALF has on the military base is also very Bilko-esque to the point of being a direct copy frankly. Almost every scene where ALF is not present is unfortunately really dull and you just wanna get back to ALF as quickly as possible. That's where the Muppets win because there are many Muppets and their stories surround them, humans are the extras. Here the story also involves humans and you are unable to escape focusing on them. ALF is not the only main character and that's the problem.

Still there are of course some highlights dotted around the latter half of the movie, all involving ALF of course. The little jab about the possibility of seeing ALF dolls on sale everywhere was very cute and meta (back in the day, at one point, ALF dolls were everywhere). ALF talking dirty to a blonde female was most amusing. 'do you mind vacuuming my lap? Nina needs a clean place to sit' ha!..ha! (ALF laugh).

The main problem with this movie was the fact it just felt cheap and not well thought out. For starters its a made-for-TV movie (not good) and damn well looks it (also not good). Yes it follows on from a TV series but it doesn't look [b]that[/b] much better which is not right. Yeah you could say it doesn't need to be flashy but blimey it could of looked better than this. There is nothing really exciting here, nothing to look at. Every scene is boring, set in boring locations, it doesn't appear that any imagination was used anywhere. As said the plot is really pretty wafer thin and makes no real sense. Martin Sheen's character wants to kill ALF simply because his mother was supposedly abducted by aliens and went mad over it? K I can understand him being upset but killing mankind's first contact with friendly intelligent alien life is not the best way forward.

Then you have Miguel Ferrer's character who wants to sell ALF to the highest bidder which is a selfish thing to do but not entirely problematic really. He also said that exposing ALF to the world would make him safer because everyone would know of him and would obviously want to learn from him. Again this actually makes sense. Whilst ALF is a military secret anything could happen to him. Once he's plastered across the world then it would be very difficult for someone to get to him. He would probably instantly become a protected species so to speak. So this plot angle doesn't really work, plus Miguel Ferrer looks really bored here.

So yeah, its fun when ALF is on screen, but not so much when the humans are on screen. Too many humans and not enough ALF was always gonna be a problem (an issue the TV show didn't really have). Maybe they shouldn't have jettisoned the Tanner family? You could of had them try to rescue ALF I guess; still not exactly groundbreaking on the originality front is it. But to write out the main characters of the TV show after 4 seasons on TV? Probably not a good move. Anyhow, this isn't a great movie by any stretch but its not awful. If you like ALF then you'll probably enjoy the ALF nuggets here. But overall this feels so much like a wasted opportunity that is compounded by the fact it probably came too late in the day.

5/10


'I thought I'd open with a joke or two. What's the difference between a shower curtain and toilet paper?'

'I don't know'

'So YOU'RE the one! Ha!'

BASEketball (1998)

Back in the early days of man, the dark ages, pre-1997, there was no such thing as South Park. Yes I know what you're all thinking right now, how could that be??!! How did people survive?? What did they do with themselves?? What's wrong with some good old fashioned Morris dancing? Is how I would have replied, but I digress. Twas the surprising success of the Colorado set animated TV show that gave both Trey Parker and Matt Stone the chance to let loose in crazy ventures such as 'BASEketball'.

Apparently the actual game of BASEketball was the brainchild of this movies director, David Zucker. Is this true? Who knows, moving on. The plot consists of two 23 year old unemployed losers, Coop (Trey Parker) and Remer (Stone), who seem to have generally failed in life thus far. In their own words they mainly sit around all day drinking beer and playing Nintendo. One night they crash a party being hosted by a sexy former high school classmate and end up challenging two jocks to a game of two-on-two basketball. But in order to humiliate and ultimately beat the jocks (who are both very good at basketball), the duo quickly invent their own game rules on the fly (a combination of baseball and basketball).

The guys win their stupid game but still lose the girls (ultimately not humiliating the jocks after all). Despite feeling rejected the duo decide to work on their new creation which appeared to work quite well all things considered. Over the next six months their idea morphs into a highly popular street game which attracts the attention of businessman Ted Denslow (Ernest Borgnine) who helps the guys turn the game into a major national sport, the National BASEketball League (NBL). Its from this point on things go from bad to worse as the duo find themselves disagreeing on things such as the monetisation of the sport, sexy women, best friends, child labour, and of course fame. All the usual things because money is the source of all evil and leads to unhappiness, greed, and all that jazz.

So obviously this movie was nothing more than a vehicle for the South Park duo to cash in on said TV show because said TV show was, at the time, becoming incredibly popular...bordering on massively popular (if it wasn't already at that point). So it was clearly time for a studio to get these guys involved in something in order to mine that precious moolah. The movie has absolutely nothing to do with their animated show but its as you can imagine a lot of the humour does fall in line with said Colorado based animated show. Add to that the very popular and classic spoof humour of Zucker ('The Naked Gun', 'Airplane' etc...) and you do have the possibility for comedic gold.

Do you actually get comedic gold though? Well yes and no, its kinda sporadic. The movie has many highs and lows which can either make you cringe or laugh out loud, its very...umm sporadic. Of course the movie being 20 years old doesn't help too much with much of the humour (some of it is terribly 90's). But a true classic comedy should stand the test of time really so I guess you can say this isn't up to that standard (it definitely isn't).

So essentially what you have (as I'm sure you can guess) is across the board infantile frat-boy style humour mixed with some equally crass and silly spoofery. Most of the humour does indeed surround typical things like hot girls, beer, bowel movements, sexuality etc...At the national league games the cheerleaders are essentially strippers clad in different attire depending on the game night theme...or sometimes they are just strippers. The game night themes are themselves utterly bizarre and actually quite amusing at times. For example there is dozen egg night, free range chicken night, and probe night. On these nights the crowds usually partake in the theme, so on free range chicken night the fans bring in their own chickens to the game. The typical Zucker humour tends to creep into the background strategically. Whilst two characters discuss the plot in the foreground, in the background a groundsman casually pushes along a huge vacuum machine that sucks up loose chickens on the field. And no one bats an eye.

The game teams are all ridiculous and in some cases now offensive. For example Coop and Remer play for The Beers, because no comedy is complete without mindless predictable beer gags. Then there is the San Francisco all male team The Ferries who dress in pink and have buffed up male strippers for their cheerleaders. The New Jersey team are called The Informants...bada bing! The LA team are the LA Riots...ahem! There is a team from Roswell which are of course based on Area 51 and aliens (ugh!). There is a Latino team which is based around crime and finally a Texas team chock full of redneck cowboy types. So yeah, mostly offensive stereotypes which would cause a shitstorm these days.

One of the movies small highlights is of course Trey Parker doing what appears to be his best Rik Mayall impressions (complete with wacky blonde hair). For instance in the games players are allowed to try and distract their opposition whilst they take shots. This leads to some pretty ingenious bits of visual comedy. We see Cooper pretend to cut off a finger complete with squirting fake blood. Cooper also munches on silver foil. Remer squirts milk from his nipples whilst asking 'got milk?'. The pair constantly mock and berate their smaller teammate Squeak (Dian Bachar) using him as a way to unhinge the opposition; something which at times is funny whilst at other times far too predictable. And at one point Cooper even unleashes Eric Cartman's voice to attack a player.

Parker is clearly the more energetic and amusing cast member to watch. He seems much more comfortable in front of the camera hence his visual antics and quips do tend to come across more, dare I say professionally, than Stone. Its the little touches that make you smile such as Coop getting annoyed and simply letting out a frustrated 'awww' every time; something that he exaggerates more and more throughout. His one in-game drunken stupor was also a small highlight. Falling asleep at the mount, running whilst still hungover bloated with alcohol, and letting down little Joey who wanted Coop to hit some homers (or whatever they were called). Then there's the happy dance, whenever Coop gets really angry Remer makes him to a little jig whilst singing 'I'm doing the happy dance, I'm doing the happy dance'. Its utterly stupid but the fact it clearly makes Coop happier is somehow amusing to watch.

On the other hand Stone isn't really as good as Parker. He doesn't really have the same screen presence, he isn't as good with physical humour, and he doesn't have the ability to do any really funny voices. Overall it just kinda feels like Stone is there merely because he was part of the creation process behind South Park and he has to be there otherwise it would seem unfair. Sure he can do some simple voices for certain characters but he's obviously better in the writing process.

As for the rest of the cast it reads like a who's who of forgotten stars and wannabes. It kinda feels like they got certain older classic stars because they just needed the work and money. Or they just wanted to get involved in a 'hip new comedy' that's 'down with the kids' to stay relevant. Whilst other lesser known actors clearly just need anything they can get. The movie is also stuffed full of needless cameos which always comes across as a cheap ploy to lure in an audience and boost interest. At the same time it also dates the movie horribly, case in point, a specific NASCAR driver, some American sports commentators, and dated celebs like Victoria Silvstedt. Also despite the soundtrack being somewhat engaging it too does very little to help the hideous dating of this movie. Who remembers Scatman?

In a sense I believe this movie is maybe supposed to mirror Parker and Stone's own early lives as they went from being losers bumming around, to losers with fame and fortune under their new-found creation. Of course I could be wrong because essentially this movie has no real plot, its merely a string of silly and offensive sequences tied together with some music and cameos. On one hand I do like the movie simply because of its sheer lack political correctness (twas before all that shit) which is always a breath of fresh air. Some of the things in this movie would never be allowed these days, and that's fecking awesome. But on the other hand it is admittedly a pretty crap movie with crap acting, bad effects, a stupid plot, and tonnes of awkward cameos.

In typical Parker and Stone manner the movie (like South Park) is deliberately offensive. Its offensive for the sake of being offensive. But if that's your bag, if you're open to that kind of humour, then you may have a blast with this guff. If not then I'd advise you to stay away for fear of getting triggered.

6/10

Black Water (2018)

Apparently the fifth collaboration between the mighty Dolph Lundgren and the muscles from Brussels...kinda. K I'll be honest with you here, don't expect too much with this OK.

The Plot: Holy shit there is some double cross in this picture, I'm still not really sure what the goal was here but lets go. Scott Wheeler (JCVD) is a deep cover agent who trying to identify a leak within the CIA with his female partner. His partner has a USB drive which contains an algorithm to activate secret agents (what?) whilst Wheeler has the activation key. Naturally Wheeler's partner is killed resulting in him being captured under suspicion of going rogue. Wheeler awakens on-board a CIA blacksite located on a submarine. On-board are various CIA  agents, some are genuine and of course some are not. What follows is a convoluted mess as Wheeler and some remaining goodie agents try to escape the sub with the drive.

Again I honesty had no real clue what the hell was happening whilst watching this because it is a real mess. The plot is all over the show and never really makes much sense. I still don't really get what this USB drive could actually do. Activate secret agents? How do you mean? Reveal their locations? Are they under some sort of mental control? I'm not even sure how activating these agents would be of any use, unless they're super agents or something. In the end it doesn't really matter because the drive and its purpose are more of a mcguffin than anything. Its just an object for the various jacked-up agents to fight over.

Oh yeah, speaking of being jacked-up (rather muscular), literally everyone in this movie is jacked-up. Every single agent looks like they've been on a four course meal of steroids for the last six months. Oh and most have cropped hair with tattoo sleeves and long beards, because having a long beard is the thing now apparently. I believe its what you call being a hipster? Only with big muscles.

Anyway the entire movie is set inside this submarine which of course isn't really a submarine but a very very bad selection of sets. Now when I say bad I mean bad. They generally consist of grey painted corridors and rooms with some control panels and every shot being lit in either red or green (because all subs are lit with red and green bulbs you see). Everything is dark of course to hide the bad sets where ever possible, hence the red and green lighting. Every now and then we might get a shot which seems to have been filmed on location, most probably inside a naval ship of some kind, but these are sparse.

All the action is pretty terrible. All the shoots outs are laughable because everyone misses the good guys every time, often at point blank range. If any good guy does get shot its usually in the shoulder, unless they're expendable. I also had to ask myself, surely with all these shoot outs the sub would be in danger of getting damaged badly, maybe springing a leak perhaps. Nah, they just keep blasting at each other and hitting the walls or pipes or whatever, no worries. In between any gun fights Van Damme of course manages to kick some bad guys in the face at close quarters. I say close quarters but in reality these sets are nice and wide so Van Damme is able to perform his usual repertoire of kickassery, because realism.

Oh Christ I nearly forgot about old Dolph. Well clearly the director nearly forgot about old Dolph too because he's hardly in this. He obviously gets top billing on the poster alongside Van Damme to obviously attract the hardcore fans; but its pretty blatant false advertising on said poster (a poster which sees Van Damme blatantly de-aged). Dolph plays another prisoner on-board the sub who is eventually released by Wheeler for help. He then kicks a little butt and literally disappears for the rest of the movie. That is until the very end where we get a completely pointless final scene with him.

The acting is generally bad all round because they've seemingly hired body builders with no experience in acting. The main characters are a tad better but not much. Most are unknown to me but I guess the best of the bunch goes to Al Sapienza who plays one of the main CIA heads who may or may not be Wheeler's friend (intrigued much?). But apparently they only wanted good looking sexy people to aide Van Damme's character. Special mention to Jasmine Waltz and her plastic doll-like face and body (obvious surgery).

The poster does look good for this I can't deny but alas its utter crap my friends. Shoddy all round, very fake looking, poor acting, poor everything! I think this has to be the first really bad straight to DVD type movie I've seen with both Dolph and Van Damme. I know they have made some lower budget things in the past but this really takes the cake.

2/10

The House That Dripped Blood (1971)

I don't really like the title of this movie seeing as its not really accurate and sounds kinda daft. The house is the centre point of the movie as its where everything happens, hence the dripping blood part. But the movie is relatively tame with little to no blood, hardly dripping. To top that one of the stories doesn't even take place within the house. I prefer the original title of 'Death and the Maiden'.

The premise here is very simple (and much the same as all other anthology movies). The main plot bookends four individual little tales which all fit into or make up the main plot. In this case police Inspector Holloway (John Bennett) is on a case to investigate the disappearance of a famous movie star. The Inspector is pointed in the direction of an old house where the movie star was last seen. Upon meeting with the local estate agent the Inspector is told all about the previous tenants leading up to the movie star.

The first story is about a horror writer (Denholm Elliot) moving into the house with his wife, mainly to help his creative writing. The writer soon finds himself haunted by the very character he created within his current book, or does he? Its this first story that introduces us to the creepy old house and bottom line, its perfect. Both the exterior and interior are exactly what you might think of when it comes to an old creaking British spook house. There are gargoyles on the buildings exterior, old fashioned stained glass windows, and much of the interior is solid wood paneling with all the gothic/Victorian style trimmings you might expect to see in a period house. Its these visuals which help this initial story greatly because to be frank its pretty weak. Sure it offers a nice twist on twist at the end but the makeup on the murderous villain is laughable which really doesn't help.

Up next we see Peter Cushing as a retired stock broker moving into the old house merely to spend his days relaxing and enjoying life. One day he wanders off down to the high street (of an unknown location) and stumbles across a horror waxworks. Curious he ventures inside and eventually comes across a mysterious female figure that seems to bewitch him. Later an old friend (Joss Ackland) visits who also ends up going to the waxworks and also becomes bewitched.

This little tale is also pretty weak in my opinion as it offers no real explanation for anything. We don't find out anything about Cushing's character of his friend (Ackland) other than they are old friends who seemingly fell for the same woman and both lost her. The wax figure reminds both of them of said woman whilst at the same time seemingly hypnotising them. Of course the wax figure turns out to actually be the woman they both loved, the owner of the waxworks killed and mummified her in wax cos he fancied her too (its a small world). Naturally all this is a bit silly because of course you'd never be able to conceal a body like that for obvious decomposition issues. And the fact the waxwork owner then displays the heads of both men (yup he kills them both) in his display kinda seems like shooting yourself in the foot really doesn't it (I think people would notice). I think we are led to believe this guy does this a lot to various people...because they fall in love with the wax mummified dead body of this woman? If you say so.

The third story is easily the best and surrounds a little girl called Jane (Chloe Franks), her father (Christopher Lee), and the hired nanny (Nyree Dawn Porter). Hired help Ann is concerned with the cold attitude John Reid has towards his daughter. He's not physically abusive, just cold and heartless, he doesn't seem to love her; he also speaks badly of his late wife. Of course little Jane is not your average little girl, she's a witch, as was her mother.

This segment is not exactly original or particularly hard to fathom but its certainly the most eerie and more cinematic of the stories. You could easily have seen this being made into a full length movie as the whole demonic child angle is a popular one. Little Chloe is highly adorable throughout which makes it even more chilling because you struggle to think how she could ever be evil. Lee is doing his usual stoic faced thing and comes across very well as a stern father, whilst Porter is very good as the confused nanny. This story works on many levels but mainly because it made me wanna know more about what happened before with the mother and what happened going forward with Jane.

The last segment surrounds a flamboyant and arrogant actor (Jon Pertwee) who moves into the old house whilst filming his latest horror movie. Not happy with the current state of the movie and his costume he goes to an old mysterious antique shop which sells various creepy artifacts and knick-knacks. There he picks up a black cloak for his latest vampiric role. Everything is fine and normal until he realises the cloak actually gives him real vampiric powers when he puts it on.

This by far the most goofy and more comedic of the four short stories. You can see how this could well have influenced many silly 80's horror comedies with its ideas and visuals. The highlight is easily Pertwee who really enjoys himself hamming it up with all manner of rubbery facial expressions and over the top vampire hijinks. Lets not forget about the owner of the old spooky shop played by Geoffrey Bayldon who fights Pertwee all the way with his own over the top goofiness. This doesn't really offer anything you haven't seen before. By today's standards its a pretty stereotypical vampire offering on all fronts, but its that good old fashioned quirky charm that grabs you.

On the whole this is most definitely one of the most iconic anthology films I've seen. Its well known, the title is outrageously and hilariously overblown, and of course the cast is stellar. I wouldn't say its one of the best anthologies though, its split down the middle for me. The first story is acceptable, the second is kinda weak, the third is the best, and the fourth is fun in a daft way. On the whole everything looks good with (as said) the house being a great setting for all the tales. The costumes are gorgeous, the acting is solid, and the makeup and effects...well they vary a bit as expected.

But for me this movie really seemed to highlight the actors and what they were best known for. Here Cushing looks exactly as you remember him, as you'll always picture him. Extremely debonair and dapper with the classic red smoking jacket with elegant neck scarf whilst sitting in an old classical hardback chair. On the other hand you then have Christopher Lee marching his lean 6ft plus frame around with widows peak combed and perfectly presented. He constantly looks like he's about to lose it and smack someone, of simply bite their neck. As for Pertwee, well here he just comes across as Dr Who in a cape, but that's just fine.

So overall I'd say thoroughly recommended if you're into these old horror films. Obviously they won't be everyone's cup of tea with the limited visuals (of the time) and dare I say (admittedly) corny stories. But with things like this its all about the charm of it all really, the quaintness and enchantment if I can use that term. Not the best but definitely enjoyable for a cozy night in when its cold outside.

7/10

Critters 4 (1992)

Filmed back to back alongside 'Critters 3' and the first critter movie not set on Earth.

This movie follows on where the third movie left off. Charlie (Don Keith Opper) is about to destroy the last of the Crite eggs but is stopped by an activated hologram message from his old bounty hunter friend Ug (Terrence Mann). Ug tells Charlie to load the eggs into an incoming pod so they can be sent to him (in deep space). Of course Charlie being the bumbling goof that he is, gets trapped inside the pod and whisked away into deep space. 52 years later the pod is picked up by a salvage ship who eventually bring it to a space station so as to hand it over to Ug. The crew find the station abandoned and under control of a malfunctioning central computer; things get worse when the crite eggs hatch.

So yes this movie does sound like your standard alien horror flick. Team of space pirate types find a mysterious pod. They take it to an equally mysterious space station. Alien is unleashed and everyone gets eaten, the end. But lets be honest here, what did you really expect from a fourth Critters movie? The salvage team of roughneck space pirates are your stereotypical bunch really. You have the captain (Anders Hove) who this time is the ships weirdo. The token young guy who we the audience is supposed to root for. The token sexy female (Angela Bassett). The token tough guy with rebellious hairstyle. And the token intelligent nerdy looking guy (Brad Dourif) who basically does anything technical.

The space station they are instructed to go to is again your very typical looking space station type location. Everything is generally very dark and industrial looking with lots of railings, pipework, grates, shafts, dim lighting to disguise obvious sets, plenty of similar corridors, and control panels. Here and there you might see a room that is white in colour because its a medical bay or sleeping quarters or whatever. But overall its a very gunmetal grey looking environment.

Visual effects wise its as you might expect. The exterior space effects with ship flybys are pretty bad looking with terrible model and bluescreen work. Interior sets were actually fine but limited in a Red Dwarf kinda way. It was amusing to see the actors perform on the exact same corridor set over and over but from different angles (obviously supposed to be different sections). Twas also amusing that there were so many ducks and shafts that could fit an adult human in and had grates at either end that are so easily pulled off. Handy for quick escapes and whatnot.

As with the previous movies the actual crite effects are once again on top form. I'm actually surprised because you'd half expect the creatures to look worse with each sequel (often the norm) but here they still look just as good. They haven't been played with design wise, they're still just the same as the original crites. Same colouring, same size, same little claws, same glowing red eyes, but apparently no dart action this time.

I guess the real problems arise from the plot (not that you'd expect anything more). For instance, why exactly has Ug turned into a bad guy for this one? He's apparently becomes a part of the intergalactic council (and something called TerraCor? Is that part of the council??) and has become a 'company man' so to speak, 'things change'. But I find it difficult to believe that Ug would flip on his old friend like that. Secondly, why does Ug actually want the eggs? This is never really explained. I'm guessing that now he's evil he wants to do evil things with them? Then looking at the pod and how Charlie got stuck in there; how come he didn't age over the 52 years in...deep sleep? Or was he frozen? The pod was designed to look after the eggs for a long period of time, not a human. So how come Charlie even survived this?? Then there's the question of how the remaining salvage crew knew how to fly Ug's ship at the end, eh why ask?

Despite the obvious issues with this movie I actually think its OK. This is only the second time I've seen this but its not as bad as I thought it was. Sure its not as good as the first two but it holds its own. The change of scenery is refreshing for the franchise (as was the previous third movie locale). The effects are generally solid, the cast is surprisingly decent, and the horror and gore is acceptable (but nothing amazing). Its played a bit more seriously this time with not as much comedy, but it just about works. I recommend if you like the previous entries or simply enjoy a good silly horror comedy.

6.5/10

Critters 3 (1991)

So at the end of 'Critters 2' it kinda looked like everything was all wrapped up with a bow. The Crites had all been wiped out, Charlie became the new Sheriff of Grover's Bend, and Ug flew off back into space having gotten over the death of his partner Lee. It really didn't seem like there was anywhere else to go with this story; but how many times have we been in this situation before huh.

So in order to get everyone up to speed (or simply to pad out the runtime), the start of this movie offers a brief flashback regurgitating the events of the previous movie. From there on we follow a small family consisting of a father and his young son and daughter coming home from a vacation. On the way back the kids stumble upon Charlie who is now seemingly roaming around the countryside hunting crites (even though they were seemingly wiped out). Naturally some newly hatched crites hitch a ride back to the city with the family and start to cause carnage once again...but this time within an apartment block.

Now of course, first and foremost, how the hell did the crites survive here???? They were apparently wiped out good and proper in the second movies finale. Obviously we have to assume that one critter laid some eggs somewhere which were missed, which if we are honest with ourselves is entirely possible. But this does of course lead to the question of where does it end. In theory this could carry on for forever more with critters surviving because one laid eggs somewhere which were missed. It kinda ruins some tension because you know the crites can never really be beaten.

Another thing I noticed that (for some reason) hasn't been upheld from the previous movies are the darts the crites fire. Before these darts seemed to knock out the intended target instantly, obviously with some kind of toxin. But in this movie these darts simply don't do that anymore. Numerous characters take multiple hits from these critter darts yet they don't go down, they merely become sleepy. Why would they change that??

The critters themselves still look on par with their earlier movie counterparts which is good; and surprising as it may seem the special effects (I think) are actually quite good. The puppet work is solid with the critters performing all manner of typical critter-esque chaos the likes of which we've come to expect. Obviously these little furballs never did move entirely convincingly but the consistent standard is withheld here. I do think this movie makes a more obvious lean towards a certain 1984 Joe Dante movie, more so than the previous two. In this movie we get a very familiar kitchen scene with the destructive crites eating their way through pretty much everything whilst acting like mischievous kids. There are also plenty of humorous critter deaths, crite communication (they even have names now), and the main critter has a white streak down his face and back.

The general setting for the movie is perfectly fine too in my opinion. Its a nice and natural progression from the first two small town set movies. Being set within an apartment block within the city opens the movie up for some more interesting scenarios and characters which we get both of. Sure the characters are a bit stereotypical; the Fonz type guy, the elderly couple, the Ripley-esque female, the overweight comedic relief female. The cherub-esque looking little boy, the annoyingly sensible goodie two-shoes daughter, a dastardly landlord (William Dennis Hunt coming across all Vincent Price like), and of course Leonardo DiCaprio sporting that same damn haircut he had for so long whilst also probably being cast riding off the back of the recent Macaulay Culkin craze. Despite the tropes all characters are actually relatively engaging and enjoyable in their own little ways (despite the lack of critter fodder).

Overall I think this is a pretty decent third follow up to an already solid foundation. Yeah sure it doesn't exactly offer anything new. Its the same shit all over again but set within an apartment block, only minus the bounty hunters (alas). But there is light relief, a splattering of gore, some decent creature visuals, oddly a very Danny Elfman-esque opening score, and the inevitably daft cliffhanger ending with cameo. I don't really understand why this movie was overlooked with such negativity because if you're a fan of this franchise and genre you really can't go wrong.

6.5/10

Rampage (2018)

'alright George, we gotta stop these things before they destroy the city'

He says after the John Hancock Center is brought crashing down. I think they've kinda done that already mate.

Another month another Dwayne Johnson movie (much like certain other franchises). The only man in cinema today who gets shot clean in the gut halfway through his movie yet doesn't actually die...or anything. He just keeps on going in invincible mode. Nothing much changes does it, its all about big arm muscles and tight shirts for Dwayne. His acting doesn't really alter much, in fact is he even acting or merely being himself? But you can sure as hell tell this is a 2018 movie. A crap load of poor CGI with a crap load of obvious greenscreen. Johnson has a black female sidekick whilst the main villain is female and she has a goofy white male sidekick, oh and a stealth bomber pilot is also female.

So another month another giant monster movie (facepalm). This time an evil female led company is basically trying to create a pathogen to be used as a biological weapon, because of course they are. Said pathogen obviously is let loose upon the US when the companies space station housing the stuff gets destroyed by a mutant rat. The stuff infects a gorilla, a crocodile, and a wolf. Said animals naturally mutate into giant monsters and start wreaking havoc. But all this doesn't stop the evil female led company though, oh no, they still have their dastardly plans which I can't be bothered to explain anymore.

So for anyone not in the know, this movie is based on a very old Bally Midway arcade game released in 1986. The designers clearly borrowed heavily from certain classic monster movies for their lead characters with the Godzilla-esque Lizzie, King Kong-esque George, and a werewolf-esque looking Ralph. The game merely involved you trying to destroy as much of a cityscape as possible whilst eating people, crushing tanks, and swatting choppers. And with that Warner Bros have thrown together what they think is a good movie?

OK so firstly this isn't a kids movie, which was surprising to me, yet Johnson still doesn't say motherfucker (he's no Schwarzenegger). But yeah this movie is relatively violent with people being eaten, stepped on and crushed, thrown through the air and off tall buildings, and some claret on hand. But whilst it was satisfying to see some adult action, in no way did it make up for the rest of it.

This is a bad movie. The special effects are generally poor with only George looking halfway decent. Ralph looks like a cartoon and Lizzie looks like a dinosaur from a Doug McClure movie. I don't understand why the giant animals actually go around killing and destroying in the first place. Sure the pathogen makes them aggressive but that doesn't mean they would just roam around randomly causing carnage. Again when the female villain turns on this beacon to attract the creatures, why do they decimate the city on their way? (because we wouldn't have a movie otherwise). Why does Ralph have the ability to shoot darts out of his body now? And that only crops up once I think, you'd think it would be shooting these things all the time. Oh and Ralph can fly too, like did the folks behind this movie ever play the fecking game??

The acting throughout is God awful, absolutely terrible. Dwayne Johnson is merely himself as usual. This guy cannot act, he's just himself in every movie (and most of his movies are the same). His costar sidekick (Naomie Harris) is also terribly plain and shows little actual talent (although her wig somehow manages to stay put throughout the action). But the worst performance has to be Jeffrey Dean Morgan as a government agent who fancies himself as a badass cowboy. We know this because he tells us in almost every scene and he sports a single pearl handled pistol on his hip in some vague effort to be 'kewl'. Can someone please explain why this guy stands at an angle in every fecking scene. Literally every scene where he delivers dialog he's standing at an angle as if one of his legs is shorter than the other or they are filming his scenes with a Dutch tilt.

Seeing as this movie is based on an arcade game where your goal is to Hulk smash everything into the ground, you can imagine how this movie ends. When I say end I mean virtually from the halfway mark. Yep that's right, one long incomprehensible mess of CGI 'action' as we follow all three of the giant monsters on their rampage, ahem. Somehow the giant crocodile is able to climb sheer buildings, for some reason not one human being cottons onto the fact that bullets can't hurt these creatures; George decides to eat the female villain whole (coincidentally when she has the serum for the pathogen), yet we don't see him do this to anyone else. He could of eaten the helicopter pilot likewise but instead just throws him away. Lizzie decides to bite Ralph's head off for some reason, the greenscreen gets unforgivably bad, oh and we're meant to believe that people named these monsters Ralph and Lizzie?? I know its based on the arcade game but you really didn't have to go that far.

Dwayne Johnson is apparently the big action star of our current time, or for the current younger generation, so I've been led to believe. I'm left wondering how this can be because aside from his physique the guy is a poor action star. Sure he's fun in silly fantasy comedies and some over the top soft-core action flicks for youngsters, but that's it. He is seemingly unable to break his self-referential nice guy comedy routine and is apparently unable to stop fixating on his own muscles. This is yet again another Dwayne Johnson movie where the main character is (the invincible) Dwayne Johnson.

Am I being too harsh on a mere videogame adaptation? Maybe, I knew not to expect that much from a movie which is very loosely based on a very loose concept. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there will get a kick outta this and that's fine. But for me this is now the umpteenth movie showcasing the exact same spiel. I can't lie about it, this was complete and utter garbage, and not even good looking garbage at that.

3/10