Showing posts with label Film Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film Review. Show all posts

Friday, 6 July 2018

No Way Out – Blu-ray Review



Originally published on Set The Tape


Chances are, if you talk about No Way Out, people will think that you’re referring to the 1987 Kevin Costner film. It’s even the first thing to come up if you search for the title online. It’s a good film, but it is easily overshadowed by the lesser known No Way Out from 1950 that launched the career of the legendary Sidney Poitier.

Poitier plays Dr Luther Brooks, an intern that has just passed his state board exam and received his license to practise medicine. It’s his first night back at the hospital after his exam and the newly qualified doctor is assigned to the hospital’s prison ward. When brothers Johnny Biddle (Dick Paxton) and Ray Biddle (Richard Widmark) are brought in after their failed robbery attempt, Luther is put to the test as he tries to help the sickly Johnny whilst receiving racist abuse from Ray.

Despite trying his best to help Johnny, the man dies whilst receiving treatment from Luther, which leads Ray to blame the man for his brother’s death. With the hospital and Ray Biddle refusing to allow an autopsy on Johnny to prove that Luther did the right thing, tensions mount as Ray stirs up anger and racial prejudice with his gang, getting them to blame Luther and wanting revenge against any black person they can find. Unfortunately, things reach a head when a full blown race riot breaks out.

Sidney Poitier is on excellent form throughout and it’s extraordinary to consider that this was his first major role at just 22 years of age. He has a presence in all of his scenes that speaks of an actor not only comfortable in his craft, but with confidence. Even when he’s in scenes where he’s doubting if he did the right thing and is questioning himself, he comes across as an incredibly strong man; but then as a black actor in the 1950s, Poitier would have needed to be, much in the same way that his character of Luther would have been in trying to enter the medical world.


The standout performance has to be Richard Widmark, who played the racist Ray Biddle. From what I’ve learnt about him Widmark was a good friend of Poitier’s and found it incredibly difficult to say a lot of the racist lines he was given, regularly apologising to Poitier after their takes. You can’t tell this from his performance though. He makes you believe that he’s a thoroughly un-likeable and evil man.

The rest of the cast are good in their roles too, with even the smaller characters brilliantly cast. Linda Darnell is great as Edie Johnson, Johnny’s ex-wife, who is initially manipulated into Ray’s way of thinking before seeing the evils of those racist views and learning to accept that black people are regular, decent human beings. Stephen McNally also shines as Doctor Wharton, Luther’s colleague at the hospital. Despite in one scene claiming not to be pro-black, he never once treats Luther with anything less than his utmost respect, supporting him and backing his decisions, whilst also pushing for others to accept that Luther is a good doctor and decent man.

I’ve seen some claims that No Way Out is a bit heavy handed in its portrayal of racism and that it makes things very black and white (pardon the pun) in regard to right and wrong. Whilst the film might not be the most nuanced depiction of institutionalised racism in America, it’s important to remember that the film was produced in the 1950s; a time where these kinds of issues weren’t talked about, especially in mainstream film, and this is one of the few examples of progressive liberals getting their views out into the public.


The Blu-ray itself looks fantastic and the film looks great. There’s a small amount of grain in the picture, but it appears that a lot of work has been put into restoring as much of the quality as possible. I’ve got more modern films that look a whole lot worse than this does as examples of how not to do Blu-ray. The release also comes with a lot of extra content for your money, with a commentary track, and a two-part documentary about director Joseph L. Mankiewicz that totals close to two whole hours.

No Way Out is not an easy film to watch, but not because it isn’t well made or well acted, it’s hard to watch because it shines a spotlight on the racism in America in the 1950’s. This is a time when segregation still took place, where black people were refused entry to businesses or schools, where white people threw the n-word around all the time, and when black people were still brutally lynched and murdered. Whilst the film doesn’t go to the degree of showing events such as lynching, it doesn’t shy away from how insidious and pervasive racism was during the time, but what makes it so uncomfortable is how relevant it still is to modern day.

The targets may have changed to include people of other ethnicities, but there are still stories and videos uploaded to the internet every day of white people refusing service from people of colour, refusing to be treated by non-white doctors, and calling the police on black people simply going about their everyday lives.

No Way Out may be over 60 years old, but it’s still relate-able to the world we live in; and that’s absolutely heartbreaking.


Go to Amy's Blog

Friday, 29 June 2018

Looking back at… Who Framed Roger Rabbit



Originally published on Set The Tape


I’m not sure how old I was when I first watched Who Framed Roger Rabbit but the thing that stuck out in my mind straight away was Judge Doom (Christopher Lloyd). I’ve seen Christopher Lloyd in other roles, and have found him charming and enjoyable to watch, but his performance as Judge Doom still gives me the creeps, even decades later. There’s a lot about this film that’s stand out and iconic, but Doom is always it for me.

It’s strange to think that Lloyd wasn’t the first choice in the role, though it is a shame that we can’t see a version where Tim Curry got the part, but it’s not the only part of the film where the first choice was someone else.

The film had multiple drafts, directors turned the film down, none of the principal cast were the first choices. It’s amazing that despite the ups and downs in the pre-production and the difficulty in obtaining the rights to use all of the animated characters the film ended up being as good as it is. Thankfully, the end product was a critical and commercial success.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit isn’t the first film to combine live action film and traditional animation, there’d been dozens by the time it came out, but it was the first to do things differently, to break the rules. The camera moved in scenes so that the animation didn’t look like it was placed on flat backgrounds, the lighting and shadows moved like they would in fully live action scenes, and the cartoons interacted with real objects as much as possible.


The film looked at the rule book and threw it away, it gave audiences a new experience and it still stands the test of time because of this. The people behind the film had to tell a good story and make new technology at the same time. It’s both a piece of great entertainment, and a breakthrough in film making.

What makes Who Framed Roger Rabbit last isn’t the technology behind it, it’s the story and the characters. Set in an alternative 1947 Los Angeles, where ‘toons’ are real living creatures that live and work with real people, at its heart it’s a mystery story. A detective noir wrapped in bright, colourful cartoons.


The plot revolves around the murder of a movie mogul, a crime for which Roger Rabbit is framed. Anyone who is familiar with detective mystery stories will be familiar with where the plot goes, revealing an ever expanding mystery; but Who Framed Roger Rabbit isn’t just content with going through the motions of a mystery story, but goes out of its way to tell a deep and engaging story, a plot with multiple lays and twists.

Yes, it’s a kids movie, but beneath the bright colours and cameos from classic characters such as Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse it’s got emotional depth and adult themes. Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a film that appealed to me as a child because it’s over the top and wacky, but carries on being a film I’ll watch again and again as an adult.


Go to Amy's Blog

Tuesday, 26 June 2018

Throwback 20: Mulan



Originally published on Set The Tape


Mulan is a film that took a bold leap from other Disney films that had come before it, leaving behind a central focus on romance or cutesy animal sidekicks, and instead crafting a well executed story of self-empowerment, courage, and challenging conventions, all within an entertaining war story.

Based upon the Chinese myth, Mulan tells the story of Fa Mulan (Ming-Na Wen), a young woman who feels out of place within her family and society. Wanting nothing more than to be herself, she’s expected to find herself a husband and have a family, being the demure and quiet wife that society says she should be.

When an army of Huns led by Shan Yu (Miguel Ferrer) invades China, the Emperor (Pat Morita) orders that men from each family must join the Chinese army. With Mulan’s father old and injured, she cuts her hair, steals his sword and armour, and takes his place.

What ensues is an uplifting and humorous story as Mulan tries to keep her true identity of a woman secret, whilst trying to forge herself into a soldier. The training sequences are some of the more fun moments in the movie, with Mulan and her three fellow recruits Yao (Harry Fierstein), Ling (Gedde Watanabe), and Chien-Po (Jerry Tondo) trying desperately to become more than the four losers they start off as.


They’re fun moments, with the four characters going through some fun changes as they go from enemies to fast friends, in a bond that feels believable and well forged by the time they actually come to fight in the war.

The four songs in the film are well made, and quite memorable, the training montage song ‘I’ll Make A Man Out Of You’ is the best music piece in the film, and coupled with Mulan using her brain to overcome her challenges and begin to become a competent soldier, is a great, inspiring moment.

Despite having a lot of humour in it, Mulan also has some surprisingly dramatic moments, such as Mulan donning her father’s armour and escaping into the night, and the new recruits finding the remains of the defeated Chinese army. But the best has to be the dramatic confrontation between Mulan and the Hun army as they charge down a snowy mountaintop on horseback. Not only is the scene visually dramatic and executed with sweeping camera shots, but it showcases how smart Mulan is, all but destroying the entire Hun army with one rocket.

What really makes Mulan great, however, is that it’s a story about female empowerment. Whilst people may say that Frozen is a great example of a Disney film with a strong female hero in Elsa, Mulan did it first, and did it better. She fought against the shackles of her society, she put her life in mortal danger, she defended her country from destruction, and saved an Empire, all without magical powers. Whether you’re female or not, you can’t help but watch Mulan and be both impressed and inspired by the story.


It being a Disney film there is a romance element to the story, as Mulan falls in love with her commanding officer, Captain Li Shang (D.B. Wong), but this isn’t a huge part of the story, and is more of a background element than something that’s pushed in your face. So even if you’re not into romance in any way it won’t interfere with your enjoyment of the film.

The one thing that might let the film down for some is the inclusion of the almost mandatory ‘comedy’ sidekicks, this time in the form of a lucky cricket, and the tiny dragon Mushu (Eddie Murphy). Whilst the cricket is bearable (as it doesn’t talk or really do a great deal) Mushu is very annoying in most of the scenes that he is in, and feels more out of place than anything else.

Mulan is a Disney film that is more than just a fairytale or love story, it’s an ancient epic that inspires and impresses, that shows that people can break free from rigid roles or expectations and be the people that they really are inside. It shows that bravery can come from more than just heroic military feats, but from the courage to stand up and be yourself.


Go to Amy's Blog

Friday, 22 June 2018

Looking back at… Jaws 2



Originally published on Set The Tape


I feel a little sorry for Jaws 2. Most people will agree that sequels tend to have a hard time living up to the original movie, and with a few exceptions, tend to fall short. Whilst I’m not going to turn around and say that Jaws 2 is better than the original, I am going to say that it’s a lot better than people make it out to be.

It’s easy to make fun of the Jaws movies as a whole because of less than stellar sequels, just look at the Jaws 19 joke in Back To The Future 2 (and if you’ve not seen it yet, go and watch the fake Jaws 19 trailer that Universal Pictures released to celebrate Back To The Future as it’s brilliantly funny). Jaws 3D is an awful, awful movie, with a ridiculous plot, and Jaws: The Revenge is just dull and lacklustre. But Jaws 2 really tries to be a good movie that lives up to the original and recaptures some of that magic.

The film brings back many of the things that make you think about the original Jaws; the locations from the first film were reused here and helped to recapture the qualities of Amity Island and all of the main characters from the first film (apart from Richard Dreyfuss’ Hooper) were back.

Jaws 2 manages to use these assets well, carrying on a believable story for the survivors of the first film yet taking the story in its own direction and not just rehashing the events of the original. One of the ways that it struck out on its own was by changing the tone of the film somewhat. The long mystery and slow burning tension of the first film was gone, replaced now with the shark being seen from the very beginning.


I know that this is often something of a complain for some viewers, saying that the film was being lazy for not trying to create tension, or that the filmmakers just wanted to show off their shark straight away. But you have to remember, audiences were aware of what to expect the second time around. A slow burn that held the shark back until the end of the film wouldn’t work the second time around. The decision by director Jeannot Szwarc to show the shark, instead using the desperate race to save the teenagers to increase tension, was a smart move.

It may be a bold thing to say, but I sometimes prefer the final act of the second film to that of the original. Now, I’m not saying that the original is bad in any way, I absolutely love the film, but the tension of the final act is interrupted by long moments where nothing much really happens. Whilst I love the drinking scene where the three hunters exchange stories and compare scars I can’t help but feel that it breaks the pace a little. Jaws 2 has, in my opinion, a much tighter final act, setting everything over a much shorter time-span. This works well because it feels like the shark isn’t just something out in the ocean that is being looked for, but an active predator that isn’t leaving the defenceless teens alone until it kills them all.

When you also factor in the extremely troubled production, it’s an absolute miracle that the film is even as good as it is. The script was rewritten several times, with the original concept being completely different (this version of the story focusing on the sinking of the USS Indianapolis and the subsequent shark attacks that Quint (Robert Shaw) witnessed) and had several variations to the final act.


Coupled with this was a change of director part way through the production when the original director, John D. Hancock, was replaced when Universal Executives were unhappy with the tone of the film. Whilst the new director, Jeannot Szwarc, was delivering the film more to the liking of the studio, he didn’t get on well with Roy Scheider, and the two of them even came to physical blows at one point.

Despite these troubles, the film hold up surprisingly well. You would never guess that Scheider had issues with the director due to remaining completely professional throughout and still giving the project his best, even though he didn’t really want to take part in the project.

Jaws is an absolute classic, and there will never be a sequel to it that will beat if for quality, but Jaws 2 comes close, and is easily the best of the three sequels, and a damn good movie in its own right.


Go to Amy's Blog

Wednesday, 20 June 2018

Throwback 10: The Incredible Hulk



Originally published on Set The Tape


It seems strange now, but I remember seeing the advertisements for The Incredible Hulk and being intrigued by it but not overly excited, something which seems bizarre now that every Marvel Studios movie creates massive hype and excitement. Thankfully, whilst I was on the fence about going to see the film I ended up watching Iron Man two months before and was so impressed that it made my mind up for me. And I was so happy that it had.

Whilst it seems that The Incredible Hulk is, for many people, the unwanted Marvel child, the film that people feel doesn’t quite fit with everything else, or blocked out by some, I thought that the film was the best version of the Hulk that we’d had until that point; and a brilliantly entertaining film.

With the first two Marvel Studios films gently easing the audience into the universe that would one day contain wizards, alien gods, and a talking tree, and as such The Incredible Hulk felt very grounded and real, despite being about an enormous green rage monster.

The opening scenes of the film, set in Rio de Janeiro, feel incredibly real, partly thanks to actually being filmed in some of the districts of the city, and lent the whole film a sense of autheticity from the very outset. It made the film stand out and gave audiences a location that is not that often used; and I still think the film stands out visually from many other Marvel Studios entries in part because of this opening section of the movie.

The whole film has a very real feel to it, with locations being used to great effect to make the film feel recognisable, even if it’s not places you’ve necessarily been to. The favelas are instantly recognisable and distinct; Culver University feels like many a small town in America, with quiet neighbourhoods and lush green spaces; and the final confrontation in New York has a very different feel from the versions of New York that we’ll go on to see in other Marvel movies, and feels a lot more like the New York we see in the Netflix shows such as Daredevil and Jessica Jones.

One of the most interesting parts of the film, for me, is the cast. Despite only one of the cast members of The Incredible Hulk appearing in more Marvel Studios projects, William Hurt’s Thunderbolt Ross, the rest of the cast work very well.


Edward Norton is good in the role of Bruce Banner, and plays the part of the terrified loner well. He’s believable as a Bruce Banner on the run, scared of what he is and what he can do. Whilst he would eventually go on to be replaced by Mark Ruffalo in subsequent films (who was actually director Louis Leterrier’s first choice for the role) I can’t help but feel he’s slightly better as this version of Bruce Banner. He’s easily believable as a man living under the radar, keeping to himself, afraid of every shadow; yes, Ruffalo would go on to be a better Banner, but I can’t help but think he’s too charming and stands out too much to be a Bruce on the run.

Betty Ross, Bruce’s iconic love interest is played by Liv Tyler, and whilst she and Norton worked well enough on screen together I don’t think that they were given enough screen time to be believable as a couple in love, rather feeling more like old friends than lovers. This isn’t any fault of the actors, but more the script, and I can’t help but feel it something of a shame that such an important character in the Hulk mythos was never given another chance, especially with the awful shoehorning of a love story between Banner and Black Widow in Avengers: Age of Ultron.

The stand out performance on the film has to be Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky, the ageing commando desperate to recapture the skills of his youth. Whilst still being a competent soldier you can tell that he’s not at his peak, partly thanks to the good decision not to have him physically work out for the role. His motivations to become better, to try to compete against the raw power of the Hulk is believable and compelling.

The fight sequences between Blonsky and the Hulk are some of the best too, with the fight against the serum enhanced Blonsky striking me straight away on my first viewing as a test for how Captain America could fight and move in future films. Despite this sequence being great, it’s overshadowed by the climactic battle between Hulk and the Abomination.

The fight is paced out incredibly well, and shot in such a way that it feels heavy and real, with serious strength and weight behind the combat. It showed off how good the Hulk could be in a fight against another super powered individual (something the Ang Lee Hulk did incredibly poorly). Added into this the moment Hulk yells ‘Hulk Smash’, it becomes one of the better fight sequences in the MCU.

The Incredible Hulk is far from perfect, and thanks to cast changes and characters not being used again it feels almost left out of the MCU now, but it should still be recognised as a great film that helped to set the foundations for one of the biggest film franchises of all time, something that is often given over to Iron Man alone. The Incredible Hulk helped to establish the MCU and proved that the fantastical could fit into the universe.


Go to Amy's Blog

Tuesday, 12 June 2018

Fred: The Godfather of British Crime – Film Review



Originally published on Set The Tape


Fred:  The Godfather of British Crime tells the true story of Fred ‘Freddie’ Foreman, a London born gangster, tried twice for murder and convicted for armed robbery and disposing of a body, in a story that features death, drugs, and famous gangsters.

One of the best parts of Fred: The Godfather of British Crime is the fact that it is told by Fred himself, the 85-year-old former gangster, having agreed to talk on camera about his crimes for the first time in close to 20 years.

Having Fred himself involved gives the documentary a level of depth that would otherwise be missing. There are recordings and photographs, interviews from people who knew him, but having Fred there means that we get to hear about the events of his life directly from him. We not only hear about what he did, but get a chance to understand why; and to see the effect some of his life’s decisions have had on him.

Fred, whilst fairly open for most of the film, will sometimes be difficult with the director, Paul Van Carter, when certain subjects are brought up. Subjects like murder. It’s interesting to see the older footage of Fred where he talks about having murdered people and hearing the extracts from his book where he does as well, to then see him try to work his way around the subject and not directly talk about those particular crimes.



Despite having left his life of crime behind him, Fred very much still seems to fear repercussions for his past deeds and is incredibly careful about what he says to make sure that he stays safe. One of the people interviewed described Fred talking to the documentary crew as like being interviewed by the police, editing what he says; and once you have that in mind you can really see how carefully he chooses his words and how his story can sometimes change.

But these insights into the mind of the man are some of the most interesting and set the film apart from biographical documentaries that don’t have direct involvement from the subject. We learn that Fred turned to a life of crime because he felt it was the only path open to him. We learn that crime didn’t bother him as much as the prospect of his family going without. Yes, he may have gone against the laws of society, but it’s clear that he lived by rules that he himself saw as more important; one of which was to provide for his wife and children no matter what.

Despite these reasons for his life of crime and his justifications for doing some truly terrible things, you have to bear in mind that Fred isn’t entirely innocent. That he has done bad things. I say this because even when talking to the camera, Fred is a very charming man and his age plays into this too. It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking of Fred as a sweet old man.


Strangely enough, I came away from the film not sure what I felt about him. I wanted to dislike him for the life that he chose to lead, for the decisions that he made to be a criminal when he had opportunities to go straight; but when you see him living alone in a small flat, estranged from the family he claimed to always put first, with a few meagre possessions and his memories to keep him company, it’s hard not to feel bad for him. It’s a complex emotion, and one that speaks to how well put together the film is, being able to humanise a character that should be seen as evil.

Full of archive news footage, old photographs and family movies, and dozens of other contributors, Fred: The Godfather of British Crime delivers an in depth and detailed look into the life of an icon of British crime, one that goes beyond simple facts, to tell a very personal and at times emotional story.


Go to Amy's Blog

Monday, 11 June 2018

100 Years of the RAF – DVD Review



The RAF has been an incredibly important part of recent British history, having most notably played a vital role in the security of the United Kingdom during the Second World War, protecting it’s citizens. With the 100th anniversary of the RAF being celebrated this year there are sure to be a lot of documentaries about the organisation.

Whilst the RAF itself is a fascinating subject, and the history of flight even more so, there is sadly little information about the RAF itself within 100 Years of the RAF. Instead of looking at how the RAF was formed, the people who served in it, or even how it shaped British warfare, the documentary focuses on the aircraft.

The film quickly becomes a procession of one plane after another, yet with little information about how these technological or warfare advancements came about. If you’re someone who already knows a great deal about the RAF and the planes used by them then this will probably be fine for you, but as someone with little knowledge on the subject it felt very un-engaging and, at times, boring.

There are moments in the film that are more interesting, such as when they take the time to talk to servicemen and women. They speak to service people from the Second World War, including a female pilot who highlights the fact that many female pilots from that time are overlooked for their service. One of the most interesting interviews in the film is with Squadron Leader John Peters, who was shot down during the first Iraq war. This part of the film was fascinating, and I really wanted this to go into more detail; I’d even happily watch a documentary about his story.

Sadly, these moments were few and fleeting, and the majority of the 98 minute run time is spent moving from one description of a flying vehicle to another. I understand that the film is trying to give an overview of the last 100 years of the RAF, but it feels less like a history of the RAF and more an inventory list of everything they’ve flown. Unfortunately, this makes the film feel a lot longer than 98 minutes, and drags more than one.

The film feels very sterile and lacking any passion. It doesn’t feel like a documentary film made by someone who is passionate on the subject, and the narrator, well known news presenter Sir Martyn Lewis, seems to be going through the motions of reading the script.

The RAF should be a fascinating and exciting story, one filled with the deeds of heroes and innovators, a story of leading the way into a new form of warfare and conquering adversity. Instead it’s a chore to watch, which is a huge shame for those who gave their lives in the service of their country. The RAF has an amazing and storied history, but it won’t really be explored here, but, if you are passionate about aircraft it might just scratch an itch for you.


Go to Amy's Blog

Wednesday, 6 June 2018

The Grass Arena – DVD Review



Originally published on Set The Tape


The Grass Arena tells the true life story of John Healy (Mark Rylance), a man who hit rock bottom, but managed to turn his life around thanks to his love of chess. Based upon the autobiography of the same name, the 1990’s film has finally come to home release on DVD.

I’d never heard of John Healy before watching this film, and found the synopsis of the film to be very interesting, and was looking forward to learning more about him. Unfortunately, I felt fairly let down by the end.

My main issue with the film is that it packs a lot into it’s run time, but doesn’t really give any other the plot points or character development any real time. The film begins with John’s childhood, where we see the abuse that he suffered at home from his overbearing and abusive father.

Much of this abuse stems from the fact that John struggles to stand up straight, complaining about what he describes as a lump in his back. This feels like it should be something that’s addressed, especially after an X-ray discovers a shadow over one of his lungs, yet this is dropped without an explenation and never comes up again; leaving me wondering what John may have been wrong with John, and if this was something that plagued him throughout life.

Another aspect of his childhood that puts him at odds with his father is his lack of faith, but yet again this isn’t really gone into. It’s not clear if John had faith and lost it, or if he never believed in god to begin with. I couldn’t help but feel that for a plot point that was such a big part of John’s poor childhood, a sentence or two of dialogue giving more context would have helped a little.

Sadly, this is something that would give me issue throughout the film, as the film makes a number of jumps in time and story, yet never really goes into explanation as to what’s happening. For example, at one point John meets a woman in a cafe, the next he’s living with her and two other men in an abandoned factory until one of them dies. Who are these people? How did he start living with them? How long were they together? I haven’t a clue, because the film fails to explain this, and several other developments in John’s life.

Much of this feels like a product of time constraints. It felt like 90 minutes wasn’t enough time to fit in all of the information on a life as packed as John’s. Perhaps a mini-series would have been a better format as it would have allowed the filmmakers more time to explain and develop the events in a more cohesive way.

There are moments in the film that are good, however, such as when Fox (Bunny May) teaches him to play chess. Watching the development between the two of them is a genuinely sweet moment, especially when the two of them are playing the game in their bunk at night, all in their heads. The natural ability of John is astounding, and his chess skills are shocking, especially as it was what he needed to end the cycle of self destruction that he was on, giving him that new obsession he needed to stay sober.

The Grass Arena is far from a perfect film, but it achieves it’s goals of telling a story about an amazing and inspiring man. It shows that it’s never too late to turn your life around or to discover your true passions. If given more time to go into greater detail the film would have been even better, but as it is, it’s still a well made and competent movie.


Go to Amy's Blog

Monday, 4 June 2018

Ghost House – Film Review



Originally published on Set The Tape


Ghost House tells the story of Jim (James Landry Hebert) and Julie (Scout Taylor-Compton), a young couple on holiday in Thailand. Everything is going well for the young couple, they’ve got a likeable, if other enthusiastic tour-guide/driver who’s taking care of them, Julie is loving photographing their surroundings, and they’ve just gotten engaged. It should be a wonderful holiday, but, it would appear that the two of them don’t know some very simple rules.

Never go off the beaten track into strange places, never accept drinks from strangers, and don’t mess with ghost houses. Some of these are fairly simple and should really be common sense for most travellers (probably not the ghost house bit to be fair though), but Jim and Julie quickly fall under the obviously creepy influence of two British holidaymakers Robert (Russell Geoffrey Banks) and Billy (Rich Lee Gray).

Despite appearing to want to celebrate the new engagement, it’s clear that something else is going on, and when the two Brits lure the young couple out into the countryside to look as a ghost house graveyard Julie is soon tricked into disturbing one of the houses, letting her fall victim to the vengeful spirit residing within.

For those wondering what a ghost house is a small shrine made as a place for restless spirits to live. Found throughout several Southeast Asian countries, spirit houses as they are known in real life, can range in size and design, but are mostly like elaborate bird tables.

The ghost house graveyard, a place filled with old and decaying ghost houses, is a very creepy location, filled with fog, twisted sculptures, and hidden danger. In fact, every time you see a ghost house (even before they make it to the grave yard) the film does its best to put you on edge, focusing on the darkness within them, with shots that slowly zoom in, lasting longer than they probably should.


Once Julie has disturbed the ghost house, however, the tension never really goes away as we see the spirit slowly worm its way into her soul. The best way to describe it is like a form of possession, but Julie is never ‘taken over’ or becomes someone else. Instead, she’s slowly drawn deeper into the spirit world, the ghost appearing and disappearing, using jumps and a sense of dread as it stalks Julie for the course of the film.

The scenes with the ghost, played by Wen-Chu Yang, are well crafted enough, with the jump scares never feeling overly forced. The times when it works best, though, are when you know that she’s coming, but the scene draws itself out, with the faint sound of the ghost getting closer the only indication that she’s around.

Whilst Julie is plagued by these ghostly apparitions Jim has to find a way to save her, leading to an adventure through the back streets of Thailand, and deep into the countryside to seek help from a witch doctor. Some of the best scenes happen once the group leaves the familiar surroundings of the city and ventures into the forests. It’s an environment that’s not always seen, familiar yet alien, and it makes the characters feel more isolated and heightens the sense of danger.

There are many aspects of Ghost House that will feel familiar, especially if you’ve seen a few Asian horror films over the years, and whilst it might not win any awards for originality or innovation, it does execute its story well. The scenes are well shot, and there’s a lot of atmosphere, especially in the scenes in the haunted forests.

Ghost House achieves what it sets out to do, and delivers an engaging and enjoyable horror experience, and the faults that are present can easily be forgiven.


Go to Amy's Blog

Thursday, 31 May 2018

The Ice King – DVD Review



Originally published on Set The Tape


Released by: Dogwoof Entertainment
Directed by: James Erskine
Run Time: 88 minutes
RRP: £12.9

John Curry transformed ice skating from a dated sport into an exalted art form. Coming out on the night of his Olympic Win in 1976, he became the first openly gay Olympian in a time when homosexuality was not even fully legal. Toxic yet charming; rebellious yet elitist; emotionally aloof yet spectacularly needy; ferociously ambitious yet bent on self-destruction, this is a man forever on the run: from his father’s ghost, his country, and even his own self. Above all, John Curry was an artist and an athlete whose body time and again – sometimes against his will – became a political battlefield.

The Ice King tells the captivating true-life story of John Curry, a young man from Birmingham who would go on to transform the world of figure skating, changing it from a rigid sport into the art it is today. Before Torvill and Dean became household names, John Curry paved the way.

Whilst I won’t admit to knowing a great deal about sport (anyone who has seen me try to do any will attest to that) I was incredibly surprised by how much I didn’t know about figure skating. For male skaters, the sport was more of a display of athletic ability, rather than the balletic form it is now.

This was the world into which the young John Curry entered, a man who had wanted to go into dancing and ballet but was prevent from doing so by his father, who felt that it was an un-masculine pursuit. Through his passion for dance and his deep sensitivity he would go on to change the entire sport, wowing judges and audiences across the world in competitions and even the Winter Olympics.


The film shines a light on his passions, on the dedication that he put into his craft, and how it would go on to direct his entire life; leaving competitive figure skating to establish his own touring skating company that modelled itself on a traditional dance company, travelling around the world to perform to sold out audiences.

The Ice King shows another side to John Curry, however, as it explores the pain and depression that he suffered through, a part of people’s lives that aren’t often shown to the public. More than once in the documentary Curry says ‘Whatever greatness I  possess, there are demons of equal value’.

One part of this is due to John being gay, a factor that would shape his life in huge ways, both because of the era of rampant homophobia that he lived in, but also because of his coming out on the day that he won his Olympic gold medal.

This is one of the more fascinating parts of the documentary, seeing the world that John had to live in, seeing grown men addressing rooms full of children warning of the danger of ‘queers’, or the hatred towards the gay community during the AIDS crisis.

Unfortunately, due to John Curry dying of an AIDS-related heart attack in 1994 he is unable to take part in this documentary himself, though through the use of archived interviews, camcorder footage of performances (which are often times the only footage in existence, complete with audience members getting in the way and shaky handling), and interviews with people who knew him the documentary feels incredibly in depth and personal.

There are sections of the film that use extracts from his personal letters to provide insight into his inner thoughts during some of the bigger events of his life, voiced by a particularly good voice impersonator. Whilst I don’t always like these kind of methods in documentaries, it works very well here.

The Ice King brilliantly brings together archive footage, voice over interviews, and candid video to deliver a truly well crafted and thoughtful documentary, telling the tale of a man that changed an entire sport and influenced thousands of people across the world.


Go to Amy's Blog

Wednesday, 16 May 2018

3 Hours Until Dead – Movie Review



Originally published on Set The Tape


Starring: John Hennigan, Michelle Taylor, Eric Etebari & Joseph Gatt
Directed by: Steven LaMorte

Rick Rainsford is trapped on a deserted island with his reluctant companion, Anna. While attempting to save another gravely injured survivor they find themselves hunted by Zaroff, a sociopathic ex-KGB Agent long with his partner Ivan. In spite of their differences Rick and Anna must work together to disarm Zaroff’s deadly traps, survive his assistant’s brutal attacks, and escape the island alive.

3 Hours Until Dead (or Never Leave Alive as it is known in the United States) is a film where the concept is very good, having taken inspiration from classic stories of man hunting man such as The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell, or even the Jean Claude Van Damme film Hard Target, in putting its heroes in a deadly fight for survival.

Unfortunately, the execution of this concept is never anything above average, with a plot that feels fairly stale and uneventful, and a cast of actors who are never anything above mediocre.

John Hennigan certainly looks the part as Rick Rainsford, the reality television star and celebrity hunter, his huge physique and flowing hair certainly making him stand out as heroic, particularly in the films final act. Unfortunately, the former WWE star is no leading man. Yes, he has the fight training to fall back on, and even has a history of parkour, but his ability to lead a film falls short of what is needed here.

He is able to portray the swagger and pigheadedness of a television celebrity who feels that the world should be revolving around him, but once it’s time for him to step up and be the hero he can’t quite manage to pull it off. Sadly, he doesn’t even get the chance to show of his physical abilities as the film doesn’t really make use of his skill set in the action sequences, with many of the films fight sequences feeling quite dull and slow paced. These problems are even more apparent as his character has to go from an un-likeable drunk, to someone we’re rooting for; a task that feels beyond him with his limited acting abilities and poor scripting choices.

An easy solution to a main star who isn’t quite up to the task of leading the movie would be to make sure that the other actors around them are much stronger, using them to elevate their acting.

Whilst Michelle Taylor appear to be competent enough an actress, the script doesn’t seem to know what to do with her character of Anna. One moment she’s Rick’s equal, with skills and a drive to survive, the next she’s a shrieking damsel in distress who needs Rick to rescue her. Combined with a ‘mysterious past’ and she feels more like multiple character archetypes all rolled into one part with no coherent character or personality.


Sadly, not even the villains get to be more than standard two dimensional tropes. Eric Etebari plays Zaroff (a clear nod to General Zaroff in The Most Dangerous Game), the former Russian Colonel living on his own private island with his assistant Ivan, played by Joseph Gatt (and yes, this is another thing taken from the original story).

Despite some hints that Zaroff has a shady past that involves war crimes, why he is on the island, how he came to know about Rick and his plans, how he sunk a ship, and how he got Rick onto his island after he was thrown into the sea by an explosion all seem to be secondary concerns to the writer and director, who seem feel that any form of explanation would bog down the action.

Zaroff, and Ivan, barely manage to be more than template villains, with Ivan being the only character in the film to show any level of development (though the reasons for his change of heart are never explored).

The film should feel a lot more exciting than it does, and should be fairly faced paced, but Zaroff never feels like much of a threat, and Rick and Anna have a lot a quite moments in the wilderness to just sit and chat, something that you probably shouldn’t do when you’re being hunted. The lack of any real urgency lets the film down a lot, as there never feels like there’s any tension or danger for the main characters.

3 Hours Until Dead has a solid idea at its foundation (albeit one it did not come up with itself) but never succeeds in living up to it. With a cast of actors who are never anything more than average, the film lacks any real excitement or sense of danger. Whilst not an awful film, it’s not something that it going to stand out or even stick in your memory after viewing.

Unless you’re a huge fan of any of the cast there’s not much here to draw you in to watch, unless it’s the only thing on television that night, in which case there are worse ways to spend 90 minutes.


Go to Amy's Blog

Monday, 9 April 2018

'Acts of Violence' Film Review



Originally published on Set The Tape

‘Three Midwestern brothers, a crime lord, and an incorruptible cop are on a deadly collision course when the youngest brother’s fiancée is kidnapped by human traffickers. To save her, the MacGregor boys call on their military training – and the strength of family – to fight the most important battle of their lives.’

With action movies relying more and more on big budget effects or choreographed fight scenes that make the heroes look near superhuman, sometimes a more realistic approach can feel new and refreshing. Acts of Violence goes against these modern action films, with little to no visual effects and short, economical action sequences.

Following a trio of brothers and their foster sister Mia (Melissa Bolona), who is now marrying the younger brother Roman (Ashton Holmes). The family is fairly close and portrayed as relatively normal, though there is some inner drama injected with the eldest brother Deklan (Cole Hauser) being a veteran suffering from PTSD.

When Mia is kidnapped by local sex traffickers the brothers turn to local cop James Avery (Bruce Willis) for help, but his hands are bound by the law, forcing the brothers to fall back on their military training to save their family.


It’s a very simple plot, with clear lines between the heroes and villains, and solid end goal. Whilst other action films would try to add sub-plots and plot twists to try to bulk out the film Acts of Violence works well without them, relying on simplicity and a face pace to move the story forward.

Whilst this doesn’t lead to a lot of room for character development the film doesn’t really need it. We get to know the characters pretty well during the short 80 minute run time, with each of the brothers having room to be clearly defined and nuanced enough to be interesting. Because the film is fairly short, and the action takes place over a relatively small period of time, it would feel more jarring if the film did stop the story to spend time delving into character.

Despite the short run time, the film manages to include several action sequences. Simple and grounded in how they’re choreographed and shot, the action scenes feel like something from the 70’s. There’s nothing over the top or spectacular about what happens, and it actually works a lot better for this. For a film that is taking a very real and grounded approach the action fits perfectly, adding to the sense of realism.

A lot of this is helped by Cole Hauser. Where the other brothers are becoming emotional and distraught over the loss of Mia, he’s calm and collected, falling back on his military training to lead the group. He’s not over the top or larger than life, he’s just a regular soldier, albeit one who’s fighting for his family rather than his country.


The film very much feels like a throwback to the 70’s grindhouse pictures, focusing on people going up against organised crime, drug lords, and human trafficking. Thankfully, the film doesn’t go as dark as the films of the 70’s, and doesn’t focus too hard on the horrors of the sex trade; it doesn’t play up the violence of women being kidnapped and forced to become sex workers. This is a good thing, as it stops the film going too dark. The characters and the audience both know how bad things will be for Mia if she’s not rescued, so it’s good that we’re not forced to see it.

Despite a short run time Acts of Violence manages to pack a lot in, keeping the story moving at a brisk pace. It has enough action, story, and character development to stay interesting and engaging without being boring. Yes, it’s a cheap action film made relatively quickly (the film was shot over two weeks), but is well made, competent, and entertaining. Which isn’t something every film can say.


Go to Amy's Blog

Friday, 23 February 2018

Remake Rivalry: The Eye versus The Eye



Originally published on Set The Tape

In the first of an ongoing series of articles comparing remakes to their original films, I take a look at the 2008 Jessica Alba film The Eye, and the original Hong Kong-Singaporean film of the same name from 2002.

The original The Eye tells the story of Wong Kar Mun (Angelica Lee), a young woman living in Hong Kong that has been blind since the age of two. After receiving a cornea transplant her sight is restored, but she also begins to see strange apparitions that she believes to be ghosts.

Along with her psychologist Dr. Wah (Lawrence Chou), she investigates into her donor, and discovers that her new eyes came from a Chiu Wai-ling (Chutcha Rujinanon), a young woman from Thailand who had the psychic ability to foresee death and disaster.


The 2008 remake has a very similar story, though some small details have been changed. Instead of having lost her eyesight at the age of two Sydney Wells (Jessica Alba) lost her sight at the age of five. The location has also been moved to Los Angeles, with her donor Ana Christina Martinez (Fernanda Romero) being from Mexico.

Despite these small alterations much of the remake follows a similar path, with events unfolding much in the same way that they do in the original. The remake has less focus on Sydney before the operation that the original did with Mun, but makes up for this by giving more focus over to her rediscovering her sight. The remake includes moments of Sydney just taking in the world around her, her blurred vision a thing of wonder to her.

The remake also makes it obvious that Sydney lived a very different way before her operation, with her apartment having to be fitted with new lamps because she didn’t need them before, her computer having a speaking function so that she can hear what is on screen, and her printer being braille. These are very small details, but it reinforces the notion that this isn’t just a story about a young woman suddenly seeing ghosts, but as someone whose entire world has suddenly changed.


One area that I feel the remake misses out, however, is in her musical career. In the original Mun is part of a blind orchestra, playing the violin. Once she regains her sight she is told that she can’t be part of the orchestra anymore because she’s no longer blind. This is a massive blow to the character, as she’s losing both an activity that she loves, and a community that she’s part of. The remake, by contrast, has Sidney in a regular orchestra, one where she is a stand out because of her disability. The original made a big thing about the orchestra being a place for Mun to feel at home, to be around people who share her experience, but the remake misses this completely.

The biggest difference between the two films though, is the tone. The original film feels much more grounded and real compared to the American remake. The remake has a much glossier, cleaner look to it, whilst the original has a more rundown aesthetic. This carries across into the cinematography, where the remake uses a lot more warmer tones compared to the pale greens and greys of the original.

Whilst this may not make a big difference normally, it does serve to make the remake less scary. The original film is much darker, and the ghosts inhabit the world in a much more frightening way, whilst the remake seems to rely on more jump scares than atmosphere to generate fright.


One of the best scenes in the original (and one of my all time favourite horror movie moments) sees Mun trapped in a lift with a ghost, who’s slowly moving closer and closer to her. This scene is repeated in the remake, but fails to capture the tension and dread that the original had. This one scene is perhaps the biggest indicator of how the two films are different. The original is a horror film with a mystery for the main character to solve, where the remake feels like a mystery that happens to have a few ghosts in it.

The films endings are where they differ the most in story, with the remake having Mun fail to prevent a disaster she had been having visions of that results in the deaths of hundreds of people, whilst the remake has Sidney saving everyone. Whilst both scenarios result in the character losing their eyesight once again, they have vastly different tones and end messages.

Whilst the remake isn’t a bad film by any stretch, it does lack a lot of the atmosphere and nuance that makes the original such a good horror film. By all means, watch both, but if you can only see one, make it the original.


Go to Amy's Blog

Monday, 19 February 2018

Looking Back At RoboCop



Originally published on Set The Tape

The original RoboCop is very much a product of its time, taking the violence and fear of a criminal future that pervaded much of the 1980’s, and pushing it to a level most films would try to avoid. Despite the extreme gore, horrific violence, and pervading lack of hope, RoboCop stands as one of the all time great movies from the decade.

Before the character of RoboCop would become watered down by two unsuccessful sequels, a mid-afternoon television series, and a much bemoaned remake in 2014, the original was a total surprise to audiences, combining together ridiculous moments of humour and satire with shocking violence, all with a very deep narrative about what it means to be human underneath.

People weren’t sure what to make of RoboCop when it was first released in 1987 (or February 1988 for UK audiences), though it quickly became a success, earning back four times its budget in the cinemas and cementing the career of its director, Paul Verhoeven.

It may have been this mix of tones that helped to make the film a success. For some it was filled with heavy comedic moments, others were shocked and enthralled by the violence, and some were drawn into the story of Alex Murphy (Peter Weller) being changed into a cyborg and struggling to regain his humanity and sense of self. RoboCop has more layers than would initially be believed, and this helped towards its popularity.


Despite being 30 years old and made with a relatively small budget of $13 million, the film still holds up well. Yes, there are some areas where the visual effects don’t quite hold up, such as with ED-209, but on the whole it looks spectacular, with the practical effects giving the film a very real and down to earth feel.

The fact that it isn’t a special effects heavy piece actually works to its advantage, and helps to tell the story. This is a version of future Detroit that is run down, besieged by crime, with poor citizens and people close to giving up, and not having big showy effects helps to realise this version of Detroit and to make it feel like a real place (despite none of the film actually being made in the real Detroit).

This is one of the things that makes the original RoboCop stand out against its recent remake. The grounded and more recognisable world of the 1980’s original compared to the high-tech and glossy vision of the 2014 remake means that it’s easier to identify with the human story within the film, especially that of Alex Murphy.

On that note it’s worth talking about the cast, all of whom are perfect for their roles. Peter Weller is astonishing in the lead role, able to bring more through his voice and chin as RoboCop than he was as the fully human Alex Murphy. Even before RoboCop removes his helmet in the latter scenes, you already know that there’s more going on beneath, that the real Alex Murphy is breaking through. Considering that the only part of the actor visible is the lower face, his voice has a robotic effect over the top of it, and that he moves in a very mechanical way, this is hugely impressive.


A large part of the success of the Alex Murphy story is the casting of Nancy Allen in the role of his partner Anne Lewis. Able to portray a hardened street cop in one scene, yet caring and understanding, almost motherly, in another, she acts as a perfect companion to Weller’s cyborg, giving him that real human connection to help the real him break through.

The film’s main villains, Clarence Boddicker (Kurtwood Smith) and Dick Jones (Ronny Cox), are incredibly well crafted, each playing a very different type of villain, yet working well together. Boddicker is the vicious street thug and gang leader, whilst Jones is the sleazy duplicitous corporate bad guy.

Smith may initially seem like a strange choice for a gang leader, with most people going on to remember him as the father from the 90’s sitcom That 70’s Show, he brings a level of sinister menace and subtly to the role that many films lack. As for Cox, he so perfectly fits the part of a corporate villain that its a role he would go on to repeat numerous times throughout his career.

On the face of things many would view RoboCop as an ultra violent shallow film, offering little more than guns and gore, but it has a lot more to say about corporate America, the decline of society and the rise of crime, and the human soul, than you’d initially believe. A great film with multiple themes, a sharp and witty script, and great casting, RoboCop deserves its status as a cult classic.


Go to Amy's Blog

Tuesday, 30 January 2018

Looking Back At Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials



Originally published on Set The Tape

Sequels can be hard to do, you’ve got to build upon the first film in new and interesting ways, you have to develop the story and characters, and you have to top what came before. This can be even harder to do when making a planned series. Not only do you need to make a sequel, but it needs to feel like a part of what came before.

Certain series that are adapted from books do this quite well, The Hunger Games gave us a sequel that followed a very close formula to the first film, but with more gloss and higher production values, bigger stakes, and better characters. It felt like the natural progression of the story. The Scorch Trials, however, doesn’t feel like the natural next step from The Maze Runner, and because of that it’s so much better than its predecessor.

The first film centered on interpersonal drama, mystery, and an almost unseen threat, The Scorch Trials takes a step towards something grander, with the stakes being the survival of the planet, the threats being multiple, and the set pieces dwarfing what was done in the first film.

The maze is gone, replaced with a barren, desert landscape, filled with the ruined and decayed cities of the civilisations that came before. It’s post apocalypse time, and the series definitely benefits from it. As does it from a more obvious enemy for the Gladers to contend with.

This film sees our young heroes having to not only contend with Cranks, humans that have been mutated by the Flare Virus into zombie creatures with plant like vines growing out of them, but they’re also being hunted by WCKD (pronounced Wicked), an evil corporation with their own military.


The constant threat, from both humans and the infected, means that The Scorch Trials doesn’t get to slow down the same way that The Maze Runner did, though this doesn’t mean that the film misses out on character development. The new challenges facing the Gladers means that they’re tested in ways that they weren’t before, and the characters have to adapt and grow, creating some interesting new dynamics between the group, particularly with Teressa (Kaya Scodelario).

The Scorch Trials larger scope means that it’s also able to introduce more characters into the world, expanding not just the roster of heroes, but providing some much-needed back story and history to the films universe. These new additions work well in the film, particularly Rosa Salazar as Brenda, who feels a lot more natural as a love interest for Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) than Teresa did.

The only misstep in the new additions to the cast is Aidan Gillen as Janson, the representative of WCKD who tries to convince the heroes that they’re the good guys. Perhaps it’s just me, and this is largely down to something that has nothing to do with The Scorch Trials, but if you want to make me think that WCKD is on the up and up, don’t have their front man be played by Lord Baylish from Game of Thrones. No one is ever trusting that guy.

The Scorch Trials is a very different film to what came before it, yet feels like a natural progression to a story that is still something of a mystery. How this series will play out in its final part, whether it will continue on as in this film, or if it will make another big leap; and if we will be provided with all of the answers to the mysteries, remains to be seen, however, whatever is to come in The Death Cure is sure to be interesting.


Go to Amy's Blog

Thursday, 25 January 2018

'Aliens vs Predator: Requiem' 10 Years On



Originally published on Set The Tape

The first Aliens vs Predator split a lot of audiences, with some loving the more watered down adventure style story and lack of horror, whilst others felt that the end result failed to represent either franchise well. Luckily, the sequel, Aliens vs Predator: Requiem, managed to bring audiences together… by being an awful, awful film.

Directed by Colin and Greg Strause, or ‘The Brothers Strause’, it’s quite obvious that this is their first time overseeing a large screen feature film, with very little flare to the proceedings. The film is dull, spending most of its time in dark locations that fail to grab attention or pop on the screen. Even the daylight scenes fail to have any kind of significant look or style to set it apart. The only moment that does look new and interesting is the brief appearance of the Predator home world, though this barely lasts five minutes.

The story, a direct continuation of the first film, picks up very shortly after the closing moments of AVP, with the Predalien hybrid loose on a Predator ship, which subsequently crashes outside a small town in America. Due to all of the Predators on the ship being killed, and the Predalien being a Queen (something that is never stated in the film and only explained in the behind the scenes materials on the DVD and Blu Ray), a specialist Alien hunter is sent to Earth to destroy it.


As far as a set up goes, it’s not the worst in the world. Watching Aliens overrun a town full of people should be entertaining, but it fails to live up to expectations. Seeing the remains of the colony on LV-426 in Aliens following the alien attack was frightening and full of mystery; seeing a similar scenario play out on modern day earth fails to capture any of these feelings, despite trying to recapture the horror of the original.

The characters that inhabit the town lack any interesting qualities. There’s an ex-con called Dallas (Steven Pasquale) and his brother Ricky (Johnny Lewis), whose story is filled with teen dating drama and lost car keys; then there’s Army mother Kelly (Reiko Aylesworth) who has just returned home from tour and is struggling to reconnect with her daughter Molly (Ariel Grade). The film wants the audience to connect with these characters and care about them, but it never gives Kelly and her daughter time to develop on screen in any meaningful way, and Ricky and Dallas are boring and dull in their scenes.

Unfortunately the film isn’t able to make up for this lack of characterisation with good action, as the vast majority of the picture is too dark and dull to be able to really know what happens. However, there is one scene that sees the Predator, Wolf, hunting Xenomorphs in the sewers that stands out as one of the sci-fi actioner’s best scenes, although it’s not hard to stand out against the rest of the feature.


The poor characters and lacklustre action is let down even more by a plot that makes little sense. For example, why would the Predators send their best hunter to erase all evidence of the Xenomorphs, yet allow him to hunt humans? The fact that the Predalien is also a Queen, but this is never explained, leads to what seems to be inconsistencies in the plot too, especially in how it builds its forces. Instead of laying eggs and creating new facehuggers, the juvenile Queen implants embryos directly into its victims, leading to a particularly gruesome scene involving a maternity ward.

Aliens vs Predator: Requiem fails to capture any of what made the first film bearable, or the original franchises good. Yes, it’s darker and gorier than AVP, but that on its own doesn’t make for a good film. Thankfully, being so poor put an end to the AVP franchise, allowing filmmakers to concentrate on their own independent series’ instead.


Go to Amy's Blog