Category: Ramblings

Sneakers (1992)

Rating 12
Length 2h 06
Release 13.11.1992
Director Phil Alden Robinson
About Martin Bishop heads a group of experts who specialise in testing security systems. When government agents blackmail him into stealing a top secret black box, his team is embroiled in a dangerous game.

The Good

  • The cast is incredible. Like, I can’t imagine a director getting a better cast assembled. Certainly not one that includes three generations of Oscar talent.
  • In particular, Sidney Poitier was incredible. He really had that paternal vibe down. Then he went and gave Samuel L Jackson a run for his money with the use of “motherfucker.”
  • This is perfect for those who like conspiracy thrillers and heist movies, like Enemy of the State, Lucky Number Slevin and Inside Man. It’s clever and well paced with characters I really rooted for.
  • The final scene is worth everything. Think Armageddon contract negotiation but a thousand times better.
  • Even though technology has advanced, and rendered some of what is mentioned in the plot obsolete, I doubt it impacts on the enjoyment that could be had. Unlike, The Net and perhaps Hackers that don’t fare as well.

The Bad

  • It was a slow burn, which is okay, but with ‘lockdown brain’ I have tended to stick to films under the 1h 40 mark and I did find myself drifting in those first twenty minutes or so. A little tighter editing would smooth out that introduction somewhat.
  • There was a dodgy accent or two that really sounded off. In particular director favourite Lee Garlington would have been better without the European accent.

The Ugly

  • Can someone tell me what Robert Redford used to be able to get through that hot room?! Like, seriously? 99 degrees Fahrenheit and that bastard is as dry as a bone. In a high pressure situation? Bullshit, he would be as wet as Lee Evans after the first half of a gig. Yes, I know this is a weird hang-up, but in a near perfect movie, this stands out so badly.
  • I’m not sure how I feel about David Strathairn’s presentation of a visually impaired person. Why some things that were played for laughs, like talking to someone facing the wrong way, work quite well there are others that don’t sit as well with me. I’m not going to detail it here as it’s not fair for me to say its offensive and I wouldn’t want to prejudice anyone. However, if you’re as like-minded as me; you’ll know when you get to the scene I had the problem with.

Final Thoughts

This is a good movie. Not a movie you’ll watch all the time, but it’s a movie you’ll watch and think, damn I enjoyed that. I also have a sneaking suspicion that a viewer much more familiar with Redford’s back catalogue

Stop or my Mom Will Shoot (1992)

Rating PG
Length 1h 22
Release 17.4.1992
Director Roger Spottiswoode
About When cop Joe calls-off his relationship with his girlfriend, his mom pays him a visit. She starts to interfere in everything that he does and soon gets involved in one of his important projects.

The Good

  • Estelle Getty is what makes this film as enjoyable as it is. Firstly, she’s the best Golden Girl (which I would imagine says a lot about me) and she has that dry Yankee humour. There’s no one else you could put in that role.
    Secondly, some of the characteristics of Tutti remind me so much of my own mum. For example, Tutti finding the gun and ‘cleaning’ it to actually break it. Yeah, that was my mum. Clothes, PCs, food… you name it, she’d mean well but it would always go wrong. It’s a little bittersweet, but so god damn funny.
  • The plot is rather poor, but its not the plot you’re watching this for. It’s the dynamic between Getty and Stallone. It bloody works. On some level a lot of us recognise the relationship these two people have (see above) so we not only relate, but we can laugh as it happens to someone else.

The Bad

  • I love JoBeth Williams, but the character of Lt Gwen Harper is so shit. It’s like the film gave with one hand by making her the boss, but took it away with the other by making her relationship with Joe so public and unprofessional. What’s so bad about it, is that it makes me question how she got her position in the first place.
  • Stallone does not want to be in this movie. You can feel that from his performance. Some of it can be explained away as the character’s relationship with the mother, but it’s more than that. It’s a shame, because it looks like it could have been a real laugh being on that set.

The Ugly

  • Some of the dialogue is very dated and cringe. In fact it plays like a mid 80s film, rather than one from 1992. From the stewardess purring “You looked real sexy in those diapers” to “I like wearing my underwear more than once before changing them.” Just makes me very, very grateful the 80s and 90s are far behind me.
  • The film’s score is painfully repetitive. Maybe its that I’ve been spoiled by incredible soundtracks of recent years, but this was cheap and distracting.

Final Thoughts

It’s dated, the plot is a little hit and miss, but I laughed at good few times and at 1h 23 I certainly don’t think I’ve wasted my night.

The Girl in the Photographs

Rating 18
Length 1hr 35
Release 19.10.2015 (no UK cinematic release)
Director Nick Simon
About Two psychopaths target a young woman (Claudia Lee), a photographer (Kal Penn) and a group of models at a secluded house.

The Good

  • This film takes a risk with its ending. It *almost* works. The idea of an open ending to a stand alone horror film in a way that’s not a rug pull (see I Know What You Did Last Summer, House of Wax and Saw) is rare. There’s no showdown, there’s no final girl. Now, considering the rest is formulaic as fuck, that ending really impressed me.
  • Yeah, that’s all I got folks. This film was garbage and I actually almost turned it off.

The Bad

  • By calling your ‘slashers’ psychopaths, does not free you of having a motive. Towards the back end of the film we get the idea that he has some sort of feelings for our lead, Colleen. However, where does the second guy factor in to this infatuation? There’s also the fact that we come into the film at victim 7. The film made loose connections to the photographer, Kal Penn, but just didn’t follow through. If only the film unpacked the fact that the two men were in the same year as Penn’s character, it would have made for a much more satisfying movie.
  • As much as I love Mitch Pileggi, the incorporation of the police force within the town was frustrating and of no use to the plot with how they were used. Just throwing around “No body, no crime.’ And repeatedly telling Colleen there’s nothing they can do is utter bullshit ;and the stereotype we moved away from almost two decades ago. When these photographs are popping up and they resemble the missing persons report… they would have to do something. While I do like the fact that the psychopaths are left to kill another day, if you’re also going to make the police incompetent and the reason these girls have died, at least have them as part of the body count.
  • How is the disappearance of seven people not caused commotion in this town? How is it not a much bigger thing, that’s going to make the local news at the very least? I just find so many of the things in this so illogical.
  • Did we really need the commentary of “the photographer” on consent. He actually says “permission isn’t sexy”. Which is made all the more galling by the fact that the guy is using a big ass camera with a massive flash to photograph Colleen.
    Oh, and while we’re on the topic of consent. Having a guy secretly film his casual sex is one thing. Having the girl discover it and then masterbate to the footage is very much another and absolutely not okay. Remembering, the issue is not the sex, but the violation and lack of consent. My biggest issue being who this film’s demographic is and what it might say to them.

The Ugly

  • The over-use of Wes Craven’s name in all of the publicity. He was a producer, nothing more. There is nothing in this film that can be said to be inspired by his body of work and its only made worse by the over zealous use of “This was the last film he worked on.”
  • Few things I didn’t understand: who the fuck wrote the blog? Who made the connection to the photographer, and was it every single photograph? If so, why?
  • Oh, why is the boyfriend such a dick? Like, really? Can someone explain to me? He seemed lovely and really trying to make things work, but Colleen was clearly not on the same page. When Psycho Tom tells boyfriend “you should have treated her better” all I could think was that he really should have been saying that to Colleen.
  • The blood, the gore! Jesus, I know it was an 18 and everything, but come on! Its been proven time and time again that not showing a death is much more effective. Why do we need to see all the blood?!

Final Thoughts

This film has potential behind the gore, but the editing and unresolved questions leave it being little more than garbage. Its not even clever enough to be considered an exploitation film.

Film Review: Willy’s Wonderland (2021)

Rating 25
Length 1h 28
Release 12.2.2021
Dir Kevin Lewis
About When his car breaks down, a quiet loner agrees to clean an abandoned family fun center in exchange for repairs. He soon finds himself waging war against possessed animatronic mascots while trapped inside Willy’s Wonderland.

The Good

It’s chaotic and bonkers. It is Cabin in the Woods meets Jennifer’s Body by way of The Dead Don’t Die. It’s not going to everyone’s cup of tea but it is entertaining.

  • This film is chaotic, bonkers and the perfect vehicle for Nicolas Cage. This is gory, volatile type of horror that is more likely to make to chuckle or squirm than scream.
  • It’s not for everyone, but it feels like Cabin in the Woods (2011) meets Jennifer’s Body (2009) by way of The Dead Don’t Die (2019). So while its not going to be everyone’s cup of tea, if you like those movies this will be, at the very least, entertaining for you.
  • The lighting in this film (aside from the migraine inducing strobe) is incredible. I can’t put my finger on how it was done, but it adds light to the screen so you can see the action, without dulling the atmosphere.

The Bad

  • Nicolas Cage doesn’t speak. Now, he does a perfectly excellent job at presenting the character without words. That, I have no issue with. I just really missed Cage’s manic dialogue.
  • There are few really weird plot choices that are left unexplained. They just seem like plot devices and that’s a little disappointing.

The Ugly

  • The flashing/ strobe lighting that’s used at the beginning and partway through is nauseating. I totally understanding the artistic decision for it, however it detracts more than it adds.
  • With Nicolas Cage’s character mute, he’s not well rounded. It means we’re in the same position as the rest of the cast, but it has come at the expense of not investing in any of the characters.

Final Thoughts

It’s flawed (What Nic Cage project in the last decade isn’t), but well worth your time.

Film Review: Shocker (1989)

Rating: 18
Length: 1h 49
Release: 27.10.1989
Dir : Wes Craven
About: A serial killer uses the electricity from the electric chair in which he was executed to return from the dead. Later, he sets out to exact revenge on a football player who turned him in.

The Good

  • The music is my absolute favourite part of this late 80s gorefest. It’s rock and ‘heavy metal’, and feels really ironic. I’m pretty certain that wasn’t the intent, but it certainly works much better here than in Christine (1983).
  • The final act is amazing, rather meta and absolutely bonkers. If anything, I wish everything that came before was more like this. The final act plays out like the love child of Ghost in the Machine and Last Action Hero. It’s this section that really does open the story up to Craven’s original intent: a tv series.
  • Johnathan Parker is our ‘final girl’ in Shocker. It’s a refreshing change of pace to have a male lead in this sort of genre movie and in the role of the ‘final girl’ no less. While some of the choices for this character aren’t perfect, and I’ll look at those below, he still offers something other than what viewers might be used to.
  • Mitch Pileggi playing the mass killer is mind boggling brilliance. Anyone who has seen him in X Files would be forgiven for not recognising the actor, however those familiar with his time on Supernatural will understand upon watching this, why he got the role.

The Bad

  • It’s not a smooth plot and each of the three acts feel like they are directed by three different directors. Between the dodgy audio, lack of subtitles on Amazon Prime and what I would say are questionable editing choices, I really did struggle when it came to following at some points.
    The biggest issue of course being the connection between Pinker and Johnathan. It was something I suspected, and something revealed in the movie. However, it was only upon reading up on the plot after the fact that I’d had it confirmed.
  • The conflict between Johnathan the ‘football star’ and Johnathan the goofball who knocked himself out at practice. I don’t get why he’s so goofy. This guy is meant to be so amazing, that his ‘football status’ is in many news reports throughout the film. That doesn’t mesh with this guy who walks into things and trips up on his own feet.
  • There’s a little too much overlap with Craven’s Nightmare on Elm Street in terms of Johnathan having premonition type dreams about the killer. I’d have loved if instead these dreams revealed his past and his connection to Pinker, just to remove itself from deja vu.

The Ugly

  • The comedy element is a little in limbo for me. It’s too much and not enough at the same time. The film holds back, leaving the comedy a little lukewarm and slightly off kilter. While I welcome the comedy, I did want more.
  • Read any blurb on this movie and it boils it down to Pinker being dead and wreaking havoc. That, I must say, is the most enjoyable parts of this movie, however it ignores the fact that it takes almost half the film to get to that point. There’s so much build up and establishment of the character of Jonathan. For me, I’d have opened up at the point of execution and had more of a reveal to Johnathan.

Final Thoughts

It’s flawed, its a bit of a mess, but damn I love it. There are little bits I missed due to the quality, but that’s what a rewatch is for, right?!

Open Letter to the Government Regarding Supply Teachers

Dear Dan Carden

Urgent financial help via Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) for supply teachers

I am writing to you regarding the financial oversight of supply teachers during this third national lockdown, which has seen teaching moved online as part of the government’s plan to curb the spread of COVID-19, including the new variants that are present in the country.

I understand the purpose of this action and welcome school closures as my time on supply between October and December 2020 did see a great inconsistency in individual school approaches to maintaining a COVID secure environment for students and staff. I personally have had to isolate three times owing to contact tracing in schools. In two of those instances, I suffered a financial loss due to having to isolate during term time.
While the Prime Minister is insisting that schools are safe, I must disagree and insist that it is a very subjective matter that does need urgent attention and scrutiny. I have experienced schools with robust cleaning routines that still have high numbers of isolations and I have experienced a school in which I refused to return owing to no precautions taking place outside of having windows open.

While I intend to outline my personal difficulties that have led to me contacting you today, I would ask you to understand that I am one of many people currently in this situation due to the revised stipulations of the CJRS when the scheme was extended until April 2020.

I became a teacher of Religious Education in 2009 and spent the better part of ten years dedicated to my career. However, in October 2018 it became apparent that my father, suffering from end-stage COPD and heart failure, was no longer able to care for himself. Being a proud man, he was reluctant to ask for any help and support from the State, therefore I made the difficult decision to become his carer and return to the family home. He died in November 2019 and while this was a blessing due to his diminished condition rendering him bedbound, the timing has led to great personal difficulties.

There are many issues regarding education that I am sure you are already aware of, and are not the focus of today’s correspondence, but they do explain my reluctance to return to teaching prior to the outbreak of COVID-19 and the subsequent lockdown in March 2020. However, by July 2020 it was clear what impact the virus had on the country in terms of employment opportunities and I began registering with CER, a teaching supply agency. I worked consistently from my time of employment in October 2020 until the announcement of this third lockdown and the closure of school buildings to all but specific students.

During the first lockdown, I was faced with an income of £409 a month, while my outgoings were nearing £700. My issues regarding Universal Credit, while something I would like challenged, is not my specific concern today but a mere piece of the problem. When the regular income of supply teaching replaced the monthly UC allowance, I was grateful to be able to, once again, support myself. However, and I hope you can appreciate this, the money I earned was all used to play ‘catch up’ as it were. At no point was I able to even consider saving for what now appears to have been inevitable, school closures. This is not to say that I have not been looking for permanent positions within schools for further financial security. Being trained in Religious Education and not practising any faith, and the historic emphasis on the International Baccalaureate in which RE plays no part, does make roles difficult to obtain irrespective of the current situation.

I now find myself working one day a week at a high school. This placement was arranged in December and I am lucky to have had the contract honoured.However, this is not enough financially, and I have been waiting to hear from CER about flexi furlough which was mentioned as an option when school closures were first announced. This has not transpired as there has been no changes made to furlough despite the imposed lockdown meaning my working opportunities have been drastically reduced. This is beginning to put me in a position where I will eventually have to make decisions regarding paying bills or purchasing food. This is not something a qualified teacher of any status should have to make.

I trust that you recognise and appreciate that myself, and other supply teachers, have provided a vital service that without, some schools would have had to have closed during the first term of the 2020/2021 academic year. Supply teachers have taken on a front-line role, with the understanding that if they were to come into contact during their daily work, they would have to isolate without pay and it is a gross injustice that we should accept the same while we do not have access to paid work. While some supply teachers make a choice due to financial stability, it is ignorant and wrong to assume we are all supply for this same reason.

Supply teaching has often been considered a thankless role and one that has a stigma attached regarding the individual and the quality of his or her teaching rather than a situation brought about by personal circumstance. I hope you can see from my situation; this is not the case. I would also urge you to understand that this oversight of financial support only compounds the issue and is conveying an opinion of our worth.

I would welcome specific consideration to how the Government is able to support myself and other teachers who are currently registered with a supply agency and would welcome an assurance from you that this will be looked into as a matter of urgency and raised with colleagues in the DfE, the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC)with a view for immediate and retroactive implementation.

I look forward to your positive response on these very important matters.

Yours sincerely,

Hannah-Lynette Hunter
Teacher of Religious Education

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

Rating: PG (aka BBC’s butchered version)
Length: 2h 23
Release: 19.7.1991
Dir: Kevin Reynolds
About: Robin decides to avenge his father who was murdered by Sheriff Nottingham. He joins forces with Little John’s band of thieves to overcome the evils of the sheriff.

First Thoughts

This film is everything about my childhood. Okay, so it’s not the film you went into school shouting about like Goonies was, but I certainly felt its presence in a similar way. From what I saw on twitter today, I wasn’t alone.
For me, this film seemed to be a staple on BBC around Easter. Now, given that I thought Back to the Future was on ITV every Christmas Day for about 5 years, I’m willing to accept that my Easter theory for the archery master isn’t correct either.
I also remember a distinct memory of watching this film in English. The TV trolly was in the hall and there were at least three classes huddled around this tiny tv. At this point (it was at least 1998) I had the whole thing memorised.
There’s problems with that sort of devotion to a film though; you notice when things no longer make the cut.

The Good

  • Alan Rickman is the scene stealing, panto villain of all of our dreams. Some may call it over-acting. I’d say it was Rickman having the best time of his life. He has all of the best lines, he has the best style and the best death. It’s not often we love the villain, but here he is, in his Slytherin finest.
  • The strength of this film does lie in its characters. The story and how its presented is a little bit garbage, but with the element of nostalgia and the characters you root for, it ensures it is less of a chore. Some of my favourites are Duncan, the servant of Robin’s father. He’s a little bit more trouble than he’s worth, but you love him none the less.
    Little John and his wife Fanny are the relationship goals of this movie, not Marian and Robin. The film is clever in how we’re introduced to the family one by one, to finally see them together in the final act. It’s perfect.
  • Morgan Freeman as the Moor, Azeem, is pure joy for me. It’s a performance and character I’ve only come to truly appreciate as I’ve gotten older. There are plenty of small things that he says and does that give people a true idea of what Islam is, but my favourite part of this movie is the interaction with the young girl who asks “Did God paint you?” The answer is as beautiful and as relevant today as it ever was. It also feels important that its Morgan Freeman, of all people, that gets to say it.

The Bad

  • It is, for me, rather on the long side. I don’t need it needs massive editing, but more a trimming of the fat. It is made very differently to films today; cramming what would, by today’s standard, be a trilogy’s worth of story.
  • The accents. Yeah, I went there. Now, I don’t mind Costner’s. I’m not so patriotic in that sense. However Slater and Mastrantonio on the other hand, they drive me mad. Both are half arsed attempts. Certain words are well pronounced, but most of it remains this weird mash up of their native accent and whatever it is they’re trying to achieve.
  • I can’t quiet put my finger on what is is about this production, but it has a Monty Python quality to it. Some of it is to do with the voices used, but it could also be the dialogue.

The Ugly

  • Marian. She bugs the fuck out of me. When we first meet her, not only is she this strong independent woman, she is able to fight in such a way that Robin believes her to be a man. It is only her scream that gives her away. So what pisses me off, is that in the final act, she becomes the stereotypical maiden. Aside from an opportune candle, she stands to the side and shrieks. Have her knocked out by the witch before she goes off on her side mission or something.
  • They cut out Pat Roach. I actually didn’t know until today that Auf Weidersien Pet alumni and part-time Harrison Ford fighting partner was in this film. That’s because his role as Celtic Chief gets a blink and you’ll miss it appearance. However, there is footage out there. I’d imagine it’s on the extended cut that also has much of Rickman’s performance restored.

Final Thoughts

This for me is an awesome, but flawed, film. I think it’s aged better than Robin Hood Men in Tights and the Prince of Thieves will be a film I watch again. However, I do accept a lot of what makes this a good film is nostalgia and that had I watched it for the first time today, my review would be much different.

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

Rating: 12A
Length: 2h 31
Release: 16.12.2020
Dir: Patty Jenkins
About: Wonder Woman navigates the 1980s, meets old friends and faces off against new enemies.

The Good

  • The film gets the 80s aesthetics right. The mall sequence was rather brilliant and not only something that is iconic of the 1980s, but iconic of 80s movies. This part of the film, out of everything, felt most like a homage to the original tv series.
  • Kristen Wiig really impressed me. While meek and goofy Barbra was well within Wiig’s wheelhouse, and reminiscent of her past roles in things like Paul and Ghostbusters, it was the evolution into Cheetah that shows much more depth and range. While she may be known more for her comedy, I definitely want to see her in more serious roles.

The Bad

  • Well, Hans Zimmer most definitely phoned this one in. His soundtrack feels so recycled that if I were to close my eyes at points in this movie, I’d have sworn I’d put on Inception.
  • While we’re on music, you place a film in the 1980s and don’t utilise the amazing catalogue the decade has to offer? Believe me, in a film that gives us Jafar after his final wish and Quantum Leap’s Sam, we need some cheesy 80s electric tunes.
  • The prologue in which we see young Diana back at home and facing off against other Amazonian warriors, is utterly pointless and has no payoff. It, for me, is at odds with the rest of the story. Plus its totally wrong. Diana didn’t cheat. It was a bullshit lesson that had microscopic links to the main plot.

The Ugly

  • You know the Sentence Game? It’s similar to Mad Libs, but there’s no crib sheet. First person writes a sentence based upon a prompt, folds the paper over so you can’t see what’s written and passes it on. This keeps happening until all the prompts are used and then someone reads the mess of a story out. That was this film. Only, I didn’t find it nearly as funny.
  • Steve! What the fuck man. Okay, great we get Chris Pine gracing our screens again. Whoop! At what cost? The sacrifice and loss from the first movie is compromised and, I’ll be honest, how he’s there in the first place feels really cheap. I was also very disappointed “Oh boy” wasn’t uttered. It also pisses me off that the guy whose body gets taken over gets more closure than Wiig’s Barbra. Seriously, what the fuck is it about the 1980s doing Barb dirty. People, What about Barb?
  • Second gripe about Steve. Once Steve is in play, it feels like such a retread of the first film. His reintroduction creates a limitation. It’s boring, its done. It also means that if he ‘dies’ again, I’m not caring. To be fair, this is where Marvel gets it wrong too. When you make your character deaths meaningless (looking at you Loki), I refuse to invest. Also, what the fuck is it with these Wonder Woman films getting the strong female wrong? In the first movie she emasculates. This one she becomes physically dependent on Steve. Blurk!
  • Why was it set in the 1980s if it was going to be sanitised of all the joy the 80s had to offer. Other than Pine’s fish out of water Schtick, it had no value. To me anyway. Yes, I get that there’s the whole plot in which Pascal’s Max is trying to gain ownership of oil, but this is not a commodity that’s exclusive to that decade. For me, the Suez Crisis of the 1950s is what I immediately think of when it comes to ‘historical oil’.

Final Thoughts

There are enough people out there loving this movie for you to make up your own mind, but for me it’s too long, too pointless and left me feeling grumpy. I wish I’d rewatched Chopping Mall(1986) instead.

Blades of Glory (2007)

Rating 12A
Length 1hr 33
Release 6.4.2007
Director Josh Gordon and Will Speck
About After being stripped of their medals and banned from single-men events, two Olympics ice skaters decide to team up and compete as an all-male pair.

The Good


Pam!!! Seriously, I love that The Office’s Jenna Fischer is in this. She’s perfect as the sister, Katie.
I’m still on the fence about whether this film is trying to be super progressive or super offensive, however I do like the idea of the same-sex partners on the ice being done with sincerity.

The Bad
What’s worse than a Will Farrell movie where Will Farrell is doing his shouty shouty ‘I’m so funny routine’? When Will Farrell joins forces with Napoleon Dynamite’s Jon Heder.
It really isn’t as funny as it thinks it is. Farrell is trying way too hard and it shows. Painfully.

The Ugly
The bathroom scene is vile! The only other film that’s gotten me as close to physically vomiting like this one has is whichever Saw movie has the people drown in a vat of rotting pigs.
Incest is never funny, even if the siblings are played by a married couple. No! Just no! Gross.

Final Thoughts

It just isn’t as funny as I remember and I’m struggling to see what I ever would have found good about it.

Practical Magic (1998)

Rating: 15 Length: 1h 44 Release: 22.1.1999 Dir: Griffin Dunne About: After the death of their parents, Sally and Gillian Owens move in with their aunts, Jet and Frances. The two sisters have nothing in common except their hereditary gift for practical magic.

The Good

  • This film is well cast. Any film that lets me tolerate Nicole Kidman always gains bonus points too. The core of the likability of this film does fall on Sandra Bullock. She is Peak Sandra in this movie.
  • The music is magical (sorry). From Faith Hill’s This Kiss to the Midnight Margarita dancing to Coconut by Harry Nilson, it’s a 90s feel good soundtrack.
  • It takes the coven, the horror and the theme of the outcast from The Craft, the romance of any film from the 90s and the lust of a Sharon Stone movie and created a cocktail of a movie that many will love.
  • You know what I loved most of all about watching this time, as an adult instead of a teen?! The acceptance of the community at the end. Sally uses the phone tree to create an impromptu coven in order to save Gilly. I hadn’t realised before, but it brought me to tears this time; it’s wasn’t the witchcraft they were really against. It was the unknown. When it really came down to it and they realise the family needed help, all the barriers broke down and they accepted Sally. It was so heartwarming.

The Bad

  • The weird romance with Sally and the FBI guy. I get it, I get why and I totally find it cute with the daughters when they work out who he is, however there’s no chemistry there. I bought into her love with her first love but this guy and their make out session in his hotel. Nope, don’t buy it!

The Ugly

  • I don’t like the lack of clarification of why they performed the spell on Jimmy. He’s a toxic man and I feel it does the film an injustice to even allow a seed of doubt that it was because Gilly wanted him rather than to save her sister.

Final Thought

Love this movie. This is one of those ‘Sandra Bullock makes this awesome’ sort of movies. I’d not seen it for years, but I do want to see it again.

The warriors (1979)

Rating: 15

Length: 1h 32

Release: 10.5.1979

Dir : Walter Hill

About: A gang called ‘The Warriors’ are framed for killing a gang leader trying to unite all the gangs in the area. With other gangs gunning for them they must get back alive to the home turf of Coney Island

The Good

The music has two of the best features of a late 70s movie: the synth original score and the funk. It’s glorious.

The plot and political statement within the film is as relevant today as it was when it was made.

The costumes and makeup really help with keeping track of all the different gangs and they’re beautifully done. Even now, they give the feeling of a distance future.

The opening is eerie, but spectacular. It builds up and reveals the tensions between the gangs.

The Bad

I found the focus of the blame on the Warriors a little too flawed. I know that as a viewer we know they’re innocent, however I don’t buy everyone believing that the leader of the Warriors did it.

The Ugly

You have one prominent female lead who is called a slut/whore/tramp throughout the movie by Swan. To have her get with him in the end. Eurgh! Nope!

Crawl (2019)

Rating: 15
Length: 1h 27
Release: 23.8.2019
Dir: Alexandre Aja
About: Florida residents Haley and her father get trapped in a massive hurricane and struggle to escape. But things get worse when they realise that the floodwater is the least of their fears.

The Good

  • This is an incredible film; high octane in a contained area is surprisingly effective. The location being at the home instils fear into the viewer because this is the one place you should feel safe.
  • I love Barry Pepper. We need more Barry Pepper. His character really goes through the ringer and it’s his survival I’m holding out hope for more than anything.
  • There are some great misdirects and fakeouts that really add tension, such as the three friends at the petrol station and Hayley’s Jurassic Park kitchen recreation.

The Bad

  • ‘Gator cam. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, this is an over used camera angle in a creature feature. What is worse with this movie, is that it lulled me into a false sense of security. I actually mentally commended the movie and then they go and use it. Once they started, they didn’t stop.
  • While I love the character of Hayley, I’m not so sure about the choice of actress. I found her rather Kirsten Stewart circa Twilight.
  • The opening is a little long winded. There is a pay off for it, but I’m still not sure it was enough to justify the time dedicated on it.

The Ugly

  • The ‘gators are all too identical. The exact same size and screamed of copy and paste CGI. I’d have like to have seen variation as there surly would be an alpha. If you’re going to have so many, you really do need to have some distinction.
  • Total individual thing for me, but even though I knew Barry Pepper’s dad wasn’t dead in the opening act, it was a little too close to home in terms of discovering my own dad (obviously not in a crawlspace with alligators) so I did have to have a really good cry during the film.

Final Thoughts

Its a fair movie and a decent watch, especially if you’re a fan of creature features.