Posts Tagged ‘Movie review’

Hello friends! It has been a while. But I recently had an almost lethal overdose – of movies (did you think I was going to say something else then?) and so it is time to empart my wisdom once again about the one thing in this world that I can talk insenently about, even if you tell me to stop. And you probably will. But I am stubborn so there.

When I¬†first saw the trailer for Elysium, I though it¬†was right up my street. Post-apocolyptic. Space. Robots.¬†Its like¬†the movie equivalent of an orgasm.¬†Anyway, it was clear they chucked a lot of money¬†at this film, the special effects were¬†top notch – and the cast impressive. Matt Damon – I’m guessing – doesn’t come cheap, and neither¬†does Jodie Foster¬†(despite not really bringing anything good to a film since¬†Contact back in 1997). Also in the starring line up was City of Gods Alice Braga who has done some interesting films¬†since her big break, and as an actress I think she does the whole¬†damsel in distress well. But the best thing¬†Elysium had going for it was¬†it’s concept.¬†In the not so different future,¬†earth has become inhabitable due to over-population and pollution, and¬†using up resources. As a result, those with the means, moved to Elysium, a space station in Earth’s¬†orbit that is basically like the astro version on Bel-Air. The people in charge are all on Elysium. And they rely on robots back on Earth to govern the people with¬†a literal iron fist.¬†The world has become unjust,¬†third world dictatorship,¬†where the people with means¬†(the 1 percent) live in¬†paradise while¬†trampling on the 99 percent back on the ground.¬†On top of that, people on Elysium have health pods that – from what I¬†gather – can make people live forever. They can heal any person of any ailment. And the rich use that to prolong their lifestyle while the poor have no¬†decent healthcare.

It’s not difficult to see that the whole movie is a metaphor¬†for what we ourselves have become. There is still a huge class divide¬†by where 5 % of the population controls 95 %¬†of the worlds wealth. And those in the developed world are okay with that – a bold statement, I know. But it’s all fine writing a check to a charity every once and a while when you saw the starving child covered in flies on TV, but when¬†the solution to the problem becomes something that impacts¬†on our actual way of life – we start to have a problem.¬†People question how much the¬†government spends on foreign aid when there are domestic¬†crisis’ that are¬†in need of¬†funding.¬†We¬†have¬†our flat¬†screen TV’s, and our games consoles, and¬†our holidays abroad – not because we need them, but because we can and we feel we deserve them.¬†It’s an ugly side¬†to human nature that¬†we all share.

Anyway, back to the movie. The concept of Elysium interested me. And the film had¬†potential in spades.¬†However, I think the execution was¬†flawed. In terms of direction I think Neil Blomkamp did well, but his script was lacking. There was no big finale, just several events that didn’t really climax in any meaningful end. The action was not as exciting as it could have been and in terms of the story development, the whole thing felt very much like it was plodding along at an uneven pace. I enjoyed Elysium, and it definitely wasn’t a bad movie, but it never really excited and enthralled like a big budget action movie should. It is possible that this was purposeful, in order to not overshadow the films message, but the ending wasn’t really moving enough to be memorable. Matt Damon’s character wasn’t particularly likeable, and I hated Jodie Fosters Delacourt much more than I liked him. All the performances were good, and I think the actors did their best with what they had, but there was no winning spark that would have made this a mega movie.

Overall, this movie didn’t live up to hype. But still delivered as a weekend blockbuster.

6/10

Advertisements

Well here we are, another movie that is loaded with controversy. I must admit, when I first saw the trailer for The Impossible, I myself did think, “Um… it’s a movie about white people… when hundreds of thousands of Asian people died.” It is pretty hard not to think that when you see what they did with the trailer. But I still wasn’t exactly surprised. I figured this for a Hollywood movie – where the American people always get the centre of attention. I was wrong.¬†There, I said it. Don’t make me say it again.¬†

Firstly, this is a true story, based on a Spanish family. Secondly, it is actually a Spanish made film. And thirdly, the family are actually portrayed as British. Although it is never actually said in the film. I figured they attached the actors and then cast the kids so it made sense. The real Maria – portrayed by Naomi Watts – was actually¬†adamant¬†that they were seen as people, not as any nationality. Still, I can’t help but thinking there was a million stories to be told, and they told this one. About a family of Westerners. There is barely any references to the native population that was killed. In fact, all we really see of the locals is them briefly helping people – all unscathed themselves like it was some sort of isolated event to only effect white people. Don’t get me wrong, The Impossible is a very moving film. I just feel as though it isn’t a true and fair portrayal of the Tsunami. I guess it isn’t supposed to be – it is about one family’s struggle. But there is no reason that family couldn’t have been Thai. I get that they wanted to market the film to an English speaking audience, hence the Britishness, but still – they could have just made the family speak English. Simple. People have been making Ancient Romans, Musketeers and Aliens speak English for years in movies when it didn’t make sense. It would have been overlooked. Also, I can’t help thinking that yes the family were obviously scarred about their ordeal. But they get to go home. The Asian people don’t. Their plight was only just starting. What about the clean up? The hunting for dead? Rebuilding homes?

Anyway… rant over. I suppose I should review the film. I will try to be unbiased! If you look at The Impossible without prejudice and just see it as a story of one family, then it is a good film. I pretty much cried from start to finish. The direction really helped to bring a sense of hopelessness and panic to an already good script. And I was highly impressed by all the actors involved. Special mention goes to the young Tom Holland who played the eldest son Lucas. Wow. What a job he did. When you steal scenes from Naomi Watts, you know you’re a talented lad. Ewan McGregor was, as usual, fantastic – surely one of the most underrated actors working today. Naomi Watts gave every bit the performance you would expect from her, and the casting of the family overall was spot on. They gelled as a unit, and despite little screen time altogether, you really believed they were a family.

For what The Impossible sets out to do – move you – it succeeds. But I stress that, although you do get a view of the Tsunami itself, it isn’t really a retelling of the disaster. I hope that a film properly portraying the Boxing Day Tsunami will follow shortly. Overall, this is a quality, well made film. But ethically, I feel they should have waited to make it. The first movie about the Tsunami should have represented the main people effected by the¬†tragedy.

7.5/10

“What? You’re reviewing an Anaconda sequel? Oh dear God, Hannah – you’ve hit rock bottom!”

I ain't high fiving that bro

I ain’t high fiving that bro

That is pretty much how I imagine you are judging me right now. But you know what, its a film about great big fucking snakes eating people. That means I have fun reviewing it. So screw you, unnamed person!

Really though, it isn’t that bad. Giant CGI snakes? Check. Evil British dude who had an affair with Sally in Corrie? Check. Hilarious black guy? Check. Seriously, what more could you want in a film?! A monkey!? Oh well you are in luck, as we have one of them too…

Anaconda – The Hunt for the Blood Orchid follows a group of people who have gone into the jungle in search of a flower that only blooms once every seven years. The flower also seems to be the pharmacological version of the fountain of youth – in that it can make you live longer. As a Pharmacology graduate – See… I’m a true geek, not just the pretending kind – I find the whole concept a bit far fetched. I mean, sure there would be billions for anyone who could develop such a drug, but if it came down to being eaten by a great big fucking snake, or a flower that could only potentially work (I mean we are talking Phase I and II drug tests, FDA approval… all of which would probably take years anyway…) than no thanks, I will take the living, breathing non-horrifying death option. Thanks.

I mean, for a Pharmacologist, 7 years is nothing. Just wait, come back next time with some grenades and shit and¬†voil√†¬†.. But noooo, Corrie bad man (whose name fails me, and at this point I refuse to Imdb an Anaconda film) is a little bit crazy and kind of can’t see the bigger picture. So basically a whole bunch of people get eaten… some quite hilariously – and it all ends in tears.

So why did I watch this movie? Well it wasn’t because I was so blown away by the first one. Any movie with J-Lo in is questionable, but one that also has a lacklustre Jon Voight and man eating snakes… yeah its not gonna work. Hell, Snakes on a Plane only marginally worked because Samuel L. Jackson is awesome. J-Lo is by no means the female equivalent. I cannot stress that enough.

So what was it? Well, I will confess – sometimes you do need to intentionally watch an Anaconda type movie. It almost cleans the pallete. Like having melon as a dessert. Its bland, it won’t win any awards, and you won’t be raving to your friends about it. But every now and then you can get a little tired of the good movies. Probably because ultimately all of them require an actual functioning brain. Every now and then, it is nice to switch off. And so this is sort of a criticism on your everyday published, and occasionally on the TV/radio movie reviewers. Don’t bad mouth the blockbusters and the big cheesy action flicks. Because no matter who you are, you don’t want to be watching Citizen Kane after a long week in work. And if you do, I am pretty sure your an alien. Get tested. I’m sure there’s a test.

Anyway, for what it is – a sequel to an already crap movie – it aint that bad. And I like Kaydee Strickland.

So a solid 5/10.

One of¬†life’s¬†great mystery’s is how Nicolas Cage has a job. Now don’t get me wrong here, I think he can sort of act – at times. He does the psycho person pretty well. But what I just can’t get past is that he is a leading man. And constantly keeps getting cast as the leading man. Especially in action films. Now the guy didn’t exactly age well. He may have looked attractive to some in his early years, but now he looks like my old physics teacher, wearing a wig. <— That, is not a compliment. But from the off, the guy was never the action star kind of guy. He didn’t have the charisma of Bruce Willis. He wasn’t strangely (and perversely) sexy like Tom Cruise. He had some muscles, once – in the nineties, but those have long faded. Now he just frowns constantly to the point that I’m pretty sure he’s had a few ‘Trip’s to the Dentist’ to sort out those head wrinkles. I’m not saying he hasn’t made¬†some¬†good films. But he was never as big an action star in his youth to take him through to still being one now. Bruce had Die Hard. ¬†Stallone had Rocky and Rambo. Even Segal had Under Siege. Nick Cage had… um… 8mm? Yeah, its not exactly a great record. I suppose he did make Face/Off, which is actually a pretty good 90’s action flick, but like I said he plays the crazy guy well. In fact, I liked him a lot better when he was the crazy guy then when he became John Travolta… If you have not seen that movie, you probably think I am insane right now.¬†Point is, he somehow became the good guy. The leading man in movies where we were supposed to root for him. The only decent film I have seen him in in recent years was Kick Ass – and that film was basically just awesome thanks to Chloe Moretz. Anyway, I guess I should really stop bashing him now, and get on with reviewing the movie. And silently contemplating how we managed to put¬†Curiosity¬†on Mars, found the Higgs particle, and made Nick Cage an action star.

Trespass, as a premise, is a movie that we don’t make very often anymore. The early 2000s and the 90s were littered with smart little thrillers about home invasions and crazy people coming into your house, or kidnapping you. It seemed to be in fashion. Recently, they have stopped making these kind of films. Or at least, they’ve stopped making them well.

Trespass tells the story of couple Kyle and Sarah Miller (played by Nick Cage and Nicole Kidman). Kyle is rich. Which is probably how he hooked a gal like Sarah. Because he looks like my boyfriends knee. Anyway, the couple have one child – Avery – played by Liana Liberato and a pretty strained marriage.¬†Well obviously. She’s married to Nick Cage.¬†One day, the couple are at home when they’re house is invaded by four armed individuals. I say individuals as one of them is a woman. A so¬†very¬†annoying woman. I want to kill her myself. They want something – in these films they always do – except for the Strangers and Funny Games, those are just creepy. Kyle doesn’t want to give them it. Because he’s an ass who would rather protect his fortune than his family. Chaos ensues.¬†

So is it worth a watch? Hmmm… well it does have Cam Gigandet in it. Which, in my eyes, is always a plus.¬†What a pretty boy.¬†But the performances from the cast are pretty poor all round. I do think Liana Leberato is going to be a really huge name one day, one that she will no doubt deserve because at just 16, she really has the acting chops. But for the pro’s, the whole thing felt flat. The performances were shoddy all round, the script was nothing new and there wasn’t enough action to compensate for the rest of its failures.

That’s right… Hug it out.

I honestly think we don’t make these thrillers as well as we used to. Obviously, pretty much nothing is going to top the Dial M for Murder’s and the Rear Window’s of this world. But in the 90’s we sort of had these movie’s down. They were exciting, well written, and the cast was always nailed. Trespass ultimately feels tired, and something I could have watched in your average episode of prime time action TV. Maybe that there is the problem. With the ante upped in the small screen, movies have to try so much harder to cut it these days. You have to be original, have a great script, be flashy or give some great performances. Otherwise, it doesn’t compare to some of the high quality television beamed to us on a daily basis. Don’t get me wrong, TV is far from flawless either. But when you have the Game of Thrones, and The Walking Dead of the world, movies need to step it up a notch. Trespass didn’t do that at any point. And what materialized was a predictable yawning yarn.

Overall, a pretty poor thriller.

3.5/10

I know what you’re thinking.¬†I really do, I’m psychic.¬†

“What?! They made another one? Again?!”

Yes they did shielded soul. They did. Not content with pointlessly making a trilogy out of an already mediocre original film, the folks over at Screen Gems decided they could milk more money out of the Underworld franchise… and to be fair – they were right – and so here we have it. The fourth film – Underworld: Awakening.

I don’t want to sound mean here. I really don’t. But I can’t be the only one who has thought these movies keep getting made because of Kate Beckinsale’s relationship with frequent director and writer Len Wiseman. Can I? They’re married, they want that new house in the Hamptons… so they make another Underworld. Bang a script out in a couple of weeks – there you go, Underworld 4. I should say, this is all¬†allegedly. Don’t sue me.

But with that in mind, contrary to the norm, Underworld 4 – as I will now be calling it, because I’m still in shock they made FOUR – isn’t too bad a flick. The premise of the film is that now all the humans know about the existence of Vampires and Lycan’s and they become the hunted. A culling occurs and the numbers of both dwindle. Selene wakes up in the future with no concept of how much time has passed, and basically sets about figuring out what the fuck is going on.

Now, before I delve deeper into this. I just want to say that although I may occasionally slag off the Underworld franchise, it definitely isn’t the worst in the genre. How they are still making Resident Evil movies, I honestly have no clue. None of those films make sense anymore. Actual tangible sentences have been replace by knives and bullets coming out of the screen to get me. Compared to that, well Underworld 4 is like the best action flick of the year. But it is not. I can not stress that enough…

While some people will argue Underworld 4 is lacking the usual Underworld gloss – “It just doesn’t feel like a Underworld movie…” ¬†– I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing. The last two films, were painfully bad. Underworld 1 was okay in parts. Being a life long Buffy fan, I felt the back story and the plot were weak given I was used to Joss Whedon’s masterpieces. But the action was good in parts, and the whole film did have a¬†Gothic¬†sort of feel. Flash forward three movies and we have Underworld: Awakening. Not only do we get to see Selene broken hearted and lost, we see her as a mother. Also, I kind of liked the idea that the Vampires were beaten and forced underground. However, lets not forget the one thing all the Underworld films have had going for them to some extent – action. In this most recent film, we also have a big bad boss monster lycan who looks like he uses vampires to floss with – especially ones as skinny as Kate Beckinsale. The fight scenes are flashy, and the plot has a twist that actually surprised me… that never happens. As long as you go in expecting an Underworld film, and want to pretty much leave your brain at the door, it is an average action flick. Especially if you take into account the fact it is the fourth film in the franchise… Honestly, I can’t get over that.

Seriously... eat something.

Seriously… eat something.

Overall, a not bad popcorn flick, whose strong points lie in its action, and for once, an okay plot. But it is still an unnecessary Underworld film.

5/10

Check out the trailer below.

NB. Also, studio’s? Stop making films in 3D. Unless they’re an avatar movie, its pretty much a given that they’re gonna be shit.¬†

The first thing I should say about the movie ‘Righteous Kill’ is that good actors don’t necessary make good films.

De Niro. Pacino. Spagetti Carbonara. Oh wait…¬†

‘Righteous Kill’ is a movie about two cops, on the hunt for a vigilante serial killer. And my biggest beef with it? It makes no sense.

If you’re looking for one of those reviews that spoils enough so you know whether to watch the film or not – please leave now. This isn’t one of those reviews. Instead, I am systematically going to pull the film to shreads. Because it feels like the right thing to do. So obviously, expect spoilers.

Firstly, a film that has managed to get arguably two of the best actors of their generation on board, well not even God himself could stop it getting made.

Idiot 1: Terrible script?
Idiot 2: Meh, it won’t matter. People will be too blinded by their acting genius.
Idiot 1: Well hold on there buddy. This movie actually makes no sense.
Idiot 2: We have De Niro and Pacino. Why are you not giving me millions of dollars to make this?
Idiot 1: Do you accept American Express?

…That, right there, is probably how the studio execs came on board. On top of that, once it got the green light, we got other quality actors muscling in too. Donnie Wahlberg, John Leguizamo and 50 cent (okay, maybe not that last one) all signed up to be in this surely Oscar winning master piece. And the cherry on the cake of the cast was the highly underrated actress Carla Gugino, who – rather grossly – plays De Niro’s love interest (especially considering she played his daughter fifteen years earlier in This Boys Life).

"Daddy? Can I have an ice cream? ...Oops, sorry - wrong movie."

“Daddy? Can I have an ice cream? …Oops, sorry – wrong movie.”

But through it all, no amount of Hollywood royalty could save this sack of shit. I saw an interview with the script writer Russell Gewirtz saying that when he writes a screenplay, he figures out the twist at the end and works backwards. Russell? Did you also write it standing on your head and in Ancient Egyptian¬†Hieroglyphics? Because I think a few things were lost in translation. Firstly, we start the movie hearing De Niro’s character Turk presumingly confessing to be a serial killer. Its a voice over that goes on through out the film. When the movie basically follows the path of your usual murder mystery, it becomes pretty clear its obviously not De Niro. Why else would it be a murder mystery? If it isn’t De Niro, who else could it be?!¬†Well obviously his partner Pacino! It’s so god damned obvious I spent most of the film asking my TV if it thought I was an idiot. We know De Niro can’t be the killer. By having him ‘video confessing’ in the first fucking scene, it is so obvious it cannot be him. Otherwise we all may as well go home, get a refund and get in the bloody tardis to get the last two hours of my life back. In reality however, that is still a tempting thought. Because in less than the time it takes to say, ‘wrinkly old men’ I knew the killer so obviously had to be Pacino. No grade A actor like him is going to sign up to a project were he either a) Isn’t the killer or b) The main suspect. It just wasn’t going to happen. And so in that way, having these two solid actors, actually meant it screwed itself from the get go.

I know Bob, I can’t believe what he’s saying either. Who wrote this shit?!

But even if I put the ridiculously obvious ‘twist’ to one side, the rest of the film makes no sense. Firstly, when Rooster (Pacino) feels he is about to get caught, he says he needs to do something unforgivable. So he rapes – or at least I think he does, its a bit unclear – Carla Gugino’s character, who is also a cop. This made no sense. Until he did that, he had¬†deniability. Maybe, just maybe it would be a¬†plausible¬†thing to do if Rooster was satisfied with the fact he was going to get caught, and wanted to hurt partner Turk (De Niro) by raping his girlfriend, as one last ditch offence before he went down in a shower of bullets. But he didn’t. At the end of the movie, Rooster is very much trying to escape. He threatens to shoot his partner in order to do so. It just makes no sense. He had no reason to do something ‘unforgivable’. He’d already killed 14 people. And when Turk found out, he didn’t seem particularly bothered. Not a word was uttered about it.

And then there’s this. Turk shoots his partner Rooster at the end of the movie to avoid getting shot. But wait, Turk was disarmed by Rooster. Obviously, lifelong cop and clever serial killer Rooster isn’t going to leave his partner armed when he’s trying to escape. He doesn’t want to kill him, as he respects him, but he isn’t an idiot. You don’t give a cop a gun when you’re an escaping criminal. And that’s where Karen (Carla Gugino) conveniently comes in.

Turk runs after Rooster, despite being unarmed. Meanwhile, while all this was going on, a very pissed off and distraught Karen – still reeling from her rape – decides to track down Rooster and deal with him herself. Cue her turning up armed, threatening to shoot the ‘sick prick’. She’s too upset to do it though, and Turk takes her gun, goes after Rooster and ultimately kills him.

Are you kidding me?! 

Was it that hard to write that you had to bring in an unplausable, totally unnecessary rape scene just to get a gun in the room with Turk so he could kill his partner? Really?! The final few scenes play out in a friggen gangsters night club. Why couldn’t he have found a gun there? Or at least, if you wanted us not to empathise with Rooster, make his reason for attacking Karen more clear. “I needed to do something unforgivable” is not a reason! Especially not when he wanted to escape and could have done so easily at any point in the film. Instead of doing something unforgivable – he could have been half way to¬†Timbuktu. But no alas, the writer was either too lazy, or too stoned to realise the script made no sense.

Furthermore, there is a scene were Karen comes home to find a poem, not¬†dissimilar¬†to those written and left by the murderer at the scene. Except it wasn’t written by the killer. It was written by Turk. We are not told what it said, nor why he wrote it at any point in the film. Nor the reason for the scene.

The whole film is laced with questions like this. Not because the plot was too intricate or complex. This isn’t Inception we’re talking about. Instead we have a film with more holes than a pack of polo’s, and that makes less sense than a midnight drunken text message.

I’m not saying the actors didn’t do well with what they had. They did okay. But with what they had in terms of script, the whole thing was destined to fail from the beginning. If you are going to write a murder mystery – firstly, make sure its actually a¬†mystery.¬†Secondly, ensure that you are not taking illegal drugs while writing. And thirdly, friggen proof read and check the whole thing makes sense and is realistic.

Here endeth the lesson.

Overall, a very disappointing 4/10. And Carla Gugino pretty much earned all four of those stars. Because she’s awesome.

Anyone who has the sass to be in both Sin City AND Watchmen… well they are my heroes. Period.

I will let you in on my worst kept secret. I have a rather irrational fear of worms. Well, at least people tell me it is irrational.
“They can’t hurt you Hannah, they’re only worms. I don’t get why they frighten you so much?!” – Annoying person who loves me, yet fails to understand me.

Yeah – well, you know what? It isn’t irrational.

Yeah, that’s right. Take a good long look at that worm. It looks like the real life version of a Sarlacc… except its real, and it doesn’t rely on ugly, fat slug men for its main source of fibre.¬†

Still think I’m crazy? Well, you’re entitled. And kind of right.

But, it was this fear that stopped me watching the Horror flick – and I use that term loosely – Slither. If you’ve seen it, you will probably debate with me as to whether the little critters are actually worms, or more like slugs. Point is, it didn’t matter. The were long and icky and they inserted themselves into your mouths. I didn’t need to know much more.

Alas, I eventually changed my mind. Why? Well, I like Nathan Fillion. And I like Elizabeth Banks. Both of whom are in the movie. So six years later, I¬†battened down the hatches, grabbed my Anakin Skywalker replica lightsaber (Hey, it worked against the Sarlacc…)¬†and set about watching the film.

The best thing about Slither? It knows entirely what kind of movie it is. So many films fail because they try to pigeon hole themselves into one genre or another, or try to be something that from the plot, premise or cast, it definitely can’t be. But Slither knows the kind of people who are going to go see it, and it doesn’t take itself too seriously. To the point, in fact, that it is almost a parody of itself. Slither picks up all those gross and absurd parts of movie’s like Alien, The Blob and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and shows how hilarious the whole thing really is. And, quite simply, that is why it works.

Slither starts with some sort of alien ‘pod’ firing a harpoon kind of thing at the all American,¬†hill billy-type character called Grant (played by Michael Rooker). Grant has a trophy wife named Starla (Elizabeth Banks) who is a school teacher with unresolved feelings for local Sheriff, Bill (Nathan Fillion). When Grant comes home after his alien encounter, he is acting strange, but by all accounts looks the same. It is only after a few days that his behaviour starts getting stranger, and his face and body start morphing. Eventually he turns into what I can only describe as ‘something I made with play-do one time in nursery’ and sets about infecting the town. How does he do this? Well that right there is the really icky part. Even more than the worms. Seriously! These two worm penis things come out of his chest and pump alien spunk into his unwilling victims chests – impregnating them with his worm juice. It’s all very disturbing! And had parallels with Alien. I mean, if you know anything about Sci-Fi, you know that the face huggers in Alien were always supposed to be a metaphor for male rape. Well guess the guys over at Slither thought, “Fuck that, we can be well more hard core!” And they were.

Once impregnated, you become so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so so hungry you end up like this:

slitherYeah, I wasn’t kidding about the hungry part.
And as if that wasn’t enough, you then explode and thousands of little worms/slugs come out, and then face rape¬†you by jumping into your mouth and infecting your brain until your basically one big alien Grant. What a lovely way to go. Honestly, I can’t decide which way is worse. Becoming this guy:
Having this come at you:
…And then exploding, or swallowing one of these bad boys:

Wow.

If this thing was real, it would make Alien look like a pest control problem.

But it isn’t the movie monsters that makes this a good film. It is the cast and the script. With lines like:
“If I weren’t about to shit in my pants right now, I’d be fuckin’ fascinated.”
And:
“He looks likes something that fell off my dick during the war.”
You can’t go wrong.

Nathan Fillion is at his loveable best as Bill, and gets a lot of laughs with his sarcastic Sheriff routine. Elizabeth Banks proves she should get to do more lead roles – and now, thankfully, she does – as Starla, and Tania Saulnier plays the traumatised, young teen who survives and sets about helping the pair save the world.

Overall, if you want a real Friday night, popcorn movie with a few laughs and moments of ¬†“Ewww…” then Slither is totally up your street. As long as you don’t take it too seriously, it won’t either and you are bound to enjoy this campy, cult horror flick as it was meant to be enjoyed.

A solid 7/10.

Which is MASSIVE given the kind of film it is! I must be feeling generous.