Paranormal Actrilogy

Horror movies have a habit of spinning out of control when the term 'franchise' is mentioned. I mean, look at Saw, Friday The 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street. They all have seven movies or more and the sad truth of the matter is that most people will not want to watch past the fourth or fifth one. I mean has anyone seen Jason X? There is little parallel to the fear that reaches deep inside any horror fanatic when it is announced that there will be a series of films following a successful horror. Today, we look at one example of this in recent years: The Paranormal Activity franchise.

What follows are three reviews, one of each of the current Paranormal Activity films, and they will be chucked full of spoilers, so if you want to know nothing about the plot or, more importantly, the scares, just scroll to the end for spoiler free reviews. Right, let's get started.

Paranormal Activity


The film that started it all. Released originally on a tiny budget in 2007 and was almost unheard of until 2009 when Paramount picked it up for general release and it exploded. Oren Peli, who shot the film in ten days in his own home, could never have predicted the success and profit that his small, handheld horror would have. With enough actors to count on one hand, there had to be some secret to the success...

Bonus points for the first movie because
Katie Featherston is beautiful

One could argue that it is simplicity that slay the industrial beast of cinema. With only two actors for the majority of the film and a plot, if it can so be called, that a five year old could follow, the film appeals to a wide audience, horror fan or not. What does the demon want? Katie. That's all. Micah and Katie don't try any whichcraft or exorcism, they just get terrorised. And then the hauntings. Playing with the unknown is possible the simplest, yet hardest, horror technique. How do you make someone scared of something that isn't there without being too explicit about it? Magically appearing footprints are a good start, along with other things that appear out of the corner of your eye. The audience question what they're seeing and, in doing so, get sucked into Micah and Katie's world and experience the same scares.

Or perhaps it's the avoidance of over used horror clichés. Hauntings in the day time and genuine human emotion rather than rash, night time decisions provide something fresh on the screen. And it is not all down hearted like a lot of horrors; even when things get more intense, Micah provides comic relief. While it does suffer from being slow and losing tension in the majority of the day time footage, the fresh and simple perspective on ghosts is something that  cinema was craving. Horror fans went crazy for it and horror 'haters' went to see it in order to say, 'Well, it wasn't really a good movie...' But the biggest shock to all movie fans is that this was a good movie as well as a good horror. It ticked the boxes for both categories. The real question is: did the sequels?

Paranormal Activity 2


The first sequel is a lot bigger in every sense than its predecessor. It delves into the life of Katie's sister, Kristi, and her family after the birth of her first son, Hunter, and happens only weeks before the events of the first movie. Jumping straight into the reviewing, this film is no where near the first one in terms of quality. In fact, it is pretty awful. Think back to what worked about the first one: the simple plot, the combination of subtle hauntings and explicit demonic activity. Evidently, the writers of this instalment threw those out of the window and decided on a far too complicated plot and next to no hauntings at all. 

Looks like I wasn't the only one to doze off...

Well, I say too complicated a plot, but really it is a very satisfactory plot. One that explains more of the demons intentions and why the events in the first movie happen. And yes, it is completely needless. However, its biggest flaw is the terrible timing. Nothing even remotely important is mentioned until half an hour in (and even that is more important for the third movies plot) and nothing particularly scary happens until about 50 minutes into the movie. That scare, a shadow moving over Ali while she sleeps, is followed by nothingness for a bit, unless you count terrible writing and horrid characters as 'something'. Ali leaves the house, while baby sitting, and the door slams behind her. Rather than doing anything logical, she wanders off until her parents get home. And this still isn't the most annoying her character gets. Her disobedience, rudeness and laughing at others will encourage nothing but the hope that the demon kills her.

 
In fact, the only character worth a damn (minus the dog) is the dad, but even he is completely blind to the events happening around him and doesn't trust his family. The other major flaw with the plot is that the main point -that there's a curse from the grandmother on the first born male in her family, Hunter - is so irrationally jumped to after an hour or so on Google. No one even suspects that there's another explanation. And after all this, the family is safe. Good. A nice wholesome ending. Wait... Nevermind. The entire point of being able to transfer the curse is pointless because, as well as killing your sister in law, you also kill your own family. Smooth. Not scary, badly written, and completely unsatisfactory.

Paranormal Activity 3


A prequel that shoots back much further than a few weeks. We're now in Kristi and Katie's childhood. This time the writers have remembered what made the first film work and used it and built on it. Something that is completely understandable with a bigger budget and an ability to use larger special effects. So it turns out that Katie and Kristi, their mother, Julie, and their step-father, Dennis, were haunted, rather violently, as kids. They never talk about it though, even when it comes back in the other two movies. The glaring issue with this film, and the second, is everyone's ignorance of the issues. Everyone has cameras, but only Micah in the first movie really checks it. Well, that's not true. Dennis checks his footage daily. But whenever he tries to show it to Julie, she ignores him. Then she dies. And he dies. Well played, Julie. Four for you. 

The ghost normally stops being scary by the third movie...
But this is a new low.

But don't get me wrong, the third instalment is a massive step up on the second. The plot is simpler, the scares are both bigger but some are more subtle, and stuff actually happens. The basic plot, is there's a ghost or a demon. Kristi talks to it and calls it Toby. Scary stuff happens. Easy right? Well, until they throw in the side plot to tie the films together. Something about a covenant of woman who marry girls to demons who take the first born male. (See the link now?) This side plot is actually the beginning of a downfall for the otherwise fantastic ending. After Julie goes to check on her mother and doesn't return, Dennis goes investigating and finds an empty house. A shadow in the window when there turns out to be no one there gets you to the edge of your seat. And then he opens a door and there's a load of crazy old ladies who chase him. Honestly, it seemed like it was plucked from another movie completely. Then Julie's body is floating, dead. Then Kristi shows up and they hide in a cupboard, then Katie scares the pants off of you. Then Julie's mum turns up, Dennis gets broken, and Julie's mum walks off with Kristi, Katie, and, apparently, Toby.


Yes, that was a massive spoiler, but I needed to point out how ridiculous the ending became after such a tense promising start. The best thing about Paranormal Activity 3 is the ghost activity. Some of it is fantastic. There's a sheet, like a child dressed as a ghost, which suddenly collapses. The entire kitchen lifts into the ceiling while off camera only to slam down with perfect timing (something the second film REALLY lacked) and a mysterious figure appears behind Dennis but only briefly. And those are just the more obvious ones. There's the fast shadow that shoots past doors and Katie skipping down the corridor at night. And there's something great in the build up. Kristi talking to the ghost and playing with him creates some kind of suspense that is difficult to create. Though 'Toby' seems very fickle. He attacks Katie and protects Kristi and then later it switches without any real reason. That's too simple a plot. Elaborate, please. 


Spoiler Free Below:

A quick word about all three movies. The camera work is a big thing with this series, obviously, being shot from handheld cameras. The first movie had a single camera which caught just enough to intrigue the audience, but not enough to scare them silly. The second one caught far too much. Most night time scenes were five minutes of nothing but different views of the house. It was like watching Big Brother at three in the morning. The third one got the cameras right. It gave purpose to having the handheld, unlike the second, and he developed his filming as the hauntings progressed. He started with one camera, switched to two, and then ended with three, the last on a neat swivel so that it could catch a panoramic view, and also created large blind spots for a few seconds. This captured just the right amount of ghost activity. It's a pity that the story wasn't better. Will the fourth one get it right? And let me know your opinions on anything Paranormal Activity related and especially what you think of the upcoming one.


Paranormal Activity 1: For the best storyline, a fresh look at horrors, the best characters, and actually being scary, I reward you with:

Paranormal Activity 2: For terrible in almost every sense, but still managing to make me care about the dog, take this petty prize:

Paranormal Activity 3: For best special effects, camera work, and ghost activity, you should be the best. However, your plot lost its way too often and you ruined a great ending. Take this:

Die Hard. Again. And Again. And Again. (Part 2)

Here's the second part of my Die Hard reviews. The first part is here. Five years after the second Die Hard was released, a third installment came out. Then it'd be another 12 years before we'd see anything Die Hard related in the cinemas. How did they keep a franchise going despite the massive gap in time? How did they adjust? Lets have a look, starting with Die Hard: With A Vengeance.

John McClane, (Willis) now almost a full-blown alcoholic, is on suspension from the NYPD. However, when a bomb goes off in a department store and the police are stuck for answers, a mysterious man named Simon (Jeremy Irons/ Graham Greene) phones and asks for McClane. He states that if the police want answers, McClane has to complete the tasks Simon tells him to. Task one: Wearing a rather offensive sign in the rough part of town. Fortunately for McClane, Zeus Carver (Samuel L. Jackson) steps in to protect him from a group of thugs. Not so fortunately for Zeus, this means he is now involved in Simon's games. Simon gets McClane and Zeus to run around town trying to stop bombs that he has rigged. However, Simon is planning a little more than he's letting on.

Both McClane and Zeus were extremely suspicious of the phone.

Despite being an alcoholic, being suspended and having not spoken to his wife, McClane continues to prove how cool he really is. By adopting a slightly more I-don't-care attitude, Willis provides a better performance than his second outing as the character. He brings the same wit and bad ass-ness that he's brought for the first two movies but this time they it comes with a fresh dowsing of pessimism. However, the stand out  performance of the movie comes from Samuel Jackson as Zeus. Continuing Die Hard's theme of having a handy black sidekick is presented with a twist this time around. Zeus is strong willed, sassy and powerful. He's very funny, if not very racist. The antagonists, Jeremy Irons and Graham Greene are superbly dark and smart. Their plots provide more twists than either of the first two movies and they create such a tense atmosphere which makes the film extremely exciting.

The Die Hard science begins to get a little bit out of control in this movie. There's ridiculously high and yet survivable falls, surfing on giant dump trucks, and goons with even worse aim than ever before.  But all of this only helps to make the movie all the more fun to watch. My least favourite aspect of the movie is not the slowly sinking realism but the incredibly annoying choice of music. Throughout dramatic moments of the movie, we are treated to an instrumental version of 'The animals went in two by two hurrah hurrah'. (Technically known as When Johnny Comes Marching Home). Something about it doesn't fit.

Overall, another good movie. Not as good as the first, slightly better than the second. Good fun and definitely worth a watch.

Best Bit? Personally, I have a soft spot for the dump truck chase in an underground system of water tunnels.

And finally we come to the fourth and (currently) the final installment in the series: Die Hard 4.0 (Or Live Free Or Die Hard)

So the plot of the last movie is slightly more nerdy than the others. This time, the terrorists are hackers and they're developing a system that can systematically shut down the entirety of the United States, one bit at a time. McClane (Willis) gets involved after he is sent to bring internet hacker Matt Farrell (Justin Long) to Washington. Soon after he arrives at Matt's apartment though, unknown assailents begin shooting at Matt and McClane. After getting him out safely, McClane turns to Matt to gain some insight from his hacking knowledge and together they plan to bring down mastermind Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) and his assistant Mai Linh (Maggie Q). Unfortunately for McClane (and in some ways, fortunate for Farrell), Lucy Gennaro McClane (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), John's daughter, gets caught up the whole ordeal and despite her disliking of her father and his attitudes to things, she relies and trusts in him to stop the terrorists.

Thomas Gabriel never understood the idea of
 going on a date and showing one's guns.

In the twelve years that John was absent from our cinema screens, a lot changed in his life. He lost all his hair, stopped talking to his ex wife and daughters, became a much angrier and older man. Willis continues to develop and adapt the character we've grown to love but still sticks to his roots. The years have aged him, and he shows us that. Also a brilliant performance from Justin Long. Admittedly it's a role that he plays more than any other, the awkward nerdy teenager. But the contrast between Willis and Long is so perfect it makes the movie great fun to watch.

Die Hard science goes to a whole new level in this movie. Death seems to become a thing of the past, or at least all of the characters have developed super strength. Cars are driven into helicopters, people are run over but able to continue fighting and fighter jets will destroy half a city on a very vague order.  However, being a more modern movie, the special effects, camera work, and general appearance of the entire film is a league above the other three movies. Probably the most silly out of all four movies but also one of the easiest to watch. There's lots of action and lots of explosions to keep your eyes busy.

In my personal opinion it's the weakest of the four films but compared to a lot of action films released nowadays, it's still of a better quality. It's fun and it's everything we love from Die Hard, if not a bit more exaggerated and silly.

Best Bit? The fight scene between Mai Linh, John McClane, and Matt Farrell. A whole new level of fight scene with use of cars, elevator shafts and a combination of them both. Or extremely tense tunnel scene when cars are flying all over the place.


A great set of movies. All worth a watch. And don't forget, yippee ki-yay, motherfuckers.

Die Hard. Again. And Again. And Again. (Part 1)

Since I've been gone for a while, and you guys definitely miss me, I thought I'd treat you. Four movie reviews, two post. Why do I suddenly seem drawn to the idea of these four movies? Well I watched them all today, in one sitting, with my totally legit sports team. What do these movies share in common? They all contain two words: Die Hard.

So I'll try to keep these reviews fairly short. Movie one: Die Hard. Officer John McClane (Bruce Willis) leaves New York to spend Christmas with his family in LA. However, soon after arriving at his wife's work, Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) takes over the building with a group of terrorists and seals off all contact with the outside world. Holding the workers hostage, he plans to steal $640 million stored in the buildings vault. McClane manages to get into maintenance areas of the building and tries to alert the police about the situation. The police, apart from Sgt. Al Powell (Reginald VelJohnson), are useless.

McClane, I bought you a woman for Christmas.

This is Bruce Willis at his very best. He is the epitome of cool. He has the pout, the never ending ammo and the ability to talk coherently with a cigarette perched between his teeth. Action-wise, this movie is outstanding. It is the perfect genre film. If you were introducing someone to action, start here. Something I'll refer to a lot in this post is Die Hard Science. It is essentially the science that exists in the world of Die Hard, but not in reality. For example, one man may be shot in the head and just crumple, another's head may explode. Rickman was also superb. He's such a perfect antagonist. He's creepy but isn't aggressive unless he really needs to be. He's menacing and powerful without being loud or violent. This is perfect for the villain of this movie.

One thing that I particularly love about this movie is the location. A single location, but a massive location. Despite the film only taking place in one building, this is a forty story building; there's more room in a forty story building than in a wood. This allows for the sense of claustrophobia, but still has the ability to create grand scale action. Bombs, tanks and abseiling with a hose pipe. This movie has it all.

A great start to a great franchise. Witty, action packed and plain cool.

Best Bit? There's something extremely touching about the bromantic hug between McClane and Al but the best bit has to go toMcClane using a hose pipe to lower himself down the building.

Movie Two! Die Hard 2, aptly tag lined 'Die Harder.' Often criticised for being a simple rehash of the first one. Well in some ways it is, but more about that in a moment. Firstly, the plot.

John McClane, once again wishing to spend Christmas with his wife, is waiting for her plane at the airport when he notices some suspicious behavior. Upon investigating, he gets shot at, destroys a mans head, and almost gets arrested. The complete lack of help from airport security leads him to turn to his old pal Al Powell (via a new creation called 'a fax machine') who informs him that one of the men that shot at him, was dead according to records. Somethings afoot. Cue evil plan to keep plane's circling until the demands of the terrorists' have been met, despite all aircraft being low on fuel. Oh, they also take over all the planes' computers and communication so that they can crash them at their will. McClane steps into save the day.

Nobody was happier in an ejector seat than John McClane

Once again, Willis proves that he is the coolest man alive. More pouting whilst shooting, more talking with a cigarette, and more throwing metal painting towers over. He even plays chicken with a plane! Once again, he's helped out by a friendly black guy, Leslie Barnes (Art Evans), who is great fun. Exactly what John McClane needs, a wise cracking, good willed, black guy that stands up to his superiors in order to help McClane. And the antagonists of this film are brilliant. I don't just mean the outstanding Col. Stuart (William Sadler), I also mean the not-quite-baddies-but-you-really-want-to-punch-them baddies. This includes Capt. Carmine Lorenzo (Dennis Franz), in charge of airport security who tries to over power McClane at every turn and, reprising his roll as the selfish and ignorant journalist, William Atherton is brilliant as Richard Thornburg.

Like the first movie, the film takes place in primarily one location, the airport. And again, there's that feeling of claustrophobia despite being in a large area. This is a typical sequel. It's bigger and more ridiculous. That Die Hard Science we mentioned earlier plays a huge part in this film. Plane's crash, with no fuel, and yet explode into an unbelievable fireball. The brilliant aiming of the bad guys suddenly disappears when they shoot at McClane. Several planes can fit onto a very small runway despite it being covered completely in snow. This film does require complete suspension of disbelief. That being said, it's still great fun and 100% worth watching, especially with a good crowd of friends.

Extremely similar to the first movie, but not in a bad way (not like Hangover Part II). It's a bit sillier, a lot bigger, and twice as action packed, with twice as many plot twists. Not quite as good either, but still a great, fun movie

Best Bit? The cool as snow (Gettit?) ending. John McClane proves he's a BAMF all over again after fighting on the wing of a plane and then simply using a lighter as a form of attack.

So it's a Sequel, Not a Remake? You sure?

There are a few sequels which take the first movie and redo it with a slightly different scenario. Please don't. Here's why: The Hangover, Part II.

Quickly, let's list the key points in the first movie:

1. Some one is getting married.
2. the Bachelor party takes place somewhere famous for night life. (Vegas)
3. The main characters get very drunk/drugged, loose a friend and remember nothing.
   
4. The main characters search for their lost friend, finding a helpless person (a baby) and an animal that belongs to someone else (a tiger that belongs to Mike Tyson.)
5. Eventually they find their friend somewhere they really should've checked.
   
6. They make it back to the wedding on time.

All of this is the same in the second movie, except in Thailand with a old monk and a monkey who belonged to some Russians. From Stu doing something stupid to his body, to him confronting someone at the wedding and speaking his mind.

Phil and Stu were shocked by Alan's choice to become a Britney Spears impersonator.

Okay, let's start with good things. Ken Jeong was brilliant reprising his role as Mr. Chow. Definitely the best character. Mainly because he wasn't in the first movie as much so there was room for a whole new layer of his character. Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms were both good as Phil and Stu respectively. Their characters developed a little. Admittedly, in Stu's case, it wasn't entirely in a good way. The character who had been developed the most was Alan. He was also the least amusing. In the first one, he was stupid. In Part II, he had delved deeps into the realm of mental difficulties and had lost a lot of what made him funny the first time round. no other characters were really major enough for any serious analysis. Yeah, Doug still wasn't in it. I would've loved to have seen Doug get caught up in the mishaps.

Stu thought his new tattoo made him look really tough. It didn't.

So, the writing and directing. Clearly, Todd Philips and his team took a laid back approach and said, "Hey, it worked before, lets do it again." And I don't just mean the plot. I mean every joke, every gag, even the same characters. Yes I liked Chow. But where the hell were the new characters? Even Eddie, the chapel manager from the first movie, made an appearance. (Though as a different character. Copy and pasted but with a name change and some hair.) Even Paul Giamatti's cameo was very disappointing. There were trade overs, mistaken identities, hookers and lots more of recycled jokes. The first movie still strikes me as a brilliant work in comedy in recent years. This does not.

I wouldn't suggest spending money to see this. Just watch the first movie again. That will stay good. This won't. Twice as vulgar and twice as silly, but half as good. Sillier you say? There was a drug dealing monkey. Enough said.

That's enough from me. I don't want to talk about this movie anymore. I heard it wasn't good, but I thought surely no. I was wrong. It wasn't very good. I was disappointed.


Best bit? When Chow was onscreen. He was hilarious. Particularly the car chase. A good scene in an otherwise poor movie.

The Penultimate Destination (Maybe)

The last chapter in The Final Destination series... No wait... There's still a 5nal one coming. See I found that joke really funny but all you won't. I'm not sure why I bother.

So anyway; Final Destination, otherwise known as The Final Destination. When it was released it was 3D which I assume made the horrid special effects bearable. But I was not watching it in 3D.. My television doesn't do that. Every explosion looked wrong, every flying object looked fake.

An example of one of the less gory deaths.. Just so you know what to expect.

Despite this, my biggest problem was the way in which characters died. If you have not encountered any Final Destination film before, allow me to explain the plot.. Of every film. One teenager has a vision of their friends and themselves dying in a horrible accident and so they stop it happening. Afterwards the teenagers die in extremely odd ways, one by one, in the order they would've died in had they have died in the original accident. Just to give you an idea of how the franchise has spiralled down for this movie, here's a list of the original accidents: FD1: Plane crash, FD2: Car crash, FD3: Roller coaster crash, TFD (FD4): Nascar racers explode as they crash forcing the whole of the stadium to fall to pieces and crush the spectators. Yes.. That is how the movie starts.

The teens were practically lining up for their deaths

So we knew before the film started that there would be a lot of death. But in the previous films the death scenes have (kind of) made sense. Thinking back to all of the death scenes of this movie there's maybe two or 3 that make sense. out of 11. Even in the visions.. One girl gets a foot crushed in an escalator motor and then coughs up blood. Someone explain that biology to me. And have you ever seen a single ember set a whole pile of wood on fire in seconds? Or a doctor just leave an elderly patient in a harness while the bath is running and almost overflowing? Or a pile of sand, yes sand, catch fire.. in the sun? No. It doesn't happen. Admittedly it's unlikely that any of the deaths in previous films will happen... But the science makes more sense (even if it is ridiculous.) Plus there was no cool cliffhanger on this film. Sad stuff.

There is nothing special here in any of the technical departments either. If you like gore and you don't care whether the reason for it makes sense then this film will be a welcome treat. Otherwise you will end up yelling at the stupidity of the characters and the lack of science.

Best bit? The bit where someone dies.. I like that bit. But seriously the best bit is... is... hmmm...

11 Years In Waiting.

Yes. I have been waiting over a decade for this movie. I remember seeing the second film in the cinemas in 1999 very clearly but now, the third film is here. I am, of course, talking about Toy Story 3. I saw it yesterday with the wonderful Kate Pass in stunning 3D. And yes, stunning is the best word to describe this film.

A happy audience waited for Woody's next speech

If you don't know the general plot by now you're weird. But I'll recap it anyway. Buzz, Woody and the remaining toys that Andy has kept over the years are accidently donated to Sunnyside Daycare when Andy leaves for college. But what seems like paridise soon turns ugly.

This is the first animated film I've reviewed I think... Those of us that were around when the first two movies were released will appriciate the film far more than the little kiddie winkles... In fact I think adults in genral will enjoy this more. Why? The jokes are very funny but it's unlikely that the little ones will get all of them. But the animation... Just... Wow. Not only is it just amazing but it also focuses on human aspects of the toys, the emotions. Never did I think I would border on tears from some toys holding hands. PIXAR made it happen.

Woody Jumped onstage to meet his favourite acting group;

They were rather startled.

It's the little things that PIXAR do that make their movies so damn good. All the way through the movie were hints to other things from the world of PIXAR: drawings of Nemo, Boo playing with a toy version of 'kitty' and even Luxo Ball is the credit scenes. But, for me, it was the human characters that made this movie such a success. It was mostly emotions we could relate to: the stress of leaving home, the fear of losing your childhood memories... Even the way they characters interacted. Bonnie, a little girl character, acted like any real toddler would. The characters are real.

If you see this film, splash out and see it in 3D, it's worth every penny. Wait... What do I mean if? When you watch this movie. It's unmissable. A perfect rounding off to the triology.

Best bit? I really don't know... So many bits to choose! Just the whole film. Really.

In 2 No Arm.

The title is an anagram... Try and get it :)

This film was undoubtedly less cool than its predecessor but very cool none the less. It also wasn't as good but I think it may just be for that reason. Why wasn't it as cool? Hmmm a fair point.... I don't think it was as fun as the first film. I mean Stark (Downey Jr) was facing inner demons etc.. But then it didn't feel touching either. And the 'big' fight scene at the end is a real disappointment.

Whiplash never looks both ways before crossing the road

But that's the bad out of the way. The acting was suburb. Robert Downey Jr was still brilliantly funny and just seemed to shine with coolness. Sam Rockwell was a brilliant 'villain.' He is officially one of my favourite actors (Check out 'Moon') and he is awesome in this as Stark's business rival. Mickey Rourke is insane as Whiplash or Ivan Vanko, the homemade Iron Man person. With his home made suit that has electric whips that can cut a car in half, he portrays a troubled Russian with pure excellence. Oh bloody hell! I almost forgot Don Cheadle! He stepped into Terrence Howard's shoes like a pro. I forgot he was a different actor. Excellent. Other performances by Samuel L Jackson, Gwyneth Paltrow and Scarlett Johansson are equally cool and not a single decline in quality.

Direction by Jon Favreau is brilliant and so is his little supporting role. It's edited really well and has an awesome AC/DC-full soundtrack. The camera work is a little generic though.

It is still a good film and super cool. A film to watch with friends and a couple of beers/ cans of coke. (I have 14 year olds read this blog you know. Drinking is bad kids.)



Best bit? The race car fight scene... Brilliant. Funny and full of action.