Wreck It Ralph Review - What Shall I Watch On Netflix?

Wreck It Ralph (2012)

Directed By Rich Moore

Produced By Clark Spencer

Starring John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Jack McBrayer, Jane Lynch and Alan Tudyk

Wreck It Ralph has only recently been added to Netflix (U.K.) but I have actually wanted to see it since it came out. It's made by Disney but could quite easily be confused for a Pixar film due to the fact that it can very easily keep adults entertained as much, if not more, than kids.

Ralph is the bad guy of his video game called Fix-It Felix. This game is very much like Donkey Kong where Ralph destroys a building and it is up to Felix (controlled by the gamer) to come along and rebuild the building whilst dodging Ralph's attacks.

Wreck It Ralph is quite similar to Toy Story in that once the arcade where the games are kept closes, the characters from the games are free to wonder around – and even travel from their own game to others through power cables and a surge-protector which acts like a train station. When the arcade closes, the characters from Fix-It Felix throw parties for Felix to show their appreciation for his work that day, whilst Ralph is resigned to his home in the town dump.

Ralph becomes depressed, and complains at a group therapy session for video game villains (starring such characters as Dr. Eggman and chaired by Clyde, the orange Pac Man ghost) that he understands that he is the games bad-guy, but he isn't a bad guy. He comes to the conclusion that if he goes into another game called Hero's Duty and wins the medal, then the other characters from his game might treat him in a nicer way. Ralph manages to claim his medal, but accidentally releases into another game (Sugar Rush) a Cybug, which is kind of a cross between the squids from The Matrix and a virus.

The thing I loved most about this film was the cameos and references to video games. From the way that a spilled liquid forms 8-bit shapes, graffiti in the background has references to things like Leroy Jenkins, or even just sound bites from popular games like Metal Gear Solid. I found myself paying very close attention to see what else I could spot. Afterwards I did wonder if I would have paid anywhere near as much attention to the film if there hadn't been so many references. My friend said they really enjoyed the story, and I did too, but I can't help but think the story followed a fairly generic and predictable route. But it is a Disney film meant for children, so I'm probably asking too much.

Another fantastic thing about the film is the sound. The soundtrack is very well made - the composer, Henry Jackman, has presumably spent a fair amount of time playing video games, and I really appreciated the way the styles were replicated. This is mostly shown when Ralph moves from one game to another, with rock and electro played in the FPS game Hero's Duty and pop music played in the Mario Cart-style Sugar Rush. It's a small change, but one I noticed and appreciated.

It's impossible to talk about the sound in this film without mentioning the cast. John C. Reilly does a fantastic job of playing the down trodden guy who feels very sorry for himself. Jayne Lynch plays the sergeant and this is also a very good fit. It's reminiscent of her character from Role Models in that she is very tough and will not tolerate anyone wasting her time. Another character who's voice I loved is Alan Tudyk who plays King Candy. This character is based on Ed Wynn who played the Mad Hatter from Alice In Wonderland and Uncle Albert in Mary Poppins. He does a brilliant job and I can't imagine that it's Steve The Pirate from Dodgeball doing the voice. The only downside to the casting in my opinion is Vanellope voiced by Sarah Silverman. She constantly annoyed me throughout the film, and although we're supposed to feel sad for her and her relationship with Ralph is what gives this film emotion, I found myself really not caring about her and waiting for an excuse for her to be taken out the film. Apparently the actors recorded their lines together, which allowed for some improv, but I didn't notice the lines coming across any more naturally than in other animated films.

Overall: Wreck It Ralph is a great looking, and brilliantly cast animated film, that has the ability to keep kids entertained with its bright colours and interesting characters, but will also keep many adults entertained as they seek out and appreciate the references to games they've played. Adults may not even mind their children wanting to watch it again as I'm sure I won't have caught all the references and cameos on my first viewing. And if they've not been big gamers in their time, the voice acting and different styles of animation/music depending on what game Ralph is visiting should be enough to keep their interest, although replay value will be decreased.

As a gamer, I give this film 8/10

For non-gamers, I think this film would be 6/10

Driving Lessons Review - What Shall I Watch On Netflix

Driving Lessons (2006)

Directed By Jeremy Brock

Produced By Julia Chasman

Starring Julie Walters, Rupert Grint, Laura Linney and Nicholas Farrell

Coming of Age films appeal to me. There is something I really enjoy about seeing the underdog gaining confidence and then coming to blows with whatever has been keeping them downtrodden. In Driving Lessons we are treated to Ben (Rupert Grint) gaining confidence from Evie (Julie Walters), and in a fairly predictable way, Evie learns some lessons from Ben too.

Growing up in a family run by Ben's very domineering mum, but also involving his father (a Church of England Clergyman) and an eccentric elderly man reffered to as Mr Fincham Ben's mother has taken in to look after, is taking its toll on Ben. He gets a job - to partly raise cash but mostly as an escape from his family - helping an elderly actress to carry out daily tasks. She appears to be in denial about many things; she refers to herself as a Dame, she claims to not be an alcoholic and among other things, she also insists Ben drives her everywhere even though neither of them know how to drive. This odd character seems to be exactly what Ben needs to branch out experiences-wise from his mothers guarded style of upbringing before it does too much damage.

The film has a few laughs, mostly from the interactions between characters. Examples of this include the way strangers look at Ben and Evie whilst she goes into detail on her failed marriages whilst on a bus, or the way that the old man's behaviour gets progressively more unconventional and the rest of the characters just accept these peculiar changes.

The soundtrack is fantastic, with Sufjan Stevens, Ben Folds and Nick Drake to name some of the musicians who are featured. The only thing better than the soundtrack is the locations. I would not be surprised if the Edinburgh Tourist Office played a part in this film, and the lake/loch they stop at is beautiful.

Acting wise I found this film lacking. I was pretty bored up until 30 minutes in, when Ben and Evie read and act from the works of Shakespear. The relationship between the two is what drives this film (probably helped from their portrayal of Ron Weasly and his mum in the Harry Potter franchise). In terms of the film being 'coming of age' Grint spends a lot of time hunched over and staring at the ground. I would have liked to see him, after the big finale, standing tall and looking at people in the face as a sign he has become more confident. It is really only the scenes with Ben and Evie I was paying much attention to.

Another annoyance with this film is the finale. I don't like films being weird for the sake of weird, and by the finale everything seems really over the top and it takes away from the realism that the film had held. A really good coming of age film manages to make the viewer think that if the main character can overcome whatever has been holding them back then they can too, and this feeling is lost towards the end as the film goes from having a few peculiar moments to being full on bizarre.

Overall, this film is (aside from Evie's language) inoffensive and would be great for sticking on in the background on a rainy day when your stuck at home with your parents as you don't have to pay attention. There are definitely more original and funnier coming of age films out there in existence, but this one is charming enough to watch with your mum; as long as she doesn't mind swearing too much and can last the first 30 minutes until we see some character development.Overall I give this film a 6/10

p.s. I say Evie swears a lot, she doesn't really, but it is definitely categorised under excessive use of particular words. I wasn't bothered by it much, but I'm sure my granny would not approve of the language. Another coming of age film starring Grint called Cherrybomb is by far less suitable for watching with parents (but still worth a watch). Makes this film seem very tranquil and calm.

The Bridge Discussion (Not Review) - What Shall I Watch On Netflix?

The Bridge (2006)

Directed by Eric Steel

Produced by Eric Steel

I wanted to ensure that I dealt with this topic in the correct manner so took my time making and writing it.

In 2004, Eric Steel and his team went to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco every morning and watched the bridge. Any time they saw someone acting suspicious they filmed the person. The whole point of the film was to bring awareness to the fact that the Golden Gate Bridge is the second highest place in the world for suicides.

This film is actually the reason I started making reviews. I wanted to generate discussion on this film but none of my friends were willing to watch a film about suicide. But due to the nature of the film I didn't want to make it my first review until I had written a couple others.

I'm not actually writing a review, I'll instead be discussing how it was made.

There are a lot of rumours that surround this film. They appear where ever there is discussion on the morals. They appear on sites such as IMDB and Wikipedia and I am yet to see any evidence to contradict the rumours. The first one is the way that Steel gained permission to film the bridge every day for a whole year. Apparently he said the film was to be a "Day in the Life" style film showing the average day on the bridge; with tourists, commuters and people exercising. I have no problem with this lie seeing as the outcome of the film is that it brought more awareness to the situation of suicide on the bridge and if Steel said that was his intention from the beginning they probably wouldn't of granted him permission. Another reason for Steel lying about the purpose of the film was that he was worried that people would find out about the project and then jump, hoping to be recorded and included in the film.

The second rumour that surrounds the film is the fact that they didn't tell the families/friends of the deceased that they had footage of their loved ones killing themselves. The film is interspersed with footage of people talking about their relative or friend who had jumped off the bridge. They ususally have a story about how upset the person was at the time and all the different things they had wrong with their life that led to their final act. I'm not sure how I feel about this rumour. There is a quote from Steel where he says that everyone involved has seen the final film and are happy with it, but I can't help but wonder if they would have ever agreed in the first place if they had known that Steel had watched their friend die. Does the end justify the means? Steel presumably thinks so, but I imagine when the family's found out the truth they couldn't help but feel a bit hurt...

Also, there is a lady who is interviewed. Her sister had jumped. I found her interviews very awkward. I would hate to think that she was enjoying the attention she received after her sisters death but that is how she came across. She seemed to be trying to guarantee screen time by repeating everything her mother says and by interupting and disagreeing with her. Nothing she says adds to the discussion and yet she insists on doing it. I don't know, maybe she is just naturally really rude – but it came across like she was loving her attention.

The third rumour to surround the film is the fact that every time Steel and his team saw someone suspicious they phoned the police, and started to film them. Apparently the result of this was that they saved six people from jumping. That's great isn't it?! Well I find this one hard to believe actually. The main person that the film concentrates on is a man called Gene. Throughout the whole film there are clips of him walking up and down the bridge and there are interviews with a few of his friends. In one of these interviews it is revealed that he was there for 90 minutes. I'm not suggesting that Steel and his team were suspicious of him for the whole 90 minutes, but they certainly got a lot of footage of him. How is it that they claim to have phoned the police each time and yet Gene wasn't rescued?

My favourite interviews are with Kevin Hines. He attempted suicide from the bridge in 2000. He has an attitude that comes across as “I instantly realised that everything in my life that I'd thought was unfixable was totally fixable – except for having just jumped”. He talks a lot about his motivations for attempting suicide and then how his life changed after his attempt. Yes, he does attribute the fact he survived to being a message from God, which means he suffers a fair amount of ridicule on the internet, but at least he found meaning in his life. Part of his interview that really disturbed me was when he was talking about the run up to him jumping. He got a bus to the bridge and was bawling his eyes out the entire journey. He then stood on the bridge for 40 minutes, still crying and shaking and no-one spoke to him apart from one German lady who asked if he could take a photo for her. This was in effect, the final straw for Kevin – proof that no one cared about him.

Whatever you think about Steel's motives for making the film and the way in which he made it, I'm sure you can't deny the outcome of the film is that it has done a lot of good in highlighting the issue of suicide in a totally new and honest way.

I'm not going to give this film a mark out of ten, but instead I will just finish by saying that everyone should watch this film. I don't think you should watch it when depressed though, as it certainly wont help. Instead, watch it because Kevin's story and attitude will hopefully make people be more aware of the man stood next to them on a bus or bridge crying. It doesn't matter if someone is your best friend, or a stranger you have never seen before. If someone needs to talk to someone maybe you could be the starting point that makes all the difference.

Clue – The Movie – What Shall I Watch On Netflix?

[I know I've not written a review in ages, but I've just moved house and I now feel motivated to start doing this again]



Clue (1985)
Directed by Jonathan Lynn
Produced by Debra Hill
Starring Eileen Brennan, Tim Curry, Madeline Kahn, Christopher Lloyd, Michael McKean, Martin Mull and Lesley Ann Warren

The film is set in 1950's America, and is based on the board game of the same name (although the game actually originates in Britain where it is called Cluedo).
How can a film be based on a board game? Well, all the key characters of the film are the characters from the game (with a few extra people thrown in such as the cook, maid and Wadsworth the butler).
Each person has been invited to a dinner party in a large mansion; although none of the guests appear to know why they have been invited. It becomes apparent that a Mr Boddy has been blackmailing everyone present and the butler wants them to confront him as Mr Boddy is also a guest at the party. Wadsworth gets his wish as Mr Boddy is murdered, although the secret of who killed him and with what murder weapon is not revealed.
If you are familiar with the board game then you should of recognised everything so far (apart from the fact that Mr Boddy is called Dr Black in the board game outside of America).

The guests then take it upon themselves to find out who is the murderer, revealing dark secrets about each other and the reasons they have been blackmailed. More characters turn up at the house (and usually are murdered) which does nothing to help the guests suspicion of each other.

I played a lot of Cluedo as a child (although the exact version I had was called Cleudo: Passport to Murder – similar to the original game but set in a train station). This meant that I enjoyed the part near the beginning where their back-stories were revealed to each other as a sort of nostalgia trip back in time to rain soaked afternoons sat on the living-room floor. It is a shame that this was one of the rare few bits I liked.

When Colonel Mustard suggests that they all split up into couples to search the house to ensure that they are the only people present, another enjoyable section takes place; with the guests still distrusting each other so not wanting to give the other member of the couple an edge. The maid and Mr (Reverend in the UK) Green climbing up the stairs into the attic but not wanting to be in front or behind the other was quite pleasurable. Also Wadsworth and Mrs White trying to search conjoined rooms whilst not letting the other get out of sight made me laugh. However, that was pretty much all that made me laugh in the film.

The script reminded me of such films as Naked Gun or Aeroplane, which rely on verbal and visible puns. None of the jokes really appealed to me, with lines such as:

“...and so I choose to reveal myself.”

“Please don't! There are ladies present.”

This is an example of the jokes from Clue. I'm not sure what this style of humour is called, but it is not a kind I enjoy. The jokes were a bit too obvious for me, and the 'mad' guests came across as more annoying than funny.
The 'reveal' scene is a good example of this. Wadsworth claims that he knows how each murder took place and in order to explain how he came to know this takes the guests around the house in a recreation of the evenings events. He does this in a mad rush, pulling silly faces which I'm sure the viewer is supposed to love and think is quite funny, but I felt it was all a bit unnecessary. Add to that that the film has only been running for an hour by this point and it further adds to the feeling that a 'recreation/review' scene is unnecessary. I'm a big fan of programmes like Jonathan Creek and Murder In Paradise so I like the traditional (British :P) approach of everyone being sat down whilst the big reveal takes place.

There are also the issue of the alternative endings. For the game Cluedo, the game finishes by a player claiming they know exactly how the murder took place. They reveal the murderer, the weapon and the room it took place in. The player will have arrived at this decision based on clues they have gathered throughout the game, however, they could be wrong. The film brings this in by having alternative endings which present various theories as to who the murderer could be. I liked this idea, but it continues the running about of the butler and some rather contrived accusations from the guests. This means that it killed the pacing for me. After looking about on the internet I read that there was to be a fourth ending that was eventually cut from the script. I for one am glad it was cut as I don't think I could of sat through another ending.

So overall I'd give this film a five out of ten. I thought the idea of a film based on a board game was very original (Jumanji is a film about people playing a board game, Battleships is nothing like the game and I haven't heard anything about Ouija apart from that it's rubbish so I'm not counting any of these). It did have some funny bits, but they were vastly outnumbered by scenes that were just corny. Several of the guests were portrayed by great actors, but these were let down by other guests who seemed to be on the verge of saying an interesting line, but then forgot.

If you enjoyed Aeroplane and the Naked Gun films then I'm sure that this film will give you your comedy fix, but for the rest of us I think we should stick to playing the board game.


Follow me on Twitter if you like!

An American Werewolf In London Review - What Shall I Watch On Netflix?

An American Werewolf In London (1981)

Directed by John Landis

Produced by George Folsey Jr., Jon Peters and Peter Guber

Starring David Naughton, Jenny Agutter, Griffin Dunne and John Woodvine

Music by Elmer Bernstein

The film begins with two young American backpackers walking across the Yorkshire Moors. They happen upon a pub called 'The Slaughtered Lamb' and decide to venture inside for something warm to eat and drink. The people inside seem very reserved and don't like outsiders. The boys outstay their welcome and are told to leave – but are given several warnings to stay off the moors and keep to the roads, which make enough sense, but the warnings to 'beware the moon' is a bit more unusual.

After not heeding the warnings the boys wonder off the road – presumably looking for a shortcut. They are then attacked by a wolf like creature, Jack is unfortunately killed but David survives the attack and is taken to a hospital in London.

Jack then begins to appear to David in his dreams and as visions, explaining that they were attacked by a werewolf and a curse has been created. This curse will cause Jack to forever be 'un-dead' and for David to turn into a werewolf at the next full moon unless he kills himself.

When Jack reappears to David, he is first in his just mauled state. Here the make-up is fantastic and shows his skin hanging off his face and neck. It is done seamlessly and looks like the skin really has been torn. As the film progresses Jack becomes more decomposed until at the end of the film he is not more than a skeleton.

Sound wise the film is good, the atmosphere is built well with an eerie wolf howl coming from the distance as the boys walk across the moors. It would have been more effective if the howl was only heard a couple times, unfortunately it is more frequent which I feel is not as realistic and don't think a real wolf on the hunt would howl that much. The music is also quite good, each song having been chosen as they have the word 'moon' in their title which is a good touch. However, sometimes the song isn't very fitting to what's happening on screen and kills the mood. On the other hand, using 'Bad Moon Rising' by Creedence Clearwater Revival as a way of explaining the impending doom in a light-hearted way is something that I did appreciate.

Most people claim that their favourite scene is the one where David turns into the wolf for the first time. This transformation is brilliant and it looks as if David is genuinely in pain and fearful of what is happening to him. Here the choice of music is a bit strange – Blue Moon by Sam Cooke – something a bit more intense would of fitted better. Again the make-up department have done a great job and the transformation is genuinely quite scary.

However, my favourite scene is the one where a man is being chased through a London Underground Tube Station. A very important aspect of this scene is that we don't see the wolf until the very end, more concentrating on the man running away. This is key to the horror of the scene as it uses the anticipation of the man being caught to build up the tension, rather than showing an animated monster running through a station. Through the use of wide camera angles being mixed with long corridors, it truly comes across that there is no escape for the man and he is just delaying the inevitable. The scene ends with the man falling over at the bottom of an escalator. The camera has been placed at the top pointing down at the bottom, which is a long way away. The man slowly rises up the stairs and you can hear the werewolf approaching. I feel that this is the most tense moment of the film and it is truly terrifying – whilst at the same time being fantastic.

Some scenes are quite rubbish however. The opening scene in The Slaughtered Lamb made my sister want to stop the film the first time we watched it. I had heard so much about the film that I needed to keep watching so managed to stop her from turning it off. The characters in the pub are completely unbelievable and the acting is in many cases terrible. There is a shower sex scene that is very badly done, it feels completely awkward for both characters. If the scene had been implied rather than shown then it would have had a greater effect of showing the relationship progression between Alex and David. For example, Alex going into the bathroom for a shower, David smiling and then following her in.

The finale lets you know (if you didn't already) that the film had been directed by the same person who directed The Blues Brothers. Cars constantly crash into each other, people fly through shop windows, and one person even falls out of a bus window. This is effective at showing the extent of the panic that a werewolf would cause in the centre of London, but is completely contrasting to the pacing of the rest of the film, which was a lot more reserved.

Something that a lot of people complain about when talking about this film is the ending. It is very abrupt and the credits seem to pop up out of nowhere. It is often said that there should have been a post event scene that gave some information on the aftermath so as to give a conclusion or closure. I disagree with this as I think it fits in with the way the rest of the film is presented. The whole way through, the only person who listens to David and tries to help him is Jack. Everyone else (who can help him) ignores him and covers up what really happens and so is keeping him in the dark. The way the film ends keeps the audience in the dark and adds to the mystery of the rest of the film – so I like it.

I really did enjoy this film, but as I heard someone else say, it is too funny to be a horror and too scary to be a comedy. The scenes often feel a bit confused as if the director/writer couldn't decide if it was to be a scary scene or a funny one. Something would be happening on screen that is supposed to be terrifying, but you also feel that you should laugh due to some other aspect.

On a scale of Scott Pilgrim to Pans Labyrinth I would give this film an 8. The build up of atmosphere and tension is fantastic and the make-up is great. A few poor scenes do let the film down but in general it does flow well and makes up for those couple rubbish scenes. When it is trying to be funny, it's hilarious, when it's trying to be scary it is almost terrifying – I just wish in certain moments it would of concentrated more on being funny or scary as it can get lost and a bit confused.

That scene in the Underground Tube Station is by far one of my favourite scenes in horror, it will do to me for tube stations what Jaws did for the sea.

Follow me on Twitter if you like!

Army of Darkness Film Review - What Shall I Watch On Netflix?

This week it's my first ever review! Army of Darkness (1992)

Directed by Sam Raimi

Produced by Robert Tapert

Starring Bruce Campbell as Ash Williams

Music by Danny Elfman (themes) and Joseph LoDuca (score)

Released – world premier: October 1992, in theatres: 1993

So, Army of Darkness, also known as 'The Evil Dead 3 – The Army of Darkness', 'Bruce Campbell vs The Army of Darkness' and in its British release 'Army of Darkness: The Medieval Dead'. The British name is the one I like the most as it's quite a funny/clever pun.

The genre of this film is quite hard to place, it constantly moves between a dark comedy, horror, fantasy and there are some bits that I would say are slapstick.

Released in 1992, Bruce Campbell stars in Sam Raimi and Robert Tapert's third film in the Evil Dead trilogy. In true Netflix fashion, this is the only film in the trilogy that they have available to watch, but I thoroughly recommend you seek out the first two as they are great films. You don't have to have seen them previously to watching the Army of Darkness as there is a short prologue that explains what happened in the second film and how Ash came to be in the year 1300 AD. I would suggest that you do watch them first however as they are a good introduction to the themes and characters presented.

So anyway... THE PLOT:

Hailed as the one foretold to rid Lord Arthur's lands of the Deadites, Ash Williams is told he must get to a graveyard (which is conveniently placed on the other side of a haunted forest) where the Necronomicon Ex-Mortis is held. Only this book will rid the land of the Deadites, only this book has the secret that will let Ash get back to the present, and an old man with a beard tells Ash “Only you, the promised one, can quest for it!”.

There is the obvious clause that if the Deadites get their hands on the book before Ash then an army of darkness (see where the name comes from?) will rise up and take over the world!

The plot is vastly different to the previous Evil Dead films in that they were about a group of American teenagers or early twenty-somethings who are trapped in a cabin in the woods fighting possessed people, so it is great to see the character of Ash in a totally new environment.

However, there are a lot of clichéd plot points, such as Ash being made to go through a haunted forest to get to his goal, evil taking over the world if the book falls into the wrong hands and Ash being prophesied as the only one who can save the world.

On the other hand, it remains true to its Evil Dead roots by having the book fall into the wrong hands due to a hilarious mistake by Ash, and the fact that he has no interest in playing the hero, it's just by good fortune that the way that will send him home will also save the world.

There is a strange bit which I feel is the one failing of the plot (aside from the whole fantasy horror, time travelling stuff). There is a scene where some skeletons are shown taking a couple topless woman hostage/prisoner, and one skeleton says “We've got plans for you...”. These woman are never seen again, they're never spoken of again and so it doesn't fit in with the film.

I feel Ash Williams is a fantastic character, and it's great to see him in this new environment. The fact that he doesn't care about anyone, is a bit of an eejit and a total bad-ass leads to some of my favourite film quotes. Bad guys are told to “Come get some!”, love interests are told to “Gimmie some sugar baby!” and friendly peasants are told to “Get the fnck outta my face!”

SPECIAL EFFECTS:

Rather than using CGI which was becoming more popular at the time, the film uses puppets, stop motion animation and something called Intro-vision. This is a fancy kind of incorporating pre-recorded performance with live action using projectors and things similar to cinema screens. I find this a lot more visually appealing to what a lot of modern day films contain. I personally don't like the whole Inception thing with roads rising up into the sky.

In terms of special effects, this film is very dated – considering it came out the same year as Jurassic Park. I do however find the style presented a lot more enjoyable to watch than someone jumping around in front of a green screen.

The chase scene through the haunted forest is very pleasant and well done. However, the same technique had been used a few times in the first two films, which left it feeling a bit overused, and maybe even abused.

The fight scenes are too long in my opinion, with the final battle lasting over 20 minutes which is excessive. When you consider that Bruce Campbell/Ash Williams is fighting people who aren't really there (as in they are projections or added in via stop motion), the fight scenes become well choreographed and almost impressive.

The film on Netflix has the original ending, which gives a totally different feel to the 'S-Mart' ending that was created for American release. 'S-Mart' is funny and shows Ash to be the womanising bad-ass he is often portrayed to be in the film. The original ending shows Ash to be the eejit he is also often seen portraying, and is considered to be more cruel and pessimistic.

Both endings are however true to his character, and I prefer the one on Netflix. I think it is more likely to happen to Ash than the 'S-Mart' ending, but I will provide a link to it all the same as I think it is funny and still worth a watch (although only after watching the original).

On a scale of Scott Pilgrim to Pans Labyrinth, I would give this film a nine. It's funny, got some bits that people might find scary, moves on quite a lot from the original Evil Dead story line which would of become a bit stale, but not too much as to appear unconnected, it's well made and... well if I only had one word to sum up this film, I couldn't choose any other word than: GROOVY!

Check back next Thursday as I will be reviewing An American Werewolf In London.

Feel free to leave a comment with your thoughts and opinions, and if you see a film you want me to review make sure to let me know!

Link to my Twitter Page.