I was unimpressed with George A. Romero’s “Night of the Living Dead” and “Day of the Dead” yet I had a tiny bit of hope as most seem to think “Dawn of the Dead” is the best of his zombie films. I watched it and came away thinking that it might be the worst out of his original zombie trilogy. Much like the zombies in it, this is a lifeless film.

As the zombie epidemic continues, a band of survivors decide to seek refuge in an abandoned shopping centre. The survivors find ways to prevent more zombies from entering the site before clearing the area of them. However, the arrival of more people might just threaten the survivors’ chances of staying safe.

As almost always seems to be the case with zombie films, I couldn’t care less about the survivors. Films like this force us to spend a lot of time watching a small group of people yet they never find a way to get us to really care about any of them. The dialog throughout the film is very dull. The zombies look somewhat impressive although some of the gory effects look rather dated. It’s a shame that zombie films somehow manage to make the living dead more empathetic than the living.

“Dawn of the Dead” is often cited as not only a terrific horror picture but also a brilliant satire of consumerism but all I saw when I looked at the screen was a bland movie about some people hiding from mindless monsters. If you are into zombie movies then this is probably worth checking out but I just don’t get the appeal of these films; they always seem far too predictable. My only defence of the zombie movie formula is that it isn’t as overused as the slasher film formula.

I was no fan of George A. Romero’s “Dawn of the Dead” so I went into this remake from Zack Snyder (“Watchmen”) with mixed expectations. I have no doubt that I enjoyed this movie a lot more than the original and for a zombie movie, it’s pretty good. However, it’s still a clichéd zombie movie.

As a worldwide zombie plague plunges the world into chaos, a band of survivors decide to take refuge inside a large shopping centre. It seems relatively safe inside but the arrival of more survivors and concerns about the long-term plan convince the group to consider trying to escape to a remote island.

The survivors in “Dawn of the Dead” include a nurse (Sarah Polley “Go”), a police officer (Ving Rhames “Pulp Fiction”) and a television salesman (Jake Weber “Meet Joe Black”). My favourite is undeniably the cop that Rhames plays. Most of the characters are not particularly interesting but are not too boring by the standards of zombie flicks. The zombies themselves are rather generic. This was one of the first movies to have the undead run, which certainly makes them more threatening than ones that move at a snail’s pace. Tom Savini, who did the make-up effects for the original “Dawn of the Dead” and played the biker gang leader, has a cameo.

The action scenes are rather good and there are a few amusing moments but most of the movie is very predictable. I also really hate the ending because it one of those endings that you only ever see in horror movies and it’s so clichéd. If you are into zombie movies then I think you will enjoy this but I just do not understand why they are so popular. I also have no clue as to why people would prefer the original to this.

Sam Raimi (“Army Of Darkness”, “Spider-Man”) directs the fun superhero flick “Darkman”. This is a competent yet still somewhat flawed film. You can tell that this film was the bridge between Raimi’s “Evil Dead” pictures and “Spider-Man”.

Liam Neeson (“Batman Begins”, “Taken”) stars as a brilliant scientist by the name of Peyton Westlake, who is working on developing synthetic skin. After his girlfriend (Frances McDormand “Fargo”) discovers a memo revealing corruption, the men responsible want the evidence back and Peyton is left for dead by gangsters. After a surgical procedure to cut the connection between his receptors and his brain, Peyton has increased strength and he sets out to get revenge on the men that burned him alive.

Liam Neeson does a good job as Peyton. The guy is a smart scientist that becomes a disfigured as a monster from a horror movie. Using his synthetic skin, Peyton is able to create masks to help him fight the bad guys and to return to his girlfriend but there’s a catch, the synthetic skin only last for 99 minutes. Frances McDormand is rather irritating as the love interest. The villains in this film were really disappointing as they’re just standard gangsters, which is a real shame because superheroes really need supervillains to fight. As usual for a Sam Raimi picture, both Ted Raimi and Bruce Campbell appear but you really will have to pay a close attention if you want to see Campbell.

“Darkman” has some impressive visual scenes, the character of Peyton is very interesting with Neeson providing a fittingly tragic performance and some of the action scenes are really quite impressive. As the film nears the end, there was a clever sequence involving a helicopter as our hero dangles below, dodging traffic. “Darkman” does have its problems as it doesn’t provide any memorable enemies and Frances McDormand is very weak here. If you feel you’ve seen enough of the “Batman” movies then maybe “Darkman” will provide a nice alternative.

The original Japanese version of “Dark Water” is sadly much weaker than its American remake. I dislike the supernatural elements of the story but at least the American one could create some tension. “Dark Water” aims to scare but I felt rather bored by a film that really has to grab your attention in order to work.

During a custody battle, a mother by the name of Yoshimi (Hitomi Kuroki), moves into a sinister apartment with her young daughter, Ikuko. There is a terrible leak on the ceiling but there is something even more terrible hiding in plain sight because someone or something is tormenting Yoshimi and Ikuko.

I actually quite liked the performance from Jennifer Connelly in the American remake as I really did empathise with her character; sadly, her Japanese counterpart is not as good. Maybe it is the fact that the film as a whole never feels as intense but I just did not connect to the Yoshimi character in the way that I should have. The daughter character is okay. The other characters are quite dull in this version but I do not think I would have minded that much had I been able to get more invested in the Yoshimi character.

I do not particularly recommend either version of “Dark Water” but if you had to see one of them, definitely see the American one. If you have already seen the American one and are a fan then I would not bother with this. The Japanese “Dark Water” is not a terrible movie but it becomes very tedious as it fails to generate any significant fear. If you want a better Japanese horror film than this, I would suggest “Ju-On: The Grudge”, which also has an American remake. If you just want a better supernatural horror movie then try “The Shining”.

2005’s “Dark Water” is an American remake of a 2002 Japanese film of the same name. It comes after other Japanese horror movies have received American remakes such as “The Ring” and “The Grudge”. “Dark Water” essentially feels like a mixture of “Barton Fink”, “The Others” and “The Grudge”.

Dahlia (Jennifer Connelly “Hulk”, “Rocketeer”) and her daughter Ceci (Ariel Gade “Envy”) move into a sinister apartment building just outside New York City. Ceci’s parents are in the middle of a bitter custody battle and things only get worse when the apartment bedroom’s ceiling keeps leaking. As Dahlia battles her ex-husband (Dougray Scott “Mission: Impossible 2”) and tries to stop the leak, Ceci gets an ‘imaginary’ friend.

Jennifer Connelly gives a really great performance and you feel very sympathetic towards her. She is becomes truly tormented during this movie and she conveys that in a smart and effective manner. The little girl is okay but nothing special. The interactions between the two are done rather well. I liked John C. Reilly (“Wreck-It Ralph”) as the apologetic Mr. Murray, who sells Dahlia the apartment. Pete Postlethwaite (“The Usual Suspects”), Tim Roth (“Reservoir Dogs”) and Dougray Scott are all somewhat enjoyable as well.

This movie is absolutely excellent at times and manages to craft some very genuinely scary moments but the movie ruins it with its use of supernatural entities. I enjoyed “The Grudge” and that movie made use of supernatural entities but I felt that “Dark Water” had the potential to be so shocking and so disturbing that it really felt as if the supernatural element strips the movie of any genuine terror. “The Grudge” offered a series of intense sequences but “Dark Water” could have offered a brilliant journey into the breakdown of the Dahlia character. This movie shows you all the goods but snatches them away before you get your fair share and that’s a real shame.

The characters of “Star Trek” were out to explore new worlds and new civilisations whereas the fellas in “Dark Star” just want to bomb unstable planets. This is an early film by director John Carpenter (“Halloween”, “They Live”) and a very interesting addition to his filmography.

In “Dark Star”, four astronauts are aboard a ship and all they have to do is drop bombs on unstable planets. These guys are seriously bored and don’t care when things start to malfunction and a strange creature that they have on the ship is loose. At times the film seems to drag a little and become somewhat self-defeating but the majority of it works and I think the ending is great.

I like ‘Computer’ (voiced by Cookie Knapp). The guys on the ship aren’t exciting but that’s the whole point of “Dark Star”, these guys are meant to be the dullest people around. My favourite thing about “Dark Star” is definitely the creature, which is basically a beach ball with some monster gloves attached and will make you recall virtually every 1950s monster movie. There’s also a computerised bomb, which needs negotiating with when he refuses to stop his detonation countdown, now that’s creative.

“Dark Star” has very cheap effects but they work to the film’s advantage; had we been looking at high-tech stuff the joke would’ve not worked. The movie operates on a level that may go over some viewers’ heads and others may just find its overall dull and bargain-basement feel too high of price to pay for the joke but to me it just about worked. Carpenter is an intriguing director that seems to work best when his budget is low; maybe the guy gets a little too carried away with his fancy toys when he gets a big pile of money thrown at his picture.

I have seen films with concepts or plot elements like “Dark City” before; they were called “Metropolis” and “Total Recall” and I have seen films with a very distinctive visual style like “Dark City; those were called “Batman” (Tim Burton’s version) and “Dick Tracy” and while lots of things are clearly taken from those films “Dark City” is definitely unique.

In “Dark City”, the world is one massive urban area without a sun and every night it changes form so that aliens known as ‘strangers’ can swap our minds round in an attempt to find the human soul to use as a cure to keep them alive. John Murdock (Rufus Sewell) has discovered this and now is on the run for the telekinetic creature as he tries to prove to everyone else how the world isn’t real.

My only real complaint with “Dark City” is that the protagonist isn’t all that interesting and he’s played dully by Rufus Sewell, he lacks any kind of charisma and/or personality and that really lowers the film in my opinion as it prevents it from being a masterpiece. William Hurt (“The Incredible Hurt”), Kiefer Sutherland (“Young Guns”) and Jennifer Connelly (“Labyrinth”, “Rocketeer”) are all quite good as the supporting human characters and the strangers look magnificently terrifying.

The reason why “Dark City” is so scary is that this could be happening with our world and there is no real way to disprove it. The set design and atmosphere created in this dystopian future is just excellent. The chase scenes and action scenes are generally well done and the special effects are fantastic. “Dark City” provides just about everything except for a decent protagonist and we spend so much time with this character that it really does present a problem. In a movie this deep why can’t we have a hero that is deep too?

The original “The Omen” wasn’t great but it was so full of itself that it sorted-of managed to wing it. It was little more than a brutal slasher film but it created a great atmosphere; “Damien: Omen II” is just a mess of ideas that contradict the first film and itself.

In “Damien”, we discover that antichrist Damien (Jonathan Scott-Taylor) is now off to military school. Killings occur like in the first film but in the first one you always felt as if Damien was highly responsible and very knowledgeable of them but in this one some of them seem like genuine accidents; I know it’s weird but trust me, if you see it, it doesn’t work. Also, there’s a ton of corporate stuff going on that feels unfinished.

Damien didn’t really speak in the first film but rather did a creepy stare. In this one he talks, he goes from not knowing he’s the antichrist to being a total expert on what’s happening and is boring. I thought in the first film that he was aware of what he was but here I’m left confused as for example in the first film he’s physically repulsed by being near a church but in this one he reads excerpts from the Bible with no quarrel. The other characters are dull and many are just there to die. One character who feels seriously underdeveloped is Sergeant Neff played by Lance Henriksen (“Aliens”).

“Damien” is not a complex film; it’s just simply a wrong film. If you want to see a movie where a woman’s eyes get pecked out by a crow then this movie will give you that but if you want the vaguest sense of coherency then look elsewhere. Most movies, even most bad movies offer a journey from A to B, an evolution of the concepts if you will, “Damien” takes one step forward, one back and then takes you to where ever it feels like.

I was disappointed to find that “Daddy Day Care” is sadly yet another run of the mill mediocre family comedy. Unfortunately, although the film has potential it throws it away to bring us nothing new and nothing particularly funny so without further ado he is “Daddy Day Care”.

Friends Charlie (Eddie Murphy “Shrek 2”) and Phil (Jeff Garlin “Toy Story 3”) get fired and become stay-at-home fathers. It isn’t long before they’re inspired to open a day-care centre. A few unruly kids later the place becomes a mess with all the usual unfunny rubbish like one of them isn’t potty trained, one doesn’t understand English and one doesn’t want to take his costume off. Now the duo must try and keep the kids under control before it’s too late.

Eddie Murphy puts effort in as Charlie but it’s the material he’s working with that’s his downfall. Jeff Garlin isn’t particularly funny either. Angelica Huston (“The Addams Family”) isn’t particularly good as the wicked headmistress, who wants to ruin Charlie and Phil’s day-care centre. The kids are unmemorable. Sure, they each have their own unique qualities but these qualities are so dull that you’ll easily forget them.

“Daddy Day Care” isn’t one of the worst films I’ve seen but it certainly isn’t a good one. It suffers from being too predictable and just generally stupid. The film fails to capture any interesting points or even any amusing points. Why bother with something like “Daddy Day Care”? We’ve all seen this type of dumb humour at least a million times already… haven’t we? To me “Daddy Day Care” adds absolutely nothing new to the family comedy genre and simply rehashes old and not particularly great jokes thus making a generally unnecessary picture that lacks ideas. The film is too dumb for anyone over the age of 5.

“D.A.R.Y.L.” is a relatively enjoyable family film, which seems to have roughly the right amount of comedy and seriousness to make it work. Despite serious flaws I felt pleased with it.

Daryl (Barret Oliver “The NeverEnding Story”, “Cocoon”) is a boy with no memory of his family but he is extremely clever. He lives with some foster parents and becomes best friends with another boy named Turtle (Danny Corkill “Dune”). After a while we discover Daryl is a robot and his name is an acronym (D.A.R.Y.L. Data Analysing Robot Youth Lifeform). The government take him and we learn that he’s capable of emotion and just liking things based on flavour (such as ice-cream). Daryl is then scheduled to be destroyed. Can he be saved and reunited with his foster parents?

Barret Oliver does a reasonable job as Daryl. Seen as Daryl is a robot I guess the wooden performance works. I thought the foster parents were a little bland to be honest, which is a shame as if they’d been played well I think that would have helped the film. The character Turtle isn’t very good and neither is the performance. I really wasn’t impressed by the performances overall, which is a true shame.

“D.A.R.Y.L.” made me laugh and “D.A.R.Y.L.” kept me entertained. There is a very silly scene where Daryl and his foster father are playing baseball but they’re batting towards the house, they seem surprised when Daryl hits the ball through the window. The performances weren’t good and the film isn’t very creative but somehow it is nicely done and I just can’t help but recommend it. It’s a movie that I can hardly back up because I’m not quite sure what I liked about it but it has a charm and maybe it’s just one of those movies where you really have to see to understand it.