The original “Psycho” is a true horror thriller classic from Alfred Hitchcock. Over two decades had gone by and Hitchcock passed away when “Psycho II” was finally made. Many people view this as an unnecessary film and I certainly feared that it would be a lousy cash-in. However, “Psycho II” is surprisingly very engaging and its creativity helps make it one of the best horror sequels ever made.

More than twenty years after the events of the original film, Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins “Friendly Persuasion”) is supposedly cured and released from psychiatric care. He attempts to live a normal life but becomes haunted by spectres from his old life and not everybody thinks a man with such a depraved past should be let loose.

It’s great to see Anthony Perkins return to the role that made him so well-known. I really like how this movie evolves Norman’s character and we actually find ourselves rooting for him to lead a normal life. Perkins does an excellent job and elevates the already good material. Vera Miles (“The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”) returns too as Lila Loomis and I like how her character has changed significantly as well. Meg Tilly (“The Big Chill”) is really good as a young woman by the name of Mary, who befriends Norman.

“Psycho” is arguably the granddaddy of the slasher genre as it came before “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and “Halloween” and I was significantly worried that this was going to just be a standard slasher flick. Thankfully, the script is very intelligent and the acting is great. I think it is good that the film is light on gore but is shrouded in twists and turns. It’s undoubtedly not as iconic as the original but I think it is a sequel that should not be ignored. It is a real shame that people do not talk about “Psycho II” more often.

The “Leprechaun” franchise might just be the single worst film franchise out there. This is third film in the series and like the first two, there is nothing even remotely positive I have to say about it. This was the first one to go direct-to-video, showing that even the makers were quickly losing faith in this series.

The Leprechaun (Warwick Davis “Willow”, “Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi”) hits the bright lights of Las Vegas. He’s out to get his gold and he doesn’t care who he has to torture and kill to get it. Can this evil Irish creature be defeated?

The Leprechaun character is just as annoying and boring as before. Of all the slasher villains, Leprechaun is probably the worst. I think he’s just awful and he’s even worse than Candyman and the Djinn from “Wishmaster”. The other characters in this movie are just abysmal and the acting is some of the worst you’ll see in any movie. Horror fans may recognise Caroline Williams from “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2” in here. She gets a particularly horrendous death sequence involving some really weird special effects. The whole sequence with her demise is not funny, scary or interesting, it’s just unpleasant and weird.

The “Leprechaun” sequels do not advance plot points or build upon what came before them, they simply toss the Leprechaun into a slightly different setting and have him repeat his dreadfully dull antics. Horror franchises (and especially slasher ones) are known for being repetitive but because the “Leprechaun” films are so unwatchable, it just makes it all the more frustrating. I strongly recommend avoiding this movie and all the other “Leprechaun” films if you value your precious time on this planet. If you are masochist then sit back, watch all of them and see how many brain cells you have left at the end.

Jean-Claude Van Damme (“Universal Soldier”, “Hard Target”) stars in “Jean-Claude Van Johnson”, a tv show that demonstrates what it may look like if the martial arts star was really a secret agent. Van Damme is no strange to mocking himself after he mercilessly did so in the 2008 movie “JCVD”. However, I found this far more entertaining and it’s among his best work in years.

Secret agent Jean-Claude Van Johnson (Van Damme) comes out of retirement and chooses to be assigned to an operation in Bulgaria. However, he hides his activity by being Jean-Claude Van Damme starring in an action-packed version of “Huckleberry Finn”. Along the way, he’ll uncover a plot that threatens the world.

Van Damme is obviously a talented fighter but he’s not a great actor. Van Damme knows this and mocks himself and his career. I felt he was a little too raw and bitter in “JCVD” while this show knows to keep things light-hearted enough to still be enjoyable. Here, Van Damme drops numerous references to his movies as he’s shown to be a total narcissist. The irony would have of course been lost had this show been made with Steven Seagal (“Under Siege”). The other characters are okay but I didn’t think any of the villains were especially memorable. That’s a real shame but the focus is clearly on Van Damme.

“Jean-Claude Van Johnson” comes after shows such as “Archer” and movies such as “Austin Powers”. This means a spy spoof is nothing new but what this does well is provide us with a reasonably amusing show that throws in just a ton of references to Van Damme’s film library. They reference “Timecop”, “Street Fighter”, “Cyborg”, “Bloodsport” and many others. If you are not familiar with Van Damme’s films, you are not going to get this. If you do like Van Damme and have seen many of his movies then check this out.

“Zack Snyder's Justice League” is a film where the production history is far more interesting than the movie itself. Zack Snyder (“300”, “Watchmen”) left “Justice League” after a family tragedy and Joss Whedon (“Serenity”) was brought in and significantly changed the film. After fans would not stop demanding it, Snyder was given the money to finish what he started.

The evil Steppenwolf (voiced by Ciarán Hinds “Silence”) is on Earth to conquer it for Darkseid (voiced by Ray Porter “Almost Famous”). Batman (Ben Affleck “Gone Girl”), Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot “Fast Five”), Flash (Ezra Miller “Trainwreck”), Aquaman (Jason Momoa “Bullet To The Head”) and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) must revive Superman (Henry Cavill “Man Of Steel”) to save the world.

This new version is over 4 hours but does little to add more depths to the main characters. Superman now wears a black costume when he returns. Some of the new scenes with the Flash and Cyborg are just boring. Lots of new characters are added. Although I wanted to see Darkseid, I was very disappointed as he looks like something out of a videogame from the early 2000s. The Jared Leto (“Suicide Squad”) Joker is also added at the end. Still, there’s no Green Lantern fighting alongside the other heroes.

Snyder’s version lacks the bright colours and the quick pace of the theatrical version. Snyder has also made the bizarre decision to release this major blockbuster in 4:3 ratio, making it just an unpleasant viewing experience because we feel robbed of the full scope of many of the shots. Snyder’s version is much more like “Watchmen” or his other DC films such as “Man Of Steel” than the theatrical version. Snyder’s films tend to lack joy and I have a new level of appreciation for what Whedon did. The theatrical cut is not great by any means but I did enjoy it.

The first “Crank” movie was a surprisingly innovative action movie starring the great Jason Statham (“The Transporter”, “The Expendables”). “Crank 2: High Voltage” offers more of the same but I think it’s even more violent and crazy. At times, it really pushes the boundaries of taste but it’s still entertaining.

Chev Chelios (Statham) is back! Chinese mobsters literally steal his heart as they carry out an operation to replace his heart with an artificial one. This now requires him to receive electric shocks to stay alive. It’s more fighting, more sex and more zaniness as Chelios tries to locate his real heart and punish the bad guys responsible.

Statham just has so much energy in these movies and it’s so very impressive. One particularly shocking sequence sees him use cables for jumpstarting cars to shock himself while another has him insert a shotgun into a gangster’s backside. Some of the special effects on Statham near the end are not very good at all. Amy Smart (“Rat Race”) is back as Chev’s lover and again is not given a great deal to do. There are some surprising cameos in this movie as we see Linkin Park’s Chester Bennington, Spice Girls’ Geri Halliwell, Lloyd Kaufman (“Terror Firmer”), David Carradine (“Kill Bill: Vol. 2”) and adult film star Ron Jeremy.

“Crank 2: High Voltage” is definitely not a movie for the family. We have a graphic scene depicting heart surgery, a gang member slicing off parts of his own body, topless women, a ridiculous sex sequence and man getting his privates electrocuted. This movie is undeniably fun as it is just a rollercoaster ride. It’s not quite as inventive as the first film but I think they are both equally entertaining. If you are a fan of Statham and you’ve seen the first “Crank” then make sure you see this sequel.

“Psycho Goreman” (also known as “PG: Psycho Goreman”) is a crazy but fun movie that feels like “Toxic Avenger”, “Wishmaster” and “Power Rangers” all rolled into one. It’s a low-budget movie that knows exactly who its audience is and will definitely entertain them.

An evil alien entity (Matthew Ninaber) arrives on Earth to cause chaos. However, the mystical gem that gives him his power falls into the hands of rowdy and narcissistic 10-year-old Mimi (Nita-Josee Hanna). She names him ‘Psycho Goreman’ and she’s going to have some fun controlling a powerful alien. However, other aliens soon arrive on Earth and they want to destroy Mimi’s new playmate.

Nita-Josee Hanna is great as Mimi. It shows how good the writing is when a little girl manages to often steal the spotlight from an evil alien that looks like a cross between Wishmaster and Ivan Ooze from “Power Rangers”. Psycho Goreman is a lot of fun and it’s so hilarious watching him getting bossed around by Mimi. The special effects for Psycho Goreman look terrific. The other aliens in the movie also look great. There is a scene where several sit at a conference table and they all look so different; it reminded me a little of the cantina sequence in “Star Wars”.

“Psycho Goreman” knows it’s not a Marvel superhero movie with a colossal budget but it looks great in a stylish and cheesy way. Despite a lot of it feeling like a kids’ movie, it’s definitely not aimed at kids as we see people get violently killed and faces melted off with blood and guts everywhere. There is one brief scene in this movie I disliked and that’s when Mimi breaks a crucifix. It adds nothing to the movie and just seems to be anti-Christian for the sake of it. Aside from that, I had a lot of fun with this movie.

The original “Psycho” is a classic from the great Alfred Hitchcock. In 1998, a shot-for-shot remake was made, resulting in one of the most pointless films in existence. This is essentially a novelty movie, you get to see a black and white film turned into colour with different actors. The movie has been resisted by critics and moviegoers alike and rightly so.

In this version of “Psycho” everything is exactly the same as we see Marion Crane (Anne Heche “Donnie Brasco”, “Volcano”) on the run from the law with some stolen money when she decides to stay overnight at the Bates Motel. There she meets the troubled Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn “The Internship”, “Swingers”) and the rest is (a copy of) history.

The biggest issue I have with this film is the casting and one casting decision in particular. Anthony Perkins was perfect in the original “Psycho” as Norman Bates so I wasn’t expecting anybody to come close to matching him but seriously, who hired Vince Vaughn? This has to be one of the worst casting decisions of all-time. Vaughn is almost laughably bad in the role. The other performances are less offensively bad and William H. Macy (“Fargo”) is actually fairly enjoyable as the private detective character.

This film shows us that a great movie is not just about things such as camera angles, there is a magic that transcends the technical aspects. The film is not merely unimpressive on its own, it feels like a complete waste of time because it offers nothing new; it is just a weaker version of the original. I think the fact that it is in colour makes it less sinister and less powerful than the original and again, I must point out that any credibility was eradicated by Vaughn’s performance. 1998’s “Psycho” may serve a purpose for film students but nobody else.

Over 30 years ago, Ridley Scott (“Gladiator”) made a fantastic sci-fi flick called “Alien” and now he returns to the director’s chair and brings us this prequel. Ever since its debut in 1979, the “Alien” franchise has never really gone away and maybe that’s not actually a good thing but like so many other franchises, we somehow seem to need them to be constantly there in case we want to check out what’s happening next.

A team of scientists/explorers go in search of our beginning. However, what they find is not what they hoped to find. The characters go searching for answers but don’t necessarily find them in some instances and some they just don’t find the answers they want.

I wasn’t especially impressed with the cast in this film but I wasn’t disappointed either. Noomi Rapace plays Elizabeth Shaw and does an okay job. She’s the heroine of the picture, a lot like Sigourney Weaver’s Ellen Ripley in the other “Alien” films. Michael Fassbender (“X-Men: First Class”, “Shame”) does a good job as the robot David. Charlize Theron (“The Devil’s Advocate”) is average as Vickers. Idris Elba (“The Losers”, “Thor”) is okay as Janek. The rest of the cast seem reasonably good but nothing special. “Prometheus” has a massive, nasty alien creature in it, which goes after the humans but it’s not the one you associate with the franchise. I thought the alien in this was quite good but it isn’t as memorable as the Xenomorphs from the other films in the series.

“Prometheus” is very close to the original in many ways and I like that it’s taken all this time for Ridley Scott to get back to the series as it shows it’s not merely for financial gain. Although it’s not as good as the first few pictures, it’s a good movie. It’s not as suspenseful as I hoped for but it’s not the horror or the action I enjoyed about this picture; I enjoyed the whole concept of finding our beginning. A sequel is implied and hopefully answers will come.

“Problem Child” is an extremely unfunny movie that only encourages extremely dangerous behaviour and antisocial characteristics. It would be less problematic if it was aimed more at older kids.

In “Problem Child”, Ben (John Ritter “Bad Santa”) and the wacky Flo (Amy Yasbeck “The Mask”) are a couple that can’t have children of their own. They decide to adopt Junior (Michael Oliver) from Mr. Peabody (Gilbert Gottfried “Aladdin”). After a series of horrid events, it is clear Junior is a problem child. Junior is just a demented as Macaulay Culkin’s (the kid from “Home Alone”) character in “The Good Son” as he brutally beats fellow players in a baseball match and tries to kill his dad and other campers by making a bear attack them. After driving his parents crazy, a serial killer, who Junior admires (horrid I know), appears and kidnaps him and his new mother. I agree with Ben when he thinks it is great they’re gone and starts celebrating like there’s no tomorrow.

Both Ben and Flo are played appallingly by John Ritter and Amy Yasbeck, who do nothing to make the characters enjoyable. Michael Oliver is unfunny as the awful Junior. Nothing about his acting or the character himself is amusing. The serial killer is unfunny and feels incredibly out of place in what is supposed to be a family film.

“Problem Child” is incredibly stupid and unfunny beyond comprehension. None of the characters are amusing and nothing about the film is entertaining. “Problem Child” is a sick movie to me. Nothing about it feels suitable for the family audience it wants to reach. “Problem Child” may seem like a cute “Dennis the Menace” rip-off at first but it quickly becomes a movie that feels like a demented thriller that has been presented in poor taste as a family comedy. I feel no young child should watch this because of the dangers prompted by this most disappointing film.

Roger Corman (“Attack of the Crab Monsters”, “The Terror”) directs “Frankenstein Unbound” (also known as “Roger Corman’s Frankenstein Unbound”), a surprisingly creative and interesting spin on the classic “Frankenstein” story. The film combines a good cast, some impressive visuals and fun writing.

John Hurt (“The Elephant Man”, “Alien”) stars as Joe Buchanan, a scientist working on a secret weapon for the American government. However, his experiments cause ‘time slides’ as he’s transported from 2031 to 1817’s Switzerland. There he meets Dr. Frankenstein (Raul Julia “The Addams Family”) and his horrifying creation. Can Buchanan repair the damage he has done (or at least will do) to the world?

John Hurt is good as Buchanan. However, I had to laugh because for an intelligent man, he’s very casual about all the time travel stuff. He shows off a digital watch and even a talking car to the folks in the 1800s. Raul Julia is very fun to watch as Frankenstein. Interestingly, we also see Bridget Fonda (“Lake Placid”) as Mary Shelley, the real-life author of “Frankenstein”. She’s very good in the role. Other characters include Lord Byron (Jason Patric “Speed 2: Cruise Control”). Nick Brimble (“A Knight’s Tale”) plays Frankenstein’s Monster. He looks great; the make-up and costume departments should be very proud.

I like the special effects, I like the time travel concept, I particularly enjoyed the performance from Raul Julia and I just love all the ways this movie offered a unique version of the classic story. It’s not the best “Frankenstein” film but it’s certainly a memorable one. This was actually the last film to be directed by Corman, who is known more for producing than directing. Corman has gained a reputation for making schlock but this movie feels more sophisticated than many of his other movies with strong performances and better special effects. Check out “Frankenstein Unbound”.