What’s pretty nifty is how we’re gently introduced to the family and find out the link to the first film, and that this is reinforced all the way through. In a nice way though, not one of those crappy Dan Brown ‘look, remember this thing happened, wait I’ll show you again in case you missed it because you’re a bit slow’ ways. The fact that there are more characters works well too – and adding a pet into the mix (the family’s dog, Abby) makes it even more realistic.*

The super scary bits that also make you feel a bit uncomfortable are where the family’s baby is involved. It’s well done and very creepy.

So basically, I liked it. I’ve heard that people generally didn’t, but as a fan of horror, it ticked all the boxes for me. All of them apart from the one for ‘Realistic Reason for Constantly Filming with a Handheld Camera’, which is ok because there are a handful of other boxes that are more important, including ‘Really Scary’ and ‘Not Like the Saw Franchise’.

*That might not be the case for everyone, but I am completely besotted with our cat Deeley and project my feelings about her onto any and all animals I see. And sometime humans too.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

Now there’s a review and a half, eh? Sorry.

It’s a sort of fusion of comic book and video game geekery, with kickass choreography and equally great choons. I won’t pretend to know about comic books, because I don’t, so if I’ve missed a huge chunk out of my review as a result, meh. I thought the film was ace anyway.

Go see it. Then see it again, and then buy it on Blu Ray.

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

He fully deserves a chinese burn and a kick in the nuts for being involved in Splice. And maybe a Glasgow kiss, but to be fair that nose might do more damage to the kisser than the kissee.

Why is it a bad film? Because Sarah Polley, of Dawn of the Dead fame, plays possibly the most annoying character in any film to date. A character who eats tictacs and mixes splices her DNA with some animals’ DNA and makes a monster that starts off cute, then turns into a fox (i.e. a hot lady, albeit with wings, a tail, amphibian lungs and bizarre feet, not an actual fox although wouldn’t that be topical! She could go into middle-class families’ houses and attack their children – now that’s a monster for you!), gets rude with Big Nose, then turns into a dude and rapes Mrs Tictacs.

Crap? Worse. Particularly painful was that Steve’s phone ran out of battery just as he got to the ticket booth and so rather than Orange Wednesdaying it he had to pay for two full tickets. I’m so, so sorry : (

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

Steve thinks I fancy Sam Worthington but I don’t, not even in a leather skirt and riding a Pegasus. He’s all right, but his Australian accent has a mind of its own and it winds me up a bit – not because there’s anything wrong with an Australian accent, but if you can’t do a different one properly, don’t even bother, eh cobber?

So it’s good, yes. The little clockwork owl from the original film makes a brief cameo appearance, which is quite nice, and all the beasties and monsters are suitably scary. Some of the CGI is appalling but most of it’s very good. And Liam Neeson is very Zeus-like. It’s slightly off-topic but I just wanted to throw a theory I have at you: Liam Neeson has ‘mega facial hair’ written into his contracts otherwise he won’t accept a part, with the exception to this being ‘Taken’ because he got to say ‘I will find you, and I will kill you’ which he pwns* as far as cool movie quotes go.

Back to Clash of the Titans – is it better than the original? I don’t know. I already told you – I was asleep. Would I watch it again? Yes, but if it’s on between 2pm and 6pm on a Saturday or Sunday I can’t guarantee I’ll catch it all.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

*’Pwns’ is something I read on Xbox Live a lot. Apparently it means ‘owns’ but people can’t spell that properly (I didn’t realise it was that difficult) so they write ‘pwns’ instead.

Labelled as a film noir, as the back of the DVD says, it’s ‘poignantly Mike Reid’s last film’. Not sure why that’s poignant but all I know is that it’s poorly acted, scripted and shot throughout the whole thing, and there’s this awful, awful music that only fits the film because both are bobbins. The ‘Eric Cantona Gag Reel’ in the extras consists of Cantona showing why he should stick to football, except that he’s too old for that.

I hope Jack Said is better. Well, it can’t be any worse.

Rating: 1 out of 5 stars

1) The lead character is played by someone whose name is Tuppence. No sh*t.
2) Its cast is made up of pretty sixth-formers of both sexes so everyone’s catered for. Nommy.
3) It’s scary and gory and fun.
4) It’s produced by BBC Films, which as far as I’m concerned means it’s got a hefty stamp of quality on it.
5) It’s got a moral. A proper one, not a rubbish one about world peace. And it’s delivered in a refreshingly un-schmaltzy way.

Watch this film.

Oh and 6) the soundtrack is banging. That’s the right word, right? Banging?

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

Essentially it’s a cross between Mirrors and Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, with some arty cinematography and a frenchman chucked in.

I get what they were trying to do, I think. But they failed.

Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

Why did I like it? Because it made me jump at least three times. And Elizabeth Banks plays a fantastic evil stepmother. And there’s a nice twist at the end that makes you want to rewatch it all over again. It’s not the scariest film I’ve ever watched, but it’s a nice little horror that redeemed the genre for me after I’d watched that bloody awful Thr3e.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars