Lars Bear I felt I had to write in defense of this film, which hasn't been very favourably received in general.It really does have a few things in its favour.1. It's set in a place I know, where people tork lark wot ah do. I know that shouldn't be a deciding factor, but with almost everything that comes to our screens originating from the USA, a home-grown effort makes a pleasant change. The environment, acting, and writing really do evoke the realistic essence of Sarf, sorry South, London.2. It's an interesting idea. The idea of monsters running amok in exotic places like spaceships and Central American jungles has been done to death. All the action of this movie takes place in the most prosaic of locations -- a hired storage lockup.3. It's unpretentious. It doesn't take itself seriously, or pretend to be a work of profound art. It's amusing in places, although I do wonder whether you have to be a Londoner to understand its self-satirizing nature.4. There isn't a stupid, cheesy happy ending (sorry, is that a spoiler?) The movie doesn't finish with a long drawn-out face-sucking scene, which seems to be almost obligatory these days.On the bad side, the monster just isn't scary. But, as others have remarked, few movie monsters are scary when they are dragged out into the light of day.All in all, it's worth watching, particularly if you have fond (or otherwise) memories of the location.

andrea-vitello I saw the trailer by chance and decided to see this movie with some good expectations. The acting seemed to be not bad and for the first 30 minutes I found myself thinking that this movie was a lucky discovery. Unfortunately the promises made by a well shoot trailer and by some good scene at the beginning are not followed by an adequate development. In my opinion this movie falls deeply around minute 40, from that moment on it reveals some major script problem, it is not clear whether the movie wants to make you laugh or thrill, and unfortunately it fails both. Another black mark consists of the music, which is almost always inappropriate and contributes in letting the premises of the trailer down.

suite92 A few people are at a storage facility when odd things start happening. One man looks out at his car to see that a large turbine engine has fallen on it. One theory is that a jet broke up in the sky and the pieces crashed.Mark and Charley drive to the storage, and just barely get in. Charley is sad about the break up with Shelley. Shelley and her friend Nikki are at the storage. The maintenance engineer manages to screwup the circuitry of the gates on the storage just before the monster kills him. So no one can get out right away, or any time soon.Shelley does not want to talk to Charley, and is having an affair with Mark. Charley and Nikki are both surprised, and not in a good way. Soon enough they know they are trapped, and that something murderous is in there with them. Also present are Chris, from earlier in the day, and David, who more or less lives in the storage facility.When the monster breaks through the door that they counted on to protect them, Chris runs and gets killed by the monster. David shows them his setup for getting multiple newscasts. The military is all over the place in London.The five (Charley, Mark, Shelley, Nikki, David) who remain send Charley and Mark to traverse the ventilation tubes to steal weapons ('acquire' I suppose) from storage lockers not rented by them. That goes well until the monster blocks Charley; he gets separated from Mark.Will any of them get out alive? Will the authorities come to the rescue, what with tanks patrolling the streets of London?-------Scores-------Cinematography: 6/10 The monster was a classic main-in-the-rubber suit, but not all that well done. Camera work was fine.Sound: 7/10 If one gets the volume for conversation to be correct, the bump in the night sounds are enormously too loud.Acting: 4/10 Antonia Campbell-Hughes, Laura Haddock, and Noel Clarke were just terrible. Colin O'Donaghue was barely OK, while Ned Dennehy was the best.Screenplay: 5/10 Short on plot as well as short on acting to implement the plot. The stupid man-in-rubber-suit monster just turned me off to the story almost as much as the acting. When the monster does not get killed by the fireworks, I'm not surprised, but why was the nearby Shelley OK?

David Starr Okay, so we have a Brit flick in the 'alien sci-fi' sub genre, a huge departure from the usual independent fare we get to see from the little Island, and economically just about scraping the barrel of low budget independent at the £1.5m budget that is widely attributed to the film, primarily by (he described it as 1/10 of the budget of Attack the Block @ $13m) writer/producer Noel Clarke.In no uncertain terms it draws heavily upon the genre's benchmarks of creativity (Alien, Mimic, Independence Day - all landmark films for their own reasons) and drops them into the most claustrophobic, visually uninteresting, and echoing environment they could come up with. Whilst a storage facility is not the most entertaining of settings in which to base any movie, let alone an alien led sci-fi movie, the filmmakers didn't allow themselves to be hamstrung by such a location, instead drawing on set-pieces from their favourite movies - crawling through the vent shafts (Alien), the pursuits down corridors (er...Alien), and the final confrontation between the lead character and the creature (yep you guessed it.....Alien). What is clear is that since 1979, no matter how 'inventive' the filmmaker, or imaginative the screenwriter, creatives the world over have struggled to throw off the shackles of a film that will go down in history as the greatest sci-fi horror of all time. No ! Not Storage 24 funnily enough.And to that end all Storage 24 can do is offer up a little bit of familiarity in a script that has too little in its legs to carry it over the feature threshold, dialogue that gets strained and repetitive very early on, and a tired, almost contrived presentation of character from the majority of actors that you can't help but wonder if it was all actually worth the effort. I like Noel Clarke as an actor - he's not up there in Johnny Depp territory but he's affable and presentable and has a bit of an idea. Sadly same can't be said for his colleagues in this, particularly Ms Campbell-Hughes whose 'sucked p**s off a nettle' expression all the way through got very tiresome. Haddock provided some eye candy relief but frankly she'd be much better if given a bigger, or more daring role that stretched her emotional range. But it was the appearance, albeit brief, of the reliable Ned Dennehy, that brought some comic relief and acting gravitas to what would otherwise have been a very bland affair in the acting stakes. The main objection for me in this film was that it procrastinated over whether to go the whole hog, balls to the wall horror, or to stay firmly in the "scare 'em, chase 'em, make 'em chuckle" parody of what horror is supposed to all be about. It decided on neither. The moments of levity were all generated by character and not situation which is what you expect in parody. and apart from the odd gross out moment of gore there was just not enough scare, violence, blood, or suspense to justify this as a horror film. There are pre-requisites to hit mainstream with any horror (big scares, blood, gore, nudity, sex, and containment). For decades these general observations coupled with great scripts and masterful acting, have decided the difference between the good and the bad. But you can't have a few. It's either all or nothing. Make the deaths more gruesome, make the chase truly reflective of the urgency without breaking off into repetitive dialogue that draws away from the sweaty palmed sense of encroaching doom, if you're going to have secret lovers in a lock up (regardless of how likely it would be) lets have some flesh on show, get fumbling with the stickies until you really cant go any further without bumping uglies. And as for Laura Haddock in the toilet - a great opportunity to tease the audience with a little more 'knicker' shots or partial flesh exposure. But above all - time the damned reveal of the creature. Horror exists on the slow reveal of the antagonist in stages, bit by creepy bit - not all in one go. If you are to take ANYTHING from the classic 'Alien' take that. Horror movies that last are those which understand the importance of their component parts.So in summary, Storage 24 is an entertaining little flick that aspired to be greater than the level of its ultimate achievement. Competently shot, with moments of real suspense but overall a bit of a damp squib. The creature design is nice, not in the Woodruff Jr ballpark but pretty damned good nonetheless. It's just a shame it wasn't utilised properly according to the genre's requirements.