Good & bad remakes mixed

I´m a big fan of the 1951 classic sci-fi, this is another unecessary remake and where the bloody hell is the famous quote of Klaatu? Klaatu barada nikto!, even without that frankly, the film can impress me. Anyway, I went to the cinema expecting nothing from this movie. I thought this must be just another SpecialFX showcase. I surprised me so much.

The film began with a man discovering that glassy sphere in the trailer on the top of an icy mountain. In the next shot it left the man and just started telling us what was happening in the present day. Scientists and military people are summoned for an urgent meeting after a strange object had been detected to crash on the earth. Sounds like a very old-school sci-fi? The movie, however, contain little action and a lot of talking about this and that, all of which concerned much with human's basic instincts and behaviors.

The opening sequence wasn't really thrilling at all. The acting wasn't perfect. The scripts sound ridiculous at times. If it's this flawed, then why did I gave it 7/10? Keanu Reeves gave an interview indicated that Klaatu will become more 'human', he was absolutely right. Just this 'human' is a kind of human portrayed in the film.

Yes, i praised the quality of special effect. From the beginning those scenes were real eye-candy. In my opinion, casting Reeves as Klaatu was a right decision. He has successfully portrayed something 'alien' to us. Did you thought that a boy and many character in the film should be killed? If you did, then the movie have completely fulfilled its purpose: to teach you what human being really is. I didn't understand this until the movie ended and let me having some time with myself. According to the film, Klaatu learned that human race loves violence. And, without any bias, yes, we are. Seeing men fighting for a ticket in the train station, a higher-rank left his crew died just to be safe, and a representative of US government (one good performance from Kathy Bates) acting like she rules the world was, for me, reminded me how cruel people treated each others.

One Missed Call
Even less scary than Jessica Alba?s Asian /The Eye/, this J-horror remake is guaranteed a, ahem, bad reception. Foolishly, it doesn?t distract you with the original?s great tagline: ?Death cannot be put on hold.? Even more foolishly, it doesn?t distract you with Jessica Alba either.

To make it short and not to spoil everything this film is about Kip (Giovanni Ribsi), a car thief, who messes up a big delivery of stolen cars (50 in total). He is then threatened to be killed by the man who gave him the ?order'. The objective now is to get 50 cars stolen in 3 days, with the help of Randall (Nicolas Cage), a ?retired' booster and also Kip's brother and a couple of old friends of Randall's. As you can see this is the same old, big bro' needs to get lil' bro' out of trouble routine and of course Randall is the best thief there ever was. Of course as in all other movies there are also a few setbacks and surprises you never would have thought of, but at times it is predictable too, so there is nothing fancy about the story.

You are by now probably wondering why this is about 51 times the HOT STUFF, since there are only 50 beautiful, fast, cool and expensive cars to be stolen. Well the other hot item in this film is Sway (Angelina Jolie (who will be a big STAR (trust me))). She is not only very convincing in the role as a car theft, but she is pretty hot too. OK not hot as in pretty, but hot as in damn cool and sexy. She was very believable in this role, probably because she is some kind of a wild woman in real life too (don't believe me, read her biography) and for the sexy part well just see for yourself man. I only know, that she plays the kind of girl I like in this film, because she is not too mainstream, a bit alternative look and she even comes with a tattoo.

OK the only downsides I felt while watching this movie was, that there is not very much action, there is one totally unrealistic scene, the story is only OK and that there are not much jokes. Hey but after seeing the whole film I must say: WHO CARES. Why must I say that, well because it was still entertaining; had a couple of cool car chases; good music; some Bruckheimer scenes (where the combination of music and the lines of actors make your eyes go wet); good actors who all did their jobs; pretty cars; one cool, wild, sexy lady (yes, I mean Mrs. Jolie) and last but not least very nice and cool tools to boost the cars with. So some downsides here but still a pretty good and entertaining movie. All in all the best way to describe this film is that it is an overall OK movie with a cool ? feelgood ending.

As for Nicolas Cage, well? He is actually one of my most favourite actors in the action genre nowadays after such good films as The Rock, Con Air, Face / Off, Snake Eyes and finally this one. Plus what actor has had so many good action / thriller's in the last years and such successful ones ? Well no one!!! Maybe Jackie Chan, but he is one of my favourites too. One thing that is true though about Mr. Cages Bruckheimer films is that they keep getting worse. The Rock, was a clear 9, Con air was a nice 8 and this well this clearly is a 7. Not that that mark is bad. Does it not show that his films under Bruckheimer keep getting worse and that maybe Cage has to think longer before he accepts a role in a movie and probably he should make a few less movies ? No it doesn't show us that, because almost all of Cage's films were successful in the last few years, except for 8mm and Bringing out the Dead. 8mm was not great, I admit that, but that was never Cage's fault and the story seemed good to me. About the latter film I can not say anything, ?cause I have not seen it yet. One thing though I know for sure, if Bruckheimer would have asked me for those three films, I would have said YES to all of them. I would have said yes to The Rock, because the story was great and because you would get to play with Sean Connery and Ed Harris. I would have said yes to Con Air, because there would be a lot of action in it, because the story was good and because you got to act with John Malkovich and Ving Rhames. In this one I would have starred because I would have gotten a big paycheque, I would have been able to ride some cool and fast cars and because I would have been able to kiss Angelina Jolie (can't wait to see her in that Lara Croft outfit). This one was a good choice of Mr. Cage and it certainly was worth a look at in the theatre.

I wasn´t interested in this remake but now that I see it, here´s what I think I missed out on the 80's 3D craze- films in the Jaws, Amityville and Friday the 13th franchises all getting 3d instalments on the big screen. Well it seems 2009 will make up for that, with My Bloody Valentine, Final Destination 4 and Pirahna all adding an extra dimension to their proceedings.

My Bloody Valentine is a great start. It's fun, gory, doesn't spend too much time on the dialogue, because it understands we're wearing these ridiculous glasses for a reason! I really enjoyed it actually- and for someone who has watched so many slashers, the 3d did add some wonderful novel touches, so it felt like more than just a retread. I know it's cool to bash remakes these days (and admittedly so many are very weak) but I much prefer this to the original- which seemed to plod along at quite a pedestrian pace, and besides the mining town setting, really didn't offer anything especially new. This film is far tighter and doesn't take itself so seriously- it has its tongue-firmly-in-cheek.

The only downsides are perhaps the stalk and kill sequence involving a naked lady. I guess some horror fans like their nudity, but in a genre so often viewed as misogynistic, it didn't do itself any favours. Admittedly the character is actually quite strong and fun- you don't feel her nudity weakens or humiliates her, but... I dunno, perhaps pandering a little too much for the teenage boys? Go catch this at the cinema, take a few friends, and enjoy an hour and a half of silly fun.

The Coen Brothers are devastatingly in charge again in this film and their humour is more than black, blacker than black, a blacker shade of black, especially since the main heroin is black and the sheriff is black and the essential member of the gang, the inner agent of the operation, is black too. Black humour indeed. But Jewish humour as you can't even imagine. The humour of influencing people with effete verbosity, with elaborate totally unbelievable lies that are all the more believable because they are unbelievable. People only believe what is unbelievable and everything that is logical, predictable, obviously evident will be rejected without even being considered because all that is obvious can only be false. Isn't it why they did not believe in Auschwitz even when they were arrived? Jewish too their humour because it is shown from the only point of view of the leader who sees every event as a new difficulty and he is so relieved when finally his last accomplice falls into the trash boat after this last accomplice of his has killed himself convinced as he was that the gun was empty. It is so good when it stops, when the raven flying out of Edgar Allen Poe crosses the sky over his head and he jubilates then because he misinterpret the omen: the beginning of his own end whereas he thought it was the beginning of the end of it all, except of course himself. And he was rich. The punch line for him is a real punch line falling from the sky, hard and stony, deadly and fatal. And what his that poor black woman going to do with 1.6 million dollars? Even the sheriff tells her what the effete PhD had told her: no one cares because the insurance is going to pay anyway. So what is she going to do with all that money? And that is the last straw that breaks the camel's back, the drop of water falling into the sea that causes a tsunami, a tidal wave of the old times. It makes the whole film a farce of divine, celestial and even cosmic dimension. Stealing is covered by insurance contracts and the victims are just nearly congratulated with insurance money that looks like some kind of a reward for them having been robbed. So go on robbing the rich and businesspeople that deal with too much money. Anyway we pay we have paid, through our own insurance premiums what they will be compensated with. So at least let us get what we are paying for, once in a while. Very black Jewish humour. If it did not exist we would have to invent it. Thank you so much, Coen Brothers.

Friday The 13th
Expected: 13 February
See what they did there? They only went and scheduled this horror remake for Friday the 13th? It?s just one of the tricks being used by the producers of this fresh take on masked killer Jason Voorhees and his rampage at Camp Crystal Lake. Purists have decried the remake, but it appears to have shaped up rather well.
With an excellent crowd of audience, a fresh, new take on Friday the 13th "remake" and Jason Voorhees back to his original roots at Crystal Lake?I couldn't be more entertained than I was during this wild slasher flick.

Plot crunch: Friends Wade, Amanda, Richie, Whitney and her boyfriend Mike go camping at Crystal Lake in search for a field of growing Marijuana plants that appears to be somewhere close to the old, rusty and legendary Camp Crystal Lake. However, after Wade has spooked his crew by the of Jason Voorhees, they never thought they'd actually stumble upon the killer himself. Turns out that Jason isn't just a legend, and he starts the new Friday the 13th with insane killing sequences. Then we meet Clay Miller who returns once again, apparently, to Crystal Lake to look for his missing sister Whitney, who was last seen near Crystal Lake. Hee meets a group of college kids who are spending a wild weekend at one rich kid's parent's cabin. The following kids are alpha male Trent, who seems to be provoked by Clay after his date for the weekend; good-girl Jenna, helps him look around in the woods, slutty Bree, hilarious token (Asian) Chewie and (African-American) Lawrence, free-spirited Chelsea and sex-seeking Nolan. But as soon as Jason finds out that they are in his woods, all hell breaks loose. On Friday the 13th, the kids wind up in Jason's vicious hands and suffer horrible fates as the day rushes to a heart pounding night of terror at Crystal Lake.

First: The movie was bad-ass. As a big fan of most of Friday the 13th films (Part 1 to 5 mainly, Part 2 being my all-time favourite), I could see some fun references that were in the original movies of the series. There's enough fun nudity and sex sequences, but they aren't really that rough and instead make them look funny as Jason attempts to distract one of the couples for his next prey. The killing/death sequences are very, very disturbing during some parts (a girl is burned alive inside a sleeping bag that hangs above a campfire, a guy is tortured with an ax thrown into his back but Jason ruthlessly pushes him on the back and it impales through his chest, and one guy is impaled but that's not enough?he's shoved onto a back of a truck with these poles sticking out and it impales him so badly, then the car drives off with his feet dragging along the road).

Second: Jason was insane. I haven't seen him so ruthless and brutal since Part 7 (in his uncut killing sequences that were trimmed down by the MPAA, but search for them on YouTube). And the best thing I liked about him is that he ran furiously after some of his victims. He did walk, but oh boy, did he run too! He wasn't super-human?well, up until the end he kind of was, but hey, he had a thick neck! But throughout the entire movie, his victims managed to injure him. However, it didn't stop him from killing some more. My only problem was that Jason't wasn't too much on screen, because I would've wanted to see more scenes on him. But the movie was only 97 minutes so I'm bumped for the unrated DVD release.

Third: For me, the acting was slightly above-average for actors who I'd never seen before (Willa Ford, Julianna Guill, Arlen Escarpeta and Jonathan Sadowski). Jared Padalecki and Danielle Panabaker were quite a good leading couple, and Amanda Righetti's performance was really good. But cut to characters. Despite for all of them being stunning and beautiful, I enjoyed every single one of them, but I just couldn't help but to want to know something more about them. I knew what everyone's names were from looking at the film's IMDb page but I didn't hear many characters' names up until near the end. More character development, or simply less characters in the movie, would have done justice for me. But I prefer Whitney and co. over Trent and co.

Fourth: Now I'm really not a guy who notices if one's directing on a movie is good or not. Don't blame me, I just forget and I barely know how to spot it. But all I can say is that I think Marcus Nispel did a fine job on this new Friday the 13th, and I surprisingly didn't see much similarity or style to his take on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, since some people seem to notice. This movie, however, should have been longer than only 97 minutes. Some parts felt kind of rushed and some characters didn't really get to shine. Let's just say that the phase could have worked out better. And one last thing, the writing could have been strictly better. There wasn't enough suspense like in the first four Friday flicks.

But here are some "best of the best" in the movie that I want to share. Favorite character: I would have to say either Chewie or Lawrence because those two were hilarious, but my vote goes to Trent. You can't help but to love to hate the guy! Favorite death sequence: It's a tie between the sleeping-bag-on-fire and impaled-by-poles-on-truck.

Overall: I give this 4/12 stars for being a crazy-fun bloody slasher ride and Jason's return was phenomenon. Plus, one of my favorite "teen-idol" actors?Padalecki?was playing the lead role and I think he did good. I actually didn't see one bit of Sam Winchester there, to be honest. In addition, I had a very, very good and lively crowd inside the theater. I couldn't have asked for a better Friday night at the movies.

As a fan of the Friday the 13th franchise, this one is a strong entry to a reboot.

Look out for: Supernatural?s Jared Padalecki as one of the campers getting hunted down.

Was there ever a more perfect bit of casting than big hairy Benicio Del Toro as a big hairy werewolf? We've seen this one coming since The Usual Suspects. The presence of Anthony Hopkins and Hugo "Mister Aaaanderssson" Weaving suggest that this will be a camp horror treat to rival Coppola's Dracula.

State Of Play
Expected: 17 April
The acclaimed BBC TV miniseries gets an American makeover for this politically savvy pic. A former political operative turned journalist investigates the murder of his ex-boss?s mistress. The twist? His old employer is now a congressman and there?s a big political conspiracy involved. Russell Crowe, Jason Bateman and Ben Affleck star.

The translation of this BBC mini-series from a UK to a US context has been done so well that it fits perfectly into a Washington context. The casting is impeccable, resulting in a totally believable set of characters. The cinematography is thoughtful and contributes greatly to the storytelling, with some memorable small details in the opening sequences -- for example, a shot of one of the characters walking past a shop window as the security shutters are being taken down perfectly conveys the time of day.

The pace of the storytelling is nicely judged, as is the way the characters nd their relationships evolve in response to the twists and turns of the plot. And just when it all seems to be nicely sewn up, the final few minutes bring yet another twist to deny the cosy ending that looked to be on the way.

I was lucky enough to see a free preview of this film prior to its release in the UK, but I'd have no hesitation to recommend it to anyone looking for a couple of diverting hours.
Look out for: Helen Mirren as Crowe?s grouchy editor.

Most science fiction films are big on ideas and special effects, but weak on coherence and character development; most horror films are just the same, except without the ideas. But David Cronenberg's 'The Fly' takes one simple idea, develops it properly, and eschews (its genuinely terrifying) special effects until its truly horrific climax. And by paying some attention to the personalities of its protagonists, it actually makes you care about them (Jeff Goldblum is excellent in the lead role), and adds a level of serious reflection on the very nature of human mortality to the raw shock. The mix amounts to a gruesomely good film.

There are certain remakes you just know are going to have their work cut out for them from the outset. Someone decides to remake John Carpenter's The Fog, it's not that big a deal. Someone decides to remake Psycho (and stick to Hitchcock's shooting script shot for shot), that's just asking for trouble. So if you're going to have a crack at Wes Craven's notorious debut feature 'Last House On The Left' then you must know you're taking a huge chance no matter how good it looks or how well the actors perform. Let's face it, the early 70's original was certainly rough and ready with some dodgy acting, terrible light relief moments (those two bumbling cops on the chicken truck) and a completely at odds musical soundtrack courtesy of David 'Krug' Hess (not including the hauntingly brilliant 'Road Leads To Nowhere' song). Director Iliadis corrects all of these 'faults' in the remake with some top notch acting, sinister soundtrack, excellent visuals and not a bumbling cop in sight (thank god). Unfortunately he also tones down the more excessive moments of the Craven original meaning the remake never hits the same disturbing level achieved back in 1972. Some may well be grateful for this. It's bad enough that two girls have to be raped and murdered without having to see them being mutilated and degraded to the extent they were in the original movie. And Iliadis offers up a fair bit of hope that Mari Collingwood might well survive this time round. But this ultimately ends up diluting the whole experience. The first half of the remake is strangely uninvolving, despite Krug being portrayed as an out and out sicko from the outset. Anyone familiar with the Ingmar Bergman inspired story will coast through the first hour or so as there really isn't anything new on show. It's only when the Collingwood's realise they might well be harbouring their daughters murderers under their own roof that things finally start to get interesting and the Death Wish mentality creeps in. Suddenly the film comes alive for half an hour or so and the audience is fully behind mum and dad, urging them on to give these lowlifes what they deserve. And get it they do. But no matter how polished and well acted the 2009 version looks it still can't match the power and nastiness of the 70's original. Anyone who's seen that might well be bemoaning the lack of the (briefly seen) disembowelment, chest carving, penis severing, hand lopping, forced urination, and, most famously of all, the dream inspired hammer and chisel to the front teeth (because of the low 70's budget most of this happened off screen but boy, did it pack a punch). Above and beyond this even, there was a general sickness to the 70's characters and the way they behaved that doesn't really come across here. Sure the class of 2009 consists of an evil bunch of thugs you hope you'd never have to meet in real life. But 35 years on they're not really that different to any other bunch of cinematic sickos doing the rounds. It's only when the Collingwood's fight back that the film comes to life. Back in 1972 Krug and co commanded attention from the moment David Hess popped that kids balloon with his cigar in the opening five minutes. For those unfamiliar with the Wes Craven original this remake is nasty and 'real' enough to make an impact. But for the fans it's only half successful. Not a disaster then, but certainly not a patch on the original despite the more polished approach.

I used to think that nobody could come close to Robert De Niro when it comes to who was the best actor in Hollywood but as the years went by he started to pick some real Turkeys and a in the mean while an old hand was gradually taking the crown from De Niro and that is Al Pacino. In Insomnia he has picked another cracker of a film that although not fast paced is brilliantly acted and is very watchable. Hilary Swank is superb as is Robin Williams and its refreshing to see him taking a serious role instead of sentimental trash like Patch Adams but as per usual it is Al Pacino who steals the show. He plays an insomniac Cop who gets intangled in a murder case and gets into trouble after accidently killing his partner . I cant think of an actor who looks more tired than Pacino anyway so he was perfect for the role. The story is OK but to be honest the film is more about the performances than the plot

Why bother re-making 'Maximum Overdrive'? This is just another of the universe's imponderables, but stick with this movie, your patience will be rewarded with what must be the funniest movie death ever: a gormless mailman is battered to death by a Tonka toy, and the gore sprays like raspberry jam from a doughnut. In the cast is the marvellous Brendan Fletcher, one of the finest actors of his generation, and again the question recurs:WHY WHY WHY?

I think everyone knows the story of Carrie. The strange innocent misfit who's teased mercilessly and maliciously by a few of her school peers. and develops her telekinetic powers to protect herself after a particularly cruel and humiliating prank is pulled on her.

Well, I think I enjoyed this because it put a different spin on the original story. That is, the story is told after the fact in a series of interviews conducted by the police.

The movie has a good cast and the script is good. The special effects, while used to good effect, aren't particularly 'special', but the camera work, particularly in the ballroom scene when everyone is panicking, is deplorable. I've taken better home movies. Still, if you can ignore that....

Overall I really enjoyed this telemovie and would recommend it to anyone who wants a bit of a scare and to be entertained, and not

I'll probably be burned at the stake for this too, but I preferred Angela Bettis charactisation of Carrie to Sissy Spaceks in the original.

The Taking Of Pelham 123
Expected: 7 August
Tony Scott updates the 1974 film about armed men taking over a New York City subway train. Expect more action and even more stylised action in true Scott style as Denzel Washington?s subway security chief tries to thwart John Travolta?s criminal master plan. The original had one of the coolest soundtracks ever. Can the new version compete? Yes. Here's why

Remakes are normally sad affairs but, by most accounts, this one is more exciting than the original. Of course, it's in the hands of British director Tony Scott whose utterly frenetic style is such than he rarely makes one cut when he can impose three and, for this style of thriller, Scott's energy and excitement work well, providing us with a genuinely entertaining ride. The two-hour movie opens strong and maintains a breathless pace, so the final few minutes are uncharacteristically slow and weak.

John Travolta is commanding as the leader of the gang who take over a New York subway train, whereas charismatic Denzel Washington is somewhat low-key in this performance as a senior rail manager temporarily required to act as a controller. James Gandolfini as the mayor and John Turturro are fine, if underused, in the support roles. The original plot is followed closely except that the ransom demand is raised from $1M to £10M and broadband communication makes a useful contribution.

Look out for: A stellar supporting cast that includes James Gandolfini and John Turturro

Returning from a busy day in the hospital, Ana spends time with her husband when a neighbours daughter comes into the house and attacks her husband. He dies before returning to life and attacking Ana. She runs and escapes in her car, driving through a neighbourhood rife with violence and fires. After crashing her car, she hooks up with a group of armed survivors who take refuge in a mall. The group settle in and fortify their position as an army of the undead gather outside.

Before I start my review, let me just say that this will be biased as I am always easily won over by zombie movies. The fact that they just keep coming (fast or slow), lack character and only want to kill really just freaks me out. So I tend to get easily scared by the genre (even if `enjoy' is perhaps not the right word) and be easily more negligent towards their faults. Despite telling myself that I wouldn't bother with this film as it would scare me, I went for it anyway in a fit of `confront your fears' type of stupidity! The film starts with a creepy opening and pretty much manages to keep the pace up for the whole film. It, like the zombies, moves fast and brutally throughout and is very, very tense.

Others have complained about the lack of gore - however I found the graphic exploding heads to do that more than enough for my tastes! Better than gore is the atmosphere. The use of news footage is not original but it succeeds (along with the aerial view of the town) in creating the impression of a world turning to sh*t. I don't know about you but this scares me and the film did it well. The speed of the zombie attacks makes for a thrilling ride and it did make me very tense - Snyder managed to make the whole film a threat (especially for a first time director) and I honestly have a very stiff neck a day after seeing this simply because my body was tensed up for the whole film!

The pace of the film also serves to cover the real problems in content and plot. Unlike the original there is no satirical swipe on consumerism - the fact that the zombies are just wandering aimlessly around the mall like they used to in life is pretty much ignored here - but times are very different now I guess. The plot itself also has quite a few stupid moments where the characters act in a way you know they wouldn't in real life. For example people go on suicide missions for little real reasons and you can tell that the script is just doing it to create more action. However, when you are into it, these things don't really seem to matter. The film may be a little silly when you think about it but it does have a good ending - downbeat and realistic (or at least as realistic as it can be!) and left me with no hope of a happy ending - in this regard it is everything that `28 Days Later..' is not.

The cast is good even if the script places their characters secondary to the action. Polley is used to slightly more substantial roles but still does well here. Rhames is lumbered with a religious background that is never explained, but he is a great presence throughout. Weber is the standout role however. His character is a slightly less cartoon version of Evil Dead's Ash. He is the unwilling hero but yet he seems to accept all the obstacles he comes across. He also manages to be one of the group that the audience cares about - most of them are fodder and we know it! Phifer is a good actor but seemed too `gangster' to really be driven to this degree by his family. The rest of the support cast are mostly just there to get eaten but they do OK.

Overall this is not a great film - but it is an effective one. As a film it lacks subtext, comment and plot logic. However as a thriller it is fast paced, gripping and tense with a satisfyingly bleak conclusion. Snyder does a good job as a first timer and creates an atmosphere that is gripping even if it lacks originality. Like I said, I don't deal with zombie movies very well and am easily scared but I reckon that this should satisfy many a Saturday night thrill-seeking crowd even if it does nothing for your brain apart from it's risk getting eaten.

On paper, a "Halloween" remake looked interesting. Zombie tries to go back to the character's origin and reinvent him - it's a recent trend in Hollywood ("Batman Begins," "Casino Royale," the upcoming "Incredible Hulk," etc.), so it's not quite surprising that Hollywood greenlit the project and it got the push it received.

But the problem that arises while doing this with "Halloween" is that it comes into conflict with the concept of Michael being purely evil. Although I can understand what Zombie was trying to do by exploring Michael's background, it contradicts the whole point of the original. By providing a reason and displaying a human character on screen, you give the character a soul - and despite what Zombie may claim, this does NOT make Michael scarier. It makes him an average movie serial killer: a guy with a messed up life as a kid who snaps one day and goes on a killing rampage.

Is it scary? No. Gory? Yes. Realistic? At first. And if it were a movie about a serial killer, it would work. But it's not. This is a movie about a monster, a soulless creature; a boogeyman, as per the original film. Monsters aren't scary when we know they're flesh and blood.

Carpenter had a way of framing the action in the original movie. Michael stalks Laurie in her hometown, but we never see any real flesh behind the mask, we never really see him moving around like a normal human being. But we do here. He stands in the middle of an open road, in front of three teenage girls walking home from school, and they all see him. He stands there for a few moments, then trudges away off-screen. We actually see him walk away, instead of just appearing and disappearing as he did in the original film. Which method is scarier? The answer is clear.

Zombie spends 40 minutes or so building up Michael's character before he escapes from the ward. We see him killing animals as a child (and torturing them, too), a stupid subplot with his mom as a stripper and a typical school bully, and a promiscuous sister. The sexual talk is frank and disgusting - the mom's boyfriend (husband?) is talking about how cute her daughter's butt is, and at this point in the film we're not sure whether he might even be the father. It's just shock for shock value. Zombie has a tendency of this - blunt violence and blunt dialogue combined - and in a film like this, it seems cheap and fake and unnecessary. The heavy emphasis placed on the swearing - and I mean this literally (as in, the actors place a noticeable emphasis on the profanity they use) is almost unintentionally funny. Zombie cast his wife in the role of Michael's mother, and she can't act at all.

Donald Pleasence got stuck with the most unfortunate lines from the original film, but we were willing to forgive bad dialogue because of how well-made the film was otherwise. Here, Malcolm McDowell gets the worst of two worlds: he gets to handle an under-characterization with bad, bad, BAD dialogue AND a generally weak film to boot. The sequences with McDowell's version of Loomis are all completely clichéd - Zombie clearly writes his dialogue based on other films' dialogue. The "intimate" scenes at the mental ward between Loomis and Michael are awful. McDowell struggles with typicalities of the genre, such as the Dr. Who Wasted His Own Life By Devoting It To Someone Else's (he explains to Michael that his wife left him and he has no friends because of how involved he became with the case - and the dialogue itself is straight from any cop-vs.-killer flick). The recent film "Zodiac" had a similar theme of men losing their personal lives due to obsession over a murderer, but it was handled better. The whole Loomis character should have been dropped from the remake if all Zombie wanted to do with him was use him as a deus ex machina, by the way.

Overall, this feels like a redneck version of "Halloween," which is going to offend some people, but I can't think of any better way to describe it. It's trashy, vulgar, and silly - and hey, that's fine, if that's Rob Zombie's motif and he wants to make movies pandering towards that sort of audience. I have nothing against it, and I think it may work with some films - I can imagine him making a good re-do of "Natural Born Killers" (although I hope it never, never happens!).

However, when you're remaking an iconic, legendary, incredibly influential horror film - don't cheapen it by "reimagining" it with horror movie clichés and shock-value material. The very worst aspect of this remake is that it simply isn't scary at all - it's a typical slasher flick, a homicidal-man-on-a-rampage flick, which ironically is exactly what Zombie said he wanted to avoid.

The first film was eerie, spooky, and unnerving because Michael's motivations were cloudy and we weren't sure whether Laurie was right or wrong when she said he was the boogeyman. We only knew one thing: he wasn't entirely human.

But ever since that original movie, the filmmakers have attempted to keep expanding upon Michael's history: the second film developed a motivation for his killings (Laurie was his sister), the fourth offered more clues at his background, and now we come full circle with a complete remake of the original film.

Michael's true demonic core - the natural horror element of the series - is stripped bare and all that is left is a disturbed, abnormally tall redneck with greasy hair who hasn't showered in years wearing a silly mask going around killing people because he had an abusive family life as a child. Some things are better left unexplored.

When Garrett cheats on girlfriend Megan, her sorority sisters decide to pay him back by pretending that she is dead, to the extent that they take the "body" off to a remote site to dispose of it. When Megan accidentally moves, the spooked Garrett reacts by driving a tire iron into her chest, leaving the sisters with the problem of what to do with the body. Cassidy wants to report it to the authorities, but alpha uber-bitch Jessica browbeats the others into dumping Megan's body (and the tire iron) down a mineshaft. At the graduation party eight months later, the girls are texted a photo of a hand grasping a tire iron. As they begin to die one by one, the question is whether Megan has come back from the dead, or is there another explanation? Sorority Row is a perfectly serviceable slasher movie, fuelled by a) who gets it next (and how), and b) who is doing it. If this is the sort of movie you enjoy, then you'll enjoy this one.

There was an aspect I particularly liked, and that was the look of the movie - it is beautifully photographed - points awarded for cinematography, because it is filmed with much greater care than is usually the case for this sort of movie.

Two elements which pleased me less, though. One is the answer to who is doing it. This struck me as the least probable possibility, with a motive which is less than credible.

The other - and please read no further if you don't like spoilers, because this is a biggie - is the last five minutes. The climax is proceeding very nicely, and all looks lost, when help comes from an unexpected quarter. This turns out to be Ellie, played by Rumer Willis. Now Ellie has spent pretty much the entire movie as a snivelling, whimpering, hysterical mess yet, in this final few minutes, she becomes a Rambo-lite lean, mean killing machine (because she'd do anything for her sisters, you understand), in one of the biggest and least believable character switches in the memory of this particular moviegoer.

The Wizard of Gore is set in present day Los Angeles where Edmund Bigelow (Kip Pardue) publishes a small underground paper, always looking for the next big thing he decides to go to see a stage magician named Montag the Magnficent (Crispin Glover) after seeing an advertisement. Taking his girlfriend Maggie (Bijou Phillips) with him they are shocked & thrilled by Montag's performance & show in which he appears to rip the guts out of a stripper named Cayenne (Cricket Suicide) only for her to reappear moments later seemingly unharmed. Soon after Edmund hears a news report in which Cayneene's body has been found horribly mutilated & he makes the connection to Montag's show & start to investigate which results in mind bending hallucinations, drugs, mind control & a sinister plot as his life starts to fall apart as Edmund struggles to know the difference between reality & fantasy...

Directed by Jeremy Kasten this is maybe a result of the recent spate of big budget Hollywood remakes of classic horror films such as Halloween (1978) & Friday the 13th (1980) & as such is a very loose remake of the low budget Herschell Gordon Lewis exploitation gore film The Wizard of Gore (1970) & I have to say I really wasn't that impressed with this confusing mess of a film. The original 170 The Wizard of Gore was a moderately effective exploitation film with some strong if fake looking gore & had a fairly simple & daft yet entertaining plot while the 2007 remake has a few flashes of gore which look more realistic but have less impact & are less frequent while the plot has been totally revamped & changed with Montag the Magnificent almost a secondary consideration as the script feels more like Naked Lunch (1991) with it's hallucinogenic & drug fuelled plot that gets very confused & has no big pay-off at the end either & the character of Edmund striking similarities to Peter Weller's character in Naked Lunch both visual & conceptual are not unnoticed. The script tries to set the events up as a mystery & some hallucinogenic drug plays a major role as the boundaries between fantasy & reality become blurred in some elaborate plan which just has the effect of the film going weird as you never really know what's going on & the script does a poor job of explaining itself as little resolved. The more I think about it the more the original The Wizard of Gore seems like a masterpiece compared to this.

The 2007 The Wizard of Gore does actually look quite nice although it is set in the seedy sleazy underground world of the Los Angeles night life where everyone seems to have copious amounts of tattoo's, piercings & dress in fetish gear, unlike the 1970 The Wizard of Gore which was set very much in the real world the average person can relate too this one isn't. There's some style here with scenes mostly shot using neon lights although there are some seemingly random moments like the cross hatch grid that keeps flashing into view & distortion of background images for no apparent reason. I was disappointed with the gore here, most of Montag's tricks take place behind a literal smoke screen & little is seen, there's some blood splatter, a decapitation with a bear trap, some guts are pulled out, someone is burnt, someone is impaled on glass shards & rats heads are bitten off. One area where this one differs from the original is that there is lots of female nudity on show if that's your thing.

Probably shot on a low budget this looks quite nice with decent production values & effects. The cast features some familiar faces including a barely recognisable Jeffrey Combs, Brad Douriff, the pretty Bijou Phillips with Crispin Glover as Montag in a really camp performance that makes the character just look silly rather than threatening or menacing.

The Wizard of Gore is a low budget remake of a low budget film that didn't need or want a remake, in trying to make it substantially different it strays too far from the original's concepts & anyone who liked the original for what it was probably won't like this anywhere near as much.

This film begins with a warning about the 'unusual motion picture' that you are about to see, and that description really couldn't be much more apt, as Blood Diner is a relentless assault of absurdity and general weirdness. This film has been compared to Herschell Gordon Lewis' trash classic Video Nasty, Blood Feast, and that is a suitable comparison to make as both films are really very similar. However, while Lewis' film seemed odd because of his lack of budget and general ineptitude, Blood Diner is out and out over the top and ridiculous on purpose, and the two films have different slants. The plot focuses on two cannibalistic brothers, who have been recruited by their uncle to resurrect an ancient Egyptian goddess. And, if you think that's weird - wait until you find out that the uncle is actually a brain and a pair of eyes in a jar, and the only way to resurrect the goddess is through killing and butchering a bunch of slutty women, and then sticking the various body parts together, Frankenstein style!

Jackie Kong's film is bloody and gory, but it's never shocking because everything in the film is rendered redundant due to the tacky way in which it's presented. For example, in one scene someone has their hands chopped off - and the resulting stumps are longer than his arm and hand were in the first place! Of course, the film is purely played out for laughs, and as a tribute to Herschell Gordon Lewis, Blood Diner works really well. The plot does get lost too often; however, as the focus is always on getting as much weirdness into the film as possible, and at times the film veers way off course. The central plot isn't too interesting, though, so half the time the fact that the it gets lost is actually a bonus. The film plays out with a big smile on its face until the end, when it explodes with a climax worthy of such a grossly absurd film. However, while all this weirdness is good; Blood Diner does feel rather empty overall. Of course, there's only so far you can go with a premise like this; but Jackie Kong has managed to go far as Lewis did back in the sixties, so I rate Blood Diner as a success...just.

Angela Vidal and her cameraman are making a documentary about the fire brigade. Joining up with a couple of them, called out to an apartment building, they soon discover something horrific is going on....

Quarantine is a an American remake of Rec. This means it has two major problems to overcome. First, Rec was to me the scariest movie I've seen in a cinema for almost 18 years (the last, was The Exorcist III)! The second, is that it IS an American horror movie remake. Now, the track record for this has been awful. Consider the evidence - The Ring, The Grudge, One Missed Call, The Wicker Man to name some. Hell, they can't even remake American movies! The Hitcher, When A Stranger Calls (I still shudder about that one!), Prom Night, Halloween. So this movie starts with two major points against it.

However, despite a couple of minor issues, and one major one, it's not that bad.

The reason it works, is that the director John Erick Dowdle has taken the scares from the original and simply re-done them. In fact the movie is almost a shot for shot remake of Rec! The fact that despite having seen Rec, the scares still work is a testament to not only how scary the original was, but also how well they've been re-done.

As I said, there are a couple of minor faults. Some of the make-up effects, don't quite work. The other minor fault is that the cast, while good aren't as convincing as the original cast were. Case in point, Jennifer Carpenter as Angela. At the start she's fine, but by the end she's a bit over the top in hysterical and terrified mode compared to Manuela Velasco.

But the major fault, and this one is harder to overlook is that they've changed what is actually going on. In this movie, it's suggested that it's a strand of rabies that has caused the outbreak. In the original, it's never really revealed what is causing it, although events towards the end suggest a possible supernatural cause. But because they've changed it here, it means the final scenes don't work as well, and don't really fit. And the final shot, which was revealed in the trailer by the way, again doesn't work in the remake.

The movie is slightly longer than the original, spending more time with the fireman at the station before the events begin, and has a little more emphasis on what is going on outside also, but these little changes don't affect the movie that much.

How you view this movie will depend on the original, Rec. If you've not seen the original then it is a pretty effective scary movie, especially the last 15 minutes. However if you've seen Rec, then this movie offers nothing new, and isn't as good overall.

If you think this will be anything like the original, please don't waste your time or money, this is a bomb of the worst kind. Moronic writing, bad acting, a bad movie in all respects. The first 40 minutes, if you haven't fallen asleep yet, you'll beg for something, ANYTHING, interesting to happen. The rest is even worse.

A good movie if you are trying to go to sleep.

The character have no interesting qualities whatsoever, in every horror movie, character need something to make you at least care for them, in this movie you beg for the ghost to appear and kill this bunch of rotten girls nobody cares about.

Even the "wind" a real and scary character in the original version is nearly completely missing in this "remake".

Nothing in this movie holds up to the original, but the worst thing is the writing, no character behaves consistently.

"The Mummy" is an adventurous yarn in the vein of "Indiana Jones." It's a lot of fun, very charming, and never tries to be more than what it is. What is it? An entertaining summer flick which is not only worth seeing, but perhaps even owning. It's one of those fun movies you can return to over and over again and never grow tired of doing so.

It's hardly a remake of the Universal classic of the same name. It's merely a new way to tell the story with the same basic idea - a murderous mummy is brought back from the dead. This time we have a hero and heroine who must stop him before he takes over the world, or something along the line of world domination.

The hero is Rick (Brendan Fraser), a thief thriving off the very basics out in Egypt circa 1930. Arrested and to be hanged, he is saved by the heroine (Rachel Weisz), who believes he may hold the key to helping them find an ancient Egyptian kingdom buried under the sand, if I recall correctly. Little does she know what lurks beneath the sand near that old kingdom is none other than the remains of a man who was caught cheating on the king's wife years ago and mummified.

Now, after unearthing the remains of the kingdom, the expedition led by our heroes come upon an ancient "Book of the Dead," which, when read from, brings the ancient mummy back to life. Now he is out to kill, regenerate and bring back his old lover - pretty neat, huh?

I own "Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy," a great movie spoofing the classic film. "The Mummy" Isn't exactly a spoof but it's very tongue-in-cheek. It knows it isn't an Oscar-winner, it knows it stands nothing against the older film, and so it goes for pulp thrills. I actually believe that this film is a bit classy in execution - compared to many other entertainments floating around nowadays it stands as one of the only films to return to the roots of the pure adventure films like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981) so successfully did.

Brendan Fraser is a perfect choice for the lead star. Calm, but with ironic and sarcastic humor; cool, but a strong lead. I wondered what it would have been like if they had casted an actor in his role who would have taken it all more seriously. I bet the results would have been disastrous. Fraser knows that this is all good fun, and he's having a good time playing his role with comedy. Every once and a while you can catch a wink at the screen that lets us know that he knows what he's doing.

2001 brought a sequel to "The Mummy" named, of all things, "The Mummy Returns." I found it just as fun as this film though some critics begged to differ. Summer 2002 brought yet another "Mummy" film, this one a prequel called "The Scorpion King" - it was a following of a co-star of the first sequel. The Mummy was not in it at all. It was a horrible film that wasn't near as fun as this one. So I recommend you see "The Mummy" as soon as humanly possible. After that, see "The Mummy Returns."

Either way, you simply can't go wrong.

I saw this film a few weeks ago and just couldnt get it out of my mind. It is totally dazzling. Its captivating. I think it probably the closest thing I have seen to a fairytale. It remains true to Dickens and has a great cast. I would say its near perfect

I thought that this was an intelligent thriller that lived up to the original. I thought that willis portrayed the perfect cold-blooded assassin. Richard Gere did a fine job as well. Even though you can tell his cheesey accent is a fake. This is not an action movie, so if you're expecting cars and planes blowing up, it doesn't happen. Even though one car blows up. This is a thriller and a good one at that.

I just watched this at London Film Festival & went in expecting to hate it as I loved the original. But I have to say, the film is excellent, certainly Cage's best film & best performance since Leaving Las Vegas. Herzog has done a brilliant job & the film stands on it's own, apart from the Ferrara film. I won't spoil bits by mentioning them, but the film has several stand-out memorable scenes worth the price of admission alone. Herzog has always said that training for making films is 'life' not a stuffy film studies class etc. If you're familiar with his work or sensibilities, you'll get even more insight into how cool this guy is after watching this film. I look fwd to watching it again when it releases and getting the DVD!!

This remake is like listening to a cover version of a Beatles song. You like it but really want to hear the original again. The original Omen is such a terrific film, convincing, beautifully cast and with a great, raw Brit Gothic feel to it. The remake is a slightly glossier affair which is enjoyable enough but doesn't really take the story in any new directions, although it hints that it will. Opening images of 9/11 and the Asian tsunami promise a new take on the tale, but with the exception of the very final scene, this doesn't really happen. The set pieces of the original were beautifully done - here they're well done but don't seem to last long enough; they don't feel 'special' enough. The cast is good but, again, it lacks the gravitas of the original. This ambassador is no Gregory Peck. Overall, this isn't a bad way to spend two hours in the cinema - it's a hundred times better and more cinematic than New Moon for instance - but could have been a lot more than it is.

There are only two movies that have literally made me go edge of my seat. One is Phone Booth and the other is The Amityville Horror. All credits to the director Andrew Douglas for this movie. The way everything is revealed and falls into place is like a perfect jigsaw puzzle and is excellent too see on screen, slightly similar to The Ring but done much better. And excellent acting from Ryan Reynolds especially the way he changes from the beginning of the movie to the end.Certainly among the best horror films.

"Everybody's Fine," a remake of Giuseppe Tornatore's "Stanno Tutti Bene," follows a widower who embarks on an impromptu road trip to reconnect with each of his grown children only to discover that the...( read more read more... )ir lives are far from picture perfect.

I can't understand why everyone is being so hard on this film! I really enjoyed it. It is so great to see Robert De Niro in a 'proper' role again after many years of comedy. He subtly bring across the character of Frank seeing his family unravel before him with touching subtlety and understanding. I thought Kate Beckinsale and Drew Barrymore put in excellent performances as well. The end is a little cheesy, but, to be honest, that's forgivable. A likable, delightful film which makes you think about your dad more than you probably have for years.