kevin_crighton Reviews

Insidious (I) (2010)

Excellent Chiller.

[9/10 · 1 May 2011]

When their young son is injured in a fall, mysterious and terrifying events start to happen to a young family...

Horror films, especially recent films from America have become obsessed with violence and gore. The so-called 'torture-porn' horror. There is also an obsession with remaking or 're-booting' films to try and make money from the horror film franchises, like the recent Nightmare On Elm Street. However, what Insidious proves, is that by writing something clever and serious, you can make a new and scary horror film.

The key to the success of Insidious is that on the whole the cast play it straight. The cast led by Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne are all good. It helps that the script, written by Leigh Whannell, while in truth not the most original, taking elements from films such as Poltergeist, it does enough with these elements to work on it's on level. It also helps having James Wan directing. Although still best known for making the first (and best) Saw film, he has made some interesting films since, Death Sentence being one, and Dead Silence which has a similar feel to Insidious.

While Wan may not be a high profile director, he does an excellent job here. He creates an atmosphere of tension throughout, including some excellent scares in daylight, a rare feat indeed! And while he does use the 'jump' scare technique, it works very well. Even at the climax of the film, which is a little predictable, he stages a chilling ending.

There are faults. The ending does go a bit overboard, loosening the tension created up till that point, and a couple of paranormal investigators bring some unwanted comic relief.

But these are minor issues. Whannell and Wan have created a truly unsettling horror film, and one that pretty much succeeds on every level. It takes a lot to scare me when I go see a film. The only ones that can, are those that create the right atmosphere. Most films don't manage that. This does easily. And it did scare me.

This is easily one of the best recent horror films I've seen and I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys being scared.

Suspiria (1977)

Argento at his best.

[10/10 · 1 May 2011]

Suzy Bannion, a young American dancer, arrives at a school in Germany to complete her studies. However, she soon gets caught up in some strange events as the truth about the school is revealed...

Suspiria has so many things going for it, it's hard to know where to start. Jessica Harper brings the right amount of innocence and charm to the lead role. It's key that her character works as for the most part she's on screen. And Harper gives an excellent performance. She's giving strong support from the rest of the cast.

The look of the film is stunning. The use of colours, especially the reds, is incredible. It makes the film, while without doubt a horror film, seem almost like a fairy tale. In fact if you consider the opening voice-over during the credits, it does give the feel of an adult fairytale.

But then we get to the two most important things about Suspiria. The soundtrack and Argento himself. The music by the band Goblin, with a credit for Argento is stunning. Even without the images and listening to it on it's own is an unsettling feeling. But put together with the images Argento puts on screen? Then you get a truly nightmare feel.

For me this is Argento at the height of his power. The opening twelve minutes of the film are amongst the most stunning put in any film I've seen, not just horror films. And while the rest of the film doesn't quite match the start, it comes close, right up to the unsettling ending.

Although not known at the time, Suspiria became the first film of what is knowing as the 'Three Mothers' trilogy. But on it's own or as part of the trilogy, this is easily one of the best horror films made, and a one of my all-time favourites.

Season of the Witch (2011)

Enjoyable.

[7/10 · 30 January 2011]

Two knights, having turned their backs on the Crusades, are recruited to take a young girl to a monastery to see if she is the witch responsible for the plague sweeping through the country....

I really enjoy films with medieval settings, and if they have a horror- ish element to them, then even better. And the story by Bragi F. Schut isn't that bad. The direction by Dominic Sena is for the most part pretty good, staging some good atmospheric scenes (the attack by the wolves at night being one), and a great scene involving an old bridge, which is very tense.

However, some of the CGI doesn't work as well as you hope it does, especially towards the climax of the film. Also, I get the impression the film could never decide what it wanted to be. I mention this as when the trailer first appeared for this film, it looked like a gripping medieval horror type of film. Then the film was pulled from the release date and months later, a new trailer appeared showing scenes from massive battles, which seemed at odds with the rest of the film. Having seen the film the battle scenes are okay, and do make sense in the context of the tale. But you do get the feeling the film has been re- edited, and possibly other scenes re-shot after it was originally done. There is a bit of a disjointed feel to some scenes, and perhaps this is the reason for it.

The cast it must be said are all good, if not great. Ron Perlman and Nicolas Cage are good as the knights, and seem to be having fun. There has been criticism of them both for using their own accents instead of trying an 'English' accent which seems to be the usual requirement for a film like this. But to me this isn't a problem. I'd rather actors, well, act to their best than trying to put on an accent that either doesn't sound right or gets in the way of their performance. There is great support from the other cast members, especially Stephen Campbell Moore. Claire Foy as the girl who may or may not be a witch is very good, keeping you guessing through-out.

While it may not be regarded as a great film, and seems to have slipped out without much fanfare, I have to say Season Of The Witch is never dull, very entertaining, and well worth watching.

Let Me In (I) (2010)

Let Me In - a solid but inferior remake of Let The Right On In.

[6/10 · 5 November 2010]

Owen is a lonely boy being bullied at school. He meets Abby when she moves into the building and a friendship grows between them. But as a series of murders occur, it becomes apparent that Abby is hiding a secret... she is a vampire.

Of all the film reviews I've posted on the IMDb site, Let Me In is a film I never wanted to review. Not because it's a bad film, it isn't, but because of how I feel about Let The Right One In. In my opinion, Let The Right One In is the best film of the last ten years. When I heard of this new version, I was filled with anger at it being remade so soon, and dread as remakes of horror films have on the whole been pretty poor. I mean for example, The Wicker Man, The Ring, A Nightmare On Elm Street, The Hitcher, When A Stranger Calls, Prom Night, Dark Water, and many others have all been terrible compared to the originals.

But to confuse the matter more, was the fact that Let Me In was being produced by the resurrected film company Hammer. This was to be their first cinema film released for over thirty years. Hammer in it's original company, made some of the best horror, fantasy and science- fiction films ever made, and made my own favourite horror film of all time, Dracula.

So were does Let Me In sit? Well lets start with the positives. The casting of Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Moretz was inspired. Both of them are very good in the central roles of Owen and Abby. They are fast becoming two of the best child actors in Hollywood at the moment, and both are brilliant here, especially Kodi Smit-McPhee. The rest of the cast are pretty good too with the likes of Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas giving strong supporting performances.

This version of the story, follows a similar pattern to the film version of the original novel more than the novel itself. As a result, like Let The Right One In film, it strips out a lot of back-story and subplots, to concentrate on the relationship between Owen and Abby, and when they are on screen, the film works very well indeed.

But where the film goes wrong is in some decisions made by Matt Reeves as writer and director. For instance, changing the way the Jenkins character, known only as The Father, goes after victims. Reeves has decided to make the scenes almost like inserts from a different serial killer film, with the character hiding in the back of cars waiting to pounce on the victims. Also there is the strange decision to never show Owen's mothers face throughout. She is only seen in blurred image, or from the neck down or from behind. I'm not sure why Reeves wanted to do it this way but I don't think it fully works. As for Owen's father unlike the original book and film we never see him at all, instead reduced to a voice on the phone. This is a shame as I always felt that the visit to the father was a key scene in both book and film.

The most disappointing thing overall though is the violence and bloodshed in the film. The attacks Abby carries out involve CGI which I was disappointed with. I suppose they were trying to show Abby as some kind of animal when attacking, but the CGI is poor indeed. As for the bloodshed and violence, there is more of it here than the original. To my mind this is only because the film-makers felt they needed it to grab the audiences attention, something the original never resorted to. In Let The Right One In, attacks were shown from a distance away from them, never in close up. It's a change I didn't feel was needed.

A key change Reeves had made is in the decision to use a cop (Elias Koetas) investigating what is going on, instead of the group of friends from the book and original film. While this does keep things going, the friends in the story played a key part and are missed. It also means when the victims are attacked they are faceless unknowns, instead of characters you care about.

I have to say also the music score is poor. It feels like a generic horror score, making it almost instantly forgettable and lacks the haunting quality of the music from Let The Right One In.

I hate comparing Let Me In to Let The Right One In, but it is unavoidable for one simple reason : Reeves chooses to repeat certain scenes from Let The Right One In almost exactly the same. This means of course you end up comparing the versions, and sadly Let Me In isn't as good as Let The Right One In in this comparison. And note, this is not another version of the book as was claimed during the making of this film. It's another version of the film instead.

Let Me In though is still a much better remake than most that have been made recently. And if you have not seen Let The Right One In, you may enjoy this film a lot more. But having seen the Swedish original film and having read the novel, I have to say it's not as good as the source novel and film.

F (2010)

Must try harder. Tense, but sadly disappointing.

[4/10 · 19 September 2010]

An alcoholic teacher has to save his estranged daughter when a group of hooded youths attack the school at night....

I liked the idea behind this film, but sadly as written, it doesn't quite work. The characters are largely unappealing so you don't really care what happens to them. For an 18-rated film, there is a surprising lack of on-screen violence. You don't actually see much on-screen, instead usually only seeing the bodies afterwards.

As a result, then the writer/director Johannes Roberts has to rely on his skill with a camera to create tension and any scares he can, and to be fair he does get the building tension as the film progresses just right. There are a couple of scares, but not many.

The cast do their best to look scared or terrified, but as said, the script makes them mostly unappealing people so you have no feelings for them and don't care if they live or die.

Another fault, for me anyway, was the apparent lack of motivation for the attack. Was it revenge for something? Did they attack out of boredom? Something to indicate why they were doing it might have helped I feel.

But Johannes Roberts does managed to partially redeem the film with a truly unsettling ending. I can't recall a recent film with an ending like this, and it actually works brilliantly.

Sadly though it is his writing that lets him down, which is a shame, as potentially this could have been very good indeed.

A missed opportunity.

Pontypool (2008)

How to make a tense and original horror film on a low budget.

[8/10 · 5 September 2010]

Just as DJ Grant Mazzy shows up for his shift on radio, reports start to come in of strange happenings in town, with people rioting and attacking each other. As events outside the radio station escalate, what seems to be behind the outbreak is revealed to be the words being spoken themselves....

Pontypool is a very clever variation of the zombie/virus storyline. Being told via events taken place within the radio station, things start slowly, before building to a tense, gripping climax.

Despite the low budget, the writer Tony Burgess and director Bruce McDonald have done a wonderful job, using the location to wonderful effect, and getting excellent performances from the cast.

The idea of the language being the cause of the spread of the virus is a great idea, as the very voice warning you of the danger, may actually be spreading it. And the ending, while perhaps considered bleak, is I think the right ending for the film.

At a time where bigger budgeted horror films are either remakes or worse, re-workings, it is refreshing to see a clever, intelligent film try to do something original in a known genre.

Definitely worth viewing. Oh, and there is a post credit sequence that is worth checking out too.

Jonah Hex (2010)

A disjointed mess

[4/10 · 4 September 2010]

Jonah Hex a disfigured bounty hunter, is hired by the US Government to track down Quentin Turnbull, a former soldier now plotting an attack on the 4th of July. He was also the man who scarred Hex....

Oh dear. Potentially this could have been really good. It has Josh Brolin as Hex, and he plays the part perfectly. And there are some excellent performers in the cast, such as John Malkovich, Michael Fassbender, Megan Fox, and others. However, this film has major problems.

The storyline is so disjointed, it's sometimes hard to follow. There are scenes that look like they could be very interesting, and are over as soon as they've begun. It looks like the script was made up on the spot, or at the very least, either the producers or studio have hacked a huge chunk of the story out of the finished film. Certainly the film has a short running time, which does suggest major editing of the film, but because this makes the story hard to follow, it actually slows the pace of the film down, making it feel a lot longer.

The director Jimmy Heyward does stage a couple of action scenes, that aren't bad, but it's not enough to save the film.

I'm not sure how this film would have looked without the obvious cuts and perhaps re-writes, and perhaps when released on DVD there might be an extended version or directors cut of the film. But based on this version this film has to be put down as a major disappointment.

The Last Exorcism (2010)

Couple of scares, but ultimately disappointing.

[4/10 · 4 September 2010]

A documentary crew are following the Reverend Cotton Marcus, as he travels to a small town to show how the act of Exorcism is all a fake, only to discover he may be wrong....

This is yet another film that uses the hand-held footage idea that has become very popular in horror films recently. In some cases, such as The Blair Witch Project, The REC films, Paranormal Activity and Diary Of The Dead it works very well. Sadly, here it doesn't work.

The actual story is pretty good, and the performances by the unknown cast are impressive, with special mention to Patrick Fabian as Cotton and Ashley Bell as Nell, who may or may not be possessed.

The direction by Daniel Stamm is also okay. He stages a couple of good scares and creates a good atmosphere in the film. But the decision to use the hand-held camera idea doesn't work with the story, especially in the final minutes, where the story changes from a possession-type film into something else. Had it been made as a proper film then the twist would have worked. In this format it doesn't.

The other fault with the film, is the actual footage itself. It is clear the footage had been edited, and at certain points music has been added. As a result, you always know it's a film you are watching. At least in the films mentioned above (with the exception of Diary Of The Dead), with no music over the footage, you can 'believe' while watching the film it is actual footage. Because of this, you are never totally drawn into the tale, and as I said the twist towards the end fails completely.

It is a shame the film doesn't work. I was looking forward to potentially a very good tale of demonic possession. Instead, it has to be put down as a disappointing failure.

Tooth and Nail (2007)

Very disappointing post-apocalyptic movie.

[4/10 · 29 August 2010]

In the near future, after the collapse of society, a handful of survivors holed up in a hospital, are attacked by a group called Rovers, who are cannibals...

The idea behind this film isn't the most original, but that isn't the main problem here. The main problem is the film not delivering on the premise. The story had the potential to be very gripping, but sadly it turns into a rather dull variation of a stalk and slash type film. It doesn't help that a lot of the film takes place in darkened rooms, which means at times it is hard to see what is happening.

The actors give okay performances, though none stand out, and the likes of Michael Madsen are completely wasted. The script, written by the director Mark Young, doesn't flesh out the characters enough to make you care about them, and his direction sadly doesn't make up for the story short-comings.

It's not a terrible movie, but it is a very disappointing one.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

Not perfect, but still a win!

[8/10 · 29 August 2010]

When Scott Pilgrim meets Ramona Flowers, he discovers he has to defeat her seven 'evil exes' to win her heart...

Edgar Wright, who made two of the most enjoyable films of the past few years, Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz, here tackles the ever-growing comic book film adaptation. And for the most part he has succeeded.

I will state now I've not read the comic books the film is based on. But taking the film as is, it is very enjoyable. The script is very funny, the supporting cast, lead by Kieran Culkin, Brandon Routh, Chris Evans and others are all very good indeed. But the key to the film working are Michael Cera and Mary Elizabeth Winstead as the leads.

For this film to work you have to care about Scott and Ramona. If you don't then you don't care what happens to them. And while both characters have qualities that could make them unlikeable, thanks to the performances of Cera and Winstead, you do find them appealing, if flawed characters.

But the film itself is not without flaws, and these fall on some decisions by Edgar Wright. While it moves at a quick pace, with some excellent set-pieces, including the fight scenes, it's the use of visual aids on screen that at times is a problem. Because I've not read the comic books, it is possible they work in that format, if used there, but in the film I did find them distracting at times.

But this is a small issue. The film has a great soundtrack, and as stated, is very funny and full of energy, and while not up to the level of Kick-Ass, which I found more enjoyable overall, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is much, much better than Iron Man 2 in this years comic book films.

Went the Day Well? (1942)

Tense wartime drama.

[10/10 · 29 August 2010]

When a group of soldiers arrive in a small village in England during WW2, it's soon revealed that they are in fact German soldiers in disguise, and soon the villagers have to fight back to save themselves....

Made in 1942 as a British propaganda film, Went The Day Well? is not your typical war movie. Until the climax of the film, there isn't a lot of action in it. And when the action does start, it's not soldiers versus soldiers, but villagers versus soldiers.

The cleverness of the tale, is in the way it is little details that give away the fact the soldiers are German (including a line through the number seven - which I do!).

While the script does show its age in some of the language, and some of the performances come over a bit wooden looking at it now, the film still has a lot of power, thanks to the direction of Alberto Cavalcanti. And while the action may not be as dramatic of other films of its type, it still builds to a tense and gripping climax.

Bookended by a couple of scenes that are supposed to be after the war, it works well as the propaganda film it was always meant to be. Taken as a war-set film, it is still one of my favourites, and I think a classic.

Fermat's Room (2007)

An intelligent thriller.

[7/10 · 23 August 2010]

Four mathematician's are invited to a home, to discuss ideas. Once there they soon discover that it's a trap, where they have to solve problems, while the walls slowly close in on them...

On paper, this film sounds like an intelligent version of Saw. And there are slight similarities, but it's a much cleverer film. The plot is well thought out, as it keeps you guessing on who is behind it all. The film is very well acted by the cast, and the writers and directors Luis Piedrahita and Rodrigo Soperia keep the tension through out. The set design of the single room is impressive as the clever use of camera angles to add to the building tension as the room gets smaller.

Despite being a film where they use a lot of problems so it relies on the brain more than brawn, the problems themselves aren't overly complicated, and are easy to understand.

If there is a slight let-down, I thought the ending isn't as clever as the rest of the film, but despite this I really enjoyed the film and would recommend it.

Piranha 3D (2010)

A thoroughly enjoyable movie.

[8/10 · 21 August 2010]

Piranha 3-D is a film that knows it's nothing more than an exploitation film, and lives up to (or down to) being that. It's full of nudity, including an underwater sequence that has to be seen to be believed, and a lot of blood and gore. But you are enjoying yourself watching it you simply don't care.

Alexandre Aja, has with the writers, updated the movie, thrown in some nice cameo appearances, and superb Jaws homage and just had fun with it. The cast, lead by Elisabeth Shue, give solid performances with special mention to Jerry O'Connell as a sleazy producer.

But the movie stands or falls on the gore and it doesn't disappoint. Although some attacks are CGI, the make-up effects on wounds and bodies is brilliant.

As for the 3-D, frankly it is used to better effect here than it was in Avatar. I still think it is a gimmick but it is used very well here. Perhaps horror type movies are where film-makers might find the best use for 3-D in future.

It's not a movie that people will consider one of the best of the year, but from it's start till the final scene, Piranha 3-D is one of the most entertaining movies of the year.

Solstice (II) (2008)

Good mystery, not a good horror film.

[6/10 · 18 August 2010]

After the death of her twin sister Sophie, Megan heads of for a few days with her friends. However, on arrival at the family cottage, Megan begins to experience visions and dreams. Is her sister trying to reach out to her from the dead, or is it something else....?

Directed by Daniel Myrick, who co-directed The Blair Witch Project, Solstice has many things going for it. The cast are pretty good, with special mention to Elisabeth Harnois, as Sophie/Megan. On screen pretty much the whole film, meaning the film stands or falls on her being convincing, and she is very good indeed.

The setting does give the film a nice atmosphere, and the story has enough of a mystery about it to keep you interested until the end.

But as a film that is supposed to be a horror film, Solstice fails. Yes the setting is atmospheric, but none of the so-called scare scenes work at all. Myrick, who has made scarier films, doesn't pull of the scares here at all. In fact, I think the film would have been better as a mystery-type film, dropping the horror elements completely.

Despite this though, I did enjoy it, and while it will never be remembered as a classic or highly regarded, I was never bored at any point and found it to be an enjoyable film.

Mother of Tears (2007)

The weakest of the 'Three Mothers' trilogy, but better than expected.

[6/10 · 9 August 2010]

After a number of years, Dario Argento completes the so-called 'Three Mothers' trilogy with this movie, and while it doesn't rank alongside the first two, Suspiria and Inferno, it has enough moments to keep you entertained as only an Argento movie can do.

Sarah Mundy works at a museum. When an Urn arrives, Sarah and her friend Giselle open it and in doing so unleash chaos and violence through-out Rome and Italy. After Giselle is horrifically murdered, Sarah tries to find out what is going on and in doing so finds out things about her own past, and how it ties in with 'The Three Mothers'.....

Argento as director staged some genuinely shocking moments in this movie, such as the mother and baby on the bridge. I certainly didn't see that coming. And as always in his movies he stages some impressive murder sequences. But unlike the first two movies in the trilogy, here he relies a lot more on gore in the deaths. Case in point, Giselle's death. Not a simple stabbing or such, but an almost sadistic, bloody death. This happens to other characters throughout. I don't mind gore and blood in death scenes, and while certainly bloody, I think Argento doesn't overdo the violence as much as has been suggested.

Sadly though the writing of the movie does hamper proceedings. The story does seem to be two stories in one, and they get in the way with each other. For example, it's revealed that Sarah has some witch-like powers, so you'd think they would be needed at the movie climax. In fact the end is so sudden, I didn't think it was the end. This sub-plot doesn't really go anywhere, except to link (in a tenuious way) back to the first movie, Suspiria.

In fact Mother Of Tears could be watched as a stand alone movie. Except for the above mention of the events of Suspiria, and a mention of the building in New York, where Inferno was set, there are no other links to the previous movies, so you won't need to have seen them first to understand this one. I will say however, I think you could watch any of the movies in this trilogy in pretty much any order as none really link well together apart from the overall 'Three Mothers' thread.

Asia Argento plays the lead role here, and apart from a nice cameo from Udo Kier, none of the other characters really register. And sadly Asia's performance isn't one of her best.

But this movie has to stand or fall on Dario Argento's direction. And he keeps things moving well, and manages to keep you on edge as the city descends into chaos. As stated the set-pieces, apart from the climax, are done well and this is something you expect from Argento and it's pleasing to see he still has that ability.

If there is an over-riding feeling watching Mother Of Tears, it's that perhaps Argento should have made it years ago. I think waiting so long to make it built up fans expectations to such a level that it was never going to be considered as good as Suspiria or Inferno (something the recent Indiana Jones movie also suffered from). However, while it's not vintage Argento, he has still made a better movie than most recent horror movies, with a better plot then most too.

As the climax of a trilogy, it is weak. But if you take it as simply a Dario Argento movie, then there is much to like here.

The Karate Kid (2010)

Overlong, but faithful remake, but needed a better title!

[6/10 · 4 August 2010]

When Dre and his mother move to China, he runs foul of a group of pupils, from a Kung-Fu club. Rescued by Mr. Han, Dre is forced to enter a Kung-Fu tournament, and a reluctant Han has to teach him....

This new version of The Karate Kid follows the original very faithfully. The key events from the original are re-created here, so if you've seen the original this movie has no surprises at all.

The film-makers have made several changes though. Fist off, Dre is a younger character then Daniel was in the original. Second off, in the original Daniel and his mother move from East to West coast in the US. Here, the move is from the US to China. This does allow for a degree of homesickness for Dre to fuel some anger at his mother, and also some humour in his attempts at the Chinese language. Jaden Smith (son of Will Smith) is pretty good in the role, and there are moments where he does remind you a lot of his father.

Jackie Chan, as Han is also pretty good. Unlike most of his roles, he only has one fight sequence, where he rescues Han, by using the attackers to hit each other. For the most part, he is more subdued than you are used to seeing Chan, and he too gives a very good performance.

While the training sequences are not as good as the original, they are very well done. And the fight scenes are also very well put together.

But the movie is far too long. It runs over 2 hours, and in truth could easily have lost 30 minutes of its running time, without detracting from the story.

But the title is a problem. Considering there is no Karate in the movie (apart from a very brief sequence on TV), you have to wonder why they have called it that. I'm guessing it's only because The Kung-Fu Kid doesn't have the same ring to it.

But this is a minor issue. As a remake it sticks faithfully to the original, possibly too faithfully. And it does have a rousing ending like the original.

As a family movie it's not bad at all.

[Rec]² (2009)

A worthy and tense sequel (plot details of the ending suggested)

[9/10 · 3 June 2010]

A SWAT team is sent into the apartment building along with a man from the ministry, to find out what's been going on inside. As before, they are recording everything.....

REC 2 does what so few sequels do. It takes the ideas from the original movie REC, and expands on it. As was suggested at the end of REC, it's soon revealed that what has been happening is caused by a virus that's causing demonic possession. The makers deserve credit for taking a less obvious route for the outbreak in the building, and it works brilliantly.

REC 2 isn't as scary was REC was, but is still tense and gripping. It's also, if looked at a certain way, possibly the best attempt at a film version of a first person shooter-type video game.

Midway in the movie, the action cuts away from the SWAT team, and instead we get the action from the point of view of some teens who sneak into the building. Although it is a radical move from following the action from one camera, it works well and doesn't detract from the building tension.

As it is set in the same building as REC, it's nice to see they have got some of the actors back, reprising their roles as infected people. Manuela Velasco returns as the reporter Angela Vidal in the last third of the movie, which sets up the shocking and brilliant ending, where we find out what happened to her when she was dragged of into the dark at the end of REC.

The only fault I have with this movie is that it doesn't develop it's characters as well as the first one did, so you don't have the same connection you had with the original characters. But this doesn't detract from the movie.

It's still very well acted by the cast, the directors Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza stage the scenes with the right amount of tension and building unease, and the script never (and other horror movie sequels take note) contradicts anything in the original, instead builds on the original's foundations.

The film makers have made some brave decisions in this follow-up, and I'm pleased to say they all pay off.

This is a very worthy sequel to REC, and I for one can't wait to see where they take the story next.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Another poor and unnecessary remake.

[3/10 · 13 May 2010]

So Platinum Dunes, not content to give us dull remakes of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Friday The 13th, give us another horror icon remake in A Nightmare On Elm Street. And guess what? They've failed again.

The plot, as before has a bunch of teens being stalked in their dreams by a man with a burnt, scarred face and a glove of blades on his hand. It's revealed during the events of the movie that then man (Freddy Krueger) was burned to death by their parents.

Now the basic plot is very similar to the original. But the start of the problems of this movie, relate to where they writers have made changes. In the original Freddy was a child-killer who got off on a legal technicality, and was burnt by the parents in revenge. What they've done here is make Freddy Krueger a pedophile. The reason he is burnt to death is the parents getting him after listening to their children describe what he did to them. So instead of a killer getting off then being killed for revenge, what we have here is a suggestion in the story that the parents killed him without involving the police, to 'protect' their kids. And at one point there is a possibility Freddy was innocent. Sounds good, but this doesn't work in the tale for several reasons, the main on to me being none of the kids even remember any of the events from the past You'd think one of them at the very least would remember some of it.

There are a couple of moments where you do jump in your seat, but don't be fooled for one moment that this is a scary movie. If done right, any movie can make you jump in your seat if something unexpected happens (case in point, a death in The Departed). Overall though this movie is not scary.

It doesn't help that the director, Samuel Bayer chooses to re-create moments from the original, but with none of the flair or imagination that Wes Craven did. But where the film is really let down is in the writing. In the original, Nancy was the main character. Here, to begin with her part downplayed, until a couple of deaths occur then she moves into the lead heroine role. As a result her character never really gets a story arc, and you simply don't care if she survives at the end or not. Mind you, the characters are so poorly written you don't care what happens to any of them.

As for the acting, the performances are adequate, without being memorable. although getting a good actor like Clancy Brown as one of the parents and then giving him nothing to do in the movie is a waste. Jackie Earle Haley steps into Robert Englund's shoes as Freddy and to be fair isn't that bad, and s definitely the best thing about this remake.

I hope after this movie Platinum Dunes as a company finally gives up on the remakes of the horror 'classics.' None of the ones they've done are as good as the originals, none have imagination, and none of them will stick in your head afterwards.

Get the original Elm Street, and leave this one alone.

Gettysburg (1993)

A truly epic re-telling of the battle

[9/10 · 21 January 2010]

I'm a huge fan of epics, movies with big casts and massive battles. In this regard, Gettysburg is one of the best I've seen.

Re-telling the famous and important battle Ronald F. Maxwell has done a fantastic job. I will state now that I'm not familiar with the history of the American Civil War, but from what I've read, this movie faithfully re-creates the battle. Using thousands of extras, and no CGI at all it would appear, the battle scenes are stunning. While they don't have the intensity of say Saving Private Ryan, they work brilliantly.

The script, written by Maxwell and based on the book The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara, gives the actors plenty of good material to work with, and the cast, led by Jeff Daniels, Tom Berenger, Martin Sheen and Stephen Lang are all wonderful. One of the things about the script is that it never favours one side or another. Most movies about battles or wars, tend to only focus on one side. Here, Maxwell makes sure both sides get their moments on screen. He also shows how each side had officers who were friends now divided by uniform.

It is a long movie, running over 4 hours, but it doesn't actually feel that long watching it. To be fair, the movie is trying to be a faithful depiction of the battle and probably needs it's full running time.

One thing that should be noted is that some of the movie was filmed at the actual battlefield. I don't know how much was shot there, but I can't recall another war movie that has done this.

This an absorbing epic that stands as fitting tribute to the battle and those that died.

Daybreakers (2009)

An impressive twist on the vampire movie.

[8/10 · 17 January 2010]

In the near future, Vampires have taken over the world. Human's are in short supply. As a result, blood is becoming scarce. Edward Dalton, a vampire and hematologist, is working on a blood substitute. After saving some humans from being caught by the authorities, he mets a former vampire now cured and restored to human.....

I must say, this is a very surprising movie. The idea of a world dominated by vampires is one I don't think I've seen before (the closest being the novel I Am Legend), and the writer/director brothers, Michael and Peter Spierig exploit it to the full.

The cast, led by Ethan Hawke, Sam Neil, Willem Defoe are all very good. Giving a script that allows time for characters to be developed helps in this regard. For example, a sub-plot involving Neil's character and his daughter is cleverly developed, and in a way impacts on the ending.

The cure for turning vampires back to humans is one that I haven't come across in movies before and is very clever.

While not an all-out action movie that perhaps some advertising has suggested, what action does occur is well handled. What helps is that for the most part, it appears they have kept the CGI to a minimum. Films recently are overly relying on CGI for their action sequences and the lack of it here for the most part is nice.

This is not a vampire horror movie. This movie a vampire science- fiction movie. But in whatever genre this is put, it is a pretty good movie indeed.

The Book of Eli (2010)

A solid action movie with a message

[6/10 · 17 January 2010]

Some years after an apocalyptic event, a man named Eli is traveling across the country carrying a book. Coming into a small town of survivors, he encounters a man called Carnegie, who wants the book for himself.

The Hughes Brothers, directors of From Hell and Menace II Society among others, have created an interesting and thoughtful action movie, that also carries a message of faith and hope. The action set-pieces are well handled, and the photography of the movie, is very well done. While the setting itself isn't particularly new, along similar lines to Mad Max and other movies of this kind, they still get some pretty impressive visuals.

They are also helped by having two of the best actors around in this movie. Denzel Washington carries the movie easily and is also very convincing in the action sequences. Gary Oldman as Carnegie gives a performance more in line with some earlier work, such as Leon than some recent performances but he is always worth watching. The rest of the cast, led by Mila Kunis all give good support.

If I have a concern for the movie, it's about the final moments of the movie, where a final twist happens. Without giving it away, I'm not completely sure it works within the movie.

But it's a minor issue. Up till then, this is a solid action movie, that doesn't overly rely on CGI, which is rare in recent action movies.

Well worth a watch.

The Missing (I) (2003)

A gripping western, with strong performances.

[8/10 · 2 January 2010]

When her daughter is kidnapped, a woman has to reunite with her estranged father to track her down.....

Ron Howard has made an impressive movie. He stages some impressive sequences, some with a touch of horror mainly due to the villain, El Brujo. The climax of the movie is also well handled. And as he has showing repeatedly, gets excellent performances from his cast.

It does help that he has cast two of the best actors working in Hollywood in the lead roles. Cate Blanchett is as good as always as Magdalena a woman determined to get her daughter back no mater what. Tommy Lee Jones cast as her father is also very good. They are given good material to work with in Ken Kaufman's screenplay, which is based on a novel by Thomas Eidson.

In truth however, it's a story that could work in almost any setting, such as modern day, or in any genre. It so happens to be western set, but as I said, there is a touch of the supernatural with regard to the main villain, El Brujo, which is an interesting twist.

While it won't be considered an all-out action western, it's never supposed to be. What it is however, is a tense and gripping movie, that also works on an emotional level too.

It's well worth checking out.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

An enjoyable romp

[7/10 · 27 December 2009]

Holmes, struggling to come to terms with Watson moving out to marry, is drawn into a case involving the apparent rise from the grave of Lord Blackwood, hung for a series of occult-linked murders. Complicating the matters is the return of Irene Adler, a woman Holmes is drawn to...

The first thing to note about this new Sherlock Holmes movie is that it is not based on any one story. It's an original script that uses elements of the Holmes character, in what is essentially a period buddy movie. The banter between Holmes and Watson is pretty funny at times, and it is clear there is a close friendship between the two. It helps that Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law are both clearly having a lot of fun in the roles and this does come over to the audience.

The supporting cast get mixed results. Mark Strong as Blackwood is a compelling villain. Eddie Marsan as Lestrade is also quite good. However, Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler does her best, but the part floats in and out of the movie at times, and she doesn't get a lot to do.

The big surprise though is actually the director, Guy Ritchie. I've never been a huge fan of his work, but he does a very good job here. The pacing is just right, the humour works well, and the action sequences are well done.

There are some nice touches, such as Holmes thinking out how to defeat an opponent in a fight, slowed down as he thinks it through, then showing at normal speed as it actually occurs. The visuals of Victorian London are impressive as are the sets and costumes.

If there are concerns with the movie, it's actually in the interplay between Holmes and Watson. Although as I said it is funny, at times it comes over in a similar vein to humour in previous Joel Silver movies, such as Lethal Weapon. But it is a minor issue.

In the end how much you enjoy this movie will actually depend on how you feel about Holmes and Watson. If you are a die-hard fan of the characters you may feel that the portrayals here are not the characters you know. If however you are not a massive fan, you may enjoy it as a well made, fun movie.

The Descent: Part 2 (2009)

Better than expected until the final moments.

[6/10 · 20 December 2009]

Sarah having escaped the caves with no memory of the events that took place has to go back into the caves with a team of rescuers to find out what happened to her friends.

This is a totally unnecessary sequel to the the brilliant Descent. In fact, for this sequel to work the film-makers have removed the ending from the UK version and gone with the US ending. I've not seen how that version ends, but was prepared to go with the decision for this movie.

Jon Harris, who edited the original movie has made a decent job of directing the follow-up. He manages to create tension in places, and stages some impressive attacks by the creatures. The attacks are probably more bloody that they were in the first but that's not a problem at all.

The cast, led by Shauna Macdonald as Sarah are all pretty good. There is a nice touch where video is found of the characters from the original movie, and I understand they were all brought back for this. As I said, a nice little touch. It's not as scary as the original even though it does have some good shocks in it, and the new characters aren't as well developed as they were in the original but get enough time to make you care for what happens to them. It also manages to bring closure to the events of the first movie in a touching and slightly moving way.

It is disappointing then to say that for all the good work in the movie, it is let down by a frankly ridiculous and nonsensical twist in the final moments that makes no sense at all. There are 3 screenwriters credited with the script, and I'm not sure which one came up with this twist but it should have been removed.

It turns what would have been a surprisingly good follow-up into potentially another movie franchise, which is wrong.

Avatar (2009)

Stunning on a technical level, poor on plot and script.

[5/10 · 19 December 2009]

Jake Sully arrives on the planet Pandora to take the place of his dead brother in using a creature known as an 'Avatar' to try and move the native people from their home, so humans can mine for a rock that's under it. However, as Sully spends more time with the Na'vi, he finds his loyalty tested....

James Cameron spent around 14 years getting the technology he needed to film this movie. Filming the actors using motion capture technology, then using CGI to replace the actors on screen. It was used for characters such as Gollum in The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, and on movies such as Beowulf, however this is without doubt the best use of the technology in a movie so far. The CGI is stunning, creating an imaginative world and also some impressive alien creatures.

It's always hard to judge performances when done using motion capture, but I'd have to say on the whole the cast are pretty good, the stand-out being Stephen Lang as Col. Quaritch. Sam Worthington as Sully is also very impressive in the lead role.

Cameron, as he has shown in the past stages some very impressive action sequences in the last part of the movie, but also directs the quieter moments very well to.

However....

First of all, for all the time spent on the technology side, Cameron should have spent more time on the story and script. The plot line is very predictable, and some of the dialogue is very poor. Perhaps next movie, he should bring in a scriptwriter to help out.

The 3-D side of the movie, while impressive wasn't the immersive experience I was expecting. In fact, I don't think the movie actually benefits being in 3-D at all. I'm one of those waiting to be convinced that 3-D is the big thing everyone thinks it will be, and nothing in Avatar on that side convinces me.

As I said the CGI is very impressive indeed, but as good as it is, and as good as the action scenes are done, there is no actual tension or excitement. Unlike movies of the past, where you had stunt-men doing actual stunts, the reliance on CGI in modern movies has taken that away, resulting in no sense of dread or risk during the action parts. Avatar isn't the first movie to suffer for this, but it is becoming more and more apparent in movies these days and I wish it would stop.

Another flaw with the CGI is that, some of the emotional aspects of the movie are lost. While it is without doubt the best movie yet of it's kind, the technology still, as yet can't get the emotional side of the performances quite right. It is close, but until they can solve this flaw you won't feel for the characters and their story.

The film is also far too long. The central section of the movie goes on and on, and slows everything down. I'm understand why it's there, to show Sully falling for the Na'vi culture, and also in love, but it just feels baggy.

There is no denying that James Cameron has created a movie that looks fantastic. But I wish he'd spent as much time on the script as he had on the technology side. If he had, he might have made a movie that is the so-called 'game changer' of the movie industry that Avatar is claimed to be (though to be fair, I don't think Cameron has said this himself). Instead, he has only made a movie that looks good, but nothing more.

A pity.