The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011 remake) - Good thriller - proof that remake aren't always bad? 

I can't really justify my title. I confess... I haven't seen the original Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, so I can't compare how the American version fares.

If you haven't read the book or seen the original (like me), it's about a disgraced journalist who enlists the help of a slightly emotionally unstable computer hacker to help him solve a murder that's been troubling a millionaire for decades. And it's fun. As it's the first in the trilogy, you don't need to have read the books first. Everything is explained and neatly wrapped up at the end (will there also be a US sequel? We will have to wait and see).

It is on the long side, so you might want to allocate a good two and a half hours to watching it.

It's worth it though - it could be because David Fincher directed it, but I found it pretty similar to Se7en. 

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Stir of Echoes - Surprisingly good (just don't mention `Sixth Sense') 

'Stir of Echos' is about a regular guy - Kevin Bacon playing an average Joe kind of chap - who, for a laugh at a party, allows himself to be hypnotised and, as a result, starts seeing dead people. Oops, and there was me trying to avoid any 'Sixth Sense' references.

'Stir of Echos' came out in 1999 (the same year as 'The Sixth Sense') and was kind of overshadowed by Bruce Willis' haunting supernatural offering. If you pretty much read any review of 'Stir of Echos,' it almost always mentions 'The Sixth Sense' (just like I seem to keep doing) because they do share a fair about of similarities.  Both have dead people trying to tell our protagonists something from beyond the grave, both films have 'creepy' kids (also with 'the gift') and both were roaring successes at the Box Office.  Okay, so only one was.  And it wasn't the one with poor old Mr Bacon.

It starts off pretty well and, being only an hour and a half long, the first two thirds is pretty tight.  However, it's lack of originality kind of becomes its undoing as the last act is pretty run-of-the-mill and everything wraps up a little too nicely to be believed.  If you're a die hard fan of Kevin Bacon then you'll definitely appreciate it more than most (there has to be a few uber-fans of his out there, doesn't there?).  It's 'his' film through and through as there's not really anyone else on the cast list who you'll really recognise, so it's all on his shoulders.

If I had to choose one, I would go for 'The Sixth Sense' as it was certainly more original (not to mention spooky), but, don't think that 'Stir of Echos' isn't worth a watch. If you like a bit of supernatural drama and solving murders from beyond the grave, give 'Stir of Echos' a try. At least it didn't go for a 'plot twist,' so I can guarantee you that no one is really dead at the end who you thought was alive all the way through.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Alien Abduction - Too many flaws to be taken seriously

Yes, it’s another ‘found footage’ film.  This time it has aliens in it (as opposed to the typical supernatural entity).  Have you ever seen a ‘found footage’ film?  You have?  Then you probably don’t need to see this one.  You probably also don’t even need to read this review, as you’ll probably know/predict everything I’m about to say based on your own knowledge of the genre.

We join our *unwitting* heroes – a family of five on a camping holiday in the middle of nowhere in America – as they pitch tent and generally film (possibly the best ever) footage of UFOs.  As with every ‘found footage’ film, we’re (unsubtly) informed of the reason why someone has taken to documenting every single last second of the family vacation.  In this case – an autistic boy who likes to film everything.  This means that, no matter how many family members are abducted or mutilated, he just keeps on filming regardless – and no one ever seems to tell him to get that flippin’ camera out of their face!

Another problem with ‘found footage’ films is that many – like ‘Alien Abduction’ – tell us at the beginning (and I hope that this isn’t too much of a ‘spoiler’) that the footage was later found by the military.  To me, this kind of tells me everything I need to know as to who will or won’t survive this encounter.

So, the aliens come and scare our family.  This technologically-advanced race appears to be able to fly light years across the galaxy, yet only seems able to pick off one human one by one.  Seriously, they take one family member, then just sort of go away.  Now, once they’re satisfied they’ve got one, they return, after allowing the remaining family members to get a little further closer to safety, only to snatch another one.

The aliens are seen about as much as most ‘villains’ in found footage films.  It’s all shaky camerawork, so you don’t really see as much as you probably want to.  You get the family running, crying into camera and then more running, before the inevitable conclusion.  You get to see a little bit of footage on the space ship, but, if you’ve seen ‘Fire in the Sky’ (or any X-file episode covering alien abduction) then you’ve probably seen scarier/better.

If you like alien films, watch one you already own (because you probably own better).  If you like ‘found footage’ films, then you probably also own a better one, too.  This one just gets too daft.  Seriously... when you see how high a camera can fall from and still work, you’ll know what I mean (please tell me you can buy that make of camera on Amazon – I want it!).

5/10 a hard trek, a bit like unicycling to Mordor and back

The Scorpion King - The Mummy’s distant cousin (once removed)

If you’ve watched ‘The Mummy Returns’ you may be aware that it was Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson’s first on-screen role.  His contribution to the film was hardly iconic (due to arguably the worst special computer generated effects ever committed to film!), but it appeared to be career-defining enough to give him his own spin-off movie, ‘The Scorpion King.’ Ignoring the fact that he was a baddie in 'The Mummy Returns,' he’s now our hero.  And for good reason – he’s so damn loveable!

It’s hard not to root for him, even in a film that really isn’t that good.  Not that that applies to 'The Scorpion King.' It’s great fun.  Hardly a classic, but just good fun.  And, I’ll wager that the demographic most likely to appreciate it would be young boys (or men like me who are still into sword and sorcery etc – I think that qualifies me as a ‘geek’).  I can see gangs of young lads crowding round the telly on a Saturday afternoon to watch the Rock beat countless faceless baddies to a pulp.  It fits into the category of an 'Indiana Jones' movie (or the original Brendon Fraser 'Mummy' film to a lesser degree) - and, no, I'm not saying it's even nearly as good as either, just that it's a similar action/adventure style that doesn't take itself too seriously.

You certainly don’t need to have seen any of the 'Mummy' movies to enjoy this.  Although both films are definitely in the ‘action/adventure’ genre, they don’t really feel alike.  It’s basically a ‘stand-alone’ movie which is only related to its predecessor by the one central character and it’s more at home among the ‘sword and sandals’ films than with the 'Mummy' trilogy.

It has a very basic plot, i.e. good guy must defeat the bad guy and get the girl in the process.  Every scene is a set-up for the next and everything everyone says is an important plot point that will have some significance later on.  The goodies are good and the baddies are very easy to spot.  Sometimes a film uses the tool of having the hero and the villain constantly squaring off against each other, playing off each other.  However, here we have possibly the most stereotypical villain ever.  He shouts.  He bawls.  He wants to marry women who he knows hate him.  He wants to conquer the world and has a habit of killing any of his men who displease him.  He’s not that great to be honest, but, seeing as it’s The Rock’s movie and not his, it doesn’t really matter.  This guy simply fills the ‘villain’ role.

Besides the Rock’s charm as a leading man, it’s also worth mentioning his helpers.  You have Kelly Hu as ‘the Sorceress’ who absolutely smoulders in her role and Grant Heslov as ‘Arpid’ who basically plays the part that John Hannah’s played in the Mummy trilogy as the ‘comic relief’ of the film.

Like I said, this isn’t an amazing movie, but if you’re looking for a ‘family friendly’ Conan-type action film that will keep the boys entertained on a west afternoon, then this is it (or you’re just a big kid at heart!).

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Justice - Never mess with a high school English teacher  

Nicholas Cage plays just your average high school English teacher, whose wife unfortunately gets attacked one night. He, in turn, enlists the help of a shady organisation (managed by the sinister Guy Pearce) who kill the attacker in exchange for a favour from our everyman Nick at a later date.

Skip forward a few weeks and these dodgy dealers only want poor old Nick to kill someone else then, when he doesn't, they go and frame him for murder!

It's about then that Nick decides that he's had enough of teaching grammar and vowels and fights back. Luckily, marking essays has stood him in good stead to take on not only the evil, twisted gang, but also the police and even the odd turncoat friend.

Nick is therefore forced to use everything he's learned from his teacher-training school to run and hide from baddies, fight and even gun them down when necessary, evade capture by the police during high-speed chases, unravel deep conspiracies, investigate deaths and even have time to rescue loved ones.

It's a bit like the Bourne films. Nick runs, gets cornered, escapes, repeat. It's nothing new, but it's not as bad as it could have been. Nick Cage gives his usual performance (and there's still plenty of his fans out there to enjoy it) and Guy Pearce makes a decent enough baddie (hardly stretching his proven acting talents though).

If you like a bit of action/thriller, this one's about as average as they come, but you might just enjoy it.

My English teacher tripped over my school bag when he walked past my desk. He never once foiled a national conspiracy or got caught up in a shoot-out in a disused shopping mall. I guess I went to the wrong school.

6/10 May just keep you awake if Freddy Kruger was haunting your nights

The Cable Guy – Not as bad as you’ve heard

‘The Cable Guy’ is – apparently – so awful that even ‘The Simpsons’ made a joke about it.  A little harsh, in my opinion.  But, to give Homer credit, he did mention how it ruined Jim Carey’s career, which it did – sort of.  To say that the rubber-faced funnyman never worked again would be an exaggeration, but it did show that not everything he touched was Box Office gold.
People were used to him being a loveable eccentric whose over-the-top antics endeared him to the masses.  Not a deranged – and slightly psychopathic – stalker.  Definitely not that.

Mathew Broderick plays an everyman (doesn’t he always?) who has recently moved out of his girlfriend’s house and is now living on his own.  However, when getting his new pad hooked up with cable TV, the installer (yes, Carrey) develops a rather unhealthy obsession with him.
What follows is Broderick trying to desperately regain control of his life while a – clearly bonkers – stalker tries to be his friend in the worst ways possible.

Yes, Carrey is still as over-the-top as ever, but you will certainly not root for him at all and pray you ever encounter anyone like him in your day to day life.

But, the question people ask is, ‘Is it actually funny?’ The answer kind of depends on your sense of humour.  Yes, there is certainly fun to be had here, but the laughs come from a much darker place than Carrey’s previous efforts.

It’s one of those films that’s best enjoyed if you know what you’re getting.  The reason it failed at the Box Office was because audiences were expecting a light-hearted comedy and they got something much more akin to a horror film.  As long as that’s your thing there’s plenty to find entertaining here, plus you have one of the earliest films that Ben Stiller actually directed before he got famous in front of the camera.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Evil Dead (2013) - The most remaky remake ever remade

There are two ways to watch the 2013 version of Evil Dead. If you weren't watching horror in the eighties then you'll probably view this as a competent little horror flick. The acting is decent, as are the special effects. There are a few bits that make you jump and other scenes are reasonably creepy. Therefore, you may conclude that, if you were looking for a decent horror film, then you have found one.

Then there's the other way of looking at it. If, like me, you were a fan of Bruce Campbell's shenanigans in the eighties, as he depicted the wise-cracking `Ash' who was in the original trilogy, then you may be thinking why did you bother watching this?

I knew the remake had no humour. I was prepared for that. I can enjoy an outright horror film without the `tongue-in-cheekness' of the original. However, the central characters are pretty damn unlikeable. Without the humour, they're a miserable bunch who you won't really care much about - they're just a collection of stereotypes, i.e. the blonde, the brunette, the jock, the geek and the other one - `Mia' - who is a teenager trying to get herself off drugs (and failing) and therefore hardly someone we can identify with (hopefully). The opening drags as we're supposed to `get to know' the characters. It felt like this part occupied the first half of the film. I checked the timer and it had only been on for 23 minutes (it felt like 45). Never a good sign.

So, the film plays out pretty much the same as the original. All the aspects are there - the bucketloads of blood, the tree, the thing we never see that runs through the wood and the trapdoor under the cabin. Therefore, if we've seen it before in the original, there's little point in us watching it again. Yes, the film has a more `polished' feel, but there's nothing new here. They tried to stick to the original by keeping to the plot, which just leaves those who've already watched the original finding little new with what's been done to the new version.

If you've never seen the original and you like horror, you'll probably like this. However, I just felt that `no Ask = no point.' Another great classic plundered and failed. If you want to watch a half decent remake of a horror classic, only the 2004 version of Dawn of the Dead comes close.

5/10 a hard trek, a bit like unicycling to Mordor and back

Feast - To appreciate this film you must...

(a) Find somewhere comfy to watch this

(b) Take your brain out and put it somewhere where it won’t have to think much

(c) Crack open the popcorn (or ‘comfort food’ substitute)

(d) Enjoy

‘Feast’ is just about the most low-brow film you’re ever likely to see. It’s also one of the best. The plot is simple... monsters attack a bar at night. Those inside must fight for their life.

Nothing new there, but it’s still fun. Every movie should know what it is before it’s filmed. If it’s a drama, it should stay a drama. Same goes for comedy, sci-fi and the rest. This film knows it’s not serious and it plays to its (black humour) strengths.

It takes great pride in defying the usual horror/monster movie conventions and breaks them in the most grisly and bl00dy fashion.

It’s totally dumb fun and should become any horror fan’s guilty pleasure movies. If you’re looking for ‘deep and meaningful’ you won’t find it here, so move on. I refer to my opening statements – remove brain and enjoy it as much as I did (I’m now off to find where I left my brain now it’s over... or I could leave it where it is and watch Feast 2 and 3 while I’m at it?).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

S. Darko - Not terrible, just unnecessary

The original 'Donnie Darko' movie turned out to be a 'cult classic' and slowly gathered more and more momentum as the years went by.  It's still totally watchable, even if you don't entirely understand it!  It's weird, twisted and totally surreal science fiction about time travel and a revolting bunnysuit-clad man who warns a teenager in the eighties that the world is about to come to an end in a few days time.  Yeah, I never said it was an easy watch and, if you're a fan of David Lynch's films, this should be for you.

However... and it's a BIG however, it's 'sequel' (in name only) just doesn't deliver.  Its biggest problem is that it doesn't add anything new.  In fact, you could almost consider it a 'remake.' It's story follows the original beat for beat, only with a sense of hollowness about it.  Despite the actress who played Donnie's younger sister 'Samantha' (hence the 'S. Darko' title) returning, now much older, and experiencing the weird and sinister world her older brother once did, this one just didn't capture the same magic.

It's certainly not the actors' fault this film doesn't succeed.  They do their best with what's given to them.  It's worth noting that this isn't written or directed by the man (Richard Kelly) who did the first one.  Therefore it lacks the original's sense of visual style and flair, meaning the whole atmosphere just isn't there, along with the classic eighties soundtrack that 'Donnie Darko' possessed.

All the 'weirdness' is just copied - seemingly - for the sake of it, as if it's desperately trying to be 'out there' and 'deep and meaningful,' but really just coming off as bland and incomprehensible.  Yes, the original was odd and many people ended up wondering what it was all about, but even if you didn't understand 'Donnie Darko' you felt like it was an experience worth investing your time in and it was definitely entertaining.  My advice: just stick to the original.

6/10 Should probably keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

The Last Witch Hunter - The generic bad-thing hunter

‘The Last Witch Hunter’ is Van Diesel’s latest action flick – and it’s pretty by-the-numbers.  It’s one of those films that you can sort of have on in the background and still know exactly what’s happening at all times.  I’m not saying that it’s bad, just that you probably won’t remember it and that you’ve seen it all before – namely in films like Van Helsing, Constantine and I Frankenstein. 

As with the other films I’ve just mentioned, you have a secret society (funded by the church in most cases) who employs a single person to despatch whatever evil is threatening humanity.  You could pretty much take out ‘witches’ from the title and replace the baddie with any other movie monster, i.e. werewolves and you’ve sort of have the same film.

Vin Diesel plays himself – a wise-cracking bad-ass that you’ve seen in almost all his other films.  And, if you’re a fan, you’ll be happy enough with his performance.  He goes about his business incarcerating computer generated witches who cast computer generated magic against computer generated backdrops with the help of one sidekick after the next.  He sort of starts off with Michael Caine, the goes through Elijah Wood and ends up with Rose Leslie (although Michael Caine’s input is little more than just an extended cameo).

Sadly, the film’s plot is pretty basic with predictable twists and not great dialogue.  There are a few good one liners to keep it amusing and not too serious, but a handful of good lines don’t really elevate the film enough to make it even into a cult classic.

The baddies themselves are equally forgettable.  I remember when Terminator 2 was released, they made sure that the evil T-1000 robot frequently morphed back into its initial character.  This was to give audiences a recognisable face of the villain.  Here the witch does a lot of morphing, but you don’t really see her much besides the beginning and the end.

I get the feeling the film-makers were hoping to make a franchise out of The Last Witch Hunter.  I could sort of see that happening, but, if by some miracle (or black magic?) it did, I think all sequels would be sent straight to DVD.  It’s not a bad film, just one that you’ve probably seen before – and better.  For Vin Diesel fans only.

5/10 a hard trek, a bit like unicycling to Mordor and back

Red Lights - Worth it, just for the actors

Red Lights is about a team of professional sceptics, aka Cillian Murphy and Sigourney Weaver, who go around `debunking' supposed psychic and supernatural occurances (think Sculley from the X-files, but without the oversize flashlight and shoulderpads).

They seem to be making a good living off picking holes in séances and mediums when along comes our friend Robert DeNiro, who appears to be the `real deal.' Cue a battle played out in the media as they do their best to try and disprove his act.

Red Lights is certainly not the best film in the world, but it's different. I can't think of many other films that cover similar topics. And, of course you have the three big leads who elevate it to something higher than just a B-movie.

There are some twists and turns in the plot (one of which I saw coming, one I didn't) and I won't give those away. However, based on what I've read from other people on the internet after watching it, whether you approve of the `twists' will ultimately determine your enjoyment of the film. I guess it's a case of you have to watch the film to find out whether you'll like it or not.

I thought it was good. Not great, but solid enough to be enjoyable.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Crash – As contrived as it is a classic

‘Crash’ is about the tensions between various races in Los Angeles.  Yes, hardly a topic for a light-hearted romp through the city.  You’ll probably have to be in the mood for something a lot darker (and at times poignant) which will make you think (just don’t think too hard... but I’ll get to that).

The first thing you’ll notice is the wide range of A-list actors on display here.  Yes, it’s one of those ‘ensemble’ casts and even those who don’t have their own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame are definitely also ‘recognisable faces’ meaning that even those who don’t have quite as much screen time as the major stars are all capable of turning in a strong performance.

Sandra Bullock may be the ‘biggest’ star on the cast list, but, in my opinion, it’s Matt Dillon who steals the show.  What you get is a selection of random – some average, some more privileged – people in L.A. whose lives are all due to ‘crash’ into each other in one way or another.  Yes, that’s where the title comes from, but, just in case you miss this meaning, there are also at least a couple of literal car crashes in there as well!

Personally, I loved the film.  It shows good and bad people of many different races and gives you a bit of a ‘whistle-stop’ tour of what it’s like to be them.  You could be expecting one hell of an epic film with so many people on the cast list.  Surprisingly, it’s not overly-long and, although this is good that it never drags, many of the characters never really get ‘fleshed out’ as they probably could have done (had this be made today and given its own Netflix TV series, or something).

I don’t see that as a gripe, but those who didn’t enjoy ‘Crash’ as much as me do tend to dwell on how it’s all a little too contrived.  They ask, ‘Would all these life-changing events really happen in such a short space of time?’ The answer: probably not.  But who cares?  Do we stop watching ‘Eastenders’ because too much happens in such a small area?

It’s a film.  It’s making a point – and quite a brave one.  It shows that no one race is all good and always right, possessing the ‘correct’ way to live their lives.  We all have flaws and we all have people of our own ‘kind’ who are good and bad.  I remember it even won some awards when it was first released.  I agreed with that decision, but I also recall people disagreeing.  However, if you want to see something that is as dark and tragic as it is funny and poignant then definitely give ‘Crash’ a go.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Cherry 2000 - It has to be seen to be believed

I watch a lot of ‘so-bad-they’re-good’ films, but ‘Cherry 2000’ was actually quite different.  It was a ‘so-bad-I-don’t-know-if-it’s-real’ kind of film.  I literally sat there unable to believe my eyes at what I was witnessing.  It’s set in some sort of weird future where men can buy robots shaped like beautiful women who will wait on their every needs.  However, what one such man obviously never read in his ‘wife’s’ instruction manual was that you should probably never get them wet.

I won’t go into the hows and whys of how he gets his ‘Cherry 2000’ model wet (there’s a treat in store for you), but it totally blows a fuse and the local dealer seems to be out of stock in that particular make.  Therefore, the only thing he can do is set out into a forbidden wasteland where there’s – apparently – a robot graveyard full of perfectly-kept Cherrys waiting to be taken back to some lucky man’s kitchen. 

So he does.  Only he doesn’t do it alone.  He enlists the help of a ‘tracker’ – someone who’s familiar with the dangerous world they’re about to explore.  This particular tracker is played by Melanie Griffith.  And this is where the ‘fun’ starts.  That is if you call ‘fun’ really bad acting.  Melanie Griffith can’t act.  Or, to be fair, she can’t act back in this particular film.  I read online that she had just given birth weeks before filming, so perhaps I should cut her a bit of slack.  But she really is bad.  Every line is delivered like she’s reading if from a children’s comic (and not a very well-written comic either).

You could almost say that she ruins the movie, but that would be a little unfair.  The guy who’s hired her tries to ‘out-ruin’ the movie, too.  He’s possibly the least charismatic leading man ever.  Plus he doesn’t seem able to close his mouth – ever.  Therefore, with two such awful leads, you could imagine many people would have turned it off as soon as possible.  But that’s where its appeal lies – you have to watch it to see just how bad it gets.

Plus there’s the script itself.  Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino would struggle to act well delivering these lines.  It’s like the writers were students who had a good idea for a film, but none of the talent to bring it to the big screen.  The action scenes don’t make sense.  The dialogue doesn’t make sense.  The progression of the story from scene to scene doesn’t make sense and, finally, the character motivation doesn’t make sense either.

Cherry 2000 is a disaster, but one of those car crash type disasters that you just have to watch.  You need to know you are in for a bad experience when you sit down to watch this.  It is bad, but it is so bad you really do have to see it to believe it.

6/10 Should probably keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

30 Minutes or Less - Was this meant to be a comedy? 

I seem to recall seeing the trailer for this and thinking it looked kind of funny. Jesse Eisenberg plays his typically geeky and hard done by character once again; this time he's a pizza delivery boy who gets tricked into robbing a bank by two local idiots who somehow know how to strap a bomb-vest around him and give him ten hours to get them one hundred thousand dollars.

I quite liked the idea, but the story didn't seem to know what it was or where it was going. I think the main problem I had with it was the script. In the absence of anything either funny or clever to say, the writers went for volume. There was barely a line delivered at a normal pitch. People just yelled at each other to make up for the fact that no witty dialogue was available at the time.

I guess if you look at this film as more of a tongue-in-cheek thriller, you may get something out of it. However, it's not serious enough to be a thriller and it's definitely not funny enough to be a comedy. Drama maybe? I can hardly see it cropping up on many Academy Award nomination lists.

I did laugh once - about midway through the film and thanks to some unexpected blue stuff.

I guess Jesse's laughs are being stored for Zombieland 2 or something.

Disappointing. It was a nice idea that had no idea. 

6/10 May just keep you awake if Freddy Kruger was haunting your nights