What the world needed, a remake of George A. Romero's 1973 twist on the zombie flick. I could listen to an argument for a remake of Return of the Living Dead or even Dawn of the Dead. Remaking this 1980's video store standby is like covering Beatles tunes but only focusing on Yellow Submarine. This wasn't his best work and was far from being worthy of further attention.

Timothy Olyphant (A Perfect Getaway) and Radha Mitchell (Rouge) star as David and Judy Dutten , an Iowan couple. He is the local sheriff. She is the local sheriff's pregnant wife who is there purely as a means of putting the sheriff in continual and needless peril. A strange series of horrific murders hit their small town in the course of a couple of days. Soon the whole town is frenzied with violent psychopaths. A toxin has entered the water supply turning everyone insane. The whole community quickly descends into being a Darwinian carnival.

The townsfolk slaughter one another and eventually the State shows up and does what the State does best - it screws the whole thing to a point of complete collapse. Given how our Government works, this film gets the State's response completely wrong. In the movie the soldiers show up inside of a few days. In reality this would have gone on for another month before a commission would be set up to talk about the possibility of a response to a dangerous neurotoxin infecting a population. The zombies would have time to become domesticated and vote one of themselves mayor before our Government would step foot in the Midwest.*

The film is a paint-by-numbers affair with no surprises and nothing original. It is pap. There isn't anything wrong with the performances or even the execution (other than a reliance on gore - but you have to excuse that since that's the reason for making the movie). The problem with the film is that it is so painfully unoriginal. Even the DVD cover isn't new. The dragging of the pitchfork is a direct homage to the Coen Brother's Blood Simple where the implement was a shovel being dragging along asphalt.

You do not need to see this movie, so don't. It is a time waster and you have more to do with yourself than waste your time.


* - Unless it was Primary Season - this is Iowa after all.





Related Reviews:
Zombie movies
28 Days Later (2002)
Dead Snow (2009)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Beyond Hollywood
Film Freak Central



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: film, George A Romero, movie review, Radha Mitchell, remake, Timothy Olyphant, zombie

Short Review: Quite possibly the worst adaptation of Breakfast at Tiffany's I've ever seen.


What do you want me to say? This is a remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre - it is what it is. Teens gets lost. Teens find creepy country folk. Teens get sliced up by a chainsaw. Teens have their skin removed by the creepy country folk and are worn around the house like Halloween costumes. I’m not certain there’s much more that really needs to be said.

The bottom line is this, you have a question to ask yourself - is this beneath me or not? Yes, you can be entertained by films such as this. They can give a thrill and can tickle your guttural instincts. They can scare you. Fine. But at what cost do you need to be scared? You are watching images of people being sliced apart by a chainsaw, hung up on hooks, tortured. Don't think viewing this kind of thing, even when its fake, has no impact on your psyche. It does.

So the question you have when presented with a film such as this is simple: is this beneath me? Are you worth more than this? Is your time worth more than this? You have a finite amount of time and it is slipping away moment by moment and you have less of it than you know.

You are worthwhile, you have potential to do wonderful, memorable things. Why threaten that by wasting your time on junk - real poison like this? You have other things, important things, you can be doing. Why do this?

Okay, my sermon said, let's talk about this thing.

I have to admit upfront that while this is a violent movie - very violent, it is lacking in gore. The difference? People get chopped up by a chainsaw but the way it is presented focuses more on the violent act than the sanguine elements. We see Leatherface tag someone with the chainsaw but instead of getting an eyeful of gaping wounds and drooling blood, we see the puffy lining of a coat fly in the air as the sound of the chainsaw cutting is heard. It is still horrifically violent, but to give credit where it is due, it isn't sophomoric in its presentation. I know that may sound strange, especially in light of my rant above. Given the overtly psychotic sequels to the original and perverse tone of the slasher genre as a whole, this film at least makes the attempt to be somewhat within the realm of possibility...somewhat.

Before you start thinking that I’m recommending this film, let me state that I am not. Garbage in, garbage out. There is precious little reason for anyone to watch a movie having people being disemboweled by a chainsaw (unless it is to keep them from watching a Ben Stiller movie, but only as a last resort.) This is a graphic slasher film and should be avoided. That said, as slasher films go, this is one of the better ones. It has a slow build to increase the tension, as I mentioned the horror is played up and the gore is played down. This is a more mature look at the slasher genre. Which is like describing an hourly-rate hotel as "one of the higher class dumps I've stayed in."


Worldview: There is something in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies that is of note. They typify a character motif I call The American Savage. The American Savage is a dull-eyed hick who is prone to racism and violence.

The America Savage, a staple of all Stephen King stories, is a backward, dangerous ignoramus. They are the hillbillies, crackers, drifters and bubble gum chomping diner waitresses of flyover country. Think of any film where a car breaks down – chances are, the hero comes across American Savages.

As a rule the American Savage is there as a representation of the barbarism of American culture (according to those on the coasts). Most films are made by people who live and/or are from the coasts. Flyover country is a mythical place where WalMart Greeters and Hee Haw extras are made.

Often used to denigrate Americanism, conservatism or any other ism that doesn't jive with snotty coastal thinking (remember you folks from the coasts, you're living on the outskirts of the country), the American Savage motif is an easy "Us vs. Them" tool used to great effect in many films.


Related Reviews:
Horror Movie Remakes
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Amityville Horror (2005)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Reel Views
Roger Ebert




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: horror, Jessica Biel, R Lee Ermet, remake

Screenwriters: Scott Kosar (The Machinist) and Ray Wright (Pulse)
Director: Breck Eisner
Actors: Radha Mitchell (Rogue), Timothy Olyphant (Meet Bill) and Joe Anderson (The Ruins)

Labels: film, Joe Anderson, movie trailer, Radha Mitchell, remake, Timothy Olyphant, zombie

Just imagine if the studios put this much effort into making original material.

Remakes of cheesy 80's horror flicks is about as being offered a bag full of secondhand Doritos.





Screenwriters: Wesley Strick (Doom) and Eric Heisserer
Director: Samuel Bayer
Actors: Jackie Earle Haley (Watchmen), Rooney Mara (Youth in Revolt), Thomas Dekker (From Within), Katie Cassidy (Taken), Kyle Gallner (Jennifer's Body) and Clancy Brown (Highlander)

Labels: Clancy Brown, film, horror, Jackie Earle Haley, movie trailer, remake, Rooney Mara, Thomas Dekker

Short Review: I kept hoping this was the tape from The Ring so that damp little girl would pop out of my TV and put me out of my misery.


If you saw The Ring (staring the impeccable Brian Cox of Super Troopers fame,) you have seen The Grudge – except the lighting is better. This opus, like The Ring, is actually a remake of a Japanese horror film. That means this mindless crud is infecting two cultures at the same time. Moreover, they released The Grudge II (I believe it will be called The Grudge Takes Manhattan.) And you thought the invasion of Pearl Harbor was reason enough to go to war.

The interesting thing about this film is that it goes out of its way to make certain we know the victims are wholly innocent. Morality has nothing to do with one's fate in this film. Much like The Ring, each character happens across an unstoppable evil that consumes them for its own private pleasure. There is nothing intentional to get on the death list and there is nothing one can do to stop it. Actually, in The Ring you could stop it by propagating the evil. It’s as if the movie wants us to believe we’re all just flies trapped in a large web. The spider will get you sooner or later.

What's fun is that? That the thing about fatalists, they're so darn boring. Everything is always so gloom and doom.

The film isn't well done. The Ring was cheaper looking but at least had more detail and depth. This film is flat. The writing is still and wanting. There is not a serious moment of suspense in the whole piece. You know up front that everyone is going to die, so there is no shock when everyone eventually bites the dust. Furthermore, the only reveal is the crime that brings the curse into being. The problem is the situation that gives birth to the curse is not compelling. I've see worse situations in the morning paper every week. The reason for the curse should be a huge payoff and it isn't even chump change.

Looking to the acting: Sarah Michelle Gellar should stick to the facial astringent commercials. Leave the acting to the adults. I’ve seen mimes with more subtlety. Bill Pullman is apparently in a good portion of the film, I don’t quite remember him being in there. I do remember a large chunk of driftwood lumbering about muttering lines, but no Pullman.

Overall, if you’re over thirteen and can read books without pictures you can skip this one. If you want scary go watch MTV for an hour – if that doesn’t get you begging for the mercy of our Lord, nothing will.


Related Reviews:
Horror movies
The Ruins (2008)
Gwoemul "The Host" (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Beyond Hollywood
ReelViews

Labels: Bill Pullman, film, horror, Japanese cinema, movie review, remake, Sarah Michelle Gellar

Short Review: Ryder is a bad guy with a soul. Walter is a hero who need redemption. We’re an audience in need of some entertainment.



Like Assault on Precinct 37 or The Italian Job, this a remake that was done for no apparent reason. The original is hardly a classic and this reworking doesn't shine as well. Are we wallowing so deep in post-modern muck that we need to recreate mediocrity?

John Travolta and Denzel Washington spend time in this rehash of the 70’s flick about the hijacking of a New York subway. Ryder (Travolta) and his crew of highly expendable thugs jump Pelham 123, a subway car. Walter (Washington) is a dispatcher with a troubled past.

When the cops show, Ryder insists on only negotiating with Walter. This sets up a long series of hostage phone conversations which are just like every other series of hostage phone conversations we’ve seen in film for forty years.

Director Tony Scott employs his usual sharp edged stylization in an attempt to mask his hollow script. Neither Travolta nor Washington have much to do since their character don’t have notable arcs. They yap and yap as they wait for the next plot point to arrive.

In order to make the final confrontation happen the plot has to discard any logic and/or acknowledgment of police procedure. All of the narrative acrobatics leads to a resolution that is dissatisfying and when considered, pretty darn distasteful.




Related Reviews:
Denzel Washington movies
Man on Fire (2004)
American Gangster (2007)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Commentary Track
Movie Freak

Labels: Denzel Washington, film, John Travolta, movie review, remake

Screenwriter: Rob Zombie (The Devil's Rejects)
Director: Rob Zombie (House of 1,000 Corpses)
Actors: Malcolm McDowell (Tank Girl), Tyler Mane (Troy), Sheri Moon Zombie (Halloween) and Brad Dourif (Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers)

Labels: Brad Dourif, film, Malcolm McDowell, movie trailer, remake, Rob Zombie

Screenwriters: Adam Alleca and Carl Ellsworth (Disturbia)
Director: Dennis Iliadis
Actors: Tony Goldwyn (Ghost), Sara Paxton (Superhero Movie), Monica Potter (Saw) and Garret Dillahunt

Labels: film, movie trailer, remake

As a rule, if the movement of the camera is accompanied by a rushing sound effect, the movie is going to stink. This isn't a 100% rule, but its a reliable indicator of junk coming your way.

There's that and the fact that this is a remake of a bad movie. It's bad enough when they remake good movies.

Labels: film, horror, movie trailer, remake, Selma Blair

Sure it needs to be remade, we wouldn't want this generation to miss out. It needs to be updated, the stabbings will be in Hi-Def now, it will be so much cooler. This looks like the rehash of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, an intricately well shot but ultimately frivolous piece of cinematic waste.

Its one thing to have our culture dip into the slasher genre in the first place, its another thing that we've become so stagnant that they have to go back to the same cheesy franchises. Honestly, this generation is so pathetic they don't even get their own crap, they get fed rehashed crap from their parents. This hand-me-down culture is getting too much to bear.




Screenwriters: Damian Shannon (Freddy vs. Jason) and Mark Swift (Freddy vs. Jason)
Director: Marcus Nispel (Pathfinder)
Actors:Jared Padalecki (House of Wax), Danielle Panabaker (Mr. Brooks), Amanda Righetti, Travis Van Winkle (Meet the Spartans), Derek Mears (The Hills Have Eyes II) and Aaron Yoo (Disturbia)

Labels: film, horror, movie trailer, remake

As a general rule I am against remakes. The recent trend is to rehash every recognizable title in cinematic history into a cheap facsimile, fabricated for a culture that no longer cares. To be honest, when I first heard they were remaking this classic, I expected a disappointing and unneeded film until I saw Christian Bale and Russell Crowe fronted the production.

Fortunately, this is a well-conceived film that is definitely worth your attention. Both Bale and Crowe give substantive performances. Crowe plays Ben Wade, an infamous criminal who has been condemned to be hanged at Yuma Prison for his sins. Crowe is well at ease in this role of a seductive, smiling criminal who can be murderous one moment and glad handing the next. Bale is Dan Evans, a financially strapped rancher, who also happens to be a great shot. When no one else is up to the task, Dan volunteers to deliver Ben to his judgment.

As Dan and his compatriots deliver Ben to the 3:10 train to Yuma, they run into all matter of danger and are pursued by Ben's gang. The gang is headed by the wild-eyed Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) who is flushed with rage and has a tendency to accommodate his itchy trigger finger. Foster overacts his part but his broad performance still works. His character is meant to soften Ben's villainy. Ben may be a bad man, but he's not as bad as that sharp toothed snake of man Prince.

Throughout the film Ben offers Dan numerous chances to avoid is duty, to break his word. It is clear that Dan will not survive the trip, Ben's gang will find him and they will kill him. It is likewise clear that Ben will not bend. He is the only man of honor in the film. He stands by justice and he does not yield.

The film is expertly executed and founded in a very strong script updated by Derek Haas and Michael Brandt (Wanted). Along with the strong performances and steady direction, this film is a blueprint on how to remake a movie.


Cautions: This is a violent film. The violence isn't gratuitous but it is plentiful. Those with sensitivity to violence should reconsider seeing the movie.


Related Reviews:
Christian Bale movies
Batman Begins (2005)
The Prestige (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Cinema Dave
Ill-Informed Gadfly




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Christian Bale, film, movie review, remake, Russell Crowe, western

William Friedkin's remake of Wages of Fear starts out strongly and then drifts into a series of high tension scenes that fail to impress. Starring Roy Schneider, this film follows a group of distraught men who take a job delivering nitroglycerin across rough South American terrain. Unlike the original, this film does a fantastic job setting up why these men would take such a job, but it loses much of its steam when the men leave to perform their job. This lukewarm production may be worth stopping on if you see it, but it is not worth hunting down.


Related Reviews:
Movies in South America
Aguirre: The Wraith of God (1972)
Le Salaire de a Peur (Wages of Fear) (1954)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Film Journal
DVD Authority

Labels: film, movie review, remake, Roy Scheider, Willian Friedkin

Labels: film, movie trailer, Nicholas Cage, remake