The Hills Have Eyes 2 (2007)

The 2007 follow up to the remake of the Wes Craven horror film that this time follows a group of trainee soldiers as they are on a training mission in the area occupied by the family that took care of the family from the first film. I have not seen the sequel to the original film that came out in 1985 and do not know if this is a remake of that or a straight sequel to the 2007 film which I reviewed here.

This film is annoying, the characters are stupid and I have no idea how any of them got to be in the army at all. There are very few names you will recognise and to me it is just another sequel/remake/horror film churned out for the cash that it might generate. You have Michael McMillan, Jessica Stroup, Jacob Vargas, Flex Alexander, Daniella Alonso basically playing generic roles that include the clown, the chief and the girl that is tough as nails but not really. Even though they are aware what is happening they still make stupid decisions that lead to problems for themselves.

This film is barely worth watching, perhaps some of the kills are inventive if a bit predictable, but I could not remember the following day that I had seen this film when asked what I had watched at the weekend which sums up how bad it was. Now the effects and direction were okay but apart from that and a few scenes there was nothing worth watching this film for at all, well that I can remember. So this is a 2 out of 10 seriously avoid from me.

The Departed (2006)

From 2006 starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Walberg and Martin Sheen from director Martin Scorsese this is remake of Infernal Affairs bring the action of spies, cops and robbers to Boston. This is the film that finally won Scorsese his Oscar and while it is awesome and I really enjoy it I am unsure if it deserved the Oscar for that year. There are questions whether the award was more of a life time achievement award for Scorsese. You follow Leo and Matt as they grow up and come through the ranks of the Police and Criminal organisations and you follow Leo as an undercover cop he infiltrates Jack Nicholson's gang. And you follow Matt Damon as a member of Jack Nicholson's gang as he infiltrates the police and rises to power.


his film is full of twists and turns and you follow the main leads as they struggle with maintaining their identity and also trying to find out who the other is. There are plenty of shocks and the ending is awesome, confusing and just about right for this film and even though I have seen it a couple of times still love the ending. There is some love interest that focuses on Vera Farmiga; this gives more insight in to both the characters as they both interact with her.


The first time I saw this film I was on holiday in the US and always wondered if my love for it stemmed from the experience but taking the time to re-watch it I still love this film and give it a solid 9 out of 10 and a high recommend to everybody. Also if I get the opportunity I will be looking out the original as I have heard that this is very good as well.

Mr Deeds (2002)

Adam Sandler playing Longfellow Deeds in a comedy about a nice guy inheriting the controlling interest in a Media conglomerate and starts doing business his way. This is a remake of the 1936 film Mr Deeds goes to Town. You have the crook played by Peter Gallagher tries to convince him to sign it all over to him. With support from Winona Ryder and John Toturro. Adam Sandler films are hit or miss for me, some of the early stuff like Billy Maddison and Happy Gilmore have some funny parts in them but overall I am not that big a fan of his.

Here the problems with the film lie in the fact that Longfellow Deeds is to good, he does everything right and everybody loves him. It just felt so false for me and was not that taken with him on any level. A couple of the jokes are funny including his black foot but is a bit overplayed and got old quite quickly.

I am sure if you are a fan of Adam Sandler then you will have enjoyed this film and enjoyed the jokes and it will have been right for you. However for me it missed the mark and I can only give it 4 out of 10 and say that if not already an Adam Sandler fan then avoid this.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

A remake of the Wes Craven film directed by Alexandre Aja, about a family of campers, they decided to take a shortcut across Department of Defense land. That land had previously used for Nuclear testing and they run into the family that still live there. One of many films in the last few years to get a remake, very little reason other than money for the film to be made.


You follow the family Aaron Stanford, Kathleen Quinlan, Vinessa Shaw, Dan Byrd and of Lost fame Emilie de Ravin. It all starts when their caravan breaks down and not fearing anything they settle down and then things start to happen including one of their dogs going missing and then it is a battle for survival as the family are picked off one by one. This film falls in to the category of another mindless horror film to me, I have struggled to remember that much that happens in the film and to this means little to no redeeming features.

Overall I remember enjoying some of the kills and some tension but overall there is not that much in the film that is appealing and it certainly is not a film I will rush to revisit. So in scoring this film it will have to be a generous 3 out of 10 and that is only for a couple of the kills.

Funny Games U. S. (2007)

Shall we begin?


Michael Haneke remade his 1997 film Funny Games for an American audience, starring Tim Roth and Naomi Watts. It follows an upper class family as they holiday in their lakeside home and then you meet Peter and Paul. This film is designed to disturb and upset you and is violent without being gratuitous but it is uncomfortable to watch. This is the aim of Michael Haneke and to be honest he achieves this to the point that while watching it as it approached the end, being in a position to look I looked up the ending as I needed to know and could not handle the tense feeling and I very rarely ever do this while watching a film.


This is not normally the sort of film that I choose to watch but I have also come to the conclusion that I cannot judge a film by what others say and really have to watch these things so that I can judge all of the films that are there. It does fall in to the Horror/Terror category so this is one of the reasons when I saw it on the TV I decided to give it a watch. The feelings it evoke are hard to bare and then Haneke in his wisdom rams it down your throat that he only made this to show you what you want to see. The fact that this is a shot for shot remake means that I do not have to watch the German original and while I actually appreciate what he achieved with the tension I do not need to see this film again. 


However this is probably the hardest film I have ever had to recommend or rate, I would say 4 stars in film making, should you watch this film? This is something you will have to decide for yourself, I will say if you love film and want to see what can be achieved then go for it. If however you watch films for enjoyment then this is not the film for you, if you have seen either version or have any thoughts on them please let me know.

The Fly (1986)

Film of 2012 #67


The David Cronenberg remake of the 1958 body swap horror film, sees Jeff Goldblum as Dr Seth Brundle a genius who is creating the next big thing. He meets Geena Davis at a party, they get together and she sees what he is creating. In his hurry to show off and impress her he uses his machine and he tele-ports from pod 1 to pod 2 in the first human tele-portation, however something goes wrong. You follow him in his discovery as he realises what has happened and he tries to come to terms with it.

This is a classic, from the master of body horror and it sees the transformation from Dr Brundle to the Brundle-Fly of the Jeff Goldblum character and you have him trying to understand it and document it. The best part is the fact that he does not actually do that much to try and fix the problem. You have that realisation from the Geena Davis character and the fact that she can do nothing as Jeff Goldblum does not want any help. This captures the horror of science gone wrong and is really gory and think that it is a modern classic.


I am disappointed in myself that it took that long for me to get around to watching this film but I am really glad that I finally did. If you enjoy David Cronenberg's other films or just horror in general then it is really worth seeing and a 4 star recommend from me.

My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)

Film of 2012 #63


The First of the 3D horror spectaculars that came out at the start of the new Digital 3D revolotion and was part of the catalyst for all of the horror films that followed in the vain of Final Destination. I did not see this in 3D at the theartre and watched it as I had been meaning to and I do enjoy a good slasher film. This is a remake of a 1981 film and is a common idea behind a slasher film with the main protaganist returning 10 years after the slaughter of 22 people in a local mine by Harry Warden. The main character is Tom Hanniger played by Jensen Ackles, his old flame is Sarah Plamer played by Jaimi King and her husband Axel Plamer played by Kerr Smith who is also the local sheriff. 

This film is slightly different from your typical 80's and 90's slasher as the targets of the slashings are not your typical teen victims, they were teenagers at the time of the original attacks and when the film is set they are in their late twenties so that is the first small twist. It is funny as the characters still behave like they are teenagers, the difference being a couple have kids and are married but they react like teenagers. The film in itself tries to throw red herrings at you but you realise they are pointing so firmly in one direction that it has to be wrong and you then know exactly who is the killer. 

The 3D effects, as they normally are in horror films of this ilk are obvious and easy to see when the 3D is off and I think that this falls into the fun with a few drinks and friends category. I like what the film tried to do with the story twists and the idea but I think they got to carried away with the idea of the 3D and forgot the rest of it. This is a 2 star avoid unless you are a fan of the horror/Slasher genre then it is a film that is enjoyable enough within this genre.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Film of 2012 #60


After watching the original Planet of the Apes and the recent release of the Rise of the Planet of the Apes which I reviewed here, I revisited the remake from Tim Burton. Starring Mark Whalberg as the lost astronaut and Helena Bonham Carter, Tim Roth, Paul Giamatti and Michael Clarke Duncan taking the roles of Apes. While this film is a remake in basic terms it is a very different film, there are some homage's to the original and the idea behind it with a human discovering the Planet ruled by Apes is the same concept but what it explores is a different idea. 

The film explores some of the ideas of the original with Humans being the weaker race but the ending is vastly different and the overall idea behind the film misses something of the original. If this film had been an original idea or at least had taken a different name I could almost accept this as a film, however it simply plays on the name of the original. As a remake it does not stick to the original idea which in itself makes a different movie but it gets lost in the comparison to the original so is not judged fairly. 

I have to say that I like what the film does with the ending with the statue at the end but overall the film annoys me specifically with the decisions that the Mark Whalberg character makes. This film is an interesting idea behind what a remake could be taking an original idea and taking it in a totally different direction rather than as a shot for shot remake, overall I cannot get behind Mark Whalberg and the decisions or the direction the story goes. This is a 2 star avoid, worth seeing if you are interested in Tim Burton's take on the Planet of the Apes but no more than that.

Piranha (2010)

Film of 2012 #42

The 3D spectacular from Alexandre Aja that sees a remake of the 1978 fish horror film that I previously reviewed here. They take the basic idea of the Piranha in the water and use it as a natural monster spectacular. This film is basically your fun horror movie dark comedy with bloody gore and boobies used to comedic effect and it could be considered a bit campy but it really is enjoyable fayre. While the original film worked on the principle that the fish were genetic creations and were released in to the water, this idea works as the prehistoric fish have been living below a lake and a natural earthquake releases these fish into the water.

Your main cast is Elizabeth Shue as the sheriff, she is looking might fine in this film, you have her son played by Steven R McQueen who is on a different story line with Jerry O'Connell, Kelly Brook and porn star Riley Steele. You have a seismologist played by Adam Scott and Christopher Lloyd playing the expert, the characters are a means to an end and are not that well developed. There is no back story for any of them and really you do not need a back story you are simply watching this for the gore effects and the cool kills. You also have Richard Dreyfuss and Ving Rhames making appearances and you have several Jaws references which were really fun to spot.

Overall this film is not for everyone, there are scenes that are quite disgusting and are very gory, there is one sex scene that is in there simply for the sex scene. However that aside if you enjoy the campier, comedic side of gory horror then this films, this will be right up your street, it does not need to be seen in 3D however if you have the opportunity to see it in 3D then they use the gimmick of the 3D to good effect. A B movie worth seeing and a 4 star recommend for me, this is actually one of my films of 2011.

The Next Three Days (2010)

Film of 2012 #24
Some Spoilers

This Russell Crowe film is a remake of a French film (Anything for her) that I have not seen and centres around the idea that a Woman is jailed for murder and her husband has 3 days to break her out. It explores the concept of a normal man doing extraordinary things in the face of love. I actually really enjoyed this film, while I do not know if a normal and could do what is required of Russell Crowe it is an interesting exploration of the idea, you see him watching YouTube videos on how to make Bump Keys and open car doors and I have no idea if these things would work but it is an interesting angle and also the fact that what he tries back fires and does not work actually, it works really well for the film with the idea that he is not perfect and things do not always work out the way you expect, 

My biggest issue with the film is the title it implies that three days are ultimately important to the film and overall you do not really get an understanding of how much time is passing or passed and it is not really clear how long anything takes for him to do or feel the time pressure. Other than near the end but then it is being measured in minutes not days. I like some of the intelligent touches that the Russel Crowe character throws in there with the bag of rubbish and going to the train station which is very clever.

I do not normally like Russell Crowe as I do not like him in real life but he was actually very good in this and I actually think he is an excellent actor. When someone that you do not like can convince you they are likeable and intelligent and nervous and scared they must have some good acting skills. I recommend this film it is a strong 3 stars, there are flaws and some of his knowledge seems to come from nowhere but overall a very enjoyable film that I would probably watch again.

King Kong (2005)

The latest version of the 1933 classic film from Peter Jackson who is now in position for making the epic films after his exploits with the Lord of the Ring trilogy. This is a more direct remake of the original story with the characters using the same names with some slight changes to their roles in the film but ultimately they fulfil the same roles as the original.

The biggest difference between this film and the original are the size of the set pieces, from my experience this is the biggest issue that most people have is the fact that a couple of scenes go to far in stretching the believability of even the extreme situation they are in. The dinosaurs stampeding is one of them, the fact that fewer incidents with the people, the vines and the T-Rex fight and the bug attack are all points that stick out where you watch and go that is very clever but really? It takes you out of the film some what.

The best part of the film though is Kong portrayed by Andy Serkis using motion capture technology and while they do put some human emotions on an animal still you can see an intelligence in the eyes of the beast. This is 4 stars, simply for the effects and the tie in to the original film. Worth seeing so you can see what they can do with special effects these days.

King Kong (1976)

The remake of the 1933 classic , I watched this straight after seeing the original and have to say that I liked where it decided to go, they update the story to what is present day so the 1970's they stretch a bit with the idea that there is an island on earth that has not been discovered in an age when we have walked on the moon but you can let them away with it.

Jeff Bridges plays a hippy photographer and this plays in to the moral of the story when he sneaks on board a petrol explorer boat that believes that if they go to the island which is hidden by fog, the believe it is hidden because of fumes from a massive petrol field that is undiscovered. Ultimately this follows the same basic story as the original but has a moral story about the rape of the natural world and the impact that mankind can have on the world if they do not stop and think about what is best rather than what is best for themselves, quite blatant and not very subtle but does not overly bother me.

This is a solid 3 star film, possibly edging almost to 4 but being a remake it just loses out, if you enjoy watching films and seeing the same story told in different ways then this is well worth a watch.

King Kong (1933)

Considering that this film is nearly 80 years old, it still stands up to today's exacting standards, yes some of the effects are a bit dodgy and really the stop motion that they use is dated and you can see the strings and you can tell how some of the effects are done but overall you have to remember that these effects were done in a different time period when things were done properly.

Reading up after watching this film this was actually a risque film, at the time this was made there were little to no rules about what you could show on film. Reading the history of the film from the cuts that were made to being restored it is a snap shot of where we have been with films. Overall this film is excellent you care about the characters and Kong who is the star of this film you care so much about what is happening to him and even though you know the end and you know where it is going you still hold your breath while he scales the tower.

I would say that this is a five star film that everybody who cares about film should at least try and watch once, it is also good if yo have seen the Peter Jackson film from 2005 you will see where he takes lots of his inspiration.

The Thing (2011)

So what did I want from a remake/sequel/prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter's The Thing, which I reviewed here, nothing I did not want the 1982 film touched at all but as I said in my review of the 2011 trailer here, I was not looking forward to it. The biggest issue i have is the fact that we know how it has to end as it has to tie in with the original start. The biggest thing they could not resist that the original could not do was using CGI at least it was done fairly well still not a patch on the effects of the original.

Now trying to be honest I have to say that I enjoyed this film from the stand alone point of view, they do not remake the film but there a certain scenes that they have to make decisions about and they cannot just do what they want, I think that a film in the universe of The Thing with no tie to the original film would have been interesting. A big issue I have is that there are enough questions about the motivation of the creature from the first film and this film just raises some more regarding what where and why and really the tension and enjoyment of the film do not need these concerns to make them a  good tense film.

So the cast were fine it was good to see Mary Elizabeth Winstead in the lead role and the supporting cast were good as well. I liked the differences between it and the original, it took it's own way and had the check points that all prequels have to indulge in but overall it was a solid film and one that i would recommend whatever you think of it the 1982 film is still there. This is a solid 3 star film for me.

Conan The Barbarian (2011) Trailer

I get confused between the Arnold versions of the Barbarian and the Destroyer and cannot remember which film is which but I know that I enjoyed them both and when they decided to remake Conan the barbarian I was unsure how I felt about it as it is not one of my all time favourite films but I do enjoy them and I do think that they are taking remakes to far.

So the trailer shows us that there will be lots of sword and sorcery and this appeals to me however and this is good from the trailer you do not get to much of the story so when you get there it will be a pleasant surprise that is presuming that there is a story, hopefully they will just make their own story and we will not keep getting references to the original but it will be more based upon the comic book which I have never read rather than the films from the 80's.

I am actually going to see this film this afternoon at the cinema going to see it in 2D as to me 3D is totally dead and there are very few films I want to see in 3D any more.

UK Release Date - 24th August 2011

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

I went to watch this film with anticipation and some trepidation it falls in to the double whammy category of remake, of a sorts from the Apes films and a prequel to the Mark Whalberg remake of the Charlton Heston classic Planet of the Apes. So I was not really sure what to expect from the film in general I knew that with James Franco and John Lithgow acting in the film and Andy Serkis doing the motion capture there were going to be some good acting and great special effects. The trailers which I have seen a few of and reviewed one here did not give as much away as I thought after seeing the film. The editing of them was quite deceptive and watching the trailer after seeing the film I have to say that they look like they are advertising a different type of film.
I have to say that overall I was fairly satisfied by the film as a whole, there was some good acting by John Lithgow as the Father with Alzheimers and a good performance from Tom Felton as a keeper in the Primate sanctuary with an interesting performance from Brian Cox as his father. The biggest disappointment to me was James Franco I thought he was totally miscast as the scientist I could not believe in him as a super intelligent character, which is a shame as I have really enjoyed a lot of his films recently. With Andy Serkis doing the motion capture for Ceaser I have to say that it was totally believable and the CGI which the film has to rely on heavily was awesome. The Apes which had to convey so much emotion without any words or communications you could see the intelligence and what they wanted from their movements and reactions.

Overall with worried expectations I have to say that I really enjoyed this film it is a strong 3 stars and I am interested what they are going to do with the series if this film is successful enough to spawn the probable sequel, I have to say that the nods to the original with Charlton Heston and the fact that it lossely linked back to the Mark Whalberg film were fantastic and I really enjoyed catching them. The one thing that bothereed me while watching was the sheer number of Apes in just the one city.

The Thing (2011) Trailer

So the 1982 classic from John Carpenter is getting a somethingm from what I understand it is a prequel and is based in the Norwegian camp, so anyway we know how this will end up. Why on earth do we have to have a sequel to the classic, why not have an original idea to the original film (I know Carpernter's is a remake) but why not just leave the original and steal the idea and create a stand alone story that has nothing to do with the Thing but uses the same basic idea. The problem is that the film is tied to what is shown in the original also it is a group in the Antartic how different a film can it be without changing some of the rules.

Anywy the trailer does look good and I will probably see the film at the cinema as the original this is a prequal to is one of my all time favourite films. You have Mary Elizabeth Winsted invited to the antartic to investigate what the Norwegians have found and the creature comes through, I do wonder if they will actually finish where the John carpenter film starts with the helicopter, that would be fun to see.

So overall another film that is not needed at all but I will go and see it at the cinema.

UK Release date - 21st October 2011.

The Amazing Spiderman (2012) Trailer

The Amazing Spider-Man coming to a cinema's in 2012, I had not even heard that this film was getting made but it looks awesome from the trailer it is a reboot starring Andrew Garfield who found fame in The Social Network and possibly should have won the best supporting actor Oscar according to some people I have heard who talk abut these things.

It seems to go further back than the Sam Raimi original origin story and brings in Peter's parents so that could be interesting. I am not a big fan of origin stories but I have to say that it does look interesting, it really is interesting that a film that is not even 10 years old yet is getting rebooted, it either goes to show that they are willing to do anything to maintain rights or they truly have run out of ideas.

I know that I will go and see this film at the cinema because I always see the really big films there. Not saying that i am going with really high expectations but I do expect to enjoy it.

UK Release Date - 5 July 2012

The Crazies (1973)

This is the 1973 film written and directed by George A Romero and is the story of a small town that becomes contaminated by a man made virus and the story of the army who try to contain and quarantine the town and some of the town inhabitants. You follow Judy and David and David's friend from the fire service Clank. This film was remade in 2010 and I saw that before watching the original, I have to say that I enjoyed the remake and the original film is just as good if not better for being made in 1973.

The acting is a bit ropey and the effects especially the blood effects are not very good but I think that you just have to consider the time it was made and the probable budget that was involved. I have to say that while the acting and the effects are overall it is excellent B movie that is worth watching and i will revisit again, The remake is also worth a watch and i will actually look at seeing that again in the near future after seeing this film.

This is a 4 star recommend for me, it is not a 5 star film as not everybody will enjoy it but it is worth seeing and I look forward to watching it again.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

This is the 2010 Platinum Dunes remake of the Wes Craven classic from 1984 starring Robert Englund and Helen Langenkamp. Now the remake was highly talked about and there was a lot of discussion around whether they would get Robert Englund back to play the role that made him famous. And they went with an interesting decision, they chose Jackie Earle Haley who came to prominence to me as Rorschach in the 2009 Watchmen. Now I am not a fan of remakes and the original version of this film that launched Freddy Kreuger into our world is one of my all time favorite films. So I was not very hopeful but excited to see how they would re imagine this classic and restart the franchise.

Well what a disaster this turned out to be, you have a Freddy Krueger that is not Robert Englund and while Jackie Earle Haley was adequate in the role he was not the wise cracking child killer we knew in the 80's. They missed the point of the film to me, now they attempt to tell a slightly different story which is good, put your own mark on it. But they missed the point, the characters were totally unbelievable and you did not care and while they made the story their own they kept putting in scenes from the original, the wall scene and the claw in the bath. The biggest let down for me though was the special effects, the scene where Freddy comes out of the wall over Nancy is pitiful CGI, they would have been better with a rubber sheet and somebody putting their head into it. And the final scene of the film was laughable based purely on the quality of the CGI, this in today's age where they can convince you that there is an alien who does not exist is talking to live action actors it is disappointing.

Overall I was disappointed even though I had low expectations, it has to be 1 star not worth seeing. There will be people that will watch it as a completest but please avoid it other than for this reason.