Reviews by PvtCaboose91

In this current generation of cinema, hardly any people remember Delmer Daves' classic 1957 western film 3:10 to Yuma that was based on a short story by Elmore Leonard. This is an extraordinarily rare occurrence when a remake actually outshines and surpasses the original in every aspect. In a sense, James Mangold's 3:10 to Yuma symbolises a glimmer of optimism for the future of cinematic remakes. For years, Hollywood has persistently remade classic films with completely catastrophic consequences. Mangold's film also signifies a new Hollywood generation for the western genre. In 2005, Australian filmmakers reinvented the genre with The Proposition. Although this film cannot improve on the Australian production, this is a western for the history books. Critics have praised this movie as the best western since Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven (which collected the Best Picture Oscar back in the early 1990s). There can be no dispute: 3:10 to Yuma is a riveting western abundant in underlying psychological messages analogous to those present in the original. Most commendably, this remake avoids replicating the original. As an alternative the script employs roughly 30% of the 1957 film. The rest of the script builds deeper characterisations in the protagonists, and stretches out the plot for a more expanded running time of about 120 minutes (as opposed to the original's 90 minutes). Normally this could be disastrous, however to the credit of those involved the additions don't feel fabricated: they feel natural and completely fitting in this version of the story. Kudos to director Mangold for maintaining the conflict and central spirit of Daves' original, while still managing to accommodate a fairly serious expansion of a terrifically original story.

3:10 to Yuma is a character-driven western fuelled by astounding performances. The seemingly never-ending string of exposition pays off when the action kicks in. These are possibly the most intense, riveting, stimulating western action scenes the genre has ever seen. Mangold has always been a completely focused director; confident and proficient behind the camera, determinedly manufacturing fine results. The technical aptitude is palpable in all filmmaking aspects. Mangold and cinematographer Phedon Papamichael produce the amazing visuals that are assisted and complimented by the accomplished sound mix: ear shattering sound effects for the gunshots amalgamated with silent but effective music composed by Marco Beltrami. The music isn't overbearing to the point of distraction like a majority of modern action movies; instead it's subtle, exciting, powerful and artistic. The production values are a marvel to behold. A modern western will of course appear completely authentic in terms of props and costumes, and this is no exemption. The period is depicted with brutal honesty and an astronomical level of legitimacy. This portrayal will essentially transport you back to the represented time period for the film's duration. The absorbing drama mixed with this authenticity will suck you in from start to finish.

In this remake of the 1957 film, the plot remains virtually untouched. The difference is in the storytelling and the plot progression. Ben Wade (Crowe) is a notorious outlaw with a solid reputation for robbing and murdering. After Wade robs a stagecoach, he is arrested by the law and held prisoner. Rancher Dan Evans (Bale) heads into town to clarify concerns pertaining to the sake of his land when he beholds the closing events of the stagecoach robbery. Shortly thereafter, Evans is offered an immense amount of money to be among those escorting Ben Wade to the town of Contention where he will be placed on the 3:10pm train to Yuma. Once the train reaches its destination, Wade will be incarcerated. Evans' calamitous endeavour to transport Wade to the train station is in part an effort to save his land but also a component of an internal conflict to determine whether the man can prove to be more than a mere naïve rancher in the eyes of his impulsive and gun-slinging young son William Evans (Lerman). The transport to the town of Contention is perilous and overflowing with ambushes by Indians, pursuits by Wade's rancorous gang and Wade's personal manipulative and surreptitious conduct that makes the journey far more intense.

As I previously stated, 3:10 to Yuma is driven by the remarkable performances from an outstanding cast. Russell Crowe proves that he is still among the greatest actors of this generation. Crowe makes the role of Ben Wade his own. The character is endowed with additional depth in this remake, as opposed to the slightly underdeveloped outlaw in the original. Christian Bale also brings tremendous depth to the character. His version of Dan Evans is a lot stronger than the Van Heflin portrayal in Daves' 1957 version. There's excellent hostility leading to chemistry as Bale's humourless stoicism is jabbed for feebleness and mercy by Crowe's jovial, joking outlaw. Character notes are sufficient - like Dan's necessity for the approval of son William, and Ben's early abandonment - for a density that compels us to be concerned. The taut script never bogs in unnecessary analysis or sentimentality. All characters are pampered with the brutal reality from the period.

Both Crowe and Bale submit dynamite performances and execute a fine job of playing cowboy. Each actor creates depth to his character, and when you insert convincing western action, intelligent dialogue, and elegant cinematography it produces a strong western film for the ages. It's interesting to note that the evil is not drawn from Crowe's Ben Wade. Instead, Wade's motives are kept clouded with mystery until the finale while hinting that there might be a heart in him after all. The evil in the film is drawn from Ben Foster's Charlie Prince: a man who leads Wade's gang to the town of Contention for the irrevocable final stand-off. The brilliant acting never permits you to grow bored. The film is gripping and stimulating, eventually ending in an ultimately perplexing conclusion that avoids duplicating the somewhat conventional conclusion offered in the original.

Overall, 3:10 to Yuma is an extraordinarily rare event when a remake is superior to the film that spawned it. Delmar Daves' 1957 flick is still a brilliant western on its own merits, whereas James Mangold's remake improves the original in every aspect of filmmaking. 3:10 to Yuma is one of the finest westerns of this era. It's indeed an infrequent event when two groundbreaking westerns are created in the course of a few years - in this case The Proposition and 3:10 to Yuma - that rival the last truly brilliant western that was Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven. Perhaps this film represents a new Hollywood era for westerns. The filmmakers remind the audience that westerns are about old-school, gritty action scenes built around some amazing character development. This film is simply far too brilliant to miss: an enduring story that offers first-class acting, heart-racing action, mind-blowing stunts and filmmaking of the highest order.

9.2/10

3:10 to Yuma maintains the tradition of brilliant 1950s westerns. People such as Gary Cooper and John Wayne materialised as the luminaries of the genre. Cooper is still affectionately remembered for his striking performance in High Noon, whereas John Wayne is chiefly remembered for such films as The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. In amidst all this Hollywood enthusiasm with the genre, Delmer Daves came into the spotlight with this riveting western: a deep, challenging character examination revealing strength of character, deception, allegiances and treachery. The film presents itself as a sombre scrutinisation of the temperament of intrepidness in a simple, mundane man in control of a dangerous outlaw. This film is primarily a distinguished psychological drama executed in the claustrophobic location of a hotel under mental and physical siege. It concerns two unreservedly contrasting characters locked together in a secluded space where director Daves' camera shifts incessantly on their course of action. Daves' 3:10 to Yuma is a terrific blend of subtle psychology and action with taut editing. Although the pacing is sluggish, there is never a needless frame present. Every scene is imperative for the development of the characters and the plot in the lead-up to the final, intense stand-off.

The story is concerned with infamous figure Ben Wade (Ford): a notorious criminal who commands a fierce loyal gang of outlaws. After holding up a stage coach that results in the murder of two men, Wade is eventually caught by the authorities. Small-time everyman rancher Dan Evans (Heflin) witnessed the crime at the stage coach but did not desire to get himself caught up in the crimes that unfolded. However he and his family are in a dire crisis due to a prolonged drought. Evans is in need of funds to continue supporting his wife and children, and the solution presents itself to him: the authorities persuade Evans to transfer Ben Wade to the prison in Yuma. For fulfilling this mission he will be rewarded. Driven by the promise of money and the thought of sustaining his morals, Evans agrees to transport Wade on the 3:10pm train to Yuma (therein lies the title). While the two men await the arrival of a train in a hotel room as the clock slowly ticks by, Wade's gang of cohorts close in on the town. In an isolated room, a battle of wills unfolds between the struggling rancher and the infamous criminal.

3:10 to Yuma flaunts remarkable acting and realistic dialogue. The two protagonists are absorbing when alone in a room together. Van Heflin represents an ordinary everyman trying to do what's best for his community and his family. Unlike John Wayne or Gary Cooper, Heflin is just another bloke who shows vulnerability and weakness. Glenn Ford is outstanding as Ben Wade. The character of Ben Wade is complex: an outlaw and a killer whose motivations are never shown until the unexpected conclusion. The chemistry between the two leads is spellbinding! The dialogue becomes meaningful and clever. Despite being very talky, the story is kept tense and is steadily paced. This is also a deep lesson on creating brilliance out of simplicity. The film is held together by a straightforward, devilishly clever plot. The visuals are especially outstanding here. The authenticity in the costumes and props are a treat for the eye. Also a sound mix that creates a realistic atmosphere. The mournful theme song is also extremely haunting. The film's final 15 minutes turn into a tense, nail-biting climax that is brought to a wholly satisfying conclusion. It's unexpected, and it shows the strength in the characterisations of the protagonists.

Overall, 3:10 to Yuma is one of the greatest westerns of the 1950s. Before Clint Eastwood and Sergio Leone, the American westerns were ripe and successful. This superlative adult western draws its mesmeric drama and power from the interaction of well-drawn characters rather than gun-blazing action, which is still impressively filmed and laced with outlandish stunts. They just don't make westerns like this anymore. Highly recommended! Remade in 2007.

8.75/10

Assault on Precinct 13 is the contemporary remake of John Carpenter's 1976 action thriller of the same name. However, this is an uncommon instance of a remake that circumvents the customary cliché of being an identical duplicate of the original. This is austerely a remake by name and raw concept only; merely inhibiting an insignificant number of scenes perceptibly influenced by Carpenter's 1976 film. This remake is solid in terms of the attractive production values, the impressive visual style adapted by French director Jean-Francois Richet, the booming sound effects, the noisy score and the exciting action. Below the remarkably good-looking film, the script leaves much to be desired. Assault on Precinct 13 expands upon the original film in terms of plot points and character development; ultimately providing an extra added layer of disbelief at every turn. Instead of the adept, engaging character presented in the original we are shown a cluster of dumb characters implementing stupendous acts and delivering contrived dialogue.

The lone aspect of the film's plot that mirrors the original is the concept of a siege on a police precinct that is due to close its doors very soon. Aside from that, the plot is dissimilar. On a snowy New Years Eve, a skeleton crew are manning police precinct 13. Guilt-ridden former undercover narc Jake Roenick (Hawke) is undertaking a boring desk job at the precinct until the official closing. Due to a howling snow storm unfolding outside, a prison bus transporting a number of criminals is forced to divert to the station for the night. Among them is renowned recently arrested crime kingpin Marion Bishop (Fishburne). Isolated by the relentless blizzard, and cut off from communication with the outside world, the precinct is rapidly bordered by well-armed hostile forces. Roenick, burned-out and still filled with remorse, digs deep for his long-lost heroism and pride to hold the fort until dawn.

The creative team behind Assault on Precinct 13 had the right idea of altering aspects originally present in Carpenter's original. As a result, this is a re-imagining with potential. With such potential, the filmmakers could have created a superior movie. However the law of Hollywood remakes is that script flaws befall the rest of the production. In this case, almost every move made by the characters is stupid, illogical and unrealistic. In a claustrophobic situation such as this, no characters are ever granted half a brain. Despite the intense action and a few interesting moments, the script flaws can't be overlooked. Characters execute the most predictable acts in the book. Of course the cons aren't going to follow orders...that would be too unconventional for an action movie! Sticking to the original in that aspect would have been a benefit. There are also the glaring errors in logic. For example, people dismissing gunshots as fireworks...when fireworks can't even be set off in the blizzard?! There are several more instances, but I'd be spoiling a few mildly interesting scenes. It's also interesting to note that the original showed brutality to every character without a hint of sentimentality. In this remake, more characters survive and hence the film is less brutal.

French director Richet is unable to recapture the sense of claustrophobia and confinement. He's competent in filming solid action scenes but there isn't any sense of being cut off from the world as much as the feeling instilled by Carpenter. One of the film's redeeming features is the cast. Ethan Hawke is credible in the title role. Laurence Fishburne has always possessed the skill to be commanding and authoritative whenever appearing on the screen. He again flexes his great skill here. Gabriel Byrne is a sinister villain who's unfortunately underused and underdeveloped. Other characters include blatant racial stereotypes in the black characters, and a few despicably shown people for the cons.

Overall, Assault on Precinct 13 is a wasted opportunity. Instead of intelligence in its script, the filmmakers seemingly aimed to create solid and intense action scenes infused with incredible sound effects that will give your speakers a workout. Impressive considering the $20 million budget the filmmakers had to stretch. But this action is futile if there isn't anything behind it...in this case there are endless clichés, predictable events and contrived dialogue...not to mention flaws in geography and logic. It's violent, riveting, sometimes exciting and competently made, but ultimately very stupid!

5.2/10

Director John Carpenter is distinguished for classic genre-defining films such as The Thing and Halloween. It's little known that in 1976 Carpenter directed Assault on Precinct 13: this taut, fast-paced, thoroughly riveting low-budget action film. The aptitude of Carpenter's film is the way he cleverly takes inspiration from several westerns (most notably Rio Bravo) as well as the classic zombie horror film Night of the Living Dead. Carpenter's overhaul of these films is undeniably one of the greatest action/thriller productions from the past few decades, but unfortunately it's now relatively disregarded (especially with the remake released in 2005). Assault on Precinct 13 is a completely diverse take on the customary police thriller: from start to finish the film is exciting, exhilarating, shocking and fast-paced - yet was backed by a minuscule budget!

Film students should take note of the dexterity in the filmmaking. The film's budget constraints are never palpable due to the technical proficiency: competent editing, focused directing, impressive acting and exciting action. It doesn't take long before the action kicks in. Brief dialogue scenes to set up the plot precede a wholly intense string of action. You will be on the edge of your seat until Carpenter allows you an opportunity to breathe again. As soon as the opening fire-fight and bloodbath erupts, we are then shown the relentless murder of a young girl before moving onto a vigorous siege when the action never lets up.

The film is set in an unsavoury part of Los Angeles where a gang known as Street Thunder rules the streets. They have acquired a cache of automatic weapons which the police force are currently searching for. After several gang members are killed in a police shoot-out, the remaining cohorts swear revenge and begin roaming the streets. Meanwhile, a nearby police precinct is set to be relocated. A skeleton staff supervised by lieutenant Ethan Bishop (Stoker) is brought on board to "baby-sit" the establishment until the official closing in the morning. A distraught father witnesses the death of his daughter, and then shoots the leader of the gang before running to the nearby precinct (the same one, of course) for protection. The gang follow the father to the precinct and declare war on the people inside. Throughout the course of the night, a siege unfolds as people inside work to defend themselves from the never-ending hordes of gang members.

The plot is straightforward, simple and easy to comprehend. Film students should further take note of the way Carpenter treats the simplicity of the plot. Carpenter employs the simple premise for a tense, compactly composed succession of action sequences, emphasising discreet character development and escalating tension. The action is so shockingly memorable due to the violence levels and high body count - it's so skilfully choreographed it totally belies the limitations of the small sets and no-name actors. The lighting is used to best effect, with the streets shown as dark and gloomy. This makes the situation even more menacing because the enemies are hiding in the unknown. John Carpenter also created the remarkably memorable and haunting score. It's catchy, stylish and incredibly original. The main theme is as unforgettable as his Halloween music. Also thrown into the mix is a cast of unknowns. Even though the film industry hasn't seen much of them since this film's release, they all complete their jobs outstandingly! If you're working on a low-budget action picture, this is definitely a film to turn to for inspiration.

Overall, Assault on Precinct 13 is an excellent action film. No-one can congregate restricted claustrophobia like John Carpenter. The cast of relative unknowns do a terrific job, providing potentially two-dimensional characters with genuine depth. This provides the audience with something real to be concerned about, rather than an assemblage of people we feel indifferent towards. Assault in Precinct 13 is certainly not the best film Carpenter has made, but it is still an unbelievably sturdy primitive effort and was a good indication of the master Carpenter was destined to become. Remade in 2005.

8.84/10

Little Miss Sunshine is ostensibly a road trip movie concerning the realisation that family is family. It's a wholly daunting task to reinvent the family road trip genre in this contemporary era of cinema, especially if the filmmakers are aiming for realistic as opposed to hyperbolic. Either the production is going to be entirely over-the-top akin to National Lampoon's Vacation, or the filmmakers strive to maintain a sense of reality: portraying the adventure to be tediously dull, reminiscent of an actual road trip. With Little Miss Sunshine, the action and comedy derive commonly from the people involved as opposed to a peculiar state of affairs the screenwriter desired to place them in. The film captures the dull nature of a road trip while also being highly entertaining. Problems are realistic, characters are poignantly pragmatic, atmosphere is enthrallingly convincing and locations are lifelike. This is an enormously unsullied and original idea: one of the most innovative pieces of American cinema for years. The film relies solely on a dexterous script that recognises the dissimilarities between generations in the same family. Each character is idiosyncratic and eccentric yet believable due to the amazing cast.

The film's title is derived from a beauty pageant in California. Young 7-year-old Olive Hoover (Breslin) has aspirations of winning said beauty pageant, and drags her dysfunctional family on a road trip bound for California. Olive's family consists of an interesting bunch of characters: chain-smoking mother Sheryl (Collette), bankrupt lecturer father Richard (Kinnear), suicidal Uncle Frank (Carell), mute-by-choice brother Dwayne (Dano), and quirky Grandpa Edwin (Arkin). To fulfil Olive's dreams, together the family hit the road in their VW bus, heading from Albuquerque to the pageant in Redondo Beach, California. During the trip the whole family are so burdened with their own quirks, neuroses, and problems that they can scarcely make it through a day without disasters befalling them.

One of the greatest facets of Little Miss Sunshine is that the majority of the film feels as though it could happen in the reality we all live in. The family home appears to represent the typical family home with no exaggerations or hyperboles present. Their reactions to the events that transpire continue to be as realistic as they can be even when the situation becomes increasingly cartoonish. However, the film's style is threatened in the last 30 minutes. When the VW bus drives all over the side-walks dodging pedestrians the humour had suddenly changed from subtle, clever black comedy to American slapstick. One of the most commendable things about the scripts is its tendency to avoid conventions and clichés. Even so, this praiseworthy predisposition simply becomes far too over-the-top with the events that occur during the film's final third. It would be an understatement to say that a better ending should have been concocted for Little Miss Sunshine. Its poignant messages about life ring true, that family should always stick together and that life is full of tragedies as opposed to miracles. But the message could have been delivered without being so depressing! What happens to the entire family towards the end is just ghastly. There's no reason for these happenings within the context of the story. There's no reason for it in the reality in which these characters subsist in. Most importantly, it doesn't ring true in any kind of veracity for the audience.

An aspect of the film I must mention is in relation to the beauty pageant. In a time succeeding Jon Benet Ramsey's death, it's sensitive territory to show little girls parading around like high class hookers with skimpy clothes. It feels wrong. Even though it's meant to be funny in its depiction of the extremes parents will force their children to endure, it's impossible to find any humour due to the scary thought that children have been murdered for doing this stuff. Of course, the film had to show some of the girls doing this to get the impression of the overwhelming competition Olive is up against, but perhaps there's just too much time dedicated to showing this. I felt uncomfortable watching this stuff for such a prolonged period of time.

The characters are perfectly executed by a perfect cast. These characters, the six we spend the entire film with, aren't the perfect, beautiful people commonly found in most "feel-good" American films. They have problems and imperfections, they are unhappy in life and, despite all that, try to do the best they can for as many people as possible. It is in the little moments where the most realistic moments come to life. Abigail Breslin cannot be faulted for her radiant performance. She's still extremely young, but has one heck of a career ahead of her. Greg Kinnear perfectly represents the typical father figure. Moments of poignancy also shine in Toni Collette's performance as the mother of the family. Both Kinnear and Collette feel true to life. Steve Carell is a real stand-out in the cast. Carell is also poignant as an uncle figure. Never is his concentration broken. This performance proves that Carell doesn't need to rely on overacting to be funny. This is one of his funniest performances just because of the subtle wit and dark humour. Alan Arkin is in a career best performance as the quirky grandpa. Paul Dano is also fantastic as Olive's brother. It's interesting to note that all characters experience a revelation (with the exception of Arkin's character). Most notable is Olive. Although the end of the film finds the world of everyone else completely crushed, Olive is just as happy to do what she's been doing, and she doesn't give a damn about what everyone else thinks.

Overall, Little Miss Sunshine is a good film...not a great film. The film is entertaining and I will watch it again for sure, but the hype was over-the-top and the Best Picture nomination wasn't deserved in lieu of the other great films released during 2006. There's an ideal cast, a terrifically suitable slate of music and an original reinvention of the family road trip genre; however the final 30 minutes are too depressing for the film's established context. It's a shame that another, dissimilar ending couldn't have been devised for Little Miss Sunshine. For the majority of the film, it is one of the best and most poignant films of all time. However, in the final 30 minutes the wheels completely fall off. So, does the ending destroy what has come before it? It'd be great to say no, but the fact of the matter is it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. All the fantastic performances we've witnessed on the screen and all the laughs we had at the expense of the characters are incapable to salvage a conclusion to which there is no acceptable explanation for.

7.9/10

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is an additional inept Hollywood gore fest that endeavours to misrepresent itself as a terrifying horror flick. After all ideas for sequels have come and gone, Hollywood studios then move onto the prequels. The philosophy behind this prequel was ostensibly to inform the audience of the back-story of "Leatherface" (Bryniarski) who is the central serial killer in the series. Clearly, the motivation was to reveal why the cannibalistic family become the way they end up...what pushed them over the line? First of all, I must rip into the concept. Tobe Hooper's 1974 original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was absolutely petrifying because of the inability to understand the characters and their origins. Therefore with no palpable motivations, the characters are frightening. Thus revealing the genesis erases all mystery surrounding Leatherface and his family, and no longer do they possess a scary screen presence.

The second fatal flaw in the screenplay is not even fulfilling the concept! The first five minutes show Leatherface's birth, and then all of a sudden the central character is an adult chopping up meat just like he was in the predecessors. Cue the brainless, incompetently-minded characters travelling through Leatherface's region...prompt the rest of the sadistic family who are suddenly cannibals eating people, and the stage is set for a pointless rehash of the original films with a different slate of characters. This time, though, you can predict how it will end. We know the events that will unfold a few years later, thus these characters can't tell the tale to the authorities and uncover the mystery. Hence the villains won't get their comeuppance (there's no vengeance at all), and the audience are exposed to endless scenes of mindless torture.

I've basically described the film's plot, but I will elaborate further: Thomas Hewitt - a.k.a Leatherface - is born in a slaughterhouse in Texas and is abandoned in a dumpster. He is adopted into a family, and he grows up to become a worker at the same slaughterhouse. Then the slaughterhouse is closed down, with workers left unemployed. Many of the local inhabitants desert the area. The Hewitt family stays put, but are on the verge of starvation. Leatherface's deranged step-father executes the local sheriff, assumes his identity and begins running the town his cruel way. Two young couples then venture into the region and become hopelessly stranded. The Hewitt family wait...with an enormous assortment of torture tools on hand.

It's impossible to point out all the flaws evident in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning. The main flaw is its nature of nothing but a mindless gore fest. The film has no problem with moving from one unnerving torture scene to the next, with blood and guts spurting all over the place: showing more inventive methods to kill a human. I know, I know - I'm supposed to praise the low-budget affair for creating an authentic atmosphere with realistic gore, blah, blah, blah! The impressive gore effects aren't a redeeming feature. As a matter of fact, there are no redeeming features at all! With all the misogynistic scenes depicting horrible torture and rape of girls, I wanted to walk out of my viewing area and keep on walking.

Tobe Hooper's original film wasn't a gore fest. There was barely any gore at all! It was scary because of what you didn't see. Of course, modern movie-goers apparently search for endless amounts of blood and gore. If it's present in action movies I usually devour the violence as it's realistic and in an intriguing context. In the context of torture it's just stupid. The film is also plagued with stupid characters and villains that are stereotyped as having the superhuman ability to pop up anywhere at any time whenever things have potential to look up for the protagonists. The film has zero scares. Instead of suspense and terror, we have lots of blood flow with an equal amount of guts. Speaking in terms of successful relentless horror flicks, something like Wolf Creek does better. Even though that's largely a relentlessly gory affair it has more skill and class. This is crap! Stupid, pretentious, tasteless crap!

1.2/10

Considering the paranoid religious gibberish pertaining to the release of Richard Donner's 1976 horror flick The Omen, it's scarcely surprising that a remake was commissioned to tie in with the rare date of 6-6-06. In the current cinematic age, remakes of horror movies are a fickle beast endlessly being rolled out for money. Only rarely have I witnessed a horror remake that produced decent results (I have yet to see a brilliant remake) such as Zack Snyder's reinvention of Dawn of the Dead. Other remakes such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre have become some of the worst segments of modern cinema. Put very simply, Hollywood has become too lazy to create original ideas, so they're recycling and reusing ideas for an easy profit. The creative team for The Omen were so lazy that the person who penned the screenplay for the original (David Seltzer) was hired to polish his own script for the remake.

This remake is absolutely futile. In essence, this remake adds nothing but occasionally impressive gory CGI effects, tasteless references to modern disasters (as a way of displaying the fulfilment of some religious mumbo jumbo that supposedly describes the signs of an impending Armageddon) and a more refined visual style. Aside from that it's essentially a word-for-word, almost shot-for-shot remake of Richard Donner's 1976 original with no additional scares. The filmmakers could have expanded the original film...they could have executed an entirely different treatment of the Book of Revelations...instead this is a purely futile duplicate of the original. Sure, some may think that if this is identical to the original than the scares must be the same...right? Wrong! The death scenes are more predictable, Marco Beltrami's score cannot set the creepy atmosphere of Jerry Goldsmith's music, and the cast are mainly woeful.

The plot is of course identical to that of Richard Donner's 1976 original, except the opening is a little different. The opening of this film depicts activity at the Vatican as the sighting of a comet confirms the world is on the eve of Armageddon. Cut to political figure Robert Thorn (Schreiber) who's racing to the hospital to be with his wife Katherine (Stiles) who has gone into labour. Complications during childbirth leave the child stillborn and Katherine unconscious with permanent damage to her womb resulting in an inability to bear another child. Father Spiletto (Radice), a priest working at the hospital, offers Robert a replacement for his loss: a young child born on the same night whose mother passed away during labour. Believing it is best for his wife's sake, Robert agrees to take the child; raising it as his own with Katherine's oblivious to the situation. Roughly 5 years later, young Damien (Davey-Fitzpatrick) is developing smoothly. But a series of peculiar deaths result in suspicions that the child is in fact the Antichrist - the son of the devil. Robert Thorn then works with photographer Keith Jennings (Thewlis) to discover more about the heritage of Damien.

The characters are portrayed poorly by a disappointing cast. Liev Schreiber cannot replace someone of Gregory Peck's stature. It's impossible to comprehend the praise that Schreiber received. He's a dreadful actor: emotionless expressions, monotone voice, no intensity in line deliveries. Julia Stiles should never have become an actress. Every time Stiles hauls her oversized cranium into shot, the movie grinds to a screeching halt as the theme of the film flips from proficient thriller to daytime soap-opera territory. Mia Farrow supplies the film with the only terrifying moments (a faint praise) as Damien's demonic nanny. Farrow flexed her only decent acting muscle in Roman Polanski's Rosemary's Baby...roughly 40 years ago! Her time arrived and passed long ago. Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick is not sinister or frightening...he's an innocent little boy who cannot act! In the original, the young boy's facial expressions sent chills down your spine. Davey-Fitzpatrick sends tickles down your spine. David Thewlis was nominated for a Razzie award for 'Worst Actor'. I'm shocked at this because Thewlis is one of the only good actors in an otherwise dreadful cast. Julia Stiles and Liev Schreiber should have received the nominations! Pete Postlethwaite is frequently sincere in the role as a priest trying to warn Schreiber's Robert Thorn of the danger. Unfortunately, even he cannot cover up the flaws in the rest of the cast.

Overall, The Omen is yet another addition to the disparagingly extensive list of horror remakes that should never have been authorised. Perhaps as a standalone film it'd be a decent horror outing for the genre buffs. For those who've never seen Richard Donner's 1976 original, maybe some satisfaction will be uncovered. John Moore is a competent director who brings an intriguing visual style to the production; however this remake is pointless and there was never an apposite warrant for a remake (apart from the obvious marketing purposes). At the end of the day you end up wondering what the point was. Cinematic déjà vu is the most probable reaction.

4.2/10

School for Scoundrels is a straightforward contemporary comedy: dexterous characters, genuinely hilarious moments and a few fascinating plot twists. It's the furthermost thing from an evocative, profoundly thought-provoking experience; however if you enjoy quality comedy with a number of pleasant laughs then this is undeniably a film to rent. I had elevated expectations for this film, particularly due to the cast. Jon Heder from Napoleon Dynamite, Billy Bob Thornton from Bad Santa, as well as a minor role portrayed by Ben Stiller. The plot also operates on an appealing premise of a battle of wits concerning two characters. Don't anticipate some form of masterpiece. Instead, settle down to watch School for Scoundrels with refreshments; assuming an undemanding, light-hearted comedy flick encompassing masses of merriment.

School for Scoundrels is a remake of an old 1960s film of the same name. The plot suitably mirrors said original film, logically enough. Roger Wadell (Heder) is a beleaguered, underachieving New York City meter maid inundated with countless issues of trepidation and a shockingly depleted level of confidence. One of Roger's friends wishes to assist him in overcoming his feelings of meagreness, and encourages him to enrol in a highly confidential school conceived to help people build confidence. This school is run by the dastardly Dr. P (Thornton). He's aided by the intimidating Lesher (Duncan) as he unleashes his sometimes dangerous methods of developing confidence in his students. Dr. P's goal is to encourage his students to consider themselves as lions in an animal kingdom - and it's a battle to become the leader of the pack. Soon enough, Roger's level of confidence begins to elevate and he finally becomes assertive enough to get involved with long-time crush: his Australian neighbour Amanda (Barrett). Roger is the stand-out student in Dr. P's class, but this prompts Dr. P to employ a more unorthodox method of instilling additional confidence: destroying Roger's professional and personal life. Through the eyes of Dr. P nothing is too far. Alas, an elaborate battle of wits emerges between the two men.

School for Scoundrels may seem like your standard, average contemporary comedy made for a quick buck. However, this film isn't as terrible as one would be expecting. The major stand-out is the solid script held together by a stellar cast and an able director (Todd Phillips, who also helmed Starsky and Hutch). Like all modern comedies, the film is skilfully made and unproblematic to watch. The film lacks laughs in the first half, but then things start looking up into the second half. There are loads of hysterically funny moments to witness during the film's second half. These laughs are slow to get going...nevertheless the wait is definitely worth it. Prepare to be laughing uncontrollably. I will admit that the film is slightly formulaic and clichéd. Then again, the film isn't as clichéd as I was expecting. Surprisingly, the screenplay manages to avoid succumbing to some clichés and still contains a hint of unpredictability.

The characters seem to be nothing more than a bunch of worn stereotypes; however despite the shallow material the cast pull off their roles excellently. Billy Bob Thornton, as always, accomplishes his role with tremendous skill. He plays one heck of an arrogant bloke, though. He suits the role: charming but deceptive. Of course, Jon Heder is another great addition to the cast. Heder is certainly entertaining enough to cover up many shortcomings in the script. Ben Stiller has a small role, but he's extremely memorable. Just his facial expressions had me in stitches, let alone his hilarious voice. Jacinda Barrett and Michael Clarke Duncan are also very talented in their roles.

Overall, School for Scoundrels is a simple comedy that makes for highly enjoyable viewing. Sometimes it's extremely clichéd; however the film is bright enough to maintain your interest throughout the running time. Although critics generally panned the movie, I unquestionably recommend it for a pleasant night of satisfying laughs and interesting characters. Reasonably forgettable, but still a lot of fun.

6.9/10

Good Luck Chuck is another addition to Hollywood's audaciously extensive list of raunchy romantic comedies made for an instant box office success. However this is an instance of a recent comedy that infused an impression of tremendous promise. First of all, this film encompasses an interesting premise. This premise is based on a true story of a man named Steve Glenn. Steve had seven relationships go south, and within a few months of breaking up, five of them had gotten married to the guy of their dreams. Good Luck Chuck exercises this story as a foundation to generate the plot. What would you do if you were cursed never to be in a permanent relationship? What if you slept with a girl, and then the girl married the next guy they dated? An additional contributing aspect to the film's potential is the cast. Two words: Jessica Alba. Are you still not convinced? Put quite simply, this is a comedy flick to view if you're bored and in the mood for some raunchy sex scenes.

The story of Steve Glenn is used for the film's protagonist: a dentist named Charlie Logan (Cook), known as Chuck among his friends. As a young child he rejects Gothic girl (Pieterse) that he wins during a game of spin the bottle. Said girl places a hex on Chuck: that he will never have an everlasting relationship and if he sleeps with a girl then they will find true love in the next guy they date. Chuck soon realises that this "good luck charm" (as it is now known on the internet) is rapidly becoming trendy among women who begin flocking to him and lining up for a quickie. Chuck's friend Stu (Fogler) is another of those fat-and-horny characters who will do anything for a lay! Chuck enjoys his impeccable reputation until he decides to give up his lusty ways when he meets the penguin-obsessed Cam Wexler (Alba). Through Chuck's eyes Cam is "the one", and he soon becomes compelled to find a way to break the curse as they begin falling for each other.

Many viewers will see Good Luck Chuck as more of a porno than a romantic comedy. Jessica Alba even explained that production team were "basically shooting a porno". Fascinatingly enough there's more nudity and raunchy moments than comedy. There's even a montage depicting Chuck having sex with several girls in various (interesting) different positions. So this is probably a guy's fondest fantasy: watching a date movie that also educates him on diverse sex positions. In a nutshell: this is an indication of the target audience. The laughs are few and far between. Even rarer is a memorable gag. Sure, you'll have a few laughs while watching the movie. Afterwards, however, you'll get on with your life and easily forget; primarily because these gags are gross-out gags (like a 300-pound woman farting) or graphic sexual dialogue mixed with profanity. The dialogue isn't as memorable as other recent comedies like Wedding Crashers or The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Despite all this, the film is still fairly entertaining.

Dane Cook is mediocre in the title role. Perhaps with a better director and screenwriter he will discover a more compelling reason to find a career away from the microphone on-stage at a comedy festival. Jessica Alba doesn't have much acting depth; however she's undeniably gorgeous and appears to be putting in an effort. Dan Fogler is nothing but a fat-and-horny sidekick who keeps chattering non-stop about sex and women's breasts.

Overall, Good Luck Chuck is a straightforward light American sex comedy filled with raunchy moments and a few notable laughs. With such an interesting premise, I feel that a better creative team should have been brought on-board to fulfil the film's potentiality. Obviously the film was never meant to be a masterpiece (no American comedies in this vein ever are); however with the quality of Judd Apatow productions I feel that this film left a lot to be desired. Good Luck Chuck is nothing special: this is a crude comedy with lots of sex, Jessica Alba and a decent entertainment value. If you're bored then go right ahead!

6.1/10

According to the law of deteriorating sequels, films get worse as each new instalment is created. The Final Conflict is further irrefutable verification of this theory. The first two instalments in the Omen series were not among the genre's finest movies, but stood well on their respective standalone merits. The central problem of The Final Conflict (which marks the third The Omen film) is its tendency to be overwhelmingly silly - no scares, dumb characters, horrible plot points, and little sense of fidelity to the Book of Revelations on which the series is based. The artistic positives of the first film are also disregarded, with bucket loads of nothing but violence and gore as a substitute. Glaring continuity errors plague this film as well. I mean, the year is apparently 1982 and Damien Thorn (now played by Sam Neill) is supposedly 32. In the first movie he was born in 1966...can anyone else notice the unbearably distracting continuity fault? If Damien was 32 then the year should be the late 1990s. At that stage, you'd might as well regard your political leader as the Antichrist!

The Final Conflict now follows Damien Thorn - a.k.a. the offspring of Satan - as an adult who is steadily running the Thorn industries conglomerate as the company extends its far-reaching arms all over the world. The film opens with a salvage operation in Chicago to recover the artefacts that survived the destruction of the Thorn Museum that burnt down at the end of Damien: The Omen II. During the operation, the seven daggers of Megiddo are recovered. Said daggers are the only things on Earth that can kill the Antichrist. They are soon circulated to an assembly of seven monks, headed by Father DeCarlo (Brazzi), who embark on a mission to rid the world of Damien Thorn. Meanwhile, Damien flexes his political muscle as he is appointed Ambassador to England. The seven monks begin executing multiple hysterically ill-conceived endeavours to assassinate the Antichrist. All signs begin pointing to the possibility that that Nazarene has returned in the form of a child in the British Isles. This begins another ludicrous sub-plot as Damien sets out to eliminate the Nazarene who weakens and diminishes his influence and ability on the world with each passing day. Meanwhile, a dumb romantic sub-plot is tossed into the mix as Damien becomes interested in a journalist named Kate Reynolds (Harrow).

The Final Conflict depends far too much on the showcase of effects and innovative (gory) methods of killing different characters...all without tension or scares. Jerry Goldsmith's score is the only aspect that creates a somewhat intense atmosphere. Every other aspect of the filmmaking leaves a lot to be desired. The horror genre that was once prominent has now transformed into a film perplexingly lingering in an indefinite genre between 'horror' and 'drama'. There is insufficient horror to be part of the genre, and there is inadequate drama to be classified as part of that genre. The gore effects have been amplified and look superior to those used in the previous films; however the screenwriting leaves much to be desired. Horror fans will be left disappointed and disorientated, fans of the Omen series will be left even more devastated, while religious nuts will condemn the film! Why? The source material is disregarded while spiralling towards the film's silly conclusion that ultimately confirms this as a wasted opportunity. The ending seems far too rushed and looks underwhelming. I was laughing! I wasn't at all scared!

Overall, The Final Conflict is an extremely disappointing addition to a potentially outstanding horror series. The series of events were occasionally fascinating, but ultimately very silly. Like the first two movies the cast is very impressive, with Sam Neill effective as the Antichrist. The actors do everything in their capability to improve the woeful script they are working with. If only the first film concluded with the execution of the Antichrist...if that happened, then the world wouldn't have been exposed to two below average sequels. At least there's finally a sense of closure. Followed by a TV movie a decade later.

4.0/10