JULIA'S EYES- Review

The thing about appreciating foreign films like Julia's Eyes is that my enthusiasm is immediately tempered by the dread of a boneheaded American-language remake if it becomes any kind of box office success. We're fortunate that Pan's Labyrinth and The Orphanage, which also had Guillermo del Toro involved in some capacity, haven't yet been dumbed down for the PG-13 crowd, but I can't help but wonder if his latest production will be pillaged.

Perhaps the rubbish Jessica Alba flick The Eye will put them off, as this one also gets under the eyelids of sight-related horror. Twin sisters Julia and Sara share a degenerative sight disorder, which has already made Sara 100% blind. At the opening of the film, Sara hangs herself in her basement. Julia isn't convinced it was suicide, as Sara was optimistic about an eye transplant operation, and much to the chagrin of her doting husband, she needs to find answers.

Relatively early on in the film, it becomes apparent that it could go in one of two ways. As per usual, that means Sara's suicide could have been influenced by supernatural forces or simply by worldly bastards. The film is a little overlong at 112 minutes, but refreshingly, Julia's Eyes refuses to rely on that ambiguity of nature for too long, and it's a film that constantly shifts its terms slightly with each subsequent twist, to keep you intrigued throughout.

In all honesty, it would be quite a typical horror film, but writer-director Guillem Morales never quite lets it settle that way. For one thing, it's wonderfully shot, with some excellent use of POV shots as Julia's sight begins to deteriorate in the second act. Morales gets to the core of the loss of control that comes with the loss of Julia's sight, spending a number of scenes that introduce new characters showing only Julia's face. She can't see them, nor can we, and somewhere out there, a monster is prowling.

I can't pretend that I didn't second-guess that particular revelation, even with the impressive seclusion of the viewer to heighten the tension. It's clumsily foreshadowed at one point, in a way from which lesser films would have difficulty in recovering. But when that revelation comes to pass, the tension goes right through the ceiling five seconds later. The offending twist becomes almost like a non-event in the new disequilibrium that we're confronted with- you might have seen it coming, but move on, now this is happening.

This is what supports the film past the potentially more concise 90 minute running time, and I can't say I was ever bored with the film. Its principal strength is in its loving development of characters. Belén Rueda really makes Julia a character worth caring about, because she's experienced and expressive in her performance. There's none of the leering misanthropy that Hollywood horror cinema has towards much younger heroines, and subsequently, you're just as invested in the character's fate as you should be.

I was also impressed by Lluís Homar's turn as Julia's husband Isaac, a carefully constructed character who's well established early on so that his arc with Julia packs the most profound emotional punch later on. It's a film that prizes the emotional value of fear rather than the adrenaline rush that accompanies a jump scare. Compared to the one-note jump-scares of Platinum Dunes' output, Julia's Eyes is a symphony of terror. Somehow, everyone in the world seems to understand that, except Hollywood.

Julia's Eyes isn't going to shock more jaded horror fans into acclaim, but it is classy, beautifully assembled and never, even for a moment, any less than intriguing. It could probably use a good edit, to take out some of the running time, but it's always taking care to build the characters and build the story in a way that's all too rare in the genre these days. Its devices may be those you have seen before, but it ticks so many of the right boxes in its execution that it's hard to begrudge its excellence.

Julia's Eyes is released on Friday, in selected cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
When you see Julia's Eyes, why not share your comments below?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

INSIDIOUS- Review

I'm probably missing something, but does it seem to anyone else that there haven't been an awful lot of big horror movies in cinema thus far in 2011? I can think of The Rite and Scream 4 as films that would draw horror fans to the multiplex, but that's about it, until now. Insidious is the new film from the creator of Saw and director of the first film, James Wan, but the marketing's done a solid job of selling it as "from the producers of Paranormal Activity."

In Insidious, Josh and Renai are young parents who move into a nice new house with their three kids. Their eldest, Dalton, falls asleep one night and doesn't wake up. Dalton is in a coma, or so it would seem, as weird paranormal gubbins starts to occur all around the house. Monsters and demons appear around every corner, and when even abandoning their new home doesn't work, Josh and Renai are forced to the conclusion that it was never the house that was haunted...

I personally haven't found myself as hyped up for a horror film as I was for Insidious since Sam Raimi's Drag Me to Hell, two years ago. The trailers looked spooky and it's been gathering some pretty strong buzz since its Stateside release a few weeks ago. I was totally ready to see this film, and so maybe my problem is that, in the end, I was too prepared for it. Let that stand as a caveat to what follows.

Insidious essentially works as a pastiche of A Nightmare on Elm Street, by way of Poltergeist. The interdimensional gribblies aren't picking off high-school kids, but tormenting parents via their young son. It also plays heavily from the cribsheets established by each of those films, most blatantly in the final act. But to say the film is unoriginal is to say nothing of how inventive it is all the same. The antagonists aren't computer generated, nor do they look like homogenised demons. If you get used to the look of one scary-looking beastie, a new one is ready to jump from the shadows for their debut later on. The character design is impeccable in this respect, and along with the score, it really ramps up the terror.

Ohh, that score. Joseph Bishara turns in a score that's full of shrieking strings, deployed for the maximum effect throughout and really setting your teeth on edge. Wan doesn't turn his nose up at soundtrack jumps, but he never, ever, ever goes for the cheap scare. No cats jumping out, just pure, adrenalised horror. That includes the nice bit of soundtrack juxtaposition we get through his use of Tiny Tim's "Tiptoe Through The Tulips" at the bizarre and creepy sight of a demon boogying in Renai's living room. Frankly, were it not for the introduction of a pair of comic relief paranormal investigators, this film might have been perfect.

Those characters, played by Angus Sampson and screenwriter Leigh Whannell, aren't awful, but by their very definition, they provide relief from the tension. In all of the screeching horror assembled by the filmmakers, there's no point before their introduction that you're yearning for the Ghostbusters to turn up. And the Ghostbusters would have been better. On the other hand, there are strong performances by Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne and Barbara Hershey, taking the material seriously and giving it their best. Additionally, Lin Shaye plays her psychic character with just the restraint that's needed, rather than hamming it up.

My difficulty with Insidious is that it should be the standard for modern horror and not the high watermark. It's very well crafted and intense, but it never rattled me like I had hoped it would. With the state of the genre at present, in quality and quantity, it's definitely worth a watch for starved horror junkies. Horror, like comedy, is subjective, but if you're not deeply unsettled by the film, you'll at least be frightened into nervous laughter throughout.

Insidious is playing in cinemas nationwide from tomorrow.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Insidious, why not share your comments below?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

SCREAM 4- Review

It would be hard to disagree that over the course of three films between 1996 and 2000, the Scream saga went from being incisive about its own genre and having things to say about the state of horror and cliché, to taking the piss out of itself instead. This eventually got so bad that I'm about 90% certain I can recommend you skip straight from Scream 3 to Scream 4.

In the film, and in real time, 15 years have passed since Sidney Prescott first came up against the Ghostface killer. She returns to Woodsboro on the eve of the anniversary of the original murders, promoting her self-help book about moving on from being a victim. With horror movies in a state of ouroboros due to remakes and reboots, the students of Woodsboro High School soon come under attack- someone wants to improve upon the original killing spree.

Here's a thing about horror remakes/reboots/reimaginings/whatever you want to call them. They're very often sold as "updates" on the original source by studios who presumably don't like the negative connotations of the word "remake". Around the time when Batman Begins and Casino Royale were the only notable "reboots", they were happier to use that word too, but that's starting to lose its currency. But the means of "updating" the original usually amounts to copying many of the same beats and adding social networking or mobile phones, and the latter is usually only there to not have a signal at a crucial moment anyway.

And here's why Scream 4 works. It is an honest-to-goodness update of the 1996 original, and because it's in the same continuity, as a continuation of Sidney's story, it's also not a remake or a reboot. Therefore the satire travels as well this time around as it did way back in 1996, because it's got a healthy cynicism about itself without falling into all of the same traps it's criticising from other horror films.

Maybe it's the fact that in the 11 years since Scream 3, things have changed for the genre, or rather, what's changed is how little things have changed, with the genre more literally repeating the formula of other films by remaking or rebooting them. Scream has now produced its own clichés, such as the cold openings and the metatextual nudging, both of which are taken to task by original screenwriter Kevin Williamson in this new film. But the chief difference between this film and Scream 2 or Scream 3 is that this one has more than just self-awareness.

There's also a welcome return for the ongoing murder mystery part of the proceedings, which was less well-thought out in the previous sequels, as much as the dark humour and satire. So what's strange to realise about Scream 4 is that it feels fresher than most horror films out there despite the fact that it's largely the same as the first film, and it makes that part of its DNA.

The new ingenues hoping to evade being stabbed to death are played by the likes of Emma Roberts and Hayden Panettiere, whose characters have a cultural awareness from the culture of living in Woodsboro and watching scary movies, but an awareness that can still be blinkered by basic human nature. That's a human nature that's missing from the idiotic ciphers you see in, say, most of Platinum Dunes' output.

Is that a high-falutin' way of saying that they're still gonna go in there even if you shout "Bitch, don't go in there"? Well, yes, but if the younger cast don't appeal to you as characters so much, Neve Campbell reprises her perennial victim Sidney, and the character is developed as a result of the previous films rather than reset for another scream queen outing. David Arquette's Sheriff Dewey has nearly been killed even more times than Sidney, so his presence is oddly reassuring in this one. I also much preferred Courteney Cox's involvement post-Friends, because the irrelevant meta jokes about her co-stars when Friends was still running really got on my nerves in the previous sequels.

It's not all positive, mind. For a seasoned director like Wes Craven, the film is pretty poorly shot. The lens seems almost near-sighted with the way that lights in the background strobe and backgrounds themselves look blurry. If I had to describe it without visual aids, think of what 3D looks like if you take off the glasses. Additionally, I'm aware that while the film's twist ending and commentary on victim culture enraptured me (quite separately, I should add), not everyone will be as taken it. But it should go without saying that if you haven't liked the meta stuff in past Scream films, you won't like this new one.

For me at least, Scream 4 is the best Scream film since the original. The satire is as sharp and surprising as it was in the beginning, and the film works very well as a dark and involving comedy, and only slightly less well as a creepy slasher movie. This one isn't particularly scary, but it's always very involving, if you've been a fan of the series in the past. I'm not going to call it "Scre4m" like they want us to, because that's absurd, but it does give me opportunity to say that I still hope the fourth instalment is the last- it should end on a high note, because I struggle to see how "5cream" could be any more innovative.

Scream 4 is now playing in cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Scream 4, why not share your comments below? And as much as I like Kevin Smith and his work, boy am I glad to say that there isn't another Jay and Silent Bob cameo in this one...

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

WAKE WOOD- Review

It turns out that the third time is the charm for the reinvigorated Hammer studios. After the commercially disappointing Let Me In and all-around disappointment The Resident, the studio blasts back with the kind of film only they used to make, and it's a pretty gripping horror flick.

Wake Wood is the name of a rural township, and Patrick and Louise are a bereaved couple who relocate there after being struck by tragedy. Their young daughter was killed, and their marriage has suffered from their collective grief. But Rabbit Hole it ain't, because Wake Wood has a secret. Through a dark ritual, the town elects to help out Patrick and Louise, but it means meddling in forces that soon spiral out of their control.

It's no disservice to the film to be so vague about its story, because the major turn-off for some will be that it's very predictable. That's generally because the way that horror films are structured and the way their characters are built are recognisable, but the predictability of the story doesn't get in the way of the fact that it's a very well made film. In fact, the things that are good about it almost obscure the inevitable from the viewer.

For one thing, it's a horror film that puts the effort into getting very good actors to give good performances, which was one of the main reasons that I trumpeted the praises of The Last Exorcism all last year. Patrick and Louise are ably played by Aidan Gillen and Eva Birthistle, who are both equally able to pull off the characters' inconsolable grief and their later enterprise in exploiting the supernatural. Timothy Spall looks like the best thing about it, with his genial creepiness as pillar of the community and hoodoo-monger Arthur, but unexpectedly, it's young newcomer Ella Connolly who steals the show.

There might not be much unexpected about her actual character of course, but as I've said, I didn't mind the fact that I could see my way to the film's conclusion from the first ten minutes because I was enjoying the film on the whole. There are a couple of missteps, like the odd sensationalised surgery scenes, carried over from The Resident. You could argue that the animal C-section performed by veterinarian Patrick foreshadows later events, but it still seems kind of strange to me.

But on the plus side, it has to be said that this is something different, the likes of which I haven't seen in a horror film for a good length of time. Its roots snake through The Wicker Man and Don't Look Now, but it never feels less vital for its obvious influences. It's not merely the performance, but the slightly grimy look of the whole thing. It's not a clinical or over-polished film like The Resident- its ends are not cauterised and cleaned up but left hanging, to the effect of making it feel very edgy and intense.

If, as suggested, Hammer's future is in remaking its older hits such as Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires or Captain Kronos, here's hoping they find time for more films like Wake Wood. The small budget makes for an inventive endeavour from a strong cast and a skilled crew. It is kind of predictable and it's not exactly a game-changer, I admit. However, it's also the kind of film that can't have cost an awful lot, but which gets the job done anyway, and in a way that's grisly and strangely satisfying.

Wake Wood is now available on DVD.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Wake Wood, why not share your comments below?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

RUBBER- Review

"In the Steven Spielberg movie E.T., why is the alien brown? No reason. In Love Story, why do the two characters fall madly in love with each other? No reason. In Oliver Stone's JFK, why is the President suddenly assassinated by some stranger? No reason. In the excellent Chain Saw Massacre by Tobe Hooper, why don't we ever see the characters go to the bathroom, or wash their hands, like people do in real life? Absolutely no reason. Worse, in The Pianist, by Polanski, how come this guy has to hide, and live like a bum, when he plays the piano so well? Once again, the answer is "no reason". I could go on for hours with more examples, the list is endless. You probably never gave it a thought, but all great films, without exception, contain an important element of no reason. And you know why? Because life itself is filled with no reason."

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the weird world of Rubber.

Yep, this is that killer tyre movie you've been hearing about. Quentin Dupieux writes and directs the film, and nails his colours to the mast with the monologue quoted above. Stephen Spinella's Lieutenant Chad delivers this statement of intent, seemingly to the fourth wall, but then sets up a group of voyeurs with binoculars in the middle of the desert. They watch as a tyre comes to life, seemingly without reason, and starts killing almost everything it encounters. For no reason.

Via the framing device of the intrigued audience, distanced from the action and closer to you, the actual viewer, we get the clearest idea of what Dupieux is trying to do. Rubber is, as some might expect from the premise, a highly intellectual and comical take on monster-centric B-movies, like Sharktopus and its ilk. And in my experience of it, I strongly suspect that how well it works for you will be whether or not you find it funny, as well as comical, or smart, as well as intellectual.

You get the sense that Dupieux is very full of himself, in making this film, and at times, the smuggery of it all makes it a difficult watch. If you saw the trailer and hoped for dumb fun, you're best off sticking with the trailer. While Rubber is an intensely silly film, it's also very arch in its approach. It not only requires you to think about the monster/killer movies that have long been a staple of schlocky cinema, but it flat out asks you to think about it, and that's what will turn some people off the film.

It's a film that lasts just over 75 minutes, but it's very dry stuff in the beginning. After the initial idea of a head-sploding tyre roaming around the desert is established, it does become a succession of scenes in which our high concept trundles from place to place killing things off. There's some room to appreciate how well it's put together- the cinematography, sound design and special effects are all superb, and they elevate a script that would otherwise have less reason to be so pleased with itself. Luckily, it picks up somewhere in the last 20 minutes with a quickfire round of memorable scenes and quotable lines.

If you can stick with it during the lull, despite any lull being frankly unforgivable in a film so short, then there's some good stuff to be found in Rubber. The irony of it all works best when Stephen Spinella is on screen as the wily and yet incompetent Lieutenant Chad, and it's a great technical achievement, very well put together. But it is a high concept, ideally suited to a short film rather than a feature, pushed out for the maximum amount of mileage- and honestly, it's difficult to imagine such an assault on popular cinema appealing to everyone. At the moment, it costs $9.99 online, just to rent it. Why wouldn't you wait for the DVD or the limited cinema release and see it for cheaper? No reason.

Rubber is available from video on demand sites now, and will be released in the UK on DVD and Blu-ray on April 11th.

------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Rubber, why not share your comments below?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

THE RITE- Review

"Spinning heads and pea soup" sounds almost like a Dr. Seuss story about exorcism, but it's an SFX cliche made famous by The Exorcist, which is arguably the finest film ever made on the subject, and name-checked in The Rite, which is decidedly less memorable. However, it does boast a supporting turn from the venerable Sir Anthony Hopkins, even if it's actually a film about the continuing adventures of the world's worst priest.

The rubbish cleric in question is Michael, a young man who comes up with quite a flawed scheme to enrol in a seminary to study for the priesthood and gain a scholarship for a top-notch education. He plans to flout his commitment once his education is done, but doesn't realise that even the Catholic Church isn't that dumb. So with potentially crippling financial payback looming over his head, he's assigned to the eccentric Father Lucas Trevant, one of the church's veteran exorcists.

Early on in The Rite, I realised that there was more of Father Ted in here than there was of The Exorcist. That "spinning heads and pea soup" line would be fine if screenwriter Michael Petroni had anything new up his sleeve, but he has nothing we didn't see six months ago in The Last Exorcism, a superior and still rather underrated film. I could entirely enjoy a film that was Father Ted meets The Exorcist, but to be honest, the unintentional humour that kept me going in this film wasn't that funny.

It also claims to be based on true events right at the beginning, only to backtrack minutes later in the opening credits, which tells us that the film is "suggested by the book by Matt Baglio". After a raft of truly excellent films based on true stories, like The King's Speech and The Fighter, this seems poorly timed, making it tantamount to calling Donnie Darko a true story because it was "suggested" by A Brief History of Time. Here was me thinking that horror films had graduated from "based on a true story" scare-mongering, onto the less condescending model of Blair Witchery and found-footage constructions.

But let's be frank- I cannot conceive the idea of a single person being frightened by The Rite. Truthfully, there is nothing in it that is frightening. I speak, of course, from the standpoint of an atheist, but if you're scared of the Devil, that idea of evil and demonic possession has been done elsewhere, and so much better. This film runs to 114 minutes, and really has little to show for it except for the notion of an exorcism as a palliative in an ongoing battle against Satanic infestation.

The major problem is the casting of Colin O'Donoghue in the role of Michael. He's no Patrick Fabian, that's for sure, and so there's not much in the way of attachment to his character. As a leading man, he's continually shown up by co-stars Toby Jones and Ciarán Hinds, which might explain why they're both relegated to parts that really could have been cut, to tighten up a film that is way too long. In particular, it's a shame to see Toby Jones doing so little, because he's a fantastic actor who disappears after the rambling and unnecessary first act.

Anthony Hopkins gets the run of the production, really. He's top-billed, and his face is on the poster, and rightly so because he's easily the best thing about this. He plays Father Lucas as a showman, but one who still believes in the battle he is fighting. It comes back to that notion of the palliative exorcism, instilling a belief in the possessed person that they are winning the battle, and to do that, Hopkins exudes the confidence of an eccentric uncle. Later in the film, he's given the opportunity to really exercise his skills as an actor. He refuses to phone it in, and this film really reminded me of what a good actor he is.

Hopkins' performance is a bright spot in The Rite, which has to be seen as a failure on a basic level because it's not scary in any way, shape or form. However, many sites seem to list the film's genre as mystery or thriller, on which merits it would be slightly more of a success. It's quite an ungainly effort that doesn't really deploy the interesting notion of palliative exorcisms as effectively as it could have done. The humour might be unintentional, but coupled with Anthony Hopkins, it makes this overlong sermon just about watchable.

The Rite is now showing in cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen The Rite, why not share your comments below?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

SEASON OF THE WITCH- Review

After a banner 2010 saw him at his weirdest and best in The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, doing some hilarious crowd-pleasing in Kick-Ass, and even being better than average in his usual Disney live-action outing, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, how does Nicolas Cage choose to start 2011? Naturally, he reverts back to exactly the kind of rubbish we've seen him coast along on before last year's outings got people interested in him again.

His latest betrayal of his fanbase goes by the name of Season of the Witch, and he plays Behmen, a knight who deserts from the Crusades with his comrade and best friend, Felson. They're caught out in a small parish that's troubled by the Black Death, and commanded by church officials to take an accused witch across country to a place where her evil can be put to an end. It's believed her witchcraft is the cause of the plague, and Behmen is less easily convinced that the young woman in his charge is guilty.

For starters, I think the main problems with Season of the Witch are twofold, but they both relate to juxtaposed elements that never quite mesh. Firstly, I can't tell if it's meant to be a fantasy film or a horror film, and it's not fantastical enough or scary enough to fit into either one of those alone. Second of all, the involvement of Felson, mentioned above, makes Nicolas Cage part of a double act. Unless his opposite number is Chloe Moretz, and the film is Kick-Ass, Cage in a double act doesn't really work, as Jay Baruchel and Justin Bartha can attest. Weirder still, Felson is played by part-time Hellboy and genre stalwart Ron Perlman.

Just try and imagine that combination in your head. Nicolas Cage and Ron Perlman. You might as well pair up Batman and Muttley for all the chemistry there is between those two actors. Perlman is clearly the better player in this one because of his experience in this type of film. Cage, for all of his celebrity nerdery, should stick to watching films like this rather than acting in them. His vocal rendition of "14th century knight" sounds an awful lot like "MIT professor" or "sorcerer" or "stage magician". Hell, it just sounds a lot like Nicolas Cage.

And even weirder still, it almost seems like the supporting cast are doing American accents to cover the losses of the leads. The great Stephen Graham's role is an embarrassment to a fine actor, and Robert Sheehan occasionally lapses back into his Irish accent, more familiar to fans of Misfits. There are no rewards for the actors on hand here, as the motley ensemble of characters trudge along on the road to holy ground, with their predictable arcs meeting their peaks and troughs like clockwork.

Claire Foy manages well enough as the seasonal may-or-may-not-be-gribbly of the title, but there's very little ambiguity about her character. Well, there's at least no chance that she might be just a wrongfully accused regular human girl. The turnaround we have instead takes us into much more familiar territory, lifting from horror films as we take a running leap towards a thoroughly uninspired denouement. Season of the Witch isn't that bad- it's just so uninspiring and such a minor effort that it's not worth the corresponding effort required for the audience to go out and see it.

And Season of the Witch, like so many of Cage's minor efforts before it, is a film they shouldn't have bothered with if they couldn't do it well. There's nothing to really chastise or praise about it because it's all so bloody forgettable, just like last year's Solomon Kane. For a similar, but much better film, go and find Black Death, the British horror film that's just recently come out on DVD. There isn't even any of the patented Cage unintentional comedy to stir you from the neutrality of this uninspired guff.

Season of the Witch is now playing in cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Season of the Witch, why not share your comments below?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

Sweded- LET ME IN Review

Took me a whole hour to come up with that pun! Awesome, isn't it? You see, on many levels, that's what Let Me In is. It's a Be Kind Rewind rendition of the much acclaimed Swedish vampire film, Let The Right One In, on a bigger budget. As remakes go, it's playing it safer than any of them in recent memory, perhaps since Gus Van Sant's Psycho, to which the only notable addition was a scene with Vince Vaughn masturbating. But I digress.

The story is the same, but with the characters' names changed to protect the identity of the original film. In New Mexico in the 1980s, Owen is a 12 year old boy who's being tormented by his classmates. Stuck in a state of inaction and terror, he's galvanised slightly by the arrival of Abby, a girl who moves in next door. Abby helps Owen to stand up for himself while at the same time revealing part of her terrible secret- ABBY'S A VAMPIRE! EVERYBODY COME AND SEE THIS VAMPIRE FILM!

How far into Let The Right One In did we get before it became clear that Eli was an immortal bloodsucker? Let Me In's biggest change to the source is to trumpet Abby's true nature from very early on. The original defies classification even once you know it's a vampire film- it's not a horror film just because it contains vampires. In a weird way, it's a romance, but not in the way of Twilight or all the other vampire romances that have sprung up. The ambiguity of intent was bound to be lost in translation.

The thing is, Let Me In isn't a bad film. It's only bad insofar as that it's a carbon copy of a film whose only problem, to the mainstream audience, was the fact that it wasn't in English. When you copy a film as good as Let The Right One In as closely as Let Me In does, there's no way you can fail. It occasionally puts a foot wrong, as in the unnecessary throw-forward that opens the film, but it's largely very faithful. Even in the transfer to America, all the locations look uncannily similar to those of the Swedish film.

I like Matt Reeves as a director, and I like both of his films to date, but I want him to do something new. Cloverfield was a film very much led by its concept, and restricted by what you can do in a found-footage film, and now he's made a note-for-note remake. The only major change he makes is in the scene where the Håkan substitute, credited here as The Father and played excellently by Richard Jenkins, makes a potentially fatal mistake. It takes the pedestrian scene from the original and transforms it into an excellently shot sequence that's loaded with tension- it's one of the highlights of the remake.

After this small degree of improvement, Reeves returns to the script for the original film, which is replicated almost exactly. If the whole film had been as bold as that scene in the car, it might have been different. It might not have exceeded Let The Right One In, but then neither does the film we got. At least it would have been more distinctive.The effect is that an otherwise excellent film becomes an advert for the original Swedish language version, purely because it's so reverent to what came before.

The other distinguishing marks on Let Me In are made by the actors. Kodi Smit-McPhee is the weak link, as he was in The Road earlier this year. I've yet to be convinced of his talents, having winced "Papa" at Viggo Mortensen previously, and here being out-classed by everyone else with his wimpier-than-wimpy spin on Owen. In vast contrast, I'm actually weighing up whether or not I prefer Chloe Moretz's performance as Abby in this to Lina Leandersson's as Eli in the original film. Moretz has a hell of a career ahead of her.

I saw Let Me In in advance of its release, and if you've seen Let The Right One In, then so have you. It's almost exactly the same length as its predecessor, so safe is the adaptation. It's undoubtedly a good film, with an astonishing performance from Chloe Moretz and the added value of Reeves' directorial choices flourishing through the colour-graded fug of an otherwise unnecessary remake.

The price of admission in cinemas will be close to the price of the DVD of Let The Right One In- if you haven't seen the original, then you make your choice. As much as I like Let Me In, it's films like this that make me dread the prospect of an English-language remake every time I see a foreign film. It's a good film, but its baggage overpowered it for me.

Let Me In is now showing in selected cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Let Me In, why not share your comments below? If you're unsure of whether or not this is a recommendation, then believe me, so am I. See it if you don't like subtitles, I guess. Your being wrong about subtitles is something we'll debate later on...

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

Halloween at Writers' Block North East

I'm in the unusual position of having reviewed all of last week's new releases last week, with the exception of The Kids Are All Right (come back on Wednesday or go over to Den of Geek around about... now), so it's as good a time as any to talk about the work of Writers' Block North East.

For Halloween last night, they held their monthly(ish) film discussion group, and in a makeshift and very off-hand kind of way, I programmed the double bill horror screening. I rave about films on here and how they need to be better, so it obviously had to be something from the paragon of great horror movies. Did I pair Onibaba and The Haunting? Or go for a John Carpenter twofer with The Thing and Halloween? Fuck no, I plumped for Trick 'r' Treat and Burning Bright.

First off, let me catch you up. Writers' Block North East is a group for creative stuff and a drop-in centre for all manner of writers, centred in Middlesbrough and organised by the wonderful team of Laura Degnan and James Harris. I say "wonderful team" because in the week that Let Me In comes out, I'm aware of my own presumption that people who criticise actual creative work on the Internet have to be invited into dwellings where actual constructive work is occurring, and they're kind enough to allow me on the premises.

More than that, they got my first produced script all finished when I won their competition to write a Potter Puppet Pals style parody, complete with actual puppets. Doctor Who and the Inky Doom is currently in need of a follow-up, in which I'll surely manage to avoid sticking my head and/or shoulder in the back of the shot when operating the Matt Smith puppet. While work continues on the sequel, Inky Doom is presented on YouTube below, for your enjoyment.



So, to the business of Halloween. Having neglected to turn up in costume, I was a bit taken aback by the full-on face paint stand operated by John Noble, one of our resident actors/directors/ridiculously creative people. Someone else brought a carved pumpkin. I brought a perennial Halloween film that's only three years old, and a film where a tiger chases an autistic kid around a house.

So first off, we watched Trick 'r Treat. For those unfamiliar, it's the Bryan Singer-produced anthology horror homage, in which four interlinking stories unfold over one Halloween night. Crossing between stories is Sam, ostensibly a little kid dressed up as a scarecrow, but actually a vicious little bastard who doesn't like it when people don't get into the spirit of the evening.

I saw this film earlier this year, and decided right then that I would watch it every Halloween. It may not have the iconic status of those films I mentioned earlier on, but it perfectly captures the spirit of the event with a grim sense of humour and a surprisingly high youth mortality rate. The acting is great, with particularly great performances by the newly-cuckolded Lizard from the Spider-Man sequels, Dylan Baker, and a deliciously cantankerous turn by Brian Cox.

The reaction from the Writers' Block patrons was pretty positive. It's a great start to any Halloween marathon, so naturally, we moved onto the combo-breaking killer animal flick Burning Bright. This one plays out a little like one of those Lemony Snicket books, not only in the central idea of an unscrupulous guardian trying to kill off orphans, but in how the blurb connects disparate elements like a tiger, a hurricane, a scholarship and a cameo by Meat Loaf as a tiger dealer.

It's obviously got a higher budget than the usual direct-to-DVD schlock with this kind of premise. They bothered to wrangle real tigers rather than attempt hokey CGI. While it's cheesy, and slow to get moving even at a mere 70 minutes in length, it eventually got the desired reaction out of the audience. They laughed their arses off. All the same, it's extremely well-intentioned. Its cast, aside from Mr. Loaf, are mostly on the cusp of renown for acting in other, more prestigious films, but none of them are snidey or ironic in their presence. In particular, Briana Evigan proves a tough as nails horror heroine- who would have expected it of that one lass from Step Up?

The direct-to-DVD double bill went down a treat, and I'm sure I'll blog about other film discussion groups at Writers' Block as and when they occur- I think the next one is Christmas-themed, so even though I'm not programming it, I'm lobbying for The Muppet Christmas Carol and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Don't hold your breath for that festive twofer though- it's time for me to be quiet and write something new for the Doctor and Amy Pond...

Writers' Block North East is currently situated in the We Are Open space on Albert Road, Middlesbrough- add them on Facebook and Twitter. Trick 'r Treat and Burning Bright are both currently available on DVD.

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

Game Over- SAW 3D Review

Yeah, it's Saw VII. I might charitably call it Saw VII 3D, but it's certainly not Saw 3D. Hey, after the week I've had over on Den of Geek, doing Saw week, I think I'm allowed to call it whatever I want. Assuming of course that this film is as inaccessible as any deeply story-driven gory soap opera that you enter at the seventh instance, you might want to catch up with my brief summations of the first six films in this blog post from last year, if you don't have time to read through my lengthier Den of Geek critiques.

Righto then, Saw VII. Jigsaw's long-suffering ex Jill Tuck is immediately seen forsaking all badassery she mustered at the end of the last film by running away like a wuss when she sees demented bumbler Hoffman survive the reverse bear trap she put him in. Aiming to broker a deal for her release to his vengeance, Hoffman wreaks citywide mayhem with the traps and games, encompassing the already under-resourced police as well as a self-help guru who claims to have survived one of the Jigsaw tests.

One thing sticks out in how Saw VII fails to offer up a single shock in its entire running time. In the midst of so much grisly routine and misanthropic treatment of characters, one mistake could have redeemed the whole film had it been averted. Twisted Pictures should never have announced the return of Cary Elwes as Dr. Lawrence Gordon. Elwes almost serves as the franchise's Mount Doom with his bookend appearances- with him, Saw was made, and only with him can it be unmade. If they'd only kept that as a surprise, the film would have been worth its salt.

Instead it's just obscenely functional for a film so hyped as the final end of a franchise that fans have followed fo the last six years. So much of its essence has been lost in that time that even Saw VI seems like a return to form in comparison to the ornery incomprehensibility of some of the instalments in the middle. However, while that film improved for its partial reintegration of the late John Kramer, there's a near-criminal lack of him in this final instalment.

Tobin Bell is the gnarled heart and twisted soul of the entire series. It goes rapidly downhill once we're watching Costas Mandylor woodenly trudge along in his shoes, and Hoffman only becomes more unbearable at the very end. I also feel sorry for Betsy Russell, who rounds out her patient and competent run on the series with a scream queen turn, running down corridors and hiding behind cabinets.

But naturally, Saw films are not about the acting, or at least they haven't been since the days of the mighty Elwes and original co-creator Leigh Whannell. They're more about stock characters being put through unimaginable- sometimes baddies and sometimes goodys, but never relatable. With the character of Bobby Dagen, who becomes a hit on the talkshow circuit and bestsellers list at Jigsaw's expense, we make steps back towards the idea of redemptive torture being the object, but it's quickly subsumed by the same succession of unimaginative sideshows we've seen in the fourth film, or the fifth film, or any other film except the first two, really.

Of the 3D, there's really little to say, except that it might bolster the box-office enough to justify continuing the franchise, even beyond its apparent conclusion. There are still dangling threads that could be resumed, looking at how tenuous some of the series' latter instalments have gotten. It may turn out to be the finale as much as The Evil of the Daleks turned out to be "the final end" for the Daleks back in 1967. If anything is popular enough, it'll get picked up again. For me though, this is the end. Game over, as it were. I will not see another new Saw film, because I'm pretty much done with them.

In the same way as a dumb blockbuster will eventually seem quiet if it's loud enough for long enough, nothing in Saw VII fazed me, even with all of its sick-making gore. It's a disaffecting and demoralising film that reverts back to its worst excesses after the forward step made by its immediate predecessor, trying to skirt by on being a little more comprehensible. Cary Elwes is the most classy presence and his return could only have been more welcome if it hadn't been announced in advance.

Otherwise, we're looking at a finale so removed from the original point that it's more geared towards wrapping up its dense mythology. It achieves that well enough, but it's difficult to imagine Saw VII being anyone's favourite addition to the series.

Saw VII is now showing in 3D at cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Saw VII, why not share your comments below? If you do want to read those lengthy Den of Geek critiques, find the links below...

Revisiting Saw and Saw II
Revisiting Saw III and Saw IV
Revisiting Saw V and Saw VI

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

Tossing The Macabre- BURKE & HARE Review

The sheer weight of talent involved in Burke & Hare should be enough to secure its status as one of the must-see films of the year. Starring Simon Pegg, Andy Serkis, Jessica Hynes, Isla Fisher, Tom Wilkinson and Ronnie Corbett, it's a horror comedy from An American Werewolf in London director John Landis. Trouble is, it's rooted in history.

It's basically a macabre spin on the West Port murders, perpetrated by William Burke and William Hare in the 1820s. As the film has it, Burke and Hare are confidence tricksters who get lucky when their elderly lodger expires. They lose the rent money he was paying them, but find a lucrative line of business in body-snatching on behalf of Edinburgh University's anatomy department. When demand exceeds supply, the pair turn to a life of crime to create stock...

I watched most of Burke & Hare through the fug of a bad mood. The local multiplex failed me on the technical side of things, with an out of focus projection of the film. Working to a deadline for Den of Geek, I didn't want to push past the other viewers in the packed-out screening and complain. Presumably projectionists are now so accustomed to 3D that when they glance through their windows, it's ok that it looks a little bit blurry. I mention this for the purposes of full disclosure, because although I like the film, it wasn't nearly as good as I was expecting.

Even when blurred, the period detail is great and the fantastic cast are equal to the task of being in a film as eagerly anticipated as a John Landis horror comedy. The thing is, it's neither scary nor all that funny. The biggest belly laughs in the film come from more slapstick-y moments, like an excellently executed cameo by Paul Whitehouse. Likewise, the most enjoyable scares in the thing come from over-the-top anatomical sound effects, but there's not enough of that either. It's not as clever as it really ought to be, and I don't think Landis has quite pulled off the mix of dark comedy and historical re-telling.

Somehow it feels like he looked upon the story as quaint. Don't get me wrong, there's some very sharp interpretation of established history, departing from whatever Wikipedia might have to say about the real Burke and Hare. However, Landis puts us into some brand of Movie Scotland. Isla Fisher, for one, would have been perfectly watchable if she hadn't been hamstrung by a stodgy Scottish accent. Similarly, the welcome sight of Tim Curry is marred by his grappling with dialects.

It comes from the Ealing Studios brand, but it's closer in tone to Carry On Screaming than to The Ladykillers. There are snatched glimpses of the wry tradition that typified Ealing in its heyday, but it's not a film that holds a lot of surprises, unless you think you know what to expect. Over on Twitter, Simon Pegg has championed the film's revisionist stance, and I was indeed very interested in how the script considers the wider context of Burke and Hare's crimes rather than condemning them as evil murderers or such like.

However, the film opens by telling us that it's based on true events, "except for the parts that are not". That's a licence to cut loose with the comedy, but the film never really does. The merest sight of Ronnie Corbett can reduce an audience to gales of laughter when you place him in military regalia, and there are a couple of hilarious sex scenes, but I felt all the thinking had been sunk into the historical detail.

I'm surprised by how quickly this thing came together- just a year ago we thought it would be David Tennant in the lead role. I'm guessing they wanted this plum Halloween release date, but sadly, the quick turnaround shows in the finished film. With a little more post-production, I wonder if we might have got a better film. It's easy to like, but difficult to love, and I'd personally hoped for better. I thought Pegg and Serkis were brilliant, and loved seeing all the Spaced alumni who showed up for the ride.

Burke & Hare is a quirky and quaint reimagining of a real life horror story that's previously been dramatised rather than played up for its macabre humour. I can't speak highly enough of the cast, who do brilliantly with what I feel is a middle-of-the-road script. The repute of An American Werewolf In London might possibly have built my expectations up too high, but nothing really surprised me in this one. It all feels decidedly humdrum, with an almost surgical approach to the tone where a melee of blood and guts and belly laughs would, from John Landis at least, have been more palatable. 

Burke & Hare is now showing in selected cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Burke & Hare, why not share your comments below? If you feel moved to join the debate on the history and the comedy, Simon Pegg is making some pretty good points on Twitter.

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2- Spoiler Review

This review contains SPOILERS. These are my thoughts, post-viewing, to be read after seeing Paranormal Activity 2 in cinemas. My spoiler-free review can be found on Den of Geek.

The Paranormal Activity phenomenon passed me by last year, as you might have noticed. I caught the first film on DVD last weekend and was stubbornly refusing to see the sequel in the cinema for reasons that shall become apparent. The first film is fine, for what it is. The pacing is languid because it's posing as the relation of relevant events in a haunting/homicide, but it was engaging enough to keep me watching even though not much was happening.

As you'll have gathered, I have now seen Paranormal Activity 2.

It's not so much a sequel as a companion piece, which makes it, as Brad Miska has brilliantly called it over on Bloody Disgusting, the original film's "sexy twin sister". It's set 60 days before the death of Micah Stoat at the end of the first film, and thus he and Katie appear in this film while visiting her sister. This particular Featherstone girl is happily married with two kids, but finds her baby boy in danger when the family home is set upon by the vicious demon who stalked her in the night when she was young.

Part of the reason I was so resistant to the hype-zilla word of mouth appeal of Paranormal Activity was knowing how the Internet has further inflated the system of success in the horror genre. Stories of a film being so terrifying that viewers fainted and screamed their way through viewings date all the way back to The Exorcist, and more recently to The Blair Witch Project. Then I was even more resistant to the sequel, because I assumed, and I think fairly so, that we were in Blair Witch 2- Book of Shadows territory.

There's a different director, a different writer and it was rushed into production for release near Halloween, in the same slot as Saw, the multiplex fixture it trounced at the box office last year and which it now seems set to replace. The truth is, Paranormal Activity 2 is far better and far more fun that it has any right to be, all things considered. Nevertheless, it's still on equal standing with the first film, for me.

With only the merest amount of extra effort, this could have been something brilliant. For starters, it ekes out the tension brilliantly for the first half hour in a way that didn't work as well in the first film. Director Tod Williams holds shots for long periods without any jump-scare or fright, anticipating and simultaneously fuelling your reaction to the familiar style of horror that everyone liked the first time around. There's no cheap Opening Credits Kill, and when that first jump-scare eventually comes, it's in broad daylight. Oh, how I wish they'd followed that line of thinking to its conclusion.

If this film had made fans as scared of their house during the day as Paranormal Activity did with the nocturnal noises and disturbances, it would be something very special. Instead, the film follows the slightly more mean-spirited line of terrorising Hunter, the baby boy who the demon has marked for spiritual repo, and the tortured family's German Shepherd- two innocents, both confused by the panic of the household's other inhabitants.

Had I stayed through the credits, I'd have been able to tell you some of the cast and characters' names, because there's no cast list online just yet. Never mind though, because they're not doing anything special here. The first film had the interesting relationship between Micah and the spectral intruder, the former trying to assert a possessive masculinity over an entity that's more interested in the demonic kind of possession. This one has a larger cast doing the same brand of naturalistic acting and not a lot else.

Crucially, I think the film feels more constructed than its predecessor. This feels like it was assembled for an audience rather than exhibited for posterity, as it would have seemed for those who were fooled by the found footage gambit. We know it's not real simply because it's Paranormal Activity 2, but it would be nice to see them trying, instead of putting credits on the end where the original had a copyright notice that at least partially preserved the ambiguity of what we'd just seen.

All an actor can really do in these films is react to spooky stuff. The characters aren't interesting enough this time around- they catch up with the audience at different times, and once they're all with us, they call in precisely the wrong person for help. Most of us would call Father Karras or Peter Venkman, but this family calls in their Hispanic religious stereotype housemaid, who sensed bad juju before it all went down. You know, everyone's favourite character from Devil. On the writing and directing side of things, there's a little more flair, and they set things up nicely for the inevitable Paranormal Activity 3.

In a more enjoyable way than Saw IV was to Saw III, Paranormal Activity 2 moves nimbly alongside its predecessor to the point where Katie and Hunter disappear off the map. There are loose threads that can be picked up again next year- the now-orphaned Ali, the potentially dead dog and perhaps even the housemaid who screams "Diablo" and waves incense around. These films are more good-natured than Saw, at least in their lack of gratuitous gore, and could feasibly form a Halloween movie tradition to supplant that series after next week's (supposedly) final chapter

Personally, I doubt I would have enjoyed Paranormal Activity 2 as much without the stellar reactions of my fellow cinema viewers. My experience with Buried proves that it's difficult to find an audience who want to see the film as much as these people did, but they lapped it up. They gave it full-on screams, nervous laughter and most rewardingly, their full attention. The reaction is as much a part of the experience as the film, and for a somewhat breathless redo of Paranormal Activity, it's certainly not bad. Not as good as 2010's other found footage movies, The Last Exorcism and [REC] 2, but good enough. 

Paranormal Activity 2 is now showing in selected cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Paranormal Activity 2, why not share your comments below? If you're having sleepless nights this week, I empathise entirely. I couldn't believe that people in the UK would go and see Vampires Suck either.

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

You Know, For Kids! - THE HOLE 3D Review

Joe Dante, he of Gremlins and Small Soldiers fame, is pretty much the reigning king of this kind of movie, mostly because no one's made an effort to take his crown since he last made a family-oriented horror film. And in The Hole, we finally have someone using irksome technology in a really appealing way, to tell a really compelling story.

That story involves Lucas and Dane, two brothers who move into a new house with their mother, only to find a trapdoor in their basement that seemingly leads to a bottomless pit. Along with girl-next-door Julie, their natural first response is to goof around with it. But the abyss also gazes and puts the kids up against their worst fears as it tries to claim each of them.

By family-oriented horror, I'm really talking about entry-level horror, on the same wavelength as Doctor Who. The best thing about this type of horror is that it scares out the optimum response from its audience without trying too hard, as you'd think it would have to. You could collect up the amount of blood spilled in this entire film in a thimble, but it offers up far more scares and thrills than its supposedly adult counterparts, like Saw or Final Destination. 

Dante's aiming for the primal fears of childhood in his characters, whether irrational phobias, or more emotional fears, rooted in loss and childhood trauma. He doesn't trivialise the irrational though, actually giving ample reason for those fears rather than messing around with perspective to show how silly such a fear would be. Younger brother Lucas is terrified of clowns, for instance. By the end of the film, I'd be surprised if the majority of younger viewers weren't also terrified of clowns.

I mention Doctor Who, because it very much has the same target audience as this film. Anyone who enjoys being frightened by whatever nightmare fuel Steven Moffat has ignited each week will adore The Hole. It's not for the very youngest of children, but kids upwards of 8 years old will really go for this. The 12A certificate is pretty apt- this is definitely more extreme than PG-rated fare like Monster House or Coraline- but it's still suitable for some who wouldn't get in without their parents. It's a horror film for the whole family, and I'd even say it's worth shelling out for 3D tickets.

We've seen 3D used pretty superficially before now- if you want to quibble about other great examples, then I'll admit the flying scenes in How to Train Your Dragon were very good and no horror film has equalled the fun exploitation of the technology in My Bloody Valentine.  But here, Dante uses 3D to convey emotion. It's not beneath him to do the "throw stuff at the audience" gag, but it's always more intriguing when we see one of our heroes alone and afraid in the middle all that added depth James Cameron has been banging on about.

The only shortcomings of the 3D are reflective surfaces. It may seem like an odd niggle, but if you look at any given window or shiny object in this, it looks animated. There's presumably some confusing photographic reason for it, but it's occasionally distracting. There's also a bit of weirdly obvious ADR here and there too, marring otherwise great performances by the leads. Chris Massoglia and Nathan Gamble are believable siblings and Haley Bennett is probably going to be something of an adolescent crush du jour, like Phoebe Cates in Gremlins before her.

It's not exactly an illustrious field, but I also think it's the finest horror film of 2010. Indeed, it leaves one released just this week, Devil, in the shade. To directly compare for a moment, this has more jumps and tension in any given 10 minutes than Devil has in 80 minutes, and the catharsis of Shyamalan's film utterly undermines any fear factor that might have been there. Instead, Dante opts to make a film as much about the fear as about overcoming it, and it's supremely entertaining.

Maybe it's not quite as anarchic as Gremlins and Small Soldiers, but Joe Dante makes a very welcome return with The Hole. Mark L. Smith's script is part of the reason why we've got a more sentimental film, but that's not a mark against the film- it's never over-balanced by sentiment. I don't know how else to recommend it now that I've already said it's my favourite horror film of the year so far, and a 3D film that's worth the price of admission. There can be no higher praise! But it's dark, whimsical, and will spook viewers of all ages- everyone should check this out. 

The Hole 3D is now showing in 3D (duh) in cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen The Hole 3D, why not leave a comment on the film and/or my review? Hey, there's arguably more shame in being scared by a torture porn film than by this family film, so go see it, huh?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

Fish and Nips- PIRANHA 3D Review

As something of a regular disclaimer, it's only my opinion here- others are available. As ever, mild spoilers may occur in the process of reviewing, but never so far as to spoil any major plot developments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If 3D can be (and it has been) seen as a way to bring the theme park experience into cinemas, and this film in particular has a high quota of nudity and risible dialogue, you could call Piranha 3D the equivalent of porno Disneyland. Jizzneyland, if you will. It's a remake of a Joe Dante-directed Jaws parody from 1978, and it sees a bunch of fratboys and sorority girls descend on Lake Victoria for spring break, just as seismic activity unleashes thousands of prehistoric piranhas into the current.

If you weren't sure, then be sure- this is trash cinema. Sometimes that can be just fine, seeing a director and a group of actors you know and like knowingly taking on a trend that can, at its best, throw up a lot of laughs and make for a riotous time at the cinema. If you know and like Elisabeth Shue at her least interested, Jerry O'Connell at his most annoying, and a whole bunch of porn actresses, you will have a blast watching Piranha 3D.

You'd hope that most of the people old enough to gain admission through the film's 18 certificate would have outgrown this particular brand of trash, but then there's still a large contingent of men who read Nuts and Zoo. The last film I invoked lads' mag filmmaking about was Sorority Row, which shared a screenwriter with this one- the dubiously named Pete Goldfinger. If for some reason you liked that writer's leering sensibility then, this is more of the same. The gratuitous nudity on show here makes you think it was remiss to even credit the presumably minimal work done by the film's costume designer.

I've made my thoughts on 3D perfectly clear in the past, but in this one particularly, it's annoying as hell. It's another one retro-fitted with 3D after the fact, marking another tremendously lazy oversight for a film that was always going to be sold on its bespectacled visual appeal. As a result, a lot of it looks crummy, with ghosting, colour loss and all the other regular bugbears that made this the only film which I stumped up for the stereoscopic version of for some time.

The other major appeal is going to be the scantily clad women, most of whom have probably shown more in their more prolific porno work. I know for a fact that Kelly Brook showed as much in the execrable erotic thriller Three, but if you really need to see her swimming around underwater with Riley Steele, both entirely naked and snogging each other, to the strains of Delibes' The Flower Duet, then you can safely wait for the DVD. Guys, what you're thinking of doing after that description, you're generally not allowed to do in the cinema- see the problem with putting Jizzneyland on the big screen?

What initially made me mad about this film was the presence of Richard Dreyfuss in Matt Hooper mode. Yeah, he's more or less the same character he played in Jaws. I'm not innovating in the field of film fandom to declare how much I love Jaws, and I understand that this is based on a pastiche of that film, but I still didn't like that joke like I was supposed to. It just made me wish I was watching Jaws on a big-screen (in 2D) instead.

I will give it points for honesty though- it's all-out, crazy trash of the trashiest kind and they know it. To merely call it navel-gazing would omit its equal love for booby-gazing, ass-gazing, gore-gazing and CG-piranha gazing. In all respects but the pacing, which saves all the gross-out action you really came to see for the last 20 minutes, it's pretty competently put together. There is definitely an audience who will find all of this to be brilliant if breviloquent fun.

Me, I had more fun with Snakes on a Plane a few years ago, which shot for the same audience that this one does. If I really desperately needed to see tits when that film came out, I would have went on the Internet. Because I was 15, not because I can't find tits in real life. Uh... this movie sucks! It's aiming to be a guilty pleasure, but the operative part of that equation is the pleasure. If you don't enjoy this, like I didn't, then you're just left with the guilt.

The reason why I'm generally putting Piranha 3D down isn't because I have to chew away at it like so many underwater beasties, in search of some non-existent purpose in the film. It didn't entice me because it's simply more obnoxious than entertaining, and seriously falls short in a subset of cinema that director Alexandre Aja clearly understands and wants to capture in this remake. Instead he's made a film where the likes of Christopher Lloyd and Ving Rhames get as much screentime as Eli Roth as the judge of a wet t-shirt contest.

For some, it'll do exactly what it needs to, but it goes without saying that there's nothing on offer to a female audience, and that any males' intentions would probably be better served by waiting for the DVD and ruining a few socks then instead. You wouldn't fork out to see the recent lower-budgeted Asylum flick Mega-Piranha on the big screen, so don't waste your money on the same thing just because it had more money thrown at it.

Piranha 3D is now showing in 3D (duh) at cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If and when you see Piranha 3D, why not leave a comment on the film and/or my review? If only Christopher Lloyd had got to say "Where they're going, they don't need water!" at the end, to set up for a remake of that James Cameron one where the piranha can fly.

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.