Yule Love It: inside (2016)

There usually comes a point while watching a remake when you have to make a conscious decision to forget the original movie. Some movies make that impossible. If a film is going to slavishly copy what has been done before then you just can't view it as one individual work of art. The same can happen, however, if the film moves too far away from the source material, making you wonder why they even bothered to create it as a remake.

I really like Inside, the 2007 horror movie from Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury that came along with a number of other extreme French horror movies during the first decade of this century. The two then followed that with Livid, another wonderful horror film, although one with a much more dream-like atmosphere throughout. I've not yet seen Among The Living, for all I know they may have been three for three at that point. I know that all seemed to be going well for them until they were tasked with delivering audiences Leatherface.

But I digress. I had deferred my viewing of Inside for so long because of my love for the original movie. I just didn't have any faith in a remake doing it justice. Enough time had passed though, so I figured it might finally be safe to give it a go.

The main story is the same, as you might expect. Things start with a car crash. Rachel Nichols is Sarah, a survivor of the crash. She's also very pregnant. It's Christmas Eve, Sarah is struggling with her loss, and considering what to do as motherhood approaches, when there is a knock at the door. It's a woman (Madeleine, played by Laura Harring) who seems to know Sarah. When refused entry, Madeleine eventually finds another way inside. She wants to take Sarah's baby, and will stop at nothing to get it.

The good thing about Inside is that it casts two women in lead roles that I always think should have more films under their belt. Nichols and Harring are both women I look forward to seeing onscreen, and both do their best with the material here, Harring having a bit more fun in the role of the villain (as you might expect). And that's about it for the praise portion of this review.

Inside is terrible. It mishandles any moments that it lifts directly from the original, and it also makes changes that don't work, despite obviously being put there to add some potential scares, tension, or kills. One main example is giving Sarah some hearing loss, which then allows her to have a hearing aid that can be lost and gained, depending on how director Miguel Ángel Vivas wants a scene to play out. Vivas also worked on the script, alongside the talented Jaume Balagueróand Manu Díez, and it's almost impossible not to put all of the blame for the lacklustre feeling of the final product on his shoulders. I cannot recall the last time I watched a horror movie that alternated so erratically between either underplaying or overplaying the scares. None of the BIG moments work as they should, leaving viewers underwhelmed, and simply bored, as it all winds to an ending that, well, I won't spoil . . . let's just say that it also fails to prove worthwhile when you think of the ending to the original movie.

Cynically designed to appeal to those who don't want to watch a nasty horror film with subtitles, this is the worst kind of remake. It loses the power of the original, mishandles everything that was done so well the first time around, and never shows an ounce of courage. Pitiful.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Raze (2013)

I KNOW this may not seem important to many people, but I am going to start this review with a warning. Despite being named second in the opening credits, and despite having her name on the cover of the movie, Rachel Nichols is not in this movie for long. Five minutes. Maybe ten. That's it. Nichols may not be the biggest star on the planet, but I like her. A lot. I'll seek out anything that she takes part in. Which made my viewing of Raze slightly disappointing. I was expecting her to have a central, or at least central supporting, role. Such is life, however, and I had to just suck it up and view the movie as it was intended, with very little Rachel Nichols included. But I'm starting this review with this whole paragraph so that others might avoid such disappointment.

And now to the movie itself. A bunch of women (including Zoe Bell, Tracie Thoms, Rebecca Marshall, and Bailey Anne Borders) are held prisoner, paired off and forced to fight one another to the death. If they refuse to fight then their loved ones will be harmed. It's a standard exploitation movie set-up, basically, and there's even a sadistic guard (Bruce Thomas), some out-of-touch senior management (Doug Jones and Sherilyn Fenn), and some lesbian shower scenes. I'll admit it, that last part was a lie.

Despite the tame nature of so many moments, this is a WIP movie that should please fans of that particular subgenre. What it lacks in gratuitous nudity and sleaze, it more than makes up for in the scenes that show some excessive violence. When the fights take place there's no shortage of shots that show faces being mashed and broken as opponents messily scramble to stay alive.

Bell isn't bad as the nominal lead, and she's certainly someone a bit more recognisable compared to many of the other inmates (although the inclusion of Thoms makes for a nice mini-Death Proof reunion, with Rosario Dawson also making the briefest of cameos), but she struggles to carry the whole movie on her strong shoulders. Thankfully, I was easily pleased by the scenes featuring Fenn and Jones, and Thomas was solid as the nasty guard.

Director Josh C. Waller also helped to come up with the story, alongside two (?) other people, including screenwriter Robert Beaucage. It's as thin and ridiculous as a sheet of sudoku toilet paper, which isn't a problem while it rattles along at a decent pace, providing entertaining nastiness for viewers who know what they're letting themselves in for. The characters may not have much depth, but at least a few stand out from the group (with Rebecca Marshall's nutty turn being a highlight).

Ultimately forgettable, and veering between moments that seem strangely sanitised in between the gorier sequences, Raze is still good enough to give 90 minutes of your time to.

6/10

http://www.amazon.com/Raze-Zo%C3%AB-Bell/dp/B00IA1VQBS/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1408892932&sr=1-1&keywords=raze

G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra (2009)

If you go into this movie and don't realise what you're going to get then you deserve everything coming to you, even if that's a real downer for you. This is a movie based on a series of toys (G.I. Joe being the original, American version of our very own Action Man action figures here in the UK) and directed by a man (Stephen Sommers) well-known for providing spectacle over substance.

I can happily admit to enjoying many Stephen Sommers movies (even the majorly drubbed Van Helsing) so I already had an idea that I was going to like the G.I. Joe film. As things began, and it hits the ground running, I was proved very much correct.

The story is pretty much summed up in the title, but I'll give the very briefest recap here. Channing Tatum and Marlon Wayans play two soldiers who are tasked with carrying some dangerous warheads from A to B. When their convoy is attacked, they meet a team from the G.I. Joe program. One thing leads to another and the two men decide that they want a piece of that action. People fight each other, backstories are dripfed throughout the movie in flashbacks, and there's a chase sequence through Paris that's up there with the very best of modern popcorn entertainment.

The cast all do their jobs. Dennis Quaid is great as a tough-talking, caring leader, Christopher Eccleston is good enough in his role (he created the warheads) and the others all do just fine at portraying . . . . action figures on screen. Tatum continues to be likable while scowling and looking tough, Wayans is a lot less annoying here than he usually is in any other movie and Arnold Vosloo does a very passable Arnold Vosloo impression (see pretty much every other Arnold Vosloo role ever . . . . . and don't think I'm demeaning him, I love his work). There are more tough men onscreen, portrayed by the likes of Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Ray Park and Lee Byung-hun, and then some tough female characters portrayed by Sienna Miller and Rachel Nichols. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jonathan Pryce and some other famous faces (Brendan Fraser has a fun cameo) pop up to flesh out the cast, and everyone is good enough to almost make you forget it's going to be brainless, loud fun.

Then we get to the amazing, razzle dazzle, fireworks experience, and boy does it deliver in that department. Things are a little bit slow and generic in the first half of the movie (quick character sketches, training montage, the mission briefing, etc. all present and correct) but from the start of that aforementioned sequence in Paris things step up to another level. It's fast and furious, it's loud and proud, it's delirious fun for those who don't mind seeing some obvious computerised images amongst some great, adrenaline-pumping action moments.

Mixing the essence of the action figures (keep an eye out for all of the little details that crop up throughout) with a number of elements that wouldn't look out of place in any James Bond movie, this is one of my favourite American action movies from the past few years.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

The Amityville Horror (2005)

Ryan Reynolds and Melissa George play George and Kathy Lutz respectively in this remake of the much-loved 1979 haunted house movie. While it may lack some of the original's more memorable moments and Lalo Schifrin's haunting score it certainly does enough to entertain modern audiences and at least keeps the character of the house, and it's "face", intact.

Many people already know the (in)famous tale but for those who don't it's relatively simple to recap. A couple bought themselves a house with a troubled history (most notably, the murder of the DeFeo family by Ronald DeFeo, Jr) and only managed to stay there 28 days before fleeing a place they claimed was evil and full of demonic influence.

Let's be very clear about the aim of this movie; it's an entertaining horror and not meant to be an accurate depiction of something many people are already very well-informed about. Yes, it takes liberties with certain truths and even puts its own spin on certain character motivations but the gist of the matter is still all about the effect the house itself purportedly had on those living within and, in that regard, the film does a very good job.

One of the main, and most interesting, differences between this movie and the original is one of its strengths. The original Amityville movie was classed by many as a "mortgage horror", one of a subset of movies detailing how horror could impact on day-to-day activities and social standing, whereas the remake weaves a more interesting strand in adding to the financial strains the family experiences with the weight of Reynolds' character stepping into the shoes of a much-missed husband and father. This group dynamic really helps to create small divisive cracks that look set to become chasms with only the smallest of help from the malevolence residing in 112 Ocean Avenue.

Director Andrew Douglas doesn't do a bad job at all and, in fact, manages to create one or two moments that are arguably better than anything in the original movie. He gets decent performances from everyone involved, especially the child actors (though a bad child performance from Chloe Grace Moretz seems impossible now that we've seen her in so many great roles). Reynolds really only manages to show what he can do when allowed to show the darker side of George Lutz but he's very entertaining while he does it. Philip Baker Hall plays a priest, and you can imagine his presence not being very welcome in the house, while Rachel Nichols plays a pretty irresponsible babysitter who gets a comeuppance way too harsh for her misdeeds in a most memorable manner. Reynolds is probably the weakest of the cast members but it's unfair to really be too negative to the guy when he still manages to make so many scenes work as he gets more and more freedom to succumb to darkness.

Scott Kosar has crafted a screenplay that nicely updates the  material for a new generation. It has a lot of familiar moments for fans of the original movie but also hits a few, enjoyable, fresh beats and does plenty to avoid feeling like a pale imitation.

Many people have found that this was yet another horror movie remake they could easily complain about with an abundance of computer effects and a few scenes involving far too much snappy editing. It is easy to complain about, agreed, but it's also quite an easy movie to enjoy and provides some enjoyably entertaining scares in a way that may not change the face of the genre but may remind some people of the "ghost train" reaction they can get from simple, well-executed scares. It's also worth noting, in the film's defence, that one of the more tense sequences actually sticks to a simple set-up with no visible flashiness or major CG histrionics. I certainly enjoyed it and hope others do too, though it's definitely not a movie to be taken seriously and it's not for anyone interested in the argued actual history of the case (from the DeFeo murders to the Lutz's ordeal). Just turn on and let yourself be entertained for 90 minutes.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Amityville-Horror-Ryan-Reynolds/dp/B000AND8L0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348168741&sr=8-1