Reviews

There is nothing to recommend here. There are so many stolen beats from Heat (and the former L.A. Takedown, Mann's first version) that it's beyond any kind of homage. It's just like my title says: it's a cheap, offensive knock-off of an iconic crime/action film.

If it had an original story, the actors and cinematography could have made this a solid entry in its own right, but this is too much like a hooker trying to use your wife's pet names to you to make a connection. This is like Disney's Star Wars. Just ... no.

I got this film based on a rating of over 6. When I realised it was a poorly made, style over substance, badly acted D movie, the rating here confused me.

Until I checked and most of the high ratings were given under names that had made only that one review. Two of them even began with "Wow!"

And you know what that means.

This isn't worth the time it takes to watch it. See it if it's free, but you won't be glad you did.

This movie is rated over 6, but only because dozens of suspiciously one-review accounts have left 10 star ratings.

Needs to stop this kind of thing happening.

It's a solid 0.

Almost all of the ultra-low scores here are followed by so many spelling and grammar issues that I don't feel the "reviewer" deserves to have their opinion suffered through.

This film didn't set out to sum up all the books in the series that King wrote. As a stand-alone film project, they didn't have that option realistically. So they opted to give us a film based in the same world as the books that should be to that series what El Camino was to Breaking Bad (a bit of familiar world extension) and would also suit audience members that had never read the books. Films DO have to make money, after all. A niche film with this big a budget would be a disaster.

But no, we don't get to have nice things because rabid fanboys go all Cabin In The Woods' Ancient Ones and attempt to destroy the world.

For what it is, it's a good film. It's not a 10, but I was compelled to give it a 10 to counter all the illiterate trolls that gave it a 1.

And those calling it THE worst King adaptation have clearly suffered a concussion or ONLY seen Shawshank Redemption. It's not even close to the worst.

Gus Van Sant wanted to remake Psycho because though most people knew of the film, fewer and fewer people were bothering to actually watch it. His lead actress hadn't even seen it when she was signed for the film. Gus wanted the story to have a new life in these more modern times.

This newer film was never meant to replace the original - it's still there for the hardcore fans. But newer filmgoers who wouldn't watch an "old" black and white film will still have the chance to experience the story. It may even serve as a gateway to the original for some, and that's a good thing.

Van Sant had two choices - he could "re-imagine" the film (in which case he would have been crucified by the hardcore fans), or do what he did here - a faithful retelling with some polish and a few new ideas and takes. The use of colour is a joy to behold. The older film's use of black and white gives one feel to the story; the newer film's glorious colour gives another.

Those utterly hating and trashing this film in an inordinate fashion are represented by the Ancient Ones in The Cabin In The Woods. They are the reason we can't have nice things.

This remake has high production values, great acting talent, and there are people involved with it who had a hand in the original. I own both and rewatch both; there's no reason to need to pitch one against the other.

Recently I purchased an excellent Psycho box set Bluray). Going through all the films (even the recent remake), one thing is clear - this terrible low-rent effort should have been left at the idea-on-a-napkin stage.

That it's a TV movie is no excuse. Later than this, Perkins was back on board and the excellent (by comparison) Psycho IV: The Beginning came out, and THAT was a TV film. But it was orders of magnitude better than this. Heck, even the much maligned shot-for-shot color remake puts this in the shade.

So I own this because I'm a collector and a completist at that. But after seeing it once, this is clear: I'll never see it again.

I always hate it when reviews here say "Don't see this!!!" That's a pointless direction. What I WILL say is: watch it. You won't enjoy it. But you'll have a renewed appreciation for the other films in the Psycho franchise.

This film is like a British version of Daybreakers, except with zombies rather than vampires.

Daybreakers missed a lot of the same tired tropes by starting the story AFTER the point most vampire flicks cover, with the of the world having been "turned" bar a few. That led to some interesting issues being confronted.

This film's story begins after most zombie flicks end, with a cure having been found and life having largely returned to normal, bar the few resistant zombies being kept locked up. This leads to the interesting scenario of people who had been infected (and had committed terrible acts while in that state) trying to fit back in to an untrusting and resentful society. In some ways, this is like the situation Vietnam vets faced in the US after the war.

Many of the so-so or bad ratings here seem to be from people who hoped for more of the usual zombie goodness than they got. But going into this movie with more knowledge of the direction it will take might help people to just it more fairly.

If you're going to base your film on a cult comic book, paying attention to the source material will at least get you a cult following.

But many of the things wrong with this film can be summed up by this representative fact: Dredd takes off his helmet. Worse, he spends much of the film without his helmet on. This might seem a quibble to anyone who didn't grow up reading the comic, but it's tantamount to making a Spider-Man film where his chosen form of transport is the bus.

Yeah, there's some watchable action and humor here. But the lack of any goodwill this film stores up with the hardcore fans means that more than 20 years later, there is no core fan base supporting this movie.

If you're a completist, sure - see this film. But if you're an old-school Dredd fan, prepare for some disappointment.

To sum up the quality of this film, the main actress' name is spelled incorrectly in the opening credits. Yeah - that's the level of competency coming at you here.

Don't get your hopes up if you're a Doom fan. You'll only be hurting yourself.

I have it a 2 for SOME of the CGI. You'll know which bits. They're few and far between.

One good thing: you'll have a whole lot of love in retrospect for The Rock's Doom movie after seeing this.

While there some enduring classics and guilty pleasures in the horror genre (both worth owning), there are along the way the occasional solid entries which - though they might not reach collectible status - make you glad you came across them.

There are no spoilers in this review, but this film has a genuinely creepy atmosphere, some good acting, leading to believable characters, and some really disturbing scenes. At times the dread is palpable, and that feeling lingers a while after first seeing it. Like all good movies in this genre, there is a mix of real-life horror (a certain event that plagues one character) and the supernatural.

The ending might not be for everyone, but this is still quite a few notches above standard out-of-nowhere horror films.

Having seen a bunch of 1 star reviews, I feel the need to offer my opinion.

Even back when it came out, the original movie was very uneven, being an admixture of a few great scenes and ideas with a lot of bad decisions which seemed to date the flick even at the point of release.

This latest film could be considered in the same way as MCU's Spider-Man - not exactly true to the source material, but certainly capturing its spirit effectively.

The new Pet Sematary film may be a departure from the book, but it contains some truly unnerving scenes and concepts, especially the ending (no spoiler), which is about as dark as you can imagine.

I could imagine King liking this retelling of his story. It avoids being a flat remake of the earlier film and at the same time having surprises for those familiar with the book.

It's not a masterpiece, but those offering five stars (which is technically meant to be "average", which this film isn't) and lower are just plain wrong, because of their unfair bias.

This film shows why Rodriguez should have made Ghost In The Shell.

If he had, GITS would have been awesome, which tells you everything you need to know about ABA.

Is this an epic, groundbreaking, perfect film? Of course not.

Like every film in the Predator franchise, it's an imperfect popcorn watch with some great moments spread throughout. The rampant hatred on this board isn't a surprise; beloved films often produce a diehard fanbase with unrealistic notions of what the original films were, and unrealistic expectations regarding future franchise entries. But surprise or not, this overreaction is wrong.

If the original movie had been Gone With The Wind or Citizen Kane, you'd perhaps have a reason to decry the choices that this new film makes. But the first Predator film was a cheesy action/science fiction and so is this.

I haven't included any spoilers because all I wanted to do was ask people to give the damn film a chance to breathe. I gave it an 8 in the vain hope of countering the tide of 1s. It's probably not a 8 exactly, but anyone using the 1 rating - unless it's for a Breen or Shore film - is deluded and being totally unfair.

Grab some snacks and drinks and enjoy.

I had brain surgery that I almost didn't survive. That was funnier than this show.

This needs a negative rating.