Oldeuboi

There is nothing cryptic about today's title, it is simply the original Korean title for the movie we're looking at. This movie has been hailed as one of the greatest international movies ever made and it stands at number 92 on IMDb's Top 250 films. It's considered the best film in the loosely connected 'Vengeance Trilogy'. So is it up to the hype that surrounds it? We'll see. Today, we're reviewing Oldboy.

The movie opens with a mysterious man dangling another man over the edge of a building by his tie. When asked what his name is we cut away to Dae-su Oh (Min-sik Choi) in a police station, very drunk and out of control. He is picked up by No Joo-hwan (Dae-han Ji) but soon lost at a phone booth. Dae-su Oh wakes up in a room. He has no idea who has trapped him here and he has no idea why. He spends the next fifteen years trapped in his little room with only a tv for company. He begins to train, build up his strength, and find a way to escape. He swears vengeance on whoever trapped him and when he is finally out of the room he goes on a journey to find the truth. With help from Joo-hwan and Mi-do (Hye-jeong Kang) he begins to unravel the mystery surrounding his capture.

The low prices at Oldboy hotel literally had people fighting for rooms.

All performances in the movie are outstanding. Min-sik Choi is outstanding as Dae-su. His emotions are gritty and raw. It's absolutely captivating to watch him from start to finish. Not only is his tantrum in the police station one of the funnier scenes I've seen for a long time, his brutality which verges on insanity is horrible to watch yet impossible to look away from. At some points you'll like him, some points you won't, and some you'll just be shocked by him. It's brilliant. As an antagonist, Ji-tae Yu is fantastic as Woo-jin Lee. He has a perfect balance between psychotic and plain evil. He's got enough of a human side to develop a tiny bit of sympathy for him but  mainly he's crazy and cruel.

What really stood out for me in this movie was the technical side of things. Chan-wook Park really knows what he's doing as a director. Everything is perfectly timed. Everything looks perfect. Everything is perfect as far as the technical aspects are concerned.  The fight scenes, particularly the long corridor fight, are spectacularly shot. The corridor fight scene involves a huge number of guards against one man. The first camera shot shows us how small the corridor actually is. The next one is a an extremely long single shot that follows the fight down the side of the corridor. It's incredible to watch. The use of sound in the film is also brilliant. Often music (or more often silence) will juxtapose what's happening on screen. It creates a really eerie atmosphere that works wonderfully with the explicit nature of the film.

Some people thought Dae-su had a fear of lifts. He didn't He was scared of women.

Overall, this film is definitely not for the faint hearted. While it has funny moments, they are completely outweighed. There's even a tooth-pulling scene, something that really makes me wince. However, it is a great movie and well worth a watch... if you can stand it. And pay attention. It twists more than a roller coaster.

Best Bit? It has to be the corridor fight scene. Cinematic brilliance as well as wonderfully choreographed.

P.S. It looks like a western adaption of this has been announced. Spike Lee is set to direct and Josh Brolin to star. While I know not all adaptions and remakes are terrible (Infernal Affairs - The Departed) I still don't like how many of modern films are remakes or western adaptions or reboots of already great movies or franchises. But then again, it may be awesome. We'll see. Perhaps it'll look something like this:

Josh Brolin as Dae-su?

I Am The English Psycho...

Hello Blogging type people. It has come to my attention today that there is an American Psycho remake currently being considered by Lionsgate. Now, it's not 100% official as the script still hasn't got the go-ahead. However, I would like to take a moment to discuss/ slate this idea.

Let's start with the defense of the possible remake. The movie is different to the book. Many supporters of the remake claiming that the previous movie didn't do the book justice. It is far more likely that this new movie will be more explicit (like the book) and less funny. It's also being pushed forward by Noble Jones, a director who has worked with David Fincher a few times. But now we'll take a look/ rant about why it's a terrible idea:

Firstly, the original movie is brilliant as it is. I can't understand how someone can look at it and say, I could make that so much better. Whether you're David Fincher's prodigy or not, it would be nigh impossible to improve on the movie enough to warrant a full remake. No film is perfect... Even my favourite movies have their flaws. Also, Jones want's to shift the plot into the modern day rather the 80s. Considering the book is a satire of the 80s business world, I can't see how fans can defend the hope of the new remake being closer to the film. And is anyone really going to play Patrick Bateman better than Christian Bale? It's become such an iconic role. The pure psychotic nature of Bateman is something that will be incredibly difficult to re-capture without stealing of Christian Bale's performance.

A friend of mine is very wise with these matters. He suggests that, if a film company want to make money off an old idea, re-release a film. Re-master it. Release some new box set. Don't remake the entire film when their are better and more original ideas out there. If this Noble Jones is going to be some great director, he should show us something new and cement his place in the film industry rather than present an old idea and for it to not live up to it's previous versions. I don't want a micro-budget American Psycho, I want new films that take my breath away.

/Rant over/

So it's a Sequel, Not a Remake? You sure?

There are a few sequels which take the first movie and redo it with a slightly different scenario. Please don't. Here's why: The Hangover, Part II.

Quickly, let's list the key points in the first movie:

1. Some one is getting married.
2. the Bachelor party takes place somewhere famous for night life. (Vegas)
3. The main characters get very drunk/drugged, loose a friend and remember nothing.
   
4. The main characters search for their lost friend, finding a helpless person (a baby) and an animal that belongs to someone else (a tiger that belongs to Mike Tyson.)
5. Eventually they find their friend somewhere they really should've checked.
   
6. They make it back to the wedding on time.

All of this is the same in the second movie, except in Thailand with a old monk and a monkey who belonged to some Russians. From Stu doing something stupid to his body, to him confronting someone at the wedding and speaking his mind.

Phil and Stu were shocked by Alan's choice to become a Britney Spears impersonator.

Okay, let's start with good things. Ken Jeong was brilliant reprising his role as Mr. Chow. Definitely the best character. Mainly because he wasn't in the first movie as much so there was room for a whole new layer of his character. Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms were both good as Phil and Stu respectively. Their characters developed a little. Admittedly, in Stu's case, it wasn't entirely in a good way. The character who had been developed the most was Alan. He was also the least amusing. In the first one, he was stupid. In Part II, he had delved deeps into the realm of mental difficulties and had lost a lot of what made him funny the first time round. no other characters were really major enough for any serious analysis. Yeah, Doug still wasn't in it. I would've loved to have seen Doug get caught up in the mishaps.

Stu thought his new tattoo made him look really tough. It didn't.

So, the writing and directing. Clearly, Todd Philips and his team took a laid back approach and said, "Hey, it worked before, lets do it again." And I don't just mean the plot. I mean every joke, every gag, even the same characters. Yes I liked Chow. But where the hell were the new characters? Even Eddie, the chapel manager from the first movie, made an appearance. (Though as a different character. Copy and pasted but with a name change and some hair.) Even Paul Giamatti's cameo was very disappointing. There were trade overs, mistaken identities, hookers and lots more of recycled jokes. The first movie still strikes me as a brilliant work in comedy in recent years. This does not.

I wouldn't suggest spending money to see this. Just watch the first movie again. That will stay good. This won't. Twice as vulgar and twice as silly, but half as good. Sillier you say? There was a drug dealing monkey. Enough said.

That's enough from me. I don't want to talk about this movie anymore. I heard it wasn't good, but I thought surely no. I was wrong. It wasn't very good. I was disappointed.


Best bit? When Chow was onscreen. He was hilarious. Particularly the car chase. A good scene in an otherwise poor movie.

News, Updates and Anger

Hi everyone. I'm taking a brief break from my coursework to give you a quick update. I promise, come the weekend, I'll start blogging loads again. Work will be out of the way and I'll have a lot more time.

However, in the world of movies, we have lots of news. Of course, there's always news in the world of film, but there's interesting news. Two interesting movies have come to my attention recently. The first is a sequel to Liam Neeson's Taken. At the moment it is simply called Taken 2. Is it real? If so, I'm very excited. Taken was a fine bit of pointless action and I enjoyed every moment of it. If the sequel is just as badass and awesome, we may see one of the best sequels ever. However, I am curious as to what the plot will be. Surely his daughter isn't foolish enough to get kidnapped twice? Perhaps he just goes crazy and decides to kick some drug dealing, girl stealing, unappealing gangster ass.

The second movie is one that, to me, sounds like the best concept for a while. I mean, Cowboys vs Aliens is a great concept, but does this trump it? It's called Cockneys VS Zombies. I mean come on. A load of bank robbers fighting Zombies? My immediate issue is that I assume people will compare it to Shaun Of The Dead. Despite the incredibly amusing concept, whether the film will be any good or not is yet to be seen. We shall find out next year.

Are you sure nobody has made Cockneys VS Zombies before?

Now let's talk about the year 2013. If the world hasn't ended then we are surely in for an interesting year. Due to two films. Firstly, Monsters University. The prequel to PIXAR's Monsters inc. Now, I'm very interested to see a PIXAR prequel. Toy Story had two sequels and Cars 2 is a sequel, so the very premise is something PIXAR haven't tried before. I love all the characters from Monsters inc and I'd love to see some new ones. Once again, I'm interested what the plot will be. Where will the conflict come from. Surely they can't use a child again?

You may have noticed the title of this post says Anger. And here it is: in 2013, Warner Brothers have proposed that Batman will be rebooted again. A year after the third and final movie from Christopher Nolan. It is in the purpose of having a slightly less realistic Batman for the Justice League, which seems like a stupid movie on its own. Christopher Nolan and Emma Thompson will be producing and looking at evidence of how Nolan is producing Superman, there is still a glimmer of hope for the movie. Despite this glimmer, I want Batman to be left alone. He's had a comedy series, an animated series, a set of movies that were accurate to the comics, a set of movies that were gritty and realistic and now they want to put him in a movie with The Green Lantern and Superman?

I don't want the Justice League. I don't want The Avengers. I want superhero movies to stand by themselves without crossing into other ones. I also want some originality in movies. Stop rebooting Batman, Spiderman, Superman and X-Men and make some new movies.

Like Taken. That movie was awesome.

Talking of Batman, you probably know by know, but the third movie will be called The Dark Knight Rises. Supposedly. Three 'Villains' have been named. Tom Hardy will be super strong, super smart Bane. Joseph Gordon-Levitt will be Alberto Falcone (The main suspect behind the 'holiday killings' in the comics) and Anne Hathaway is Selina Kyle (NOTE: they never say Catwoman. this may or may not be of importance. You know what Christopher Nolan is like.) Many more rumours fly around but that's all we have for now.

A final word from me. I eagerly await news on the Timecrimes American remake. I love the original and expect a huge post about it when they finally release details.

Stick around next week for reviews on:

• Paul


• Tangled


• Unstoppable


• Rebel Without Cause


• Bolt


• Hot Tub Time Machine


• And more :)

I Do Not Know This (Little Golden) Man.

Ah, The Coen Brothers. Very love them or hate them when it comes to directors. Some may dislike their anti-climactic endings but their latest film is sure to satisfy even those haters. Yup, this movie has True Grit... And ten Oscar nominations.

Okay, moving on from cheesy references to the movies title, what's it about? Well Mattie Ross's (Hailee Steinfeld) father is murdered by notorious criminal, Tom Chaney. (Josh Brolin) In search of revenge and to bring Chaney to justice, Mattie hires U.S. marshal, Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) but only after she turns away Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon) because he wanted to take Chaney back to Texas for killing a U.S Senator. Rooster and LaBoeuf make a team and leave Mattie behind to continue the manhunt alone but she soon catches up. Travelling miles of the wild west and encountering gangs and snakes, the group fall out and make up several times but won't stop until they find Chaney.

Have you ever gone to a movie and not known what to expect? Despite Empire's 5 star review and it's Oscar nomination, I had no idea what I was going to get. The Coen Brothers have done it again. They proved they can handle the concept of a Western with No Country For Old Men but True Grit is a modern masterpiece in the genre. A pure western which is something we don't see much nowadays. There isn't a single flaw in the casting. I stand by my opinion that The Coens put more effort into casting every role than any other movie maker. My reason being, even the smallest characters in their movies are perfect. (The shop owner in No Country For Old Men, the horse trader in True Grit)

"Aye aye love"

"Actually, you only have one"

Let's start with the Oscar nominated performances. Jeff Bridges is up for Best Actor again, two years running. He certainly deserves it though. As the drunken, mumbling and merciless marshal, he really shines. He also provides most of the funniest moments. Oh, did I not mention that the film is HILARIOUS? The Coen Brothers' humor just runs throughout the movie. Does kicking immigrants off fences amuse anyone else or is it just me? Bridges is also very quotable. You'll leave the movie saying, "I do not know this man," or, "That didn't pan out." Sounds plain, but see the movie and you'll understand. Should he win the Oscar? If there weren't such strong performances in the category already then I'd say he does. I think he is definitely a strong contender. Winning last year may hurt his chances though... Perhaps someone who hasn't won should have a chance.

This year, age has been no boundary for Oscar nominations. With Bridges at 61 and his nominated co-star, Hailee Steinfeld, who is only 14, True Grit manages to cover the whole age range of the nominees. And boy do they cover it well. Despite being nominated as a supporting actress, Steinfeld is definitely a leading actress; she was put in supporting as it offered her a better chance at winning. She really deserveds the nod. She essentially holds the film. She's quick, witty, brave and mature but she remembers how young her character is and throws in sensitivity, nerves and fear. Definitely one of the best child performances to ever grace the cinema screen. Should she win the Oscar? She should. But she won't. I would love for her to win. She deserves it completely. Unfortunately, there are a few factors in her way. Mainly her age. Children don't win Oscars. Not in such a strong year... Not when you're against big shots like Amy Adams, Helena Bonham Carter and even Melissa Leo. Also, it's her first feature film. Winning on your first feature is very unlikely. Finally, she wasn't a supporting actor. The voters may not like the manipulation of the categories so that she has a better chance.
The film is full of great performances. Some (including me) may say that Matt Damon was snubbed and that he should have got a nod for Best Supporting Actor. Unfortunately, the Academy can't nominate everyone and so we'll have to honor Damon's performance with our memories. His turn as Texas Ranger, LaBoeuf, is funny and dramatic. He goes from fool to hero and back to fool throughout the movie and his character is all the richer for it.
Finally, Josh Brolin. He may not be on screen for very long but in the time that he is, he's captivating. The slightly psychotic criminal known as Tom Chaney, comes to life through Brolin's performance. Perhaps with a bigger part, he may have been nominated for his second Coen Brothers film related Oscar.

Hailee's reaction when she discovered she'd only been nominated for Supporting Actress.

The Big Lebowski. No Country For Old Men. A Serious Man. O Brother, Where Art Thou? Fargo. All brilliant films. Why? Their directors. The Coen Brothers. I've already mentioned how many people dislike them. Personally, I don't see why. They produce masterpiece after masterpiece. I mean, who doesn't like The Big Lebowski? These siblings are so talented. Not only do they direct their movies, the write most of them. All over True Grit is their humour and their subtle touches and it is that that makes it a great movie. However, they've won the Oscar before and therefore are less likely to get it again. Let another masterpiece producer have it. David Fincher anyone?

The cinematography is excellent. Certainly worthy of an Oscar. Prepare to fight with Inception though. The score fits the atmosphere of the action perfectly. Now, readers, a warning. I'm about to embark on a rant about generic things I loved about this movie. Ready? Here I go: The combination of action, comedy and touching moments is so wonderful and so rarely seen nowadays. Speaking of the action, few movies manage to take a historical context such as the wild west and make the fights so exciting. Or make the plot so gripping. Despite long montages of horses travelling across desolate plains, I was still often on the edge of my seat wanting to scream at the screen. Plus I like the locations of westerns. Those infinite landscapes are simply stunning. Okay. Rant over.

Just go and see it.

Best bit? Oh there's so many. I really can't say. Let's just say the best bits made me either want to laugh, cry or shout at the screen. Not many films achieve all three.

Korean Cowboys?

I'm beginning to really love foreign language films. Here is a film that took a famous western and put it in South Korea.

The Good The Bad The Weird pays tribute to the classic, The Good The Bad And The Ugly. Plenty of little in jokes for fans of the western to pick up on as well as little character traits. (The weird/The ugly both brush their teeth with their fingers.) The plot is far simpler than the original. Set in the 1940's, two outlaws and a bounty hunter go on the search of treasure due to a map. Following them are Chinese gangs and the Japanese army. Far less side plots. Not that side plots are a bad thing... But if you have a short attention span like a lot of young people nowadays, this film is easier to watch. Unless you dislike subtitles.

"Check out this backwards shooting!"

Firstly, I noticed straight away how awesome the camera work was. I mean.. It's really incredible at some points. The chase at the end... WOW. So there's not that much of a score (Though during the chase listen for the background tribute to The Good The Bad & The Ugly's score.) but the other technical aspects make up for that. The action sequences are suburb and wonderful to watch. Not only are they full of action but they're also cool and fun. The cast are wonderful. Some may think Byung-hun Lee was the wrong choice for Park Chang-yi / The Bad, but they're wrong. His 'pretty boy' exterior may seem odd for a crazy killer type person but it just makes it all the more effective when he whips out his knife and starts madly slashing people up. Kang-ho Song (Yoon Tae-goo / The Weird) fits his role perfectly. He is weird. There is very few other ways of describing it. But he was brilliant. Woo-sung Jung (Park Do-won / The Good) is just plain cool. From the moment we first see him shooting at The Bad and The Weird plus henchmen, till the very last second. Especially his part in the chase scene.... Wow.

 

Guess Who is Who

Some fun facts about the film... Woo-sung Jung, The Good, broke his arm during filming... This was the most expensive South Korean Film to be made (as of 2009)... And something that made me chuckle: Director Woo-sung Jung claimed he would like this to be called a 'kimchee western' after the Korean food made with fermented cabbages. He says he thinks the plot and film are spicy and vibrant, like the Korean culture and people. Of course, The Good The Bad And The Ugly was a 'Spaghetti western' due to it being a western made by Italians. Really worth a watch if you can be bothered to read subtitles. I dislike it when films aren't given a fair chance because people won't read a little.

 

Best Bit? The Chase Scene. It's awesome. Armies, gangs, outlaws, weirdos, cars, horses, moterbikes... It has everything.

The Meanest Yard

Two birds with one stone here. A film and it's modern remake.

The Longest Yard, (Or Mean Machine in England,) was made in 1974. 36 years on and it is still a very funny film.

Burt Reynolds/Adam Sandler is Paul Crewe, an ex American Footballer, sent to prison for violently abusing his wife, escaping the cops in an amusing fasion, ditching the car in a body of water then beating up a couple of policemen. In prison, The Warden (Eddie Albert/James Cromwell) convinces him to start a football team to face the guards semi-pro team. With help from Caretaker (James Hampton/ Chris Rock) and Nate Scarboro (Michael Conrad/Burt Reynolds) he forms a team of big bad convicts to help him beat the guards.

Burt Reynolds was secretly Iron Man under his shirt.

The warden was shocked.

The original first. I have no problems with the acting. The four main characters are all brilliant. Reynolds is sly and witty but also shows some heart at points when with (and at some points without) Caretaker. Speaking of Caretaker, James 'Jim' Hampton was also great as his part but he wasn't quite outgoing enough... Just my thought. Eddie Albert was, personally, the highlight acting wise. He started warm and friendly but became a domineering, power hungry, reputation focused man. Michael Conrand was also fantastic as Nate Scarboro.

What I do have issues with is the pace. It's a good half an hour from the cop chase to when he pieces the team together and even then it's still slow... It drags. When they start picking up crazed murderers and training it gets good. The final 47 minutes are taken up by the final game between the guards and the convicts and it's a pleasure to watch. I also disliked the editing.... How it was nominated for an Oscar I will never know. It looked like someone had done the scene transitions on Movie Maker.

"Hi Paul Crewe... I'm Paul Crewe.... From the past."

Now I'm not normally a fan of remakes but I make an exception in this case. I like most of Adam Sandler's comedy but it does grate a little I suppose. This was the beggining of his transition into more serious films. He provides very little of the humour and does more serious stuff. Chris Rock is funny and has a much stronger personality than James Hampton and I think that's better in a prison, don't you? Burt Renyolds is also a better Nate I think. He's more amusing and he looks stronger, like an ex football player. The supporting cast are equally as funny as the original though the dumb jokes fall flat more. Nelly is awesome as Megget the running back.

Oh the soundtrak is all R 'n' B, some is good.... Some is too much.


There are scenes in both that I really like that aren't in the other or that are better.

1974-The 'Why did you throw that game' scene, the police chase, the ripped shirt in the game.

2005- The try outs, the game plays, the rehearsing in the mud, the final plays (A lot less cliche!)


All in all these are both good films but the remake is certainly one to watch with your mates with some drinks and snacks whereas the original is a Sunday afternoon sort of film... Know what I mean?


BOTH FILMS:

Things On My Mind Now.

No Batman 3 this time. (Though I may talk about Christopher Nolan's Superman reboot.)

Firstly, two remakes of brilliant foreign films. I'm not sure why Hollywood has to remake these remarkable films though I suspect ti has something to do with people being too lazy to read subtitles. Timecrimes (Los Cronocrimenes) is set to be remade for 2011 with Tom Cruise strongly linked to it. As you know by reading previous posts, I adore this film. Timecrimes is an amazing creation, innovative and clever. I really worry that it will loose the things that make it great with an American remake. The simplicity, the slightly porky everyman protagonist, the point.
Also another film I am in love with, Let The Right One In. I reviewed this a little while back and boy is it stunning. I certainly have more faith in this than in Timecrimes. Mainly because of the awesome casting. Kick ass' Chloe Mortez and The Road's Kodi Smit-McPhee as our protagonists; sounds good. I still can't believe it would be as magnificent as the original but I hope for a good turn out. Also it will be called Let Me In.

Also, director Christopher Nolan has bounced around my mind a lot in the last few hours. His stunning take on Batman has left millions comparing him to Kubrick or Hitchcock. Others may know him from The Prestige or Insomnia but everyone will soon know him from one of his three upcoming movies: Batman 3, Superman and Inception. He has claimed that he will focus on Superman's character to create the world around him. Thats how he created his gothic Gotham. So what is Superman's character? Strong, powerful and mighty. He's also a lovely chap... Perhaps less of the grouchy need-a-soother voice from Batman.

Inception being the most expected film of the year (coming out July 16th) I advice everyone to see it. That's all I have to say about that.

Anyway that's all from me :)

Stay tuned for reviews on North By Northwest, 17 Again, Mean Machine, A Few Dollars More, Iron Man 2, The Notebook and The Good The Bad The Wierd.

Peace out ya hear!

Take A Right.. And It's The Last House On The Left.

Despite the title sounding like a set of directions The Last House On The Left has a slight hope. Yes it's a remake which makes every fan in the film world cringe with pain BUT it is a Wes Craven film originally. So it has promise as long as the screenwriters control the urge to dumb it down and make it more graphic to appeal to gore junkies. Well this is half and half... The rape scene near the beginning is a hell of a lot tamer. There's no forced lesbian action or peeing... which is good for most.. But hey, I'm not here to judge... Cept films..

The Events Of This Film, Rape And Murder, Occur Because These Kids Smoked Pot.

Don't Do Drugs Kids

As the film progresses though there is a lot more violence... All of the characters died in different ways to the original but its not that big an issue. The issue I have with this film is everything else. Horror films can be a brilliant chance to express acting skills (John Cuzack, 1408) but then I'm not sure if this a horror... It's certainly is some form of thriller... But anyway it was a brilliant chance for the cast (mainly Tony Goldwyn (John Collingwood) and Monica Potter (Emma Collingwood)) to prove their acting talent... To shift from good Samaritans to vengeful murderers. A slow realisation maybe? Then a plot? Then a loss of human morals? 'Nah skip that' is what the director said. When the Collingwoods realise who their guests are they go crazy. This leads to the assumption that they were already mentally unstable before their daughter was raped... yeah... obvious right?

I think that was really my biggest issue with the film... It focused too much on the plot and action and lost the crucial character details that make a film excellent. It also had one of those reaaaaalllyyy generic soundtracks/score that consisted simply of 'creepy' music.. very disappointing. You can create horror and/or tension through soundtrack without rubbish noises that do nothing but build up catharsis.. badly. Check any Alfred Hitchcock horror/ thriller or 28 Days Later. That's how a score/ soundtrack should be used. Speaking of 28 Days Later, the film that has my favourite cinematography EVER, The Last House On The Left could learn from it. The camera shots weren't bad but they could've been better.

The middle of nowhere had a really bad hoodie culture.

I can't say I enjoyed this film, but then again I can't say I hated it. Detail is one of my favourite things in films and this movie lacked the detail in character depth. The only one who nailed it was young Spencer Treat Clark (Justin.) His character swayed from casual druggie to determined fighter with clear daddy issues. He makes this film half a star better than it would've been otherwise. (That's right I'm using half stars now!)

For a remake it's not actually that bad; compared to the other shit that is produced nowadays. And it may actually be worth a watch, if only to judge it for yourself.

Best Bit? When one of the baddies gets his hands stuck in a food disposal unit... Ouch!