More MOVIES....

 

 
It was the movie which thrilled, confounded and amused audiences by affectionately satirising the very genre it belonged too. Serving up unforgettable imagery, scares of it's own, and a language which has become part of movie history."...what's YOUR favourite scary movie.....?" coming from the earpiece of a (then pre-digital) cordless handset...
 
The Horror genre appeals to many of the same audience as SF/Fantasy and the genre's crossover so much and have a similar effect on popular culture. The way I see it, if you can get the action figure then it's fair game, and I had a "Ghost-face" on my shelf for years! With Halloween just gone, and a shiny NEW SCREAM film waiting for me to watch, I'm doing something a little different here. A trip through all 4 films, from Woodsboro and back again, via Windsor College and the hills of Hollywood: it's my SCREAM-athon...!!
 
The students of a high school are stalked by a masked knife-wielding maniac with a love of scary movies and a penchant for playing mind games with his prey. One of the girls on his hit list begins to suspect there is a connection between the killer and her mother's murder a year previously...
 
Perhaps this is the easiest film ever to talk about! Anyone who could ever be interested in seeing it, almost certainly has already and it's universally loved. But I'm going to go through it again anyway! Simply because if you've not seen it for some time, you could wonder has it's essential quality or power lessened. Horror was stuck in one of it's regular ruts by 1995-6. Slasher series had dominated for the 80's, and limped to their final instalments. Friday the 13th and Nightmare and Elm Street in 1991-2 and Halloween, in 1995. Attempts to build a new wave of properties like Candyman and Shocker, hadn't struck the same chord in post-Silence of the Lambs multiplexes. Movie makers like Craven and Carpenter, out of fashion and seemingly out of ideas.
 
Wes Craven made his name with The Last House on the Left, The Hills have Eyes and the original, seminal A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984). Craven wasn't interested in the assembly line process of banging out sequel after sequel, particularly to the latter. Becoming frustrated at association with a series which disappointed and tarnished the mystique of HIS film more with each revisit. Though he eventually tried to make amends with thematic sequel "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" (1994) it was a financial disaster. For those "got it" it represented a bold, clever spin on the tropes of "slasher" films.
 
He would refine and re-define the same post-modern eye for Horror, three years later with the release of the original Scream.
What stands out when you watch it now is how reverential it is to Craven's playmates and work he admires. WHILST tearing the playhouse down around all eyes and ears. That it manages to be a superb, at times sheer electric thriller in it's own right. With characters you connect with, whilst having tongue more than a little in cheek is a testimony to Craven's understanding of the genre and how it feeds into society generally. There's clear affection and respect for his audience, and a canny handle on where popular culture would head in the imminent 21st century. Craven's eye for an no-nonsense yet unsettling way of moving around his story and players means the films feels as alive as anything he'd directed before, in spite of the humour at play. Knee-jerks are second to none and the mischievous script holds your interest in even the most dispensable or annoying of Woodsboro residents as bodies pile up.
 
Scream was phenomenally successful, and is still revered. Even if it never made stars of anyone, it's a defining film of the 90's. A pleasure to rewatch, 15 years or 3-4 viewings on. Let's be honest, once you've remembered where the guilt lies in Scream, some of it's rawer power is diluted. Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson definitely anticipated this. So to make up for it, and offer the revisitor something worth their while, at the core of Scream is a collection of fantastic characters cast to perfection. The interaction between the actors, most obviously David Arquette, Courtney Cox (then a massive international TV star) and Neve Campbell is irresistible. Matthew Lillard, Rose McGowan and Skeet Ulrich also shine, as does Jamie Kennedy as Randy the movie geek. This character gets ripped off so much, Kennedy deserves royalties! Most of this is credit to Williamson's ingenious, complex script. He makes it look so easy too. The subtleness here allows the rest of the film to be so elaborate and plain unfeasible, and yet not shatter illusion. Scream may be guilty of peaking too soon: that iconic, horrific pre-credits phone call sequence featuring Drew Barrymore cuts like nothing which follows, but that's a minor pick at a film which is otherwise perfection -5/5
 
A second serial killer adopts the ghost mask and embarks on a campaign of murder, while survivors of the first massacre try to get to the bottom of the terrifying mystery.

Nothing disappoints more than 99.9% of horror sequels, and Craven is as aware of that as anyone. Yet here he was, back and double quick, in the chair directing Scream survivors and a plethora of other up coming names from the late 90's. Notably Sarah Michelle Gellar, as she was making her name as "Buffy". The Scream sequels get dismissed too off hand, so I'm going to put mine up and state SCREAM 2 to be a fantastic, practically faultless sequel and an excellent film.
 
Two years on and the killings in Woodsboro have been headline news, then a best-seller by Cox's Gale Weathers and now a movie called "Stab". The opening scene where a young couple seeing this film are brutally slain, is certainly as horrible as previously. Craven's pulling no punches and this is definitely the same energy as before. As the script, again by Kevin Williamson, name checks the laws of "the sequel", S2 cheekily delivers many of the calling cards it's alerting us to. A bigger, and bloodier cody count..? Absolutely! The despatching of characters from the first film too...? 'Fraid so. It's an irreverent, but relevant and palpable look at the idea of life imitating art, and the never ending debate about the effect of screen violence on those watching.
 
Insightful commentary is only one side to S2, and it's here it really hits you the truth about this series identity. Fact is it's only really "horror" by association and "Scream" is mostly a comedy. Even the first one, in retrospect. Craven and Williamson once again, are fooling no one with this second cut and in some cases tell you exactly which rules of the genre they're going to bend, before they've bent them. Even if they don't let on it what direction. It's not that it's a funnier script, so much as it lets the characters we liked watching interact last time, really play off each other and energise the film. So much so, you care much more and the scenes in the lecture theatre with Weathers and Deputy Dewey are as sensitised as they are hair-raisingly exciting. Letting on that Scream is more a grown ups Scooby-Doo, than a slasher. Red-herrings and "false beards" are turned over, one by one by these loveable, hapless stereotypes and none of the deaths, when they come, are lurid in any way. Craven is constantly moving things along.
 
Of the newcomers Elise Neal as room mate Hallie and Stand By Me star Jerry O'Connell as Sid's unfortunate new boyfriend both make a mark. Liev Schreiber is just brilliant as Cotton Weary too. Neve Campbell's at her best here, as Sidney Prescott: heroine of the saga. Her torment at being thrust back into the path of a "copycat" killer, as she'd begun to make a new life is the most serious aspect. At times it's very moving. Is it AS scary though...? You know what, I'd say it definitely is! You're less preoccupied with who's under the frantic gown of Ghost-face as it's ALL so enjoyable and the film doesn't peak early either. The idea behind anyone deliberately resurrecting all this for why, is more disturbing than rationalising who. I'd suggest the scene where Sid and Hallie are wedged inside a car with the unconscious, still masked killer blocking their only escape, to be the most fraught with tension in the entire series. All in all, Scream 2 MAY not be quite as essential as the first film, but it's pretty bloody close -4.5/5  
 
 
Sidney Prescott is in hiding. But when the cast and crew of a movie about her experiences are targeted by a murderer, Sidney realises that her life is once again in danger.
 
For over ten years, this was IT for Scream. Preventing it's moving from the trilogy into franchise oeuvre. Scream 3, once again directed by Wes Craven, initially seemed to get so much right. Another gobsmacking pre-titles scene really puts you on the back foot and instils the notion that anything can happen this time. Generally speaking though, it's the point where things do falter. Still, writing off S3 is no fairer than before and I doubt anyone who enjoyed the first two, would regret spinning the third DVD.
 
So yes, Neve Campbell's Sid is living in seclusion whilst Dewey and Weathers are reunited on the set of "Stab 3" where life and art are intersecting closer than ever. Campbell's role is disappointing. She was the epicentre of previous films, yet hardly figures in person here until some way in. That wouldn't matter so much, if the new victims in waiting weren't so thoroughly unlikeable and obviously disposable. You could say that the set up was wearing thin, but I don't think that's specifically a problem. There WAS scope for a S3 and the story IS a worthwhile, logical progression/extension of themes. What weakens the consistency is the absence of writer Kevin Williamson. Even his outline for the movie was eventually mostly abandoned, in favour of the Hollywood setting.
 
Without Williamson's guiding hand, S3 drifts away from the post-modern, and is left wide open to accusations of becoming what the original spoofed. I'm not convinced that's fair, but S3's certainly not as energetic or satirical. Instead much is made of the shadowy, long dead figure of Maureen Prescott, in the backstory. However, Sid and Cotton obviously knew Maureen and we did not, so there's something about the "revealtions" that not only doesn't convince, but hardly seems relevant. It isn't even her daughter doing the detective work. Yes, its another swing at the moraility of the star and studio system but one that belongs "somewhere else". Of course it's hard to maintain originality or that "unique" quality, three films in. That could've been as much the case last time, but without Williamson's compensating for this, Scream itself stands as unmasked as it's Ghost-face, by the not quite startling enough finale.
 
There's still loads to like to like about S3 though. This isn't a cheap, cash-in or sell out job. Generally the line of laying bare the framework that movies work to, is maintained. Where it really works and offers something double-edged is in Sidney and co's returning to Woodsboro, but not in the geographical sense. The device of having Sids hometown and scene of the original killings, including her family home recreated on film sound stages within the film itself, isn't just spooky. It allows S3 to cover much more ground, in half the time. Leaving the rest free to capitalise on chemistry they know we love between returnees.
 
That is, in principle. It does and doesn't happen in actuality, sad to say. It's ingenious and hilarious to watch Dewey, torn between his TWO Gale Weathers this time. Parker Posey is the only new cast member who really makes impact, as the actress playing Weathers in "Stab 3". Patrick Dempsey is good enough as "Hollywoodland Cop" Kincaid.
Scream 3 was a more satisfying conclusion than it's given credit for, and I particularly like the "coda" at the end. Craven's shot, not only of the open door, but Campbell's face as she notices it, is a nice touch. One rarely found time for in this genre. The little details like this mean it's churlish to demonise S3 or even declare it an imposter -3.5/5
 
Author Sidney Prescott, returns home on the last stop of her book tour. There she reconnects with Sheriff Dewey and Gale, as well as her cousin and Aunt. Unfortunately Sidney's appearance also brings about the return of Ghostface, putting Sidney and her family, Gale, Dewey and the whole town of Woodsboro in danger...
 
After over a decade, the series has been revived this year with a new instalment. S4 requaints us with familiar faces (Arquette, Cox and Campbell all returned to their roles), delivers new scares of it's own and offers an update on the state of the genre, in years since. Most obvioulsy through the huge advances in multimedia, the rise of social media and an evolution in the cult of celebrity. Although it may look like SCREAM at a distance, this movie pulls the property almost completely into the realms of real horror. With much harder, and more brutal kills and an air of gratuity not present before. That wouldn't be so bad, but in the other corner there's a dearth of even the blackest humour or fun of previous films.
 
Scream opened the door to new ideas of what horror could and couldn't do, in 1996. What the new film does though, is become final word on such matters. I'm not convinced on purpose either. Dimension Films spent much of the last 5 years testing waters with punters and sounding out Wes Craven about another sequel. Bosses were so keen that a 4th was inevitable, with or without the veteran director. He does bring his usual searing edge to S4, and Craven can and has moved with the times. His direction is energetic, naturalistic yet cinematic as before, maybe more so. Where it proves a hollower excercise, and and ill-fit to the trilogy is in the writing.
 
Series originator and writer Kevin Williamson returned, but I have to say that when the credits appeared, that fact suprised me. It's so dry of warmth or humour, aside from bitchy sarcasm. I've since discovered Williamson left before the final draft. This makes a certain sense as the story could be 2 parts his original third act, as concieved in 1998. But like S3, there's that distinguishable whaft of not being quite able to gather ingredients that make up a Scream film, or grasp what differentiate it from simple horror. There is an awareness of current trends and advancements in the shared viewing experiences of movie festivals, blogs and film clubs. Then again, all it does it show us these things exist. Which we knew already.
 
Campbell seems ill at ease in her old role, though has a charisma which makes her rare appearance on either big or small screen, difficult to understand. Cox and Arquette, normally most consistent performers of the series, really have to work their roles to generate any feeling they're the same people. Yes, they're bound to have evolved in the meantime, but although this is pointed to, it never really goes anywhere. The characters don't contribute anything at all to the last half of the film, or story, let alone travel their own arcs. Making better impression are the extended cast. Like the 2nd film, S4 cherry picks talent from many of the biggest, or cultist series of recent years. "Oh, it's her out of ----" over and over again here. Emma Roberts appears in the rather flat and underwritten role of Sid's young cousin Jill with Mary McDonnell from Battlestar Galactica as her mother. Making biggest impact is Hayden Panettiere, late of HEROES. A world away from whiter than white Claire, here she's terrific as the rather predatory and husky voiced Kirby.
 
As regards the unique energy and balance which has been calling card of the series up to now, S4 chooses to substitute celebration of the genre, for the same boring cynicism you can find anywhere ( "...don't **** with the original..." etc) On the other hand, and despite the lack of insight or humility, I did like how it turns the mirror back on itself and its own lore, even if it's late in the day. 15 years of familarity with Scream itself, are twisted and turned back on us to great effect in the last third of S4. There's even the odd suprise in the final, electrifying 20 minutes.
 
I'm not going to tell you NOT to see Scream 4/Scre4m, under any circumstances. Craven keeps his end of the bargain up, and there are thrills and scares here enough so you won't demand the 100 minutes of your life back. So if you love those original films and those characters, you won't have this exploited or sullied by S4 I'm happy to report. Just don't expect anything that'll regenerate horrors decomposing husk this time out, or the sense of closure and satisfaction offered by the even the last film. The over-riding feeling I'm left with in the wake of the abrupt ending and credit roll, is that Wes Craven really should make more movies. Not more SCREAM MOVIES, I must add.....just more movies, full stop. Theres more than enough tricks left up the masters sleeve, I believe. -2.5/5
 
All 4 SCREAM movies are available seperately on DVD and Blu-ray.
The first three films are also collected as the SCREAM TRILOGY box set.
 
So Gulliver's been reincarnated as a the perpetual "slacker". Like all the best movie slackers, this one nurtures ambitions but they're not that much more than exploring the underside of a female colleague who's way further up the career ladder than he. Still, Gulliver seizes the day when knocked one of life's cruel blows and blags a writing assignment from the lovely Darcy. It's this stormy endeavour which quite naturally no one else on staff wants, that flings Lemuel (.....really, Larry would've been fine! Who's called Lemuel...!?!?) No one is under any illusions this is a faithful translation after all ) to a faraway land. He and the inhabitants, those tiny Lilliputian's, get off to a bad start, but when "The Beast" saves the day with his bodily functions ( ..a laugh out moment: Fair do's!) he becomes somewhat of an inspiration, an champion and a raconteur.
 
Many a living room is filled with a cross-generational band of kin, come New Years Day. Once again this year, mine was no different. Bloated from Christmas Cheer, Christmas selection boxes, not to mention all those Christmas movies. All irresistible, but boy do you need to see something tinsel free, 7 days on. With the kids still off school, family fare's still very much on the menu, and seeming an enticing main course for the most depressing Bank Holiday of the year was this recent-ish comedy fantasy starring Jack Black. Following the likes of Ted Danson and Richard Harris in filling the boots (in this case Converse) of Jonathan Swift's intrepid adventurer. GULLIVER'S TRAVELS (released Christmas last year in cinemas ) is a more drastic, comedy reimagining of the story first published in 1726. It's never been out of print in almost 300 years, but is of course in the "public domain" and therefore not subject to copyright. This version specifically visualises the first part of the literary travels, most recognisable from previous treatments starting with Max Fleischer's (Superman) animations from 1939.
 
Little about GT is going to reach out and demand an audience, certainly above Primary school age. A viewing proves merely as adequately entertaining as you may suspect. It's vulgar, thin and the opening portions groan and buckle under the burden of quickly hitting familiar marks contriving it's story, and a journey. When the castaway Gulliver discovers he's got a blueprint for a GIANT-ROBOT, and that it's useless, and "who would build that!?!" well, you know it's only a matter of time before someone will. But there's something agreeable and warming in the whole brew after all. 
 
Seeing as pretty much everyone likes Jack Black, don't they? He doesn't divide audiences as Will Ferrell or certainly our own Russell Brand do. No one ever says they "hate Jack Black" and as a 30 something year old bloke, I know an increasing amount of "haters". The kids adore the cuddly, air guitaring man-child. Sure enough Black here trades on being the guy from School Of Rock, by playing the guy from School Of Rock transplanted to another premise. He fills this role exceptionally well, and I would never knock anyone for playing to their strengths. However, whilst my off spring chortled along to every throat tightening-voice, belly-slap, nipple-tweak.....I found it a bittersweet turn. Black's a gifted actor, not just a performer. Recent roles in Be Kind Rewind and King Kong had reminded me of this. So to see the bloke once again in 3/4 length trousers, impersonating Gene Simmon's feels a step back. When will Black's screen persona truly evolve, like his audience need it to? To guarantee he doesn't end up trading off it in the next Two and a Half Men, rather than becoming a real movie-star...? One Jack Black is worth a dozen Kevin James, but I'm worried the world will lose sight of that distinction. Could you imagine if Tom Hanks still playing the bloke from Bachelor Party, but now..? Nah, me neither and I believe Jack Black IS that good. Like Steve Carrell, he's dependable and capable of holding his delegated end up enough so sturdily as to spark interest where otherwise there'd be very little (Nacho Libre, The Holiday etc) All that aside, of course he's great and could do GT in his sleep.
 
Populating the land of Lilliput, where this 21st century Gulliver still finds himself awashed, are an impressive handful of British known comedic actors. All speaking in RP, the way Brit actors more often than not, have to. I would imagine the likes of Chris O'Dowd (The IT Crowd) James Corden (Gavin & Stacey) and Catherine Tate (The Catherine Tate Show and Doctor Who) are only recognisable by folk in the know, stateside. They're all decent enough here too... we only see they're a bit wasted, 'cos we've seen them be so much better, with mostly much better material. Emily Blunt is as entrancing as ever as the Princess, and Billy Connolly plays it pretty straight as the King. So much so, he may as well have been animated by Dreamworks, his turn feels like a good fit for the Shrek films. Not something I find satisfying, but I can hardly blame the Whitened "Big Yin" as that's very much the tone of the piece, and the audience it seeks to reach. Even down to those inevitable stadium rock interludes Black makes stock-trade, against the fairytale backdrop. Hardly suprising when a flick through past projects of director Rob Letterman finds Shark Tale, Shrek itself and the magnificent Monsters Vs. Aliens. 
 
Offsetting this Anglo-heavy company are Amanda Peet as the love interest, and Jason Segal (How I Met Your Mother, Forgetting Sarah Marshall and the new Muppet film) This rising star gets shortest shift of all as tiny lovelorn Horatio, Gulliver's friend and advocate. Think Buttons from Cinderella and you're not far from the mark. In fact, all that's missing in GT is Ugly Sisters for it to stand exposed as purest panto. Though there is some cross-dressing going on! Even the kids will see some plot points and sight gags coming a mile away, and may be shouting out the punch lines early.
 
What does exceed expectation though are SFX. Some of the shots of Black's Gulliver against Lilliputian society are stunning and spookily realistic. When the plot gets' SUPER-super-silly such as during a scrap with an attacking fleet from neighbouring Blefuscia-land, and bare-chested Gulliver's splashing about, it's reminiscent of old Ray Harryhausen Sinbad films. In these quainter, knowing moments even the most weary could be won over. Less appealing is a final slug-out with the big (quite literally) bad.
 
Few will not hear the trumpeting message GULLIVER'S TRAVELS repeats, about self-belief and such. I'm not yet jaded enough to dismiss this. With all the above said, it really does fall down to exactly what else you would expect of these kind of films anyway. FOX have marketed with no qualms about trading on Black's previous successes, been cynical enough to load-up with pop culture references, but only from their own films ( most predictably Star Wars) and check out the 83 mins listed run time (...including those end credits remember!) GULLIVER'S TRAVELS does the minimum, but does it well and doesn't over-milk enough that younger ones see "behind the curtain". Letterman needs to really cut loose on his next project to be considered less a loss to feature length animation than live action's gain. I wish him well, as I do Jack Black. GT hasn't exhausted my appreciation of the man, but I'll be disappointed if I see him attached to any mooted sequel. - 2.5/5
 
GULLIVER'S TRAVELS is available on DVD and Blu-ray, and from rental/streaming providers.
 
 
Perhaps it's the best place for her, right..? I mean it's hardly normal behaviour to be running round setting fire to a farmhouse in the first place! But this being a brand new horror-fest from one of the grandmasters of the genre: Mr John Carpenter, she probably had her reasons eh...?
 
Kristen ( Amber Heard of Drive Angry and The Rum Diaries ) doesn't adjust well to everyday life, or those around her on the ward. She refuses and hides her medication, and is suspicious of the earnest Dr Stringer, in charge of who stays and goes. Both the staff and the handful of other patients seem even more troubled, by things they can't speak of (...what else!?) On top of all that, when the lights go out and door shutters sealed for the night, things in the hollow, dark halls of the ward get proper noisy. Seems there's one extra occupant, not on staff or listed as resident. The other four girls begin to disappear, in a carnival of the toe-curling as beloved by Horror faithful. Naturally Kristen gets increasingly desperate and resourceful in her own efforts to escape the sinister regime and corrective electro-shock therapy of Stringer. Only to be continually blighted by this decaying figure, so her only real chance seems to be bringing the horrifying truth back into the light and find out who was this "Alice", the other girls whisper about.
 
"John Carpenter's The Ward", to give its full title, is the Halloween legends first feature film since Ghost Of Mars (2001) and somewhat low-key compared to the big concepts and rich scripts of previous, even lesser, offerings. A small scale, approaching psychological thriller about a young woman locked in a mysterious mental institution, which received a limited, late theatrical release in the US, months after the UK and other territories. Buzz has barely registered about this movie, it's not unfair to say and not without good reason. Nevertheless, it occasionally pushes the required buttons and features enough of the director's grasp of what makes us shift uneasily in our seats, over the last three decades, to justify your attention. 
 
Yes, that synopsis I've offered to tempt you there, will hardly reach out to anyone who wasn't interested before. Things that go bump in the night, "stalk'n'slash"....? You'll already know whether that doe it for you, or not as most of us have "got the T-shirt" by now. John Carpenter didn't exactly invent this kind of film ( Bob Clark's Black Christmas predates Halloween, by a few short years) but he was the one who defined and stylised it, the most. Lifting the horror/thriller out of a 70's mire and priming it for the eye-popping eighties. The Ward does, at it's best, contain some of Halloween's essence and sheen. However, it's equal parts to hand me down threats, such as a greasy haired waif life apparition favoured by Japanese horror's that have come since, and practically thread bare presence of the grim Nurse Lundt presiding over the patients. Its a nice ensemble band of actors on The Ward, but characters feel thinly sketched. Certainly not enough to really connect with. Even the best of the bunch, Heard's fiercely protective Kristen, seems just the latest in a long line of blondes running up and down corridors, in the age of Nolan's Inception or Scorcese's Shutter Island. Jared Harris is a much needed, reassuring presence as Dr Stringer bringing a chilling gravitas, despite not saying that much either.
 
Though his name is part of the official title, in time-honoured tradition (only Memoirs of an Invisible Man, his infamous big studio movie from 1992 doesn't!) The Ward is bereft of Carpenters other trademark: a self-composed, synth soundtrack, which characterises, endears and yes occasionally adds an air of unpredicatbility to the predictability, in many of his movies. I'm aware I'm falling into the old trap of banging on about other films, instead of this one here. Hardly the point, especially if you've never heard of the director and of course it's possible to judge The Ward in it's own right, away from Carpenters' august past. It's just to do so sees the film emerge even less favourably.
 
It's not like The Ward is a bad film or commits any major affronts to its audience or desicrates something holy. This is just Carpenter attempting a more concentrated, stripped down quality than we've been used to, and reach for relevance in 21st century mainstream movies at the same time. He can't fail to be aware which of those earlier films people hold dear ( Halloween, the Thing, and Escape from New York etc. ) and they were the smaller scale, for the most part. I think The Ward could be an attempt to add to that with a centred, solid and claustrophobic ghost story. Admirable enough, but it seems to expose that others have a better handle on the crucial concepts which we will find, make it tick. The Ward brings to mind certain recent movies, some I won't mention so as to not rob you of what plot developments do occur.
 
I can't help appreciate that the story is linear, and unpretentious with none of the leaps of credibility used by younger or less talented Horror directors to desperately make marks. Each of the queries I had acrewed in the first hour, was addressed by the final third and that's not always a given. A recent film The Ward does compares favourably to is Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch, which I talked about here last year. SP also featured Amber Heard in the cast and offered a similar premise from the outset, yet went to the polar opposite in telling it's tale. Over-burdening a well meant fantasy with an excess of everything Carpenter's film is bare of. When The Ward is good, it's very good. You can feel Carpenter's guiding hand and seasoned eye. It even made me squirm for the right reasons, in places even if most of the scares are traditional "jumps".
 
Another thing which perplexes me is the choice of setting it in 1966. It neither adds, nor detracts from the story told but despite the fact there's minimal set dressing, costume and certainly no period music or any sum-such nostalgia, it doesn't seem to ring true. Perhaps it's the way the young girl inmates are characterised in the script, or maybe just as simple as Kristen's hair being loaded with 21st century product.....I dunno...!?! 

If I had to define John Carpenter's The Ward in a single word, it would be this: ordinary. That's not a label you'd place anywhere near any of this previous films, and hardly one any director would wish their "thriller" tagged with. Once again though, it gets some goodwill from me for not out-staying welcome at a wise 90 minutes, and at least it's not a remake, reboot, sequel or prequel. Carpenter has spent much of the last decade producing, not least of all with Rob Zombie on remakes of his own Halloween, but has revisited almost all temptation to direct sequels etc of his own. Like his contemporary Wes Craven, whose Scream 4 came out last year, he clearly still has something to offer, and a direct line to the part of us that enjoys being scared. If you consume a lot of scary movies, you'll find The Ward more a starter rather than main course but it could make a fun evening for those less versed. - 2.5/5
 
JOHN CARPENTER'S THE WARD is available on DVD and Blu-ray, and from rental/streaming providers.
 
 
 
Beardy-faced Corin may look like the Grandad of Vincent from Beauty & the Beast but he's the noble, respected leader of his warrior tribe. Decades ago they'd vanquished a dark power which had dominated their world. Shattering the mask which harnessed that power into pieces, which were scattered and hidden from reach of anyone else who fancied some of the same. Eventually, of course, someone always does and they come looking for the final piece. Laying waste to Corin's village and slaying all who stand in their way. Corin and his young son Conan (...first played by Leo Howard here) are cruelly tortured, and the mask is re-assembled...
 
The real story takes up 20 years on again...with the boy now fully grown, though living the life of a bandit whilst planning revenge. He's like a beefed up Robin Hood, with a touch of the Han Solo going for him. If lacking quite the line in sarcasm. Conan lucks in when he crosses paths with a sexy lady monk (unlikely, I know...but stick with me..!) who also happens to be last in a blood-line needed to perform the activation of the dreaded mask.
 
This CONAN, follows half a dozen others; on big and small screens; in prose and comic book form. All based on the character created by prolific writer Robert E. Howard, 80 years ago. It's had as long and winding a journey to the screen as one of Conan's own quests, with options renewed over and over, only for production to never truly begin. Eventually finding a home with Millennium Pictures, who've been vocal of intentions to weave a story more faithful and reflective of Howard's creations, and way with myth, for 5 years. When Brett Ratner (Rush Hour, X-Men: The Last Stand) moved on, Marcus Nispel was brought on board. His earlier Viking fantasy, Pathfinder very much in the same vein. Nispel would cast his Conan soon after....
 
CONAN THE BARBARIAN finally rode onto cinema screens last August, and found it hard to stand shoulder to shoulder with those bigger Summer movies. Much-buzzed movies like Thor and Captain America were properties almost totally new to feature film audiences, but benefited not just from gigantic budgets, but the support of their kin (Iron Man and HULK) Conan pre-dates them all, as a pulp hero of course, with the earliest of his Barbaric exploits appearing in WEIRD TALES in 1932. Still, for a significant proportion of it's audience, the word CONAN is forever linked to 2 films made in the 80's starring then real life box-office "Destroyer": Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnie became a commodity or brand in himself, and the last film entitled Conan the Barbarian (1982) was early in that particular career path for the former Major of Florida. It very much made his name and the image of him in head band, furry underpants, both hands clutching a massive blade, lasted. So strongly that the short-lived Conan TV series of the late 90's traded on it, rather than returning to source. 
 
Conan the Barbarian (2011) displays Nispel's signature blend of vivid, almost frantic action and that firmer handle on the more appeal of Howard's original charcter and the world he inhabited, as promised. I mean, rather than a "remake" of another film which debut 30 years ago, under the same name. That shouldn't go unappreciated! But whilst CTB resolutely stands as enjoyable on it's own terms, in certain respects it's a rather "run of the mill" fantasy adventure.
 
Such is the way of things, much of the firepower aimed in the direction of this CTB will be drawn to actor Jason Momoa, and that's not fair. Clearly Marcus Nispel, veteran of proper remakes like Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, cast him deliberately because he's "next to unknown". A sensible option, not least of all because Momoa's also a key cast member of the much-lauded HBO sword and sorcery series A Game Of Thrones. So what little baggage he brings will be matched by a loyalty and the goodwill of fans of said show. Of course, what's the case 99.999999% of the time with actors that look this striking is obvious: they're only ever average to almost good actors at best. Which is fine! Usually this is offset with a mighty charisma only matched by the SFX work! Momoa proves a textbook example of this, though seeming prone to mumbling, and not ever really looking that sure that even he gets what little gags Conan cracks. His Conan has presence, moves fast, and possesses a "look" be that through sensitive make-up or his particular genetic background, of a roguish, barely house-trained....well....Barbarian!!
 
Largely speaking, I'm an advocate of the energy, and unashamedly populist quality that Nispel's films have. Like the biggest straight to VHS or "Video nasties" you could ever wish to see (..see, any of the films I mentioned above!) In the case of CTB though, he's missed a big trick. Nispel's delivered a more than decent, Sunday afternoon matinee. The kind generations of families have flocked to in fact, since the very decade the character first saw print. But of course, family films generally don't feature much in the way of mutilation, be-headings, or nudity. Is CTB better off for containing these things...? No. (the sex scene is especially daft)
 
I'm not suggesting CTB needed to be sanitised, but a wiser stance when your serving up such an deliberately celebratory and standard, pulpy yarn, may have been to draw that line further back. To scare just enough so that children could watch through the cracks between their fingers. In limiting the audience Nispel has made a movie which offers no surprises, which will satisfy few as heartily as it could've. There's so little someone over the age of 21 yet alone 31, hasn't seen over and over again. The plot hits the exact points you will expect it to, with almost split second accuracy.
 
 
Like I said, Momoa's not a movie star and an average actor at best (....in the tradition of THAT predecessor, let's be realistic ) So what CTB needs to do to get away with that, is to support said "average" with a gallery of the remarkable. We need everything and everyone surrounding Conan to be twice as good, to invest and believe. In actuality, this is where Nispel's film staggers to a fall and nowhere is this more obvious than in the supporting cast. It reads as a shopping list of cliches and a proliferation of various American accents robs this land of long ago, of it's ambience of the exotic. The worst offender being Rose McGowan (Scream, Planet Terror) Looking as striking as ever as the Witch daughter of the Big Bad, Khalar Zym as played by Stephen Lang (Manhunter, Avatar) Again, Lang's a dependable player, who may have pulled off this crucial part with more than the same old lines about revenge/domination of the world, to dash out. Conan also has a huge, bear-like drinking buddy and wingman, a ratty little thief who owes him one, and a chaste, slightly mardy damsel to keep from harm. Rachel Nichols' "Tamara" is gorgeous, few would doubt. Like Mamoa though, Nichols is an average. They meet and develop little chemistry, far too late for this to have any potency when the inevitable, perilous separation happens.
 
More than anything else though, I consider CTB needed much more sense of scale. Leading, by default to wonder! This is a mythology after all, as Tolkien's Middle Earth is. Some of the landscapes are so, so beautiful. Like illustrations straight from the John Buscema or Barry Windsor Smith pencilled comics of the 1970's (MARVEL's, The Savage Sword of Conan) The conflict, and story development as we witness it, takes place in front of, and behind it. Never within, as it does in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, for example.
 
It's unfair of me to talk about CTB like it's a "write-off". I feel I must be generous and mention what the first "act", concerning the formation of Conan as a warrior. From birth, on the battlefield, in a scene as hilarious as it is moving (not sure how he managed that!) through formative years in the tutorage of his much respected father Corin, as played by Ron Perlman. He appears in a lot of this brand of movies. An actor with great presence and a face you just can't mistake, even under layers of latex and paint (Hellboy) Though the standard rites of passage, those scenes offer a quantity which evades the rest. This back-story is tied to those later portions, but talk of prophecy, blood and curses becomes mumbo-jumbo, in record time. Thus, more of the average. Exactly what CTB doesn't need. Of the many set-pieces, I'll declare the fight with the "sand men" and the giant octopus to be highlights. Even though action sometimes gets too frantic, watch out for them!
 
This film has over-zealous detractors. True to form, CTB is nowhere near as they'd have you believe. It has the "classic" themes and feel you'd wish, if to a fault, and stands as just as worthy adaptation as previous movies. Despite my being of that certain age, I never took those films (even the great one!) to my heart and I refuse to be party to vilification of either Nispel or Momoa, for their part. CTB has little in common with its namesake, and best of intentions. I'm not sure Nispel would approve, but two likewise under-performing films it reminded me of, much more, are The Scorpion King (2002) and Prince Of Persia (2010) I perscribe that CTB could've benefitted either from the tongue in cheek, family thrills of the former and/or the chemistry and scale of the latter.
 
Conan The Barbarian is diverting, but never gripping. It's visuals are beautiful and brutal to the same degrees, but Hyborea still feels like a backdrop, or "skin" rather than a real domain, or home to these creatures and cultures. Neither does it possess the requisite clout or stimulation for the imagination, to demand more. Remaining a "wanna-be" blockbuster which, I'm genuinely sad to say, doesn't guarantee new lease of life for the character of Conan, free of Arnie's long cast bulging shadow. Marcus Nispel's next project is to be a proper, undisputed remake again. One of a film which has been remade very successfully already in fact, so double the pressure. His "The Fly" (version 3) is speculated for release later this year. - 3/5
 
CONAN THE BARBARIAN (2011) is available on DVD and Blu-ray, and from rental/streaming providers.
 
Joe (played by Joel Courtney) has lost his mother, in an accident at her workplace. One which may've been the responsibility of the parent of a friend. His father is a local Sheriff (...oh come on, it's small-town America, of course there's "the Sheriff"!) who's struggling to parent alone, and find time to work through loss and anger. Dad hides behind his badge and public persona, but doesn't approve of the way Joe chooses to work it through and seek his own escape. Roped into helping his mate Charles film an amateur horror flick ( you know the type! All tomato sauce and trilby's) out of a sense of brotherhood alone. That's until the very same girl he's had a long standing crush on, gifted actress Alice (Elle Fanning) pitches in too..
Committed and high on creativity, the young film makers venture to the local train station for a proper night-shoot, only to be witnesses to a colossal train crash. One they soon discover may not be the accident they believed. Did Joe really see a something bursting from the wreckage...? Where does their High School Biology teacher figure in all this, and should they really take his words of warning seriously? If even the canine population of this sleepy town are legging it, maybe they should...? Could they live with the official account of events that night, put about by the military presence, swarming the town. Soon all realise the Super 8 camera left running on the platform, appears to have filmed something much more mysterious and disturbing.... Calling card of the mind behind one of TV's most engrossing, entertaining conundrums: Lost.
 
Yes, Super 8 is the project which teamed the creative might of arguably the greatest movie maker of modern times: Producer Steven Spielberg, with firebrand Director and ringmaster of timelines, JJ Abrams. The result is an unashamed return to the ambience, romance and spirit of awakening which defined 1980's cinema, inspiring so many (including Abrams) Set not long after Spielberg was premiering his classic Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Super 8(S8) doesn't just busy itself blowing kisses to the past. Managing to recreate warmth and dumbstruck spectacle of a golden age for family movies but matching with greater emotional reach than 30 years ago, plus the glossy visuals and striding pace, demanded by 21st century audiences.
 
Coming of age films didn't begin with Spielberg, but the realisation of minors as leads, their perspective and feelings treated as respectfully as adults probably did. The sharing of this connection with the fantastical, and boundaries where the real world would almost appear to blur, wasn't really mastered until his E.T.- The Extra Terrestrial (1982) It's the film S8 will almost certainly remind you most of too. Locations seem so reminiscent of Elliot's hometown. Indeed, the visiting being in S8 also looks to ultimately return to the stars, but that's where that similarity ends. I won't tease any further into the plot itself within these paragraphs, but tonally things shift to resemble something more more akin to a Grimm fairytale.
 
What anchors this film in affections are the young cast. All next to unknown faces, with considerable natural ability and appeal, which preserves the spell here. The ensemble work with the script, together, to bring much-needed realism to their friendship, when events escalate. I liked most that dynamic between the sensitive, troubled Joe and Charles, who's very much the young, obsessive film-maker. How he ropes everyone into his project reminds us all, of someone we've known. It may stay within the confines of their town, but the script nicely teases the larger implications and these people develop before our eyes, as competent as say the pupils of Hogwarts or other contemporaries. I'm aware all this may sound a little soapy! A small town in the US where everyone seems to know one another, either through work, blood or whatever. That's still a reality though, so is unlikely to get old anytime soon, if the big stories are told from these kerbsides and porches, rather than the military bases, then stories like this will find greater audience outside SF devotees.
 
So what if all of that just doesn't hold your interest...? Relax: Super 8 comes with all the requisite whizzes and bangs you would expect from the bloke who made the preposterous Mission: Impossible III. A few months ago, I was impressed by a set-piece in The Knowing. However, that plain crash is old news next to the freight train one here! There's precious little warning before terrified kids are running for cover. Massive debris showers, then tumbles around them. The sights and sounds prove simply (and trust me, I don't use this word very often!) awesome. I also appreciate the realisation of other-worldly artefacts or technology coming into play. At first glance, looking like Rubik creations, so not out of place. That's until their real nature becomes clearer.
 
Naysayers will point out that Super 8 is derivative. As if Spielberg or Abrams thought no one would notice, right...? For all that the film reminds us of the aforementioned E.T. or Joe Dantes' Explorers and Gremlins, The Goonies and the like, it's never without a "spin". This isn't superficial, cynical or a spoof and the soundtrack is surprisingly light on tunes you'd expect. Abrams confident enough in realising the time, both historically, in our lives, and the story itself, to not keep banging those buttons. Having said that, it most reminds me of Rob Reiner's joyous Stand By Me (1986). Where an oddball collective of friends band together in a nostalgic adventure at the dawn of adulthood. The intrepid heroes of S8 also find their ideas sense of security altered. Negotiating where their earlier notions, interests and fantasies intersect with harsher reality. That's the real worth of this film, similar to last years brilliant British fantasy "Monsters" (which I'd also recognised as Spielberg-like), S8 is much more a human interest fable than a literal monster movie.
 
The fact that S8 is so mindful of other films should lend predictability to proceedings. But Abrams offsets that by sustaining tension for whole reams, so tightly that the edge of your seat is closer than you'd realised. Blimey! Maybe everyone isn't as guaranteed to make it through the other side, as experience assures?
 
No, Super 8 isn't without slight inconsistencies. Though much of the interplay is fine, even across the generation gap, the blossoming romance element didn't quite gel for me. A fault of neither performer, I feel it's a slight over-burden on the story in hindsight. The way the group go from shaking with fear for the existence of all they know, to open mouthed, dumbstruck spectators of the almost magical...? It jars, just a little. Tiny gripes, it'd be churlish to harp on about when a film is this energetic, uncompromising and enjoyable.
 
So why is it some will huff and puff at the mention of S8...? How can a film this well made, crackling with spirit have fallen short of expectation? What planted expectation of some enormous "monster movie"!?! I mean, I'd seen Spielberg himself talking about the film they were making, and it's absolutely the one I'd got! Well, in all fairness S8 had been promoted via "viral" marketing. The kind pioneered by The Blair Witch Project (1999) and a tactic employed by Abrams on his production Cloverfield (2008). Such campaigns are a double-edged sword. On one hand, you get punters to talk your project up: to be unpaid marketeers. Then Amblin or whoever gauge that response on the "worldwide web". Buzz regenerates, profile gaining momentum over up to 12 months (..first S8 teasers premiered with Summer 2010's Iron Man 2) But use language like "the scariest thing I've ever seen" (as S8's did, I've since discovered) so obliquely then leave the notion for enthusiasts to muse on for so long...? Inevitably, expectations soar. Disappoint those guys at your peril: they feel hood-winked out of a promised "something". In this case, it's hardly proved a deciding factor as the final film received hugely favourable reactions. That would always have happened, because S8's a quality production, but I reckon studios play with the proverbial fire, going "viral".
 
In collaborating on Super 8, Abrams and Spielberg may not have lived up to "hype", depending on who you are, and how you look at such. Forgoing true claims to essential status, by the very virtues it set out to have. It won't change movie making forever, like Star Wars, or usher that new era in for the genres The Matrix did. Neither does it reinvigorate an old property, the way JJ Abrams managed so assuredly with Star Trek (2009). But don't let those things outweigh the merit here in one of the best completely original screenplays you'll have seen this last couple of years. As worthy and tender as it's sensational and captivating. Sitting as a descendant of those Amblin Studios (and others!) classics, still cherished to this day. This film will likewise attract and endear to those who've come since. All things considered, Super 8 must come with very high recommendation - 4/5
 
SUPER 8 is available on DVD and Blu-ray, and from rental/streaming providers.
 

Smitten yummy Mummy (Toni Collette) won't take Charley seriously, when he talks of garlic, exploding strippers and a purpose built larder. His geeky best mate is one of the missing and girlfriend Amy, thinks Charley's been reading Twilight, on the sligh. Quickly the isolated kid is drawn to the net, and the website of enigmatic, extravagant Las Vegas magician in residence: Peter Vincent. A meeting with Vincent could be his only hope of finding anyone to take his claims seriously, but Vincent....? Well, he doesn't seem the kind of guy who takes ANYTHING seriously...
 
Can this unlikeliest of duo's possibly trust one another long enough to take on this unstoppable, ruthless creature of the night? Before Jerry's ravenous rampage leaves Nevada's new builds with no one alive to fill them...? He's practiced at survival, and surely won't go down without the fight of any of their lives!
 
Sound familiar? That's because this time out I'm taking a bite or two of last September's remake of the fondly remembered 80's comedy/horror mash-up Fright Night. This much speculated fresh take, coming from original scribe Tom Holland and Marti Noxon. Fright Night 2011 (FN) comes tooled with a small, though attention grabbing cast, and a unenviable, precise remit. Not to mention a generation of resistant, veteran "Frighters" to appease. Colin Farrell returns to a populist cinema, with Star Trek's Anton Yelchin as hero Charley Brewster (..sounds like a Drive-In Off Licence chain to me..) FN could be of greater note in the UK for marking the first principle role for one of the biggest UK screen actors of recent times. Altogether now...." Welcome to Fright Night!"
 
Now I'm sure there may be some reading this who view remaking FN unthinkable, and even more of us are suffering a brand of remake/reboot fatigue. The vaults of Horror hits have been most pillaged by the dogged re-imaginers, and with a hit rate about as impressive as the UK's form at Eurovision. That someone would get around to remaking FN, was inevitable. It was very much a gradual, word of mouth success first time out, rather than a block-buster and doesn't receive the repeats and remastered DVD's which are granted certain peers. So the people who are most fond of the film declare such, louder than the Gremlins lot, to be heard. Of their number, I've no doubt there'll be just as many wishing it every success, as there are who hope it stinks like 100 year old garlic! Sorry to disappoint the latter in this case, but I haven't a bad word to say about this film. Fright Night faithfully and tidily reworks that winning premise; achieving relevance; pushing universal buttons and making for toothsome, unabashed popcorn entertainment.
 
Anton Yelchin was Pavel Chekhov of the Enterprise crew in JJ Abrams 2009 film, and makes for a very believable lead. Charley's a confident guy, from the outside. He's "evolved" from a geeky past...with coolness and a hot-girlfriend as his prize. I was un-wowed when I heard Yelchin would lead the ensemble, but he fills this role supremely well. Could be a big star, in coming years! That being said, it's likely the real lead is Jerry the Vampire. Without somebody in this role, striking exactly the right balance..? well, the threat would've fallen very flat. Colin Farrell pitches it so perfectly. He's funny and charming, yet malevolent and sleazy. Turning on a six-pence, and can't help but confuse us about who it is we're rooting for again.....? Which of course plays exactly to the way Vampire's traditionally have been, until recent times brought us the oddity of sparkly-feelly Vamp's who go bowling and pass teenage girls the nail varnish.
 
The make or break of FN proves in how the two opposites draw battle lines. A director less sure of their hold on things would've spun that out, but Craig Gillespie goes for broke! Jerry takes the fight directly to the Brewster's breakfast bar, revelling in the sport! While Charley finds he's nowhere near as cool as he'd come to believe himself to be, and that embracing his real self: the geeky one, is his best bet after all. Nice character development, I wasn't expecting. The moments of confrontation are chilling, but funny. Farrell captures a relish in Jerry's setting traps for his young neighbour and even pulls off scenes of highest camp, with machismo intact. FN drafts no names you expect, in main roles. Yelchin and minor player, Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Kick-Ass, Superbad) are the only actual Americans. English Imogen Poots lifts the role of crumpet/ damsel in distress, away from set dressing enough. Whilst Aussie Toni Collette, who isn't served well as things move on, represents a next generation of screen mums, but reminds of Mum in The Karate Kid too.

If you visit this page regularly, you may be aware I'm a lifelong Doctor Who fan, so you could be wondering when I'm getting around to one Mr David Tennant. Like FN itself I've purposefully taken my time.... The Scots actor who played The Doctor, from 2005 to 2010, reaping the devotion of fans young and old, male and crucially female, fills the talked about role of Magician and Vampire obsessive Peter Vincent. Seeming rather a coup, as it's a guaranteed scene-stealer and left of field, even in such an unconventional as FN. Though Tennant has profile of sorts, internationally through Doctor Who and a key role in the 4thHarry Potter film, post-TARDIS work's been as eclectic as before. Here, the script teases of Vincent while the rest of the plot is gathering pace, and Tennant doesn't disappoint when finally appearing. His characterisation is the most revolutionary part about 2011's version. Tennant's Vincent is as much Chris Angel, as it's reminiscent of his Casanova (2005), and yes there's Russell Brand in there too. He has fun with the part, and so we enjoy watching him play, and interact with co-stars. This anti-hero character also develops, though I'll leave how unsaid, and Tennant and Yelchin prove a neat duo. I just wish they were together a bit more! Despite Peter Vincent being a gift of a part, Tennant's generous and measured as ever. Never becoming pantomime, and instantly acceptable with comic timing and charisma, bang on. I'll warn he uses the same accent as on DW, as the potty-mouthed Vincent, and the swearing takes a little getting used to! This darkly comedic turn will raise awareness of this much loved, respected actor, just enough to serve well.

Marti Noxon, wrote for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, throughout it's run and Tom Holland, who directed the original and it's sequel, went on to create Child's Play. Together they've refined his original story, and bolstered the appeal of what wasn't a plot so much as a concept. Like a great deal of the best loved 80's movies, I'd say. FN tends those roots. At times it's gratuitously adolescent, playing to the fantasies of the teenage boy in us all. Reaching further back, to Hammer and Universal stables of scares. I can't really speak for whether this is true of the original, or how worthy of its name you many consider FN, if you hold dear from your own childhood. So ignorant am I of the "classic" that I didn't recognise original star Chris Sarandon, in his cameo (Watch for 90's indy act Lisa Loeb too) Perhaps it wasn't as broadly funny as I expected, as that's something fans always mention, but it's dead-pan and mischievous. Maybe, now considerably post-Scream, the idea of horror comedy and a post-modern sense has lessened novelty of gags in something as finely balanced, certainly as this Fright Night. Generally, it's refused to pander to what it should be seen to do, or to indulge low attention spans.

One word which continually comes to mind is DARK. Though when I say dark, I don't just mean in modern reviewer-speak, I mean dark-DARK. FN rarely turns it's dimmer switch past halfway point. It's grainy, dusky...and this works beautifully. Especially given the smouldering hues of Vega vistas, which Gillespie shows off. SFX work...? I won't lie, some is better than others. How Farrell's other nature is depicted, with blue blood, I liked. His trans-morphications....less so. But I'd say a couple of standout scenes rely very heavily on the effects being exactly right, and they deliver. I really liked how the embers of smoked victims and debris, spin and fall too. Probably conceived to serve the theatrical 3D element, but looking fine in 2D. The sets, especially of Jerry's lair, are so clean and uncluttered, yet all the more eerie, almost clinical for it. This and the definite sense of it having "acts", like a stage play would, lend it a sense of almost claustrophobia.

Fright Night is simply captivating, terrific fun. Younger ones would find it a little too scary, and some of the content/language too adult, but for the most part it's got something for everyone. More than holding "end up", in justifying a campaign of remakes which shows no sign of slowing down. Even in the wake of many failures. Plenty will proudly prefer the original, if they grew up with it, but that's to be expected and fine too. The film's success is likely to extend profiles of those involved, in front and behind camera, though could also mean that remake of The Lost Boys will move up the pile of viables, on desks of the powers that be, so I'll no doubt feel the same when that happens.

As an experience Fright Night leaves you with little more than a fond grin on your face, and something satisfying to tell about, for a day or two. Hardly essential, but on it's own terms it's very sturdy and rather great. I struggle to think of a single way in which it could've been better, in fact. So I'll unreservedly and unflinchingly declare Fright Night one of the more agreeable, dependable of last years "also rans". - 4/5

FRIGHT NIGHT (2011) is available on DVD and Blu-ray, and from rental/streaming providers.
 

MORE REVIEWS here!!!