A remake of a classic genre
937072
I saw preview screens of this game a while back but had forgotten the name of it. Recently, it's popped back up on the radar due to the upcoming release date. Did a lil research, and low and behold, The Last Remnant.

If you're a fan of turn based RPG's with impressive graphics, this game it for you. If you were a fan of the old Shining Force games for the Genesis, this game is for you. All in all, it's not a bad game even though I am still in the very, very early stages of playing.

The game does have some glitches. The animation for the cutscenes completes and there is a noticable pause before the voice acting kicks in. Nothing super serious, very easy to look past, but it's noticable.

I look forward to completing this one. There aren't alot of games I have time to sit all the way through and complete, but this stands to be one of them for sure.
2925532
This reimagining is a wonderful modern remake of the beloved fairy tale. The "hardware" of Rebecca's writing is attention getting- detailed description of sights, sounds, tastes, etc., and the "software," the characters and their development, is much more 3D than the original fairy tales we're used to. I loved how Rebecca pulled more of Belle's backstory from the original, as well as gave a more in-depth look at the Beast's emotions and thoughts throughout his growing relationship with Belle. The addition of many characters that will seem new because modern movies don't include them add an extra sprinkle of magic. If you don't want to read B&B because you think you know the story already, you won't have to worry about boredom, because there is so much in this rendition you won't have expected, and an ending that sets up for a sequel. Everyone needs a little fantasy!
4596264
I don't know where all the 5-star ratings come from, it's not quite as good as the original.  But it is funnier, if anything, and the low intensity plot with comedic relief does not let up.  It isn't intense.  And the end is kind of stupid.  Well, the whole thing is kind of stupid.  As long as you do not expect too much, it is a useful contrast to the overly dark fantasy-magic genre.
1426286
For once, I am happy to find a remake of a fine old Masterpiece Theatre offering that is as good as the original. "Bleak House" is currently available on an DVD with Diana Rigg as the most familiar name; and except for some incomprehensible line readings by a young character named Joe, it is a very good account of the Dickens novel. Having already appeared on Public Television, the remake has Gillian Anderson (yes, the one from "X-Files") as Lady Dedlock, and a cast of 80 speaking roles, many of which are played by actors that will send you searching the cast listings that go by too quickly at the end of each episode.

 The eight parts will be shown so that the first and last will run two hours and the four in between an hour each. I found the complex plot actually easier to follow in this version than I did in the earlier one. And while I prefer Rigg to Anderson, I think I can easily recommend this new adaptation over the other.

 The story--lawyers will hate it--involves the infamous Court of Chancery in which disputes over estates can be buried for years until the lawyers' fees make further legalizing unnecessary. Against this background, the case of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce being a major part of it, we have the story of John Jarndyce (Denis Lawson), his ward Ada (Carey Mulligan), her companion Esther (Anna Maxwell Martin), and Ada's beloved Richard (Patrick Kennedy).

 The latter becomes obsessed with the case, while Esther becomes involved in the mysterious past of Lady Dedlock, who happens to recognize the handwriting on some legal documents delivered by the utterly immoral family solicitor Tulkinghorn (Charles Dance). I will not reveal any more of the plot, lest it spoil your enjoyment. You will wind up guessing much of it, but it is a lot of fun--unless you are a lawyer.

 Peripheral to the plot are the usual cast of Dickens "characters": Krook the junkman (Johnny Vegas) who finds some incriminating letters (and dies the strangest death in all fiction), Smallweed the moneylender (Phil Davis) who cannot walk by himself and must be  "shaken up" by his weird niece every few minutes and who gets the letters, and Miss Flite ( Pauline Collins) who looks forward to "judgment day" when her case will finally be settled and she can set her birds free.

 Most interesting of all is the policeman Bucket (Alun Armstong), the first real detective in English fiction. Although he looks like a toady for the rich, he does his job and does it well, solving a murder case and being considerate to a certain lady who would suffer if her connection with the case should come out.

 Of course, the arm of coincidence in Dickens is a long one; and while a good deal of the plot does strain credulity, the acting and period ambience are of the highest level. The only thing that annoyed me was the director segmenting his "establishing shots" (exterior views of buildings to let us know where we are) into two or three rapid cuts with some electronic "whoosh" for each one. Pretentious and irritating after the first dozen or so.
232200
Yet another remake of an iconic horror classic, this 2009 remake has the same production team and director behind the 2003 remake of&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Texas-Chainsaw-Massacre-2-Disc-Ultimate-Edition/dp/B000FS9FE4/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2-Disc Ultimate Edition)</a>. However, this remake also has Sean S. Cunningham, director of the 1980-original as producer; a good sign. This remake fails to deliver anything we haven't seen before and some of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but luckily there's just enough to almost redeem it.

The film opens on Friday the 13th of June, the same day the original film take's place. In this opening scene, a young Jason watches a scared teenager decapitate his mother.

Next, it's present day and a group of young kids wander the woods near Crystal Lake. Twenty-three minutes later, we meet a whole new set of college kids on the way to a cabin near Crystal Lake. Meanwhile, a young man named Clay Miller (Jared Padalecki) searches for his sister, who went missing six weeks earlier. The town bordering Crystal Lake consists of the same crazy redneck's that we saw in the TCM remake. All are unpleasant, paranoid, and tend to give main characters vague warnings about Jason, while doing nothing about it.

I don't see director Marcus Nispel being big on ideas, as I'm sure his influence went into creating the townsfolk. This film also shares a very similar visual style with TCM, as well as having the cheap scares that populated that film.

Friday the 13th isn't much different from most recent horror films. It has plenty of gratuitous nudity and violence. This doesn't bother me, but this movie gives "gratuitous" a whole meaning, believe me. It also has two character's that serve as comic relief (in this case, Aaron Yoo and Arlen Escarpeta), but I actually welcomed them.

There is some good in this remake, extending beyond creative death scenes. First of all, Jason looks more frightening than he ever has before. The makeup and costume design are top notch, but actor Derek Mears brings physical movement and posturing to the performance which really adds to the effect. Furthermore, the script makes Jason human rather than some supernatural being. This is good, but the writers stopped short at any attempt to explore the character's psyche. Finally, it has a genuinely likable protagonist in Padalecki.

There's almost no room for originality in the horror genre anymore. Sequels, remakes, and rip-offs are essentially what rules it now. Friday the 13th does not bring anything new to the table, but taken on it's own merit it's not that bad. It's much better than the dreadful&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Jason-X-New-Line-Platinum-Series/dp/B00006FI0R/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Jason X (New Line Platinum Series)</a>&nbsp;and the disappointing&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Freddy-vs-Jason-New-Line-Platinum-Series/dp/B0000VCZMK/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Freddy vs. Jason (New Line Platinum Series)</a>. While those who've had their fill of Jason at this point will want to steer clear of this movie, it's actually better than quite a bit of the horror films that are released today. If you don't mind being entertained by something you've seen before, Friday the 13th isn't the worst way to waste your time.

GRADE: B
384257
Imagine, if you will, one of your all-time favourite authors was still writing those novels you loved from your youth, but now setting the events a couple of decades after the original novels. Im thinking Fleming, Ian Fleming, and his sardonic hero, James Bond. No, Im not referring to the many authors who, spurred on by the success of the movie franchise, have taken on the mantle of updating the character for modern audiences. Im talking about capturing the style and feel of the originals, yet, creating something unique. No, not James Bond, but Nikki Sinclair. Theres action, violence and sex, as in the originals, but again with an imaginative change that enhances the narrative.
Jaye Rothmans Murder by Umbrella is an outstanding spy tale set toward the end of the Cold War, and with a nice wink at Agatha Christie thrown in for good measure. Not only is the novel predominantly set in the classic quaint English hamlet, where nothing is as it seems, but theres even an acknowledgement within the tale that brought a smile to my lips as I read.
Superb, strong characters; a fast-paced tale of mystery and intrigue; a few twists to keep you on your toes. What a great recipe for a wonderful novel. Highly recommended for lovers of good, classic spy fiction.
4226878
No real scares, but shot in a novel way in that it purposefully reimagines the classic horror movie feel in an artistically interesting way. This is not your usual fare, in that regard. The filmmakers did a noteworthy job in their homage to 70s horror films that include what amounts to parody of the cliched overacting and dialogue from that era. Again, I didn't get any scares or thrills from this one, but if you check out the trailer, it will give you a very solid idea of what to expect. That Lionsgate was involved tells you up front that it's going to be well-financed with good production values, and it is definitely not your microbudget, weekend-shoot horror so prevalent today. I'd say it's worth a rental and would recommend it for horror fans (I don't think non-horror fans would really "get" the many inside jokes and the homage-style it presents).
3788217
I now own both versions on DVD, minus the sequels, so needless to say, I like both versions. However I do wish the edition of the re-make included the PG-13 version as well-this unrated/director's cut idea bothers me sometimes.
In this version, Dylan Walsh steps very well into Terry O'Quinn's shoes as the murdering s-father, the whole cast does a nice job, who am I kidding? Keep in mind, these reviews are expressing my opinions, based on my personal criteria, so feel free to read them and judge for yourself, whether you think I'm right or not, feedback is always welcome.
Now, how do I feel about this remake, simply pretty much the same as several others-I liked it very much, but unlike some people, I took it on its own merits, and tried not to compare the two too much. In fact, sometimes a remake to me surpasses the original-Hairspray, Last House on the Left and My Bloody Valentine, to name a few.
I feel like a broken record here, but some movies don't require a remake/ or sequel for that matter, but when they have gotten them, they have overall impressed me, this one isn't much different.
4276860
I've always had a fondness for older science fiction- stuff from the time of HP Lovecraft or earlier. I'd read William Hope Hodgson's "Carnacki the Ghost Finder" stories and "The House On The Borderland" and really enjoyed them, so I thought I'd try The Night Land in its original format. Unfortunately, Hodgson made some stylistic choices that made the book difficult to read- the whole thing was written in a weird pseudo-seventeenth century dialect and had no dialog anywhere, nor did most of the main characters have names. I stopped reading fairly early on, but then I found out about Mr. Stoddard's reworking of the book.

The Night Land: A Story Retold is a magnificent retelling of a really classic bit of early pulp scifi. You get a real feel for the far future world in which the Sun has gone out and the Earth is wracked with the aftermath of multiple apocalypses- the death of the Sun, the blasting of the hundred-mile-deep canyon, the eruption of the supernatural and the arrival of monsters. Mr. Stoddard pays particular attention to character development and makes it easy to imagine what Andros, the main character, must be going through as he risks life and soul to travel an utterly unknown world full of horrors in the faint hopes of reaching the first other population of humans anyone's heard of in thousands upon thousands of years. He adds a number of scenes that weren't in the original work, but which I think make matters clearer (the scene after the young warriors encounter the House of Silence comes to mind) and more enjoyable. He also does a nice job of preserving a lot of the old-school flavor of the work without perpetuating the rather weird sexism and ideas about discipline that were very present in Hodgson's original. I realize that to some people, changing elements of an old classic work to suit modern tastes seems like heresy, but this is an old classic work about the far future. To assume that Victorian/Edwardian gender roles and restrictions would continue to exist in a time after the Sun went out is the kind of thing that tends to jar me out of the story, and I appreciate Stoddard's touch on those matters.

The one real flaw in the work is that the original is basically a story of 'man goes in search of people, man runs into monsters, man gets to his goal, man turns around and heads for home'. It's a very straightforward plot and essentially reads like a travelogue of a trip that happens to pass through a realm of unrelenting horror and weirdness. It probably could have used some more complexity, but that's a lot to ask from a scifi novel from 1912.
1126732
Tim Lebbon, The Nature of Balance (Leisure Books, 2001)
It's interesting that horror has made a comeback in the American bookselling business these days, the same way it did in the eighties. (And the same way it will again twenty years from now.) Often, cycles of something being popular and unpopular are blamed on a fickle public. Those of us in the business of media manipulation through the creation of art know better. Without going into the details, let's just say that the more popular something guess, the more the quality is likely to decline. The business itself brings about the downfall of the genre, whatever that genre may be. (Look at the long, painful death of industrial music in the mid-nineties.)
It's pretty easy to see that the new horror revival will soon be headed that way, as well. The stalwarts who weather the last death of horror as popular art form are still around, of course. King, Koontz, Ed Lee, etc. will never go anywhere while they live. And, as always, the newer crop of horror writers contains some brilliant writers who are destined to topple and replace the stalwarts (Kiernan, Brite, etc.), some who have been around for years and just never got the recognition they deserved (Koja, Laymon, et al.), and, well, the rest.
To call Tim Lebbon one of the rest is not to imply that Lebbon's work lacks quality. It doesn't. The Nature of Balance is a good, solidly-written novel that keeps the pages turning and is likely to appeal to any horror fan (it may be a bit laid back for fans of extreme horror novelists like Laymon and Lee). But it's not more than that. When you pick up something by Cait Kiernan or Kathe Koja (when Koja's writing horror, anyway), you're not only getting horror, you're getting your socks knocked off. They transcend simple horror novels and become something else. The Nature of Balance never achieves that transcendence.
Anyone remember Rick Hautala? Ken Eulo? John R. Holt? William Valtos? Doug Hawk? Leslie Whitten? I could keep going for a very long time here, and at a guess, you'll get maybe ten percent of the names unless you were an obsessive horror fan like  was an obsessive horror fan back during its last popular heyday. If it hit the Atlantic Books shelves in the horror section, I was there waiting with $3.99. (Depressing, isn't it?) And all of the above authors were writers of good, solid horror novels (okay, we'll make an exception for Whitten). I can (and have) go back and pick up John Holt's When We Dead Awaken or Edward Levy's The Beast Within and come up with a fantastic read. It's not a new Kathe Koja novel, but it's a great way to kill a few hours on a rainy day. And, ultimately, that's what The Nature of Balance is; good for what it is, but at a guess, not destined for immortality. ***
664892
I've read this is a "remake" of an old John Wayne classic. I see the similarities; this one being a little more brutal.
1591173
If you enjoyed this review, make sure to check out my horror film blog at: brandoncsites.blogspot.com

Silent Night (2012) **1/2 / 4
D: Steven C. Miller
C: Malcolm McDowell, Jaime King, Donal Logue, Ellen Wong, Brendan Fehr, Andrew Cecon, Lisa Marie, Courtney Jane-White, Erik J. Berg, Rick Skene
P: A homicidal killer dressed in a Santa Claus outfit kills off the naughty boys and girls of a small town with a police officer and the local sheriff hot on his heels.

Enjoyable remake / update of Silent Night, Deadly Night doesn't pretend to be anything other then what it is. Now whether or not a horror film that aims to be nothing more then fun, entertaining trash is a worthy ambition is up to viewers.

The cast strikes just the right chord throughout with their performances. The scenes that pay homage to the original feel perfectly placed into this film's proceedings. There's a few interesting story elements that expand the scope of the original and leave the door open for future sequels. And a scene in which a motel patron flees from her room, trying desperately in vein to get away from the film's killer Santa has cult classic written all over it.

Silent Night might not be the most ambitious horror film out there. It might not be the freshest film out there either, but it gets two things right. One, the people that made Silent Night took from a film that had potential, potential that wasn't realized in the original film and improved upon that. Two, the film never loses focus of what it sets out to do or what it wants to be and does just that precisely. With that in mind, the film is a success on its own terms. [R] 94 mins.
833221
Let's face itLewis Carrol's manic writing style is impossible to replicate. But that said this is a credible pastiche that embraces many of the elements of the original. If you liked wicked you will probably like this even though it is somewhat different (the author seems to be channeling quirky aspects of victorian culture rather than imitating a certain style). I found the story satisfying, but again, give it a chance to exist on its own terms rather than comparing it to the original books. I take off one star for being a bit too convoluted at times (no doubt from attempting to fuse Victorianism with Carrol's manic style, but not quite pulling it off).

This will occupy a choice spot on my bookshelf right next to my copy of Wicked.
52588
I LOVED IT!
Of course, we all know the basic Wolfman story, from the outstanding portrayal of the creature by the late Lon Chaney.  This time, we have a remake with Anthony Hopkins (as Daddy Talbot) and Benecio De Toro (as Laurence Talbot), plus some special effects that we not available in the old days.

We begin on a full-moon night in England, in 1891.  Daddy Talbot's other son is walking through a wooded area and attacked by a horrible monster that slashes him apart.  The Talbot man's fianc writes his brother (Larry), who is living in New York.  Expressing concern for her fiance's disappearance, she asks Larry for his help.

Larry arrives at the family estate, an old English manor in disrepair and finds his estranged father alive and well, accompanied by the family dog and a man-servant from India.  The son/brother's body had just been recovered.  Larry travels through the English countryside to a small town to see his brother's body, which is being kept in a meat house pending the burial service.  Of course, Larry has to pull back the sheet, and sees the body looking pretty bad.

Back at the family estate, Larry begins having flashbacks about seeing his mother dead from what appeared to be a suicide when he was a young boy.  After her death, Daddy sent him to an asylum for a year and then sent him off to live with a relative in New York.

Larry is determined to find the beast that attacked his brother and decides to visit the gypsy camp one night. (Duh--would you go out at night when you knew there was a werewolf in the area and it was a full-moon night to boot?  I hope Larry doesn't tell "blond" jokes :-).  Of course, you don't have to be a rocket-scientist to guess that Larry gets attacked and bitten by the wolfman.  And so it begins--once bitten. . .

Larry is sewn up by the gypsy woman and returns home.  A Scotland Yard detective shows up at the manor to investigate and a few unpleasant comments are expressed by both men.  Shortly afterwards, Larry begins to change.  He has some scary nightmares and he begins to develop sight, hearing, and smelling sensitivities.  His body begins to change before our eyes one night and he goes on a killing spree.  The change is done well, too.  Needless to say, the local villagers are severely spooked and the story continues to reveal some additional information.

I really enjoyed the movie.  I thought it was well done and added a few new things just to keep the story fresh.  Anthony Hopkins was wonderful in his part, but don't let this worn-out but classy gentleman act fool you.  He is a not a very nice guy.  Benecio De Toro was also wonderful in his role.  The orchestra music added to the film and the visual effects were wonderful.  There were also some nice scenery shots of London and the English countryside.

This is NOT a movie for your young and impressionable children.  There is blood, guts and gore for shock value, murders, and asylum torture.  Heads and body parts are ripped off and people are gashed open.  Your children will have nightmares over this stuff.  If you can take that stuff yourself, then this was a really good movie.  (Normally, I won't go to this kind of violent film either, but, I grew up with the Wolfman, Frankenstein, and Dracula stories, so I had to see it.)
1382290
Ghost is a Japanese remake of the 1990 box office hit of the same title. While it took many plot elements of the American original especially the lovemaking pottery scene while the song Unchained Melody is being played in the background,the changes made were definitely a good update for the 21st century audience. The female partner - Nanami - now was the one killed and who arises as a ghost to offer protection for her lover,Jun-ho. Also worth mentioning are: romance has become the centerpoint of the story instead of adding numerous genres for commercial purposes;the psychic is not given too much scenes to shine for the couple to dominate the story; a ghost child in the hospital teaches Nanami activities which made it heartwarming as the latter did not experience being a mother while alive; and finally having Nanami and Jun-ho meet each other while the latter is in coma at the conclusion made it more touching instead on relying too much on supernatural to show their love for each other. Overall,it was a good up-to-date remake that many viewers will surely enjoy
736337
I received a review copy of this book from the publisher.

Like many of us, I'm a bit of a purist regarding adaptations of classic works, so the fact that Shaun Hutson chose(actually, this decision was the publisher's, not Hutson's)to bring this adaptation forward to the present day and relocate it a long way south of the events of the original 1956 film filled me with no little trepidation.

Having said that, I hadn't seen the movie for a very long time--probably sometime back in the late 60s--so I decided to watch it again first, so I could more easily see what changes had been made.

I'm pleased to report that the alterations actually work very well and, in hindsight, the book hangs together rather better than the original.

Freed from the constraints of the film board censorship, Hutson is able to be more realistic with the dialogue of the soldiers. He neatly adds material and characters which give more weight to the events of the film, without sacrificing anything. There are only two major changes, other than period and location. The first is in making the lead character somewhat younger than in the original, which I found perfectly logical. The second is right at the end, where he has Royston realise that his original plan for destroying the entity was simply not going to work and comes up with a better and more believable one.

I'd always thought the "monster" to be vaguely Lovecraftian in concept, and it's evident that Hutson agreed, as he ends the book on a quote from the master himself.

To some extent, I regretted my decision to view the original movie version first, as it rather took all the suspense out of reading what turned out to be a very enjoyable SF/horror novel.
1026448
Great remake. As much as I enjoyed the original, this modern rendition is well done.