Reviews

Terrible, poorly acted (actually with this many bad performances it is likely the director/s are primarily to blame), often nonsensical version of the original. Written FOR Americans too stupid and lazy to read subtitles, written BY Americans lazy enough to make it a virtual copy (which at least I could accept), but then too stupid to not "improve" (read "destroy") random scenes and dialog, such that the plot no longer makes sense and character motivation is lessened or rendered inexplicable. Truly a pointless (other than garnering money for the studio/network) remake; though I guess that accusation could be leveled at virtually any remake, some of them do manage to improve on the original, or provide a different perspective, or at least attempt not to sully what made the original good enough for a remake to be considered - this is not one of them.

I don't understand that scene where she finds an apartment to rent - yes, it shows she needs money (as does the interminable amount of scenes showing her current living situation is ... ahem ... "untenable"), but none of this is necessary to the plot (they basically wrote a short B- grade student film and needed 70 minutes of "filler"). Why doesn't Tom Noonan initially keep their appointment, why does a knife slash from the level of someone lying down hit a large standing guy in the throat, why does it upset me that so much of a horror movie is utterly nonsensical and the heroes' actions are that of a blithering moron who has never seen a horror movie or been scared for a second in her life (well, that one's easy to answer - it's because it is incredibly lazy writing), why does it annoy me that so many horror fans think that this is something they need to settle for ?? No doubt the film-maker would say this is a pastiche of 1980's horror movies, and as such was MEANT to be bad, but the cynical part of me wants to say that until I've seen better from this film-maker, pastiches of bad 1980's horrors is where he should stay.