Reviews

I've grown up with the 1994 version of Little Women. It's a movie close to perfection, in my opinion. So when I heard about a remake I was skeptical. But with the good reviews I figured I had to give it a chance. I'll admit going into it with the expectation of not having it live up to the 94 version in my own view, but I never expected I would hate it. I mean; how the heck could anyone possibly make a bad movie based on such a powerful story? So I was proven wrong, but not the way I hoped; that the movie is justified in having a higher rating than the 94 version. I'd love to sit here and say that, yes indeed, it was possible to improve upon perfection. But I can't. Instead, I was proven wrong in that, yes, it is actually possible to make a bad movie based on this story!

From the very beginning something felt off. It starts, and Amy's in France? What happened to the first half of the movie? Jo's in New York. Meg's already married, with children. And Beth's sick... Part of what made the 94 version so fantastic is the way it builds the story. Starting when Amy's at an early age, following them for years as their sisterhood develops, introducing them to new relationships, like Laurie and John, and events, like the German neighbors giving Beth scarlet fever, in a timely fashion. With the story in a linear fashion, you get to know the characters well, and it builds up an emotional relationship between the viewer and the characters. So that, when Beth eventually becomes fatally ill, you grieve with the family. Here, the event passes by without much emotional response, because the movie hasn't built up our relationship with her yet. We get a few flashbacks, but they miss the mark by miles as to build the same kind of emotions as the 94 version managed by letting us "grow up" with the characters, by following them in a linear fashion.

I'll grant you that the movie has some descent moments towards the end, and for a while I almost got into it; not on the same level as the 94 version, but at least there was something there, and I was getting cautiously optimistic about having a better feeling about the movie at the end than I did at the beginning. But then comes the ending and tears it all down again. Partly because the parts about Friedrich are so exceptionally poorly done. Early in the movie, about the only scene we see with him is when he tells Jo that he didn't like her stories, and Jo tells him that she doesn't want to hear more of his opinions. It isn't until Marmee asks Jo about him, as "her friend", that the familiar relationship begins to come into the picture. Then he shows up at their home, with all the misunderstandings and reasons from the 94 version that made it so powerful all but emitted, and only then do we get some flashbacks to how they met. Still extremely underwhelming, and way too late. But what really ruined the ending was how the movie then suddenly, without any sort of pre-warning, starts to mix between being an adaptation of Little Women and a biography of its author, in a way that makes no sense whatsoever. So I started the movie with a question mark above my head, and I ended it with an ever bigger one.

Like I said, there were some good moments towards the end; the underlying story is too good for all of it to be bad. But I have to say they tried hard. From the bizarre, underwhelming non-linearity of the storytelling to its ultimate uncertainty about what story it actually wanted to tell. The casting did it no favors either. Having an Irish, British and Australian actress make out three of the four very American sisters seemed wrong; they didn't have the accent down, and for a while I was questioning if they had moved the whole story to England instead of USA. Granted, Saoirse Ronan is the actress that best fills the equivalent part of the 94 version. She kind of looks like Winona Ryder in the role, and is mostly believable in the part, the main shortcomings coming down to the underlying way the story was told. Emma Watson as the earthly Meg doesn't work at all, she doesn't at all look or act the part. She would have worked better in the part of Amy. Talking of Amy; how Florence Pugh was found worthy of an Oscar nomination is beyond me. She worked fairly well in the older years, and perhaps even on par with Samantha Mathis who was admittedly the least effective casting in the 94 version, but she was just laughably bad as the younger Amy. Particularly cringe worthy were the parts where she throws a tantrum with Jo, and burns her book; her whininess didn't seem at all real, and nowhere near as childishly innocent or heartfelt as when Kirsten Dunst did them in the 94 version. The scene with the limes was also truly horrible. And Eliza Scanlen as Beth makes no impact at all. Claire Danes managed to stir up all sorts of emotions throughout the 94 movie, and you truly felt bad for her Beth. Laura Dern doesn't fit the part of Marmee at all, nor does Timothée Chalamet work well as Laurie; he looks like a teenager throughout the whole movie, and you never get in touch with his true emotions of feelings for the March family, the way Christian Bale did. And the poor actor who did Friedrich had pitifully little to work with, and the relationship between him and Jo doesn't seem in the least real.

The movie is basically a mess from beginning to end, and the few good moments the movie does have can only be ascribed to an original story so powerful that it is impossible to ruin completely, try though they certainly did... I've given an extra point in my rating for that reason, and for some descent attempts by Saoirse Ronan, but you won't find me seeing this piece of turd again. The story deserves better. Fortunately, it has the 94 version, which is certainly the one I'll continue to stick with for the foreseeable future.

This is the story of perhaps the biggest American fraudster in history, and the cat-and-mouse chase to catch him. A hunt that in many ways brought Frank Abagnale Jr. (DiCaprio) and FBI agent Carl Hanratty (Hanks) together, since in many ways they were each other's lives at the time, and culminated in a lifelong friendship. Frank Abagnale Jr.'s story is an incredible one. By the time he turned 18, he had successfully played the roles of an airline captain, a doctor and a lawyer, and cashed in false checks for over $2.5 million. This is the film of his story, based on Frank's own accounts of the events. And it is an exceptionally entertaining film. Cocky con artists succeeding pretty much always make for a fun film, and when it's based on the true events of a young and likable man, it gets even more fun. It's amazing what you can get away with a little ingenuity and enormous amounts of nerve. But there's of course a price to pay when your whole life revolves around living a lie.

Catch Me If You Can is actually a rather unusual film to bear Spielberg's name. The usual Spielberg trademarks are mostly absent from this film, without that necessarily being a bad thing. Initially Spielberg didn't intend to direct this film at all; it was Gore Verbinsky who first got the job. But when Leonardi DiCaprio was called back to film more scenes for Gangs of New York, delaying the shoot, Verbinsky had to withdraw. At that time James Gandolfini was lined up for the role of Carl Hanratty. It could've been interesting to see how the film had turned out with them, but looking at the film as it is, it is hard to imagine it being better than the Spielberg/Hanks collaboration it turned out to be, their fifth at the time.

Along with Spielberg's departure from his usual style, there's also John William's soundtrack, which is very different from the pompous soundtracks he's most known for. It's jazzy and beautiful, and fits the 60s setting perfectly. The acting is first rate, from the leads of Leonardo DiCaprio, who started showing at the time that there was more to him than just being a heartthrob, and Tom Hanks, both delivering top notch work, to brilliant supporting parts from actors like Christopher Walken and Martin Sheen. It's a well crafted and playful movie overall, delivering the goods across all lines. It's a highly entertaining movie, that I'm sure will stand the test of time. Recommended!

The first time I saw this movie I did not think much of it. Well, I've been wrong before, and was once again proved wrong here. This movie is amazingly good and stunningly beautiful. A work of art as well as a movie! The reason I did not like it the first time has probably more to do with the quality of the image on the VHS tape, than the movie itself. Combined with a musical score that didn't fit the movie at all, it was a rather dismal experience. Later I chose the music myself, and found that old Kraftwerk songs fit quite well to the mood of the film. Over the years we've been blessed with restored presentations of the film, featuring excellent musical scores, and the movie is once again able to shine in its proper context, as it always deserved.

Set in a small German town called Altona, a young student, Francis, finds his closest friend, Alan, killed the night after a visit to an amusement park. He becomes suspicious of one of the exhibitors at the carnival, because his attraction, a sleepwalker and seer, had told him that he would only live until nightfall. The night before that the city's mayor had been killed. Francis takes it upon himself to investigate the murders, hoping to save himself and his fiancée, Jane, from the same fate.

The film focuses on our hero and his search for Caligari, Caligari and how he protects himself and his somnambulist, Cesare, from the suspicions of the police, and the police's suspicion of an innocent man.

The story of the film is classic as of today, but in 1920 the movie was quite unique. The most unique feature of the film being that it was the first ever with a surprise ending.

The film can be seen in at least two ways: as a well layered and effective thriller/horror film, or as an advanced piece of art. The sceneries in the film are unlike anything I've ever seen before or after, with Tim Burton's artsy sceneries in some of this more Gothic movies as the closest you'll get, style-wise. The director amazes with his use of shapes and lighting to emphasize the plot and enhance the effectiveness of it. It's a risky endeavor, but he perfectly balances the risks of the sets either becoming too unrealistic and unsettling on the one hand, or of being too much style over substance on the other. But the sets fits the story perfectly, in their own unique way. It's unlike anything you've ever seen anywhere else, but you certainly wouldn't want it looking any different either. It is hard to imagine the film looking different than what we're served here, but they have actually tried making more normal looking remakes of the movie in the 60s. I don't really want to check that one out, though, simply because I love this piece of art too much to have it ruined by a different vision. Would you want to see another artist's take on Mona Lisa? Probably not...

This was Robert Weine's masterpiece, and pretty much his sole claim of fame. All his attempts before and after this film to achieve something similar failed completely.

The actors in the film make good performances. Few of us have probably heard of most of the actors today, but many will probably remember Conrad Veidt (Cesare) from Casablanca or The Thief of Bagdad. This is a German expressionist film, a type of film that emphasize on the gestures of the actors to make its point, rather than sound. This is done in a very good way in this film. Conrad Veidt is particularly good in his part of the somnambulist, with a very artistic and elegant take on the role. Take special notice of the scene where he tries to kill Jane; perfection, worth every penny of the movie alone!

I will not say much more than that about the film, it has to be experienced! All in all, a truly unique and timeless film, as effective today as it was in 1920. A true classic!

This review contains spoilers!

Sharon Stone stars as a woman on death row, awaiting her execution, when suddenly a young lawyer decides to give it his all to fight for a stay of execution and retrial. Apparently there was exonerating evidence kept out of her trial, about her own abuse and the fact that she was drugged and drunk when she committed the heinous crime. Sharon Stone gives a brilliant performance, but the movie as a whole feels completely unnecessary, both because Dead Man Walking dealt with the same issues a few months earlier, because the mentioned circumstances doesn't really make her any less guilty or less deserving of the death penalty for having robbed two innocent people of their lives, and ultimately because all the efforts of the young lawyer yields no results, and she's ultimately executed. The latter is, along with Sharon Stone's performance, the best thing about the movie, if you ask me, but it still feels like a 103 minute long movie about nothing. An admitted killer got what she deserved, and those closest to her, and a few others who've taken it upon themselves to care, feel sad about it. Nothing new there. And certainly not enough for another movie about it...

A suspended cop (Reynolds) gets arrested, suspected for murder. He has no money and settles for a public defender. At the Public Defenders Office a young female lawyer (Russell) fights off a few other lawyers to get the case, hoping a high profile case like this can make her career.

I'm not going to go into the story much more than that, other than to say that the evidence against the cop is mostly circumstantial. As a plot, this could be taken anywhere. Corrupt cops, the defense's feeling of conspiracy against an easy target, suspect lawyers from the district attorney's office; it's all there, and more, and if played out right it could make for a really entertaining trial movie.

But there's a problem in the movie, and her name is Theresa Russell. From the moment she open her mouth she stood out....in the worst possible way. I've seen thousands of movies, but I can seriously never remember seeing a worse acting performance than what she delivers here. EVER! It makes Vampira and Tor Johnson in Plan 9 From Outer Space look like Meryl Streep and James Stewart by comparison! Every time she opens her mouth I shrugged at her amazing ability to make even the easiest line come off completely wrong! There isn't even a hint of credibility about her, and her very presence in the movie - where she's really the main character - ruins everything. Every scene she's in is the worse for it, she is truly the most destructive force I've ever seen in an otherwise decent movie. And she's acting against a string of B- and C- grade actors, most delivering below-par performances, yet they still seem Oscar-worthy next to her.

I'm giving the movie a couple of extra stars for the idea of a story that could've been entertaining if it had a real actress delivering the main female part, and for a couple of decent scenes without her presence, but really; this movie should be avoided at all cost!

Guillermo del Toro is perhaps more known for his English language movies, like Mimic, Blade II, Hellboy and Pacific Rim, but creatively, artistically and qualitatively they don't even begin to compare to his Spanish language movies, this one and Pan's Labyrinth being his masterpieces.

Set against the Spanish civil war, this is a ghost story set in a secluded boy's orphanage, with a dud missile planted in the middle of its courtyard. While it is the ghost story that immediately catches your attention, and is the driving force in the story, the true story of the movie is much more complex, dealing with the difficulties of surviving during the civil war, what it means to be an orphan and the many complexities of human nature. The story is haunting in more than one sense of the word, not to mention touching and heartbreaking. There is too much in the movie open for discovery, to be put into a review. It has to be experienced.

The movie also has a lot more to offer than a great story. Its cinematography is absolutely breathtaking in its beautiful photography and attention to details and historic accuracy. While not quite unparalleled in cinema history, it is certainly one of the most visually stunning movies I've ever laid eyes on.

But what really caught my attention on this watching, my fourth of the movie, was the acting. After a good while I suddenly realized that none of the actors had really caught my attention, neither for good or for bad. All of my attention was focused on the characters they portray. What better testament of a good acting performance is there than that? It is especially impressive considering that 90% of the cast are kids. There are very few movies dealing with such a large cast of kids that are able to reach such a level of quality and consistency in their collective performances. Every single character is perfectly cast, and every actor in the movie plays their character to perfection, without any sort of over or under acting, or traits of a bad performance. Their characters seem human and multi layered, and hauntingly realistic. In lack of another word, it's simply perfect. Del Toro truly shows his ability to extract excellent performances from his cast, and especially from his younger actors. In his later, thematically very much related movie, Pan's Labyrinth, he shows it again in the stunning performance by Ivana Baquero, who through his direction carries the whole movie on her 11 year old shoulders.

If I'm going to critique the movie on anything I'll say that it is a bit on the slow side. While not a big problem - the beautiful photography and exploration of the characters will mostly hold your attention - there are a couple of moments where the scenes seems a tad stretched out. But really, that's nitpicking. Overall this is a masterpiece of a movie,and one that I highly recommend.

While Shyamalan's directorial career has taken a wrong turn, releasing one movie worse than the previous, this movie shows that he can still tell a story. An elevator in a tall building stops, rendering the five people in it trapped. Complications ensue when building management tries to rescue them, but they'll soon learn that their biggest problem isn't outside the elevator; it's in it with them. When the elevator starts to suffer electricity blackouts, the people in it starts dying in brutal ways, leaving the survivors trapped in a guessing game of who among them is responsible, or if it is some outside source causing it.

A confined space like an elevator works surprisingly well in this movie, and creates an intense and claustrophobic atmosphere, that traps the viewer along with the victims. The tension is enhanced by the strange and spooky circumstances surrounding the rescue attempts from building management, police and fire department. The movie also feeds just enough character background information along the way to make them interesting, and make us care about how it all will end.

At 80 minutes it is a short ride, and considering its confined setting also a tight one. But the running time is just long enough for the story, leaving no dead spots along the way, nor really any feeling of having missed out on something, and enough details added in for the movie to remain interesting for at least a couple of re-watches. All in all a very entertaining movie. There are a few religious aspects in the movie, but not really obtrusive in a way that will ruin the experience for those who aren't into religion. And besides; anyone who've watched Shyamalan's best own movies knows that he likes to add a bit of religion in his movies, so it shouldn't come as a surprise. As for John Erick Dowdle, the director of this movie, it'll be interesting if he'll be able to keep up this level of quality in the future - his previous filmography isn't too impressive.

"Star Wars for a new generation"; that's what the Blu-ray cover would have us believe. If this is indicative of what Disney have in store for us with Star Wars Episode VII, then there is all reason to worry. And considering this was made by the same company, even with the same cinematographer confirmed for SWVII, there's good reason to think it is.

Borrowing heavily from sci-fi movies like Star Wars, Star Trek and Avatar, and even from Disney's own animated sci-fi serial; Lilo and Stitch (the martian tribes looks exactly like, except for the color of the skin, the female boss in the alien affairs bureau, or whatever it was called, in said movie), and very little from the books it's actually based, this movie moves on as one of the least original movies I've ever seen. Instead it's one cliché after another, one massive rip-off after another, and what's worse, one piece of cheesy dialog after another. I thought fighting for Unobtanium, or whatever it was called, in Avatar sounded ridiculous; I laughed out loud at dialogs like "We MUST fight for Helium" in this one. It's even funnier thinking back at it, and thinking how they would have sounded if they actually HAD helium available when recording the dialog...

How Disney thought they could cash in on the ridiculously large budget, using mainly actors no one had heard about prior to this movie, using a literary hero most had long since forgotten, is completely beyond me. Taylor Kitch is anything but convincing as the hero in this movie, and most of the supporting cast, in addition to being mostly second rate actors, are further drawn down by the cheesy looks of their alien beings, which like I said before looked like straight copies out of better sci-fi movies, and the laugh-out-loud cheesy dialog they have to deliver.

It's all made worse that the plot in it self is at best ridiculous, at worst completely illogical, cheesy and way drawn out as though you're trying to smear a small piece of butter onto a much too large piece of bread. Is it entertaining? Only as much as some of the dialog or plot elements can actually make you laugh out loud in all their cheesiness. For me that was three times. The rest of the movie was boring and ridiculous. And yes, I know it's a sci-fi/fantasy movie, that requires you to accept things you normally wouldn't. But pretty much all sci-fi and fantasy movies of the past have one thing in common, which makes it all the easier to accept their fantasy; they are not set on Earth or anywhere near it. Because they know that once you set it on Earth, and especially in a historic context, such as this one, people will question your fantasies more, and hold them up to Earth logic and, in this case, history. And on that level this fails big time. It doesn't really help that John Carter ends up on Mars, and that most of the action takes place there, either, because it's still too near to what we know and accept. Try as I might, I was simply not able to look past all of that, and let myself get drawn into the fantasy, and the alien makeup and effects didn't make it any easier, since it looked exactly like things we've seen before, which for people who've seen many movies easily makes you care more about that than what they are trying to convey in the story. So notes to Disney; when making a $275m sci-fi movie; 1. don't use no-name actors, 2. don't set them in our Solar system and 3. don't make everything in the movie look exactly like other movies (not set in our Solar system, by the way) we've seen before. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to 4. give your McGuffins better names, and make the dialog sound more believable either.

Avoid this movie at all cost. It deserves to be lost and forgotten, and never spoken of again. With a rating of almost 6.6 I had some hope for this, but I ended up even more disappointed than I was with Avatar, which also was a huge copy-fest (basically Dances with Wolves with big Smurfs for the Indians), which I hardly thought possible. Oh well, at least I got a couple of laughs, although for all the wrong reasons...

Peter Hyams may not be the most respected director in the game, but I've enjoyed several of his movies in the past none the less. I've also always liked Michael Douglas as an actor, and I've always had a soft spot for courtroom dramas. This is actually not the first time these three ingredients have been mixed up in a movie. In 1983 Michael Douglas starred in Peter Hyams' The Star Chamber, where he plays a judge tired of seeing guilty people run around free due to technicalities rendering damning evidence inadmissible after the law. In retrospect I should have just stuck with that, and given this one a pass. But finding it in the bargain bin it was hard not checking it out.

A reporter who've followed the cases of the district attorney (Michael Douglas) for some time suspects the D.A.'s perfect track record to be a lie, and that the D.A. in several of the cases have manufactured the damning evidence, in the form of DNA evidence pointing to the man on trial, planted several days after the crime. His editor doesn't believe him, so with the help of a friend he sets out on a potentially dangerous mission; the next time a murder is discovered, he'll plant circumstantial evidence (sans DNA) pointing to himself, having the friend video tape it in order to destroy the D.A.'s case at the point he knows for sure that he has planted DNA evidence against him. In the mix is also a female lawyer from the D.A.'s office, who becomes romantically involved with the reporter.

The premise sounds promising enough. And sure enough, it's a remake of a 1956 movie by the same name, helmed by Fritz Lang, who if you ask me is responsible for the greatest movie ever made; Metropolis, as well as a steady stream of other masterpieces. The best thing I can say about this version of the movie is that it made me aware of the original, and made me want to see it. When I bought it I was unaware of the original's existence.

As many others have pointed out before, this version of the movie is full of plot holes, some harder to ignore than others. The flow of the movie is extremely streamlined and predictable, and with the exception of Michael Douglas, who has a much smaller part than I had hoped, no one really delivers any good acting performances either. Douglas isn't really very remarkable in this movie either, but I'd bet that even at his worst it would be obvious he's in a different league than the rest of the cast, and here he isn't even at his worst... The movie looks dark on dull, and has limited production values. I can certainly understand the poor reputation and user score that made me skeptical to the movie to begin with. In fact, I'm surprised it isn't rated even lower.

Not having seen the original yet I think it's still safe to say; stick with the original. I'll certainly be checking it out. After all, the premise does have promise, if it's executed correctly and have reasonable explanations for its plot holes. This movie doesn't even try to explain any of them...

South African director Neill Blomkamp was discovered by New Zealand director Peter Jackson a few years ago, and he so believed in this director that he produced his first big movie, District 9. Having been a fan of Peter Jackson since well before his step up to the big league, through the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I was optimistic about District 9; if Peter Jackson believed in it, it had to have some promise. That's what I thought, anyway. Ultimately I was severely disappointed by District 9, which in boring documentary style explored the treatment of aliens in South Africa, seen through the eyes of a character no one cared about, watching characters we didn't know enough about to care. The underlying message; this is how rich people treat the poorest of the poor. The message is a good one, the execution extremely poor.

Fast forward to 2013, and we have his second big film at the theaters. Without Peter Jackson as a producer this time, but instead he has attracted big stars like Matt Damon and Jodie Foster to the film. Matt Damon playing Max; a poor, unfortunate orphan on earth, struggling in a low pay, high risk job, hoping to save up enough money one day to take him and his childhood girlfriend to the haven in the sky; the off-world, man built colony called Elysium, where only the rich and beautiful are allowed to live. An accident at work gives him only 5 days to carry out his dream, and to be saved by the health beds on Elysium, which can cure any illness in seconds, without any side effects what so ever. To assist him he gets a group of rebels who on a semi-regular basis sends their own spaceships up to Elysium with fugitives who've saved up enough money for the ticket. On Elysium, chief of security Delacourt (Jodie Foster) does everything in her power - and more - to prevent them from landing.

Once again it seems that Blomkamp is more interested in conveying a message than actually delivering a good, coherent sci-fi/action epic. The message this time; the rich consider themselves elevated over the poor, and do not want anything to do with them. While this certainly rings true in today's society, no one watching a movie presented as a big star sci-fi/action epic really cares. So, as far as conveying a message goes, Blomkamp once again fails. Unfortunately his failure also extends to his ability to convey a good action movie.

The characters aren't fleshed out enough for the audience to really care. Jodie Foster is a great actress, but she seems badly miscast in the role of rogue security officer, planning to overtake the presidency. It's sad to see her struggling her way through this movie, in what is probably the worst performance I've ever seen her give. South African actor Sharlto Copley, who also got a slight break with District 9, is certainly the most entertaining of the characters, but the movie fails hugely in his credibility - we lack the background information to make his place in the movie believable. Matt Damon plays pretty much on auto pilot, and that works well enough to get him through the movie. His character Max and his girlfriend Frey are given some background information through some scenes from their childhood - scenes that are repeated annoyingly many times as a reminder of what we've already seen. Yet when it comes to their adult versions, we are given no background between then and now at all, ultimately failing even there to make the characters fleshed out enough to be believable.

To top it off, every action sequence in the movie are filmed using a fast paced camera following the action. The problem with that is that the 24 pictures per second that film is able to convey is not enough to make the motion fluid. In other words, all action sequences are shaky and blurry, making it hard to follow what's actually happening. At the end of the movie I also had a bit of a headache, which I didn't at the beginning. I don't know why this type of action filming has become so popular, because I can't remember ever hearing of anyone actually preferring this type of filming over more steady and fluent presentations of the action on screen. But when it comes to effects it might be cheaper to present them in a blurry way, than having to flesh out all the details in proper action sequences...

The movie's vision of the future is an interesting one, though, and the presentation of 2154's Earth isn't really too far fetched as of now. However the presentation of Elysium leaves far more questions than answers, and does not seem credible at all.

At the end of the day I sat through a movie with a disappointingly simple story, with disappointing and non-credible characters, and with an ever more disappointing ending yielding even more questions than answers. Blomkamp shows once again that his ability to create entertaining sci-fi/action movies is non-existent. Does he have a message in his movie? Who cares? If he wanted to really address the problems of society of today he should do it through proper documentaries, or even contemporary big star action movies with the message up front and clear, instead of what he does now, which is failing at entertaining and failing at conveying messages. So for those who've read through this review and not seen the movie; don't bother with it.

This is the fourth movie in the Pang brothers' The Eye horror series. Of the three previous I've only seen the first, which I recall as an effective and interesting horror movie. This one found its way into my collection as a filler in a movie order of another title, and was the first real made-in-3D movie I watched on my new 3D HDTV. 3D still feels like a mostly unnecessary gimmick to me, and I fail to see how this movie would have been any less effective without the 3D, but disregarding that, the 3D was mostly still quite effective.

As for the movie itself, it starts out interestingly enough, and builds up a premise that could have been taken pretty much anywhere. The shock effects are predictable enough, but between the dog child and mysterious shadow woman, and all the strange on-goings with the three men in particular - making the three women the ones who have to drive the story forward - it has many elements that could make for a really good horror story overall. Unfortunately, when it comes time to tie up all the threads, it does so in a somewhat disappointing way. It's still better than most American horror movies I've seen lately.

The original The Eye is a better view overall, but you can certainly do worse than this one too.

I'm an advocate of judging movies against their purpose; what does it try to be? This movie tries to faithfully adapt the video game DOA on the big screen, and in that respect it does very well. While the story itself is filled with clichés, and is very equal to a lot of earlier movies, like Mortal Kombat, that can't really be held against this movie. This is how the game is, and adapting the game any other way would be disrespectful.

Action, babes, more action, nice camera angels, macho dialog and a very predictable story line with a proper comeuppance for the bad guys, that's what to expect from such a movie, and that's what it delivers. Other movies based on video games have a lot to learn from this movie; Stay faithful to your source, or expect a bad reception from the game's fans.