Reviews

So the idea and the 'twist' are indeed a little different but did my fellow reviewers not consider the other (very important) aspects of the film? This seems to be the justification for some bizarrely inflated ratings during a Halloween period where the new horror offerings were very slim pickings.

As a horror fan of some 40 or so years, it never fails to astonish me how quality is assessed in horror. For example, just because found footage is cheap to make and some people can't suspend their disbelief over who is holding the camera, the ratings for these movies tend to be astoundingly low even when some of these movies really push boundaries and have a lot to offer in other respects...and here lies my confusion.

Why has this been so highly rated? A movie in which the required suspension of disbelief is so high that my wife and I had to keep repeating "just go with it" as a mantra every few moments in order to get to the end and offer a fair review. Seriously, we're used to doing this but not through gritted teeth!

A good test of whether you will like it or not is to give the introductory scene a go. If, like us, you immediately asked the question "is this a spoof?" then it probably isn't for you. We honestly thought it was beginning with a scene in which the main character was watching a really bad movie. At least then it might have justified the inflated ratings.

It seems that there has been an attempt at 80s nostalgia which is all well and good. I was a kid in the 80s and enjoyed some of the horror movies at the time, but when the aforementioned nostalgia also involves 80s-quality acting (I mean, it's really bad) and some incredibly hammy, overwhelmingly cliched set pieces then we have to take a step back. I'm guessing that this odd 'nostalgia factor' has something to do with the idea that so many are seeing '80s schlock' as some kind of justification for it being a good film. It really isn't.

What I found absurd was how it clearly commanded a decent budget despite appearing to self-consciously revel in its own cheesy melodrama. Some of the 'Silent Hill-like' effects were surprisingly good but out-of-keeping with the often mindless dialogue, over-exuberant direction and bloody awful acting. It actually reminded me of the 90s when some film-makers had just discovered some new effects and wanted to find an excuse to try them out.

In the end, it comes across as some odd remastered version of a rather unique 80s horror. At least then your sense of nostalgia will carry you through.

As it is, I was halfway between laughing and groaning through the entire elongated twist and the resulting chaos that breaks out.

Sure, it's a little different but it's beyond ridiculous and very poorly executed.

Clearly, it's not appropriate to begin this review by criticising the three main actors who were indeed the real participants. So credit to them in the first place for doing what they did and also to Clint Eastwood for this new daring act of cinematic bravery. Sadly, the idea fails quite miserably and all involved should be held responsible. However, you would expect more from Eastwood. So the movie, as I see it, is in three acts and hopefully you don't regard my basic description of these acts as spoilers. If so, I apologise. Act One features the childhood of the heroes. The beginning offers a few enticing moments that we hope will give us some insight into the characters. Unfortunately, it doesn't much, falling flat and rapidly descending into cliched depictions of youngsters with burning dreams. It's nice to see Pam from 'The Office' pop up and do a decent job as one of the mothers but, with Eastwood appearing to keep to the truth with noble intentions, it nevertheless fails to develop and therefore feels empty. The appearance of a 'Full Metal Jacket' poster in one of the boy's bedrooms offers a little window into the thematics that the Second Act wished to partake in. That is to say, it introduces the theme of the training and maturation of the three heroes, heavily weighted in favour of the character of Spencer Stone. Again, the blunt reality of an honest story fails to entertain as a film and even Stone's determination to join the military feels almost irrelevant. Eastwood's stoic refusal to 'make stuff up for an audience' is admirable but so dull that it begins to feel like a made-for-TV documentary. And then, towards the end of this Act, it becomes little more than watching someone else's holiday snaps. I desperately wanted to fast-forward this part but, being on-board a United Airlines flight at the time, I've always found the touch-screen controls too fiddly. The Third Act is the act of terrorism itself which is featured in flashback form in the earlier acts. There are no surprises and no twists...because life generally doesn't do that. Contrived, it ain't, but nor is it remotely entertaining. Read about this event in the newspaper instead and salute the heroes involved but don't embarrass them by trying to make them into actors. To this end, I hate criticising the film but it's got to be done.

After enjoying the first film, you certainly get the impression that the makers of the franchise want to repeat their success. Whilst the second was underwhelming and the third unusual but a little flat, the fourth is an absolute travesty. I was left wondering how it all became so bad. Indeed, some of the recycled elements from previous movies mentioned in other reviews actually appear to make a mockery of the previous movies. It really is like some kind of parody made by amateurs.

There was always a danger with continuing Insidious. After all, what made it work were a lot of features from sound to camerawork that were blatantly stolen from other films and rehashed. The jump cuts of the ashen-faced victims of the crime in the house combine 'The Shining' with the well-worn trope of crackling music from the turn of the 20th Century. There was an eerie vitality to it that raised it above the old candle-strewn, trans-dimensional cliches, revived the spirit of the classic 80s 'Poltergeist' and made you care at least a little for the characters. The techniques were strong, the comedy was fresh and unexpected and there were numerous avenues for the narrative to travel along whether exploring an historical tragedy or moving more into the realms of Demonology. However, whilst all the tricks worked nicely in the first one, the second was stale and left me quite puzzled, wondering whether they made a second film when they clearly didn't seem to have a clear direction to take the whole franchise. This is where the more serious questions were raised over whether the series was a case of style over substance.

As a fan of some of the Paranormal Activity movies, I felt that they nevertheless flogged it to death when they should have trimmed it down and focused on what worked, rather than rehashing and refocusing just to prolong its shelf-life. But for me, my biggest problem with that series of films was the way that the third one ended but wasn't truly developed in the later films and lost its way. The essence of the storyline therefore became attenuated. With Insidious, the story arc wasn't actually going anywhere to begin with; it's just eating its own tail. The only thing to link it all together is Shaye and one actress alone is a long, long way from making an effective horror franchise. Whilst they re-imagined the ideas in the third Insidious, it nevertheless just didn't really work IMO and felt flat (but with extra marks for effort). Now with the fourth, they are just recycling the already recycled ideas, adding nothing. Shaye can't do much with a lazy script and worn ideas devoid of imagination. There were far cleverer ideas in the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' series than the pitiful 'demon' in this one. Frights? Scares? If you've seen just one horror movie then you'll know what to expect and see it coming a mile off. I really do feel conned and, if I had seen this at the cinema, I would most certainly have walked out.

It's worth saying that, as a big fan of horror movies, you notice some films getting reviews that are way too harsh but the low rating is wholly warranted here. I often find that some very good found footage movies are low-rated purely due to a cross-section of the public who regard them all as cheap and lacking credibility as they can't suspend their disbelief on who's holding the camera. Yet some of the ideas within them and the sense of horror in the viewing experience remain raw and effective. This, however, just feels very immaturely written and directed without any imagination. I don't truly know why Shaye attracts so many comments but she was good in the first and really saved #3 in the franchise.

Nevertheless, this dog has had its day, maybe two more days than it should have. Now it's begging to be put out of its misery. I don't mean to be rude but if you rate this highly then you clearly haven't seen enough good horror movies to tell the difference between good and bad.

Wow! I mean, wow! Spectacular, stunning, unbelievable, world-shaking, beyond all mortal comprehension! They must have really dug deep to produce this. I mean, to actually do all of that painstaking research on how not only to produce a pre-Disney animation of outstandingly shoddy quality in these days of digital genius but to completely and utterly destroy all respect that you once had for Kiefer Sutherland, the Dragonlance franchise itself and the entire movie business. These people must loathe these books with a passion normally reserved for epic romances to make such a laughable, surreal travesty of a film as this....how? How? How? How did it get sooooo bad? It is beneath me to document its failings....so I will leave this review here and let loose a deeply hollow, deeply bemused laugh but, seriously, this is offensive!

As a relatively impartial observer (not homophobic, not homosexual), I found this to be an outstandingly dull film. In truth, the acting isn't bad and the plot line is cleverly constructed but what is it about and do we really care? There's a vague reference to the pederasts of the Catholic Church in there which might have been interesting if fully explored but it says nothing about the relationship at all and simply focuses on a theme of misplaced love. It's not predictable either as the plot is nicely constructed around a film that has been inspired by the events in the pasts of the protagonists. Yet it says nothing, does nothing and continues at a leaden pace, neither intriguing nor entertaining. Much as I love my gay friends, it reflected what is for me at least the vacuity of the homosexual lifestyle...surely it can only be appreciated by gay people?!?!

I saw two films last night, one eagerly anticipated, the other avoided. The other (The Italian Job) I reviewed as 'A sickeningly awful travesty of a classic film' but then, I expected that because it was 'an American Blockbuster'. This, on the other hand, is the other side of the negative 'American film-making' coin and represents a more depressing prospect as it is a betrayal of a great US book rather than a great UK film (books being more reputable in my opinion).

Like others before me, I loved the NY scenes and the sequences with Robert's dog which form an essential part of the book. Yet they totally missed the point here. The book is an exquisitely portrayed justification of the very idea of Vampires existing at all and that derives mainly from the events of the time in which it was written, whilst the film hi-jacks ideas such as 9/11, a cure for cancer and so on, making this background premise a whole lot less convincing.

Will Smith does a fair job of Robert Neville but, if you ask me, he was the absolutely WRONG choice for the part. This is never more obvious than in the flexing muscles scene which is a transparent and wholly unnecessary bid to bring in the female crowds. I know that if you made this film without him, it probably wouldn't sell but, in the book, Robert Neville was an extremely tragic character (what happened to the elegantly portrayed idea of tragedy in modern books and films?). If you were the last man alive without much hope, having to go through the same old routines in order to survive, with no company, desperate to save the human race and find a cure, would you be so utterly ripped? There are limits to how deliberate self-delusion to keep oneself going can be maintained. It's not as if he fights many vampires in this film like some super hero and it's not like he's working out in order to look good is it?

There are hints about his tragedy but, if you were to read the book with its more drawn-out character exposition, you would know about his family life, what happened to his wife and daughter, how he met up with the dog and various features of the vampires that make them stand out from your average nasty blood-suckers by characterising them properly. I won't spoil it for you so GO READ THE BOOK!

If you do read the book, you should be able to see how this film could have been so much better. Nevertheless, I must add a few !!!!!!!BIG SPOILERS ABOUT THE BOOK HERE!!!!!! in order to review it. For a start, Neville was not a scientist. He was just an ordinary desperate man who spent hours poring over textbooks in an abandoned library trying to find all manner of tips to help his lonely existence. The arrival of the dog was a godsend to him and he spent months trying to catch it, tame it and figure out why it wasn't infected. Neville was bombarded each night by vampires who knew him when they were alive and who would taunt him endlessly so that he could not sleep and he spent most of each morning repairing the house's outer defences. Neville became an alcoholic and makes various attempts to block out the sounds of the vampires outside, even going outside to fight them in one foolish and desperate act of frustration. Indeed, there are various heart-stopping moments that are completely lost in the film which appears to make a nothing of Neville's trials.

Furthermore, in the book there was a reason why he survived so long and this is bound up with him meeting Anna. I will try to avoid giving the whole game away here by telling you the real ending because I'd like people to read this book but, suffice to say, that the movie chickens out once again, as is common for an American film aiming for a blockbuster status but only serving to cheat its viewers, by giving us a hopeful ending with just a tiny note of tragedy. If you were to examine the premise of why the book was written in the first place, you would see the betrayal of the whole reason why Matheson wrote this classic here in the first place combined with the whole reason why they changed it.

This is a classic example of early American SF being brilliantly subversive and American film taking over and replacing the best ideas with propaganda in order to create what it thinks is the appropriate effect for its audience.

My low rating is because it would have been SO EASY to make a film about this book that was 'edge-of-your-seat' brilliant and heart-wrenching by giving us a genuine human biopic of this man. It also betrays the sheer quality of American SF yet again in a way that reduces the whole genre to the sort of turgid surface-play that you get in Star Trek plotting (quite apart from the often high quality of its hard SF) and which gives the genre a bad reputation in literary circles. Shame on you!