I have read all of the 'John Carter' books many times - both as an impressionable boy and as a more demanding adult, so I came to this movie with all the enthusiasm of a fan who has waited a lifetime to see Barsoom on the big screen. I did not expect the script to stick rigidly to the first novel in the series - after all, movies have different rules and perspectives - but I was surprised and disappointed to see that the motion picture merely scratched the surface E.R. Burrough's plots & story arcs. As the movie uses the novels' characters, but largely imposes its own motivations and directions upon them, it is pretty pointless attempting to review this film as an adaptation of any of the books...so I will briefly state that the leading man has all the drive and charisma of a wet noodle; the supporting characters are just as shallow and unlikeable - those rendered in CGI are entirely unbelievable as living things (they are manifestly not 'real'). The script is incomprehensible, larded with stilted, stagey dialogue and too awful to be rescued by any even moderately-talented actor who might have slipped past the Producers'determination to cast members of the talent-challenged community. Burroughs' Barsoom is, of course, a fantasy world, but it offers plausible (if sometimes fantastical) cultures and societal mechanisms; his conception of the Barsoomian 'heaven' is dark, ironic and oddly predictive of some of the religious cults which emerged in the latter part of the 20th Century. The movie throws out these intelligent, compelling factors and offers a different, wholly dumbed-down & generally incoherent set of explanations. The huge budget did not produce a good movie. I would be pushing the truth to describe it as a mediocre movie. It is an expensive turkey which attempts to lay down enough teenager-friendly plot lines to spark a series, but ultimately sinks under its own weight of inconsistencies. Perhaps the most depressing aspect of 'John Carter' on IMDb is the number of belated, inflated 10/10 puff-piece reviews from studio stooges who wish to boost the movie's rating. Sadly, you don't need to see 'John Carter' to know it is bad - you just need to smell it.
Reviews
7 Reviews
Kessler
(1981)
BBC Budget Cuts
17 June 2008
The creators of this series originally intended to set it in an earlier decade - the 1960's - but the BBC objected on the grounds that this would cost more than a contemporary setting. The writers were told that it was deemed too expensive to hire 'period-appropriate' clothes, cars, props and locations; when they pointed out that the Kessler character would be quite ancient by the dawn of the 1980's (not to mention further removed from the events of "Secret Army"), the BBC executives apparently replied:"who cares, nobody will notice". Thus the cast and those behind the camera began the project with legitimate misgivings.
In "Secret Army", Kessler had a romantic relationship which made the character three dimensional and showed that even a cruel Nazi bigot had human dimensions. At the time, some people at the BBC felt that this factor might inspire too much sympathy for Kessler. Perhaps the Corporation's fear of the SS man being hero-worshipped explains why his loving companion makes no appearance in the subsequent series?
In "Secret Army", Kessler had a romantic relationship which made the character three dimensional and showed that even a cruel Nazi bigot had human dimensions. At the time, some people at the BBC felt that this factor might inspire too much sympathy for Kessler. Perhaps the Corporation's fear of the SS man being hero-worshipped explains why his loving companion makes no appearance in the subsequent series?
Half Light
(2006)
Inept Story - Good Photography - Contains Major Spoilers
20 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Do not read this review if you wish to see the movie without advance warning of its plot - but please feel free to come back and answer the simple question that follows: SPOILERS FROM THIS POINT ONWARDS!!! Imagine that you are a frustrated and unpublished male writer - you are married to a woman who has a string of bestsellers to her name (plus a vast collection of plaudits from critics and public alike). Your envy of her success and resentment of living in her shadow bubble under your skin without much disguise, no longer really restrained by any feelings you may once have had for her. Perhaps the only thing which keeps you together is the little boy you have both produced.
One day your son is drowned when your wife is busily dividing her time between tapping out her latest blockbuster and cooking pasta. The last bond being broken, you decide to kill your wife and pocket the 4 million pounds she has just received for being the best writer on the planet.
She decides to demonstrate her tender regard for you by cutting you out of the grieving process completely; before long, she is heading off alone for the kind of remote, rustically unsophisticated part of Britain which only exists in the minds of Hollywood screenwriters who have never ventured further than Central London. Your wife intends to resume writing in this isolated bolthole.
Do you: A) Quietly sneak to her rented cottage, drown her in the nearby ocean, type a suicide note on her portable typewriter, slip away without leaving any witnesses and then pretend to learn the news of her sad end from the police or press? or B) Create witnesses to your crime by enlisting her best friend - a lady journalist who also envies her - to be your evil henchwoman (her exact function being vague), hire an actor to pretend to be the ghost of a lighthouse keeper and make the colourful local characters think she has lost her mind - thus drawing attention to your victim and dragging out the plot - before you do everything already listed under 'A' (above)? For what it's worth, I see 'A' as the logical answer - the death of an only child is already a sufficiently convincing explanation for suicide. The husband's chosen plan (B) is stupid and implausible.
The star of this picture simply does not have the charisma or ability to shine very brightly in the presence of other actors of even moderate ability or fame, so she has been surrounded by little known, uncompetitive players. Many of the supporting actors are miscast - the 'ghost' is played by a small man who is so much shorter and younger than the star that their love scenes together are embarrassingly like watching a schoolboy being fondled by one of his mother's friends. The local police sergeant is in danger of dying of old age (the budget didn't even stretch to hiring a uniform for him). The actor playing the husband seems to be bored - as, I suspect, was most of the audience.
The photography was good, the acting was mediocre, the script and direction were abysmal. This 'mixed bag' is reflected by a vote of 4 - higher than it probably deserves, but the camera-work and lighting are better than the rest of the package and they save this drivel from an ever worse rating.
One day your son is drowned when your wife is busily dividing her time between tapping out her latest blockbuster and cooking pasta. The last bond being broken, you decide to kill your wife and pocket the 4 million pounds she has just received for being the best writer on the planet.
She decides to demonstrate her tender regard for you by cutting you out of the grieving process completely; before long, she is heading off alone for the kind of remote, rustically unsophisticated part of Britain which only exists in the minds of Hollywood screenwriters who have never ventured further than Central London. Your wife intends to resume writing in this isolated bolthole.
Do you: A) Quietly sneak to her rented cottage, drown her in the nearby ocean, type a suicide note on her portable typewriter, slip away without leaving any witnesses and then pretend to learn the news of her sad end from the police or press? or B) Create witnesses to your crime by enlisting her best friend - a lady journalist who also envies her - to be your evil henchwoman (her exact function being vague), hire an actor to pretend to be the ghost of a lighthouse keeper and make the colourful local characters think she has lost her mind - thus drawing attention to your victim and dragging out the plot - before you do everything already listed under 'A' (above)? For what it's worth, I see 'A' as the logical answer - the death of an only child is already a sufficiently convincing explanation for suicide. The husband's chosen plan (B) is stupid and implausible.
The star of this picture simply does not have the charisma or ability to shine very brightly in the presence of other actors of even moderate ability or fame, so she has been surrounded by little known, uncompetitive players. Many of the supporting actors are miscast - the 'ghost' is played by a small man who is so much shorter and younger than the star that their love scenes together are embarrassingly like watching a schoolboy being fondled by one of his mother's friends. The local police sergeant is in danger of dying of old age (the budget didn't even stretch to hiring a uniform for him). The actor playing the husband seems to be bored - as, I suspect, was most of the audience.
The photography was good, the acting was mediocre, the script and direction were abysmal. This 'mixed bag' is reflected by a vote of 4 - higher than it probably deserves, but the camera-work and lighting are better than the rest of the package and they save this drivel from an ever worse rating.
Doom
(2005)
Shoot The Writer(s)
16 April 2006
During the 1990's, a rumour was enthusiastically circulated that Arnold Schwarzenegger would portray the lone space marine at the heart of the familiar 'Doom' storyline. But that casting call made in heaven never materialised; the opportunity to make a 'Doom' movie at a time when both Arnie and the game were the hottest properties on the planet was lost.
Now, years later on the coat tails of 'Doom 3', we are at last given Doom - The Movie. Sadly, the project has not matured like a fine wine. Instead, it seems to have gone stale. Ironically, thanks in no small part to the legacy of the Doom games, we have seen this kind of film rather a lot and a new entry in the genre has to be something really special if it is to have a hope of standing out. This movie is mediocre in just about every department - with the exception of the screenplay...and the screenplay is so poor that it is difficult to summon up a negative term which adequately describes its utter awfulness.
The main characters are supposed to be an elite military task force - yet most of them suffer from such disturbing personality flaws that they would be deemed unfit to serve in the Catering Corps. Their leader has the mentality of a Nazi; the squad is also blessed with a psychopathic and masochistic religious maniac who cuts himself, a bi-sexual pervert who uses drugs, a melancholy depressive and a chemically-dependent coward who seems to have no understanding of even basic military skills. Fortunately, politically-correct viewers can watch without fear of damaging their sensitive nerves because the two black guys in the unit are both warm, caring and well-balanced individuals.
I watched the so-called unrated extended version which allegedly contains scenes too strong to be included in the cinematic release. I am still trying to work out which parts of the movie were considered to be that scary. In my opinion, there was nothing in the unrated extended version which merited any kind of censorship. The monsters were not very impressive; the special effects were adequate but far from inspired. Doom is saved from being a complete disaster by the cast - they did a pretty good job, despite being chained to generally unrealistic characters.
If you can buy the notion that a bunch of feeble-minded, coked up degenerates belong in the special forces (instead of a school for special needs), Doom provides a couple of hours of fairly average no-brains action.
Now, years later on the coat tails of 'Doom 3', we are at last given Doom - The Movie. Sadly, the project has not matured like a fine wine. Instead, it seems to have gone stale. Ironically, thanks in no small part to the legacy of the Doom games, we have seen this kind of film rather a lot and a new entry in the genre has to be something really special if it is to have a hope of standing out. This movie is mediocre in just about every department - with the exception of the screenplay...and the screenplay is so poor that it is difficult to summon up a negative term which adequately describes its utter awfulness.
The main characters are supposed to be an elite military task force - yet most of them suffer from such disturbing personality flaws that they would be deemed unfit to serve in the Catering Corps. Their leader has the mentality of a Nazi; the squad is also blessed with a psychopathic and masochistic religious maniac who cuts himself, a bi-sexual pervert who uses drugs, a melancholy depressive and a chemically-dependent coward who seems to have no understanding of even basic military skills. Fortunately, politically-correct viewers can watch without fear of damaging their sensitive nerves because the two black guys in the unit are both warm, caring and well-balanced individuals.
I watched the so-called unrated extended version which allegedly contains scenes too strong to be included in the cinematic release. I am still trying to work out which parts of the movie were considered to be that scary. In my opinion, there was nothing in the unrated extended version which merited any kind of censorship. The monsters were not very impressive; the special effects were adequate but far from inspired. Doom is saved from being a complete disaster by the cast - they did a pretty good job, despite being chained to generally unrealistic characters.
If you can buy the notion that a bunch of feeble-minded, coked up degenerates belong in the special forces (instead of a school for special needs), Doom provides a couple of hours of fairly average no-brains action.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose
(2005)
An Embarrassingly Bad Movie
1 April 2006
This is a movie that attempts to combine the horror and courtroom genres and falls flat on its face somewhere in a yawning void between them. The supposedly 'horrific' scenes are devoid of chills, shocks or atmosphere; the scenes in court are without tension or credibility. None of the cast come across as real characters; most of the acting could be described as sub-par for a daytime soap opera.
The writers (who also occupied the Director's and Producer's chairs) said that they made a deliberate decision to avoid using a 'look and feel' that might be considered too familiar by horror fans. One example they gave of this concept in action was the rejection of school locations with Gothic architecture in favour of a more ordinary, everyday building and campus. Unfortunately, they took the ploy too far and ended up choosing settings which had no ability to create mood or cause suspension of disbelief at any level. The school buildings were reminiscent of one of those indoor car parking facilities built out of bad concrete; the only thing to be said in their favour was that, unlike the courtroom set, they didn't make me think that the walls would wobble if one of the cast bumped into them.
The (not so) special effects were no doubt intended to be subtle; in fact, they were so subtle that they made no impact whatsoever. A child with a Walmart Halloween play-set could probably have devised a more impressive spectacle.
There are unintentionally funny moments when the writers wish to impress us with the cut and thrust of the opposing lawyers' eloquence. A great screenwriter can sometimes take weak, banal or vapid material and use pace, action or the sheer power of well-crafted words to distract us and hold us to the end of the picture - but this movie does not have the advantage of anything remotely like a good script. Consequently, we are all too aware of every clanking, clunking line...and there are many of them - all delivered by actors whose performances range from ham to cardboard. When so many players in one production fail to register as believable characters, the Director must be held accountable.
The best horror films succeed by taking their audiences out of the real world and replacing normal logic with the story's own internal laws and rules - in such a way that we can be sucked into accepting unreal situations as real. A skillful writer would not wish to constantly stop the flow of the narrative and keep on reminding the viewer of alternative interpretations - but that is exactly what happens in this film. It is a scrappy, unsatisfying and shoddy effort.
The writers (who also occupied the Director's and Producer's chairs) said that they made a deliberate decision to avoid using a 'look and feel' that might be considered too familiar by horror fans. One example they gave of this concept in action was the rejection of school locations with Gothic architecture in favour of a more ordinary, everyday building and campus. Unfortunately, they took the ploy too far and ended up choosing settings which had no ability to create mood or cause suspension of disbelief at any level. The school buildings were reminiscent of one of those indoor car parking facilities built out of bad concrete; the only thing to be said in their favour was that, unlike the courtroom set, they didn't make me think that the walls would wobble if one of the cast bumped into them.
The (not so) special effects were no doubt intended to be subtle; in fact, they were so subtle that they made no impact whatsoever. A child with a Walmart Halloween play-set could probably have devised a more impressive spectacle.
There are unintentionally funny moments when the writers wish to impress us with the cut and thrust of the opposing lawyers' eloquence. A great screenwriter can sometimes take weak, banal or vapid material and use pace, action or the sheer power of well-crafted words to distract us and hold us to the end of the picture - but this movie does not have the advantage of anything remotely like a good script. Consequently, we are all too aware of every clanking, clunking line...and there are many of them - all delivered by actors whose performances range from ham to cardboard. When so many players in one production fail to register as believable characters, the Director must be held accountable.
The best horror films succeed by taking their audiences out of the real world and replacing normal logic with the story's own internal laws and rules - in such a way that we can be sucked into accepting unreal situations as real. A skillful writer would not wish to constantly stop the flow of the narrative and keep on reminding the viewer of alternative interpretations - but that is exactly what happens in this film. It is a scrappy, unsatisfying and shoddy effort.
Battle Royale
(2000)
A Haunting Film That Demands Repeated Viewing
15 March 2006
The Place: Japan. The Time: The not-so-distant-future. Faced with the prospect of losing control over the nation's young people, a totalitarian government decides upon a ruthless demonstration of power. The Battle Royale Act annually sends a randomly-selected class of high school students to an uninhabited island where they are compelled to kill each other until only one of their number survives.
The reasoning behind this bizarre piece of legislation is perhaps the weakest part of the plot - but the Director deftly causes us to suspend disbelief by drawing us surely and touchingly into the feelings of the young cast. Unlike many western movies which trot out a body count of simplistic characters who are only there to die horribly for our entertainment, Battle Royale somehow manages to rapidly introduce us to the story's potential victims and make us care about them.
You will read reviews that describe this film as excessively violent. I believe that this is a gross overstatement. Though there are many deaths and not a little blood, the main emphasis is upon simple human values - issues such as trust, friendship, love and hate - which the competition tests to their very limits. Children who have little genuine experience of living are forced to evaluate their relationships with each other if they want to stay alive. Alliances are formed and broken; long suppressed crushes and barely buried antagonisms influence their decisions.
There are no easy or mindless deaths in Battle Royale. The violent scenes make the point that violence and death are not cool or funny. This is not Kill Bill; every character in Battle Royale has value as a living, breathing human being. It may sound corny to say that the movie is an emotional roller-coaster ride, but it truly is - having dared to give us three dimensional people who bleed when they are cut, the Director sometimes further dares to cruelly follow scenes of tragedy with jarring moments of biting, dark and sarcastic wit.
If this was an American movie, the class would be played by people in their twenties and thirties. Two or three of the students would be given a lot of screen time and the rest would be faceless cannon fodder. Five seconds after the opening titles, you would know who was going to survive. Despite its odd premise, Battle Royale seems closer to reality because its teenagers really are teenagers and it allows no comforting certainties about who lives or dies.
The true genius of Battle Royale lies in the talented playing of the entire cast. Although young, not one of them strikes a dud note and the script gives almost all of the students a chance to shine at some point. The fight scenes are not staged in the style of 'Enter The Dragon' - the kids are not weapons experts or Karate champions. We see them kill each other but we are not invited to hate them - they are, after all, children and they are scared and desperate. Even a student who takes to killing with apparent relish deserves our sympathy.
Some reviewers have criticised aspects of the dialogue as unrealistic. There are certainly times when the script seems stagy - but it is important to remember that these Japanese children are products of a national culture which often finds the expression of passionate emotions problematical. If anything, the formal phrasing and awkwardness of their most heartfelt expressions only serves to make them more meaningful.
The Special Edition ends (quite literally) with a question. You will find yourself going back to this movie time and time again to answer it. Each viewing is rewarded with details that you probably missed previously - the depth of characterisation and the layers of hidden-in-plain-sight clues continually allow you to understand the story from fresh perspectives.
The reasoning behind this bizarre piece of legislation is perhaps the weakest part of the plot - but the Director deftly causes us to suspend disbelief by drawing us surely and touchingly into the feelings of the young cast. Unlike many western movies which trot out a body count of simplistic characters who are only there to die horribly for our entertainment, Battle Royale somehow manages to rapidly introduce us to the story's potential victims and make us care about them.
You will read reviews that describe this film as excessively violent. I believe that this is a gross overstatement. Though there are many deaths and not a little blood, the main emphasis is upon simple human values - issues such as trust, friendship, love and hate - which the competition tests to their very limits. Children who have little genuine experience of living are forced to evaluate their relationships with each other if they want to stay alive. Alliances are formed and broken; long suppressed crushes and barely buried antagonisms influence their decisions.
There are no easy or mindless deaths in Battle Royale. The violent scenes make the point that violence and death are not cool or funny. This is not Kill Bill; every character in Battle Royale has value as a living, breathing human being. It may sound corny to say that the movie is an emotional roller-coaster ride, but it truly is - having dared to give us three dimensional people who bleed when they are cut, the Director sometimes further dares to cruelly follow scenes of tragedy with jarring moments of biting, dark and sarcastic wit.
If this was an American movie, the class would be played by people in their twenties and thirties. Two or three of the students would be given a lot of screen time and the rest would be faceless cannon fodder. Five seconds after the opening titles, you would know who was going to survive. Despite its odd premise, Battle Royale seems closer to reality because its teenagers really are teenagers and it allows no comforting certainties about who lives or dies.
The true genius of Battle Royale lies in the talented playing of the entire cast. Although young, not one of them strikes a dud note and the script gives almost all of the students a chance to shine at some point. The fight scenes are not staged in the style of 'Enter The Dragon' - the kids are not weapons experts or Karate champions. We see them kill each other but we are not invited to hate them - they are, after all, children and they are scared and desperate. Even a student who takes to killing with apparent relish deserves our sympathy.
Some reviewers have criticised aspects of the dialogue as unrealistic. There are certainly times when the script seems stagy - but it is important to remember that these Japanese children are products of a national culture which often finds the expression of passionate emotions problematical. If anything, the formal phrasing and awkwardness of their most heartfelt expressions only serves to make them more meaningful.
The Special Edition ends (quite literally) with a question. You will find yourself going back to this movie time and time again to answer it. Each viewing is rewarded with details that you probably missed previously - the depth of characterisation and the layers of hidden-in-plain-sight clues continually allow you to understand the story from fresh perspectives.
The Grudge
(2004)
Pale & Flawed
10 March 2006
This remake is a prime example of what happens when an intriguing story is compromised to accommodate the ego of a 'star' actor and a producer who figures that an American audience is unable to relate to anything that isn't connected to life as it is lived in the USA. I used to admire Sam Raimi and believe that he was gutsy enough to trust the public's intelligence - how times have changed! First of all the original plot lines are shifted to give more focus on the star and even scenes that rely upon a steady and sustained growth of anxiety are paced at a faster rate when compared to the original Ju-on movies. This harms the ambiance, but was presumably deemed necessary to make sure that the camera returned to Gellar all the quicker and to cut down the running time of the picture as a whole.
The setting of the story - Japan - could be entirely dispensed with as far as the use made of it in the film goes. We are given western (that is to say American) characters whenever possible. Tokyo apparently even needs an American to run its social services department; Gellar is such an asset to him that she is accepted and pressed rapidly into service despite being without skills and unable to speak more than a few phrases of Japanese.
The camera often stays xenophobically chained to the American actors. A Japanese security guard who is killed in the original movie (in a way that eerily advances the plot) just walks down a corridor and is never seen again in the remake. Some of the most memorable characters and sequences in 'Ju-on' were scrapped simply because they weren't good for Gellar or the other Americans. In a nutshell, a tale that worked well when told via an ensemble cast became threadbare and vapid when transformed into a star vehicle. Sarah Michelle Gellar simply did not have the talent, personality or gravitas to carry the story.
Like George Raft (who was legendary for demanding script changes whenever he was afraid that his image might suffer), Gellar evidently wished her do-gooding volunteer character to be spotlessly presented. She has to have a boyfriend (to prevent suggestions that her character is abnormal, unattractive or a lesbian?). When she finds the ghostly boy apparently trapped in a cupboard, she reports his presence and makes sure to give the impression that she was caring enough to ask him to come downstairs with her...a statement that makes no sense given the boy's paranormal nature and her terrified reaction to his appearance.
The star obviously didn't want an actor of any great depth or skill cast as her love interest. Jason Behr who plays that role is entirely superfluous to the plot; in fact, when his character was supposed to be asleep or unconscious, it was hard to notice any difference.
The rewrites of Stephen Susco (aided and abetted by Sam Raimi's ad hoc changes during filming) tried to water down the disorienting shifts in time and continuity that are such an important feature of the Ju-on films. When it became plain that they had written themselves into a corner, spoon-fed explanations were inserted and characters began to make judgements that were worthy of a psychic hotline.
Informed that one of the female players has disappeared, the detective in charge of the investigation immediately (without hesitation and to the exclusion of every other option) orders the collection of the security video tapes at her place of work - thus conveniently removing an obstacle erected by shoddy writing. Some scenes were shifted by as much as 57 minutes from the places they first occupied in Susco's treatment - this suggests cobbling a tangled mess together rather than inspired editing.
Viewing the DVD with the cast and crew commentary switched on is a cringe-worthy experience. Time and time again, the actors and producer find much amusement in mocking Japanese customs and even the Shinto faith is described in sneering terms. There are also comments which show the extent to which the Director was pushed into artistic and technical changes by both Raimi and Gellar.
I recommend that you avoid this lifeless clone and get the original Japanese movies - but opt for subtitles. The English dubbing, when available, is famously disconcerting - the accents (provided by an uninspired cast of British voice actors) are awful.
The setting of the story - Japan - could be entirely dispensed with as far as the use made of it in the film goes. We are given western (that is to say American) characters whenever possible. Tokyo apparently even needs an American to run its social services department; Gellar is such an asset to him that she is accepted and pressed rapidly into service despite being without skills and unable to speak more than a few phrases of Japanese.
The camera often stays xenophobically chained to the American actors. A Japanese security guard who is killed in the original movie (in a way that eerily advances the plot) just walks down a corridor and is never seen again in the remake. Some of the most memorable characters and sequences in 'Ju-on' were scrapped simply because they weren't good for Gellar or the other Americans. In a nutshell, a tale that worked well when told via an ensemble cast became threadbare and vapid when transformed into a star vehicle. Sarah Michelle Gellar simply did not have the talent, personality or gravitas to carry the story.
Like George Raft (who was legendary for demanding script changes whenever he was afraid that his image might suffer), Gellar evidently wished her do-gooding volunteer character to be spotlessly presented. She has to have a boyfriend (to prevent suggestions that her character is abnormal, unattractive or a lesbian?). When she finds the ghostly boy apparently trapped in a cupboard, she reports his presence and makes sure to give the impression that she was caring enough to ask him to come downstairs with her...a statement that makes no sense given the boy's paranormal nature and her terrified reaction to his appearance.
The star obviously didn't want an actor of any great depth or skill cast as her love interest. Jason Behr who plays that role is entirely superfluous to the plot; in fact, when his character was supposed to be asleep or unconscious, it was hard to notice any difference.
The rewrites of Stephen Susco (aided and abetted by Sam Raimi's ad hoc changes during filming) tried to water down the disorienting shifts in time and continuity that are such an important feature of the Ju-on films. When it became plain that they had written themselves into a corner, spoon-fed explanations were inserted and characters began to make judgements that were worthy of a psychic hotline.
Informed that one of the female players has disappeared, the detective in charge of the investigation immediately (without hesitation and to the exclusion of every other option) orders the collection of the security video tapes at her place of work - thus conveniently removing an obstacle erected by shoddy writing. Some scenes were shifted by as much as 57 minutes from the places they first occupied in Susco's treatment - this suggests cobbling a tangled mess together rather than inspired editing.
Viewing the DVD with the cast and crew commentary switched on is a cringe-worthy experience. Time and time again, the actors and producer find much amusement in mocking Japanese customs and even the Shinto faith is described in sneering terms. There are also comments which show the extent to which the Director was pushed into artistic and technical changes by both Raimi and Gellar.
I recommend that you avoid this lifeless clone and get the original Japanese movies - but opt for subtitles. The English dubbing, when available, is famously disconcerting - the accents (provided by an uninspired cast of British voice actors) are awful.
Tell Your Friends