Minions (2015)

"Banana!"

A film about the characters that you love in the film but are sick of seeing everywhere else...

Seriously, if I have to see one more Minion meme...

Minions Stuart, Kevin and Bob go on an adventure to find their tribe of minions a new evil master and end up being recruited by super-villain Scarlett Overkill, who is plotting to take over the world.

I am a huge fan of 'Despicable Me' and I always thought the Minions were the best part of the film. I was relatively excited to see the 'Minions' movie and had patiently waited months for it's arrival. In the lead up to the release, I was slightly put off by the over saturation of the minions. You couldn't enter a shop or go online without seeing the minions somewhere or another and the 40,000 trailers for it didn't help either.

On arrival at the cinema, I think that there might have actually been more adults going to see 'Minions' than children, a welcome sight to know that I wasn't the only one!

Critiquing 'Minions' is a relatively hard thing to do. It doesn't take itself too seriously so if I take it too seriously then I feel like I'm missing the point so I'll try and keep this light.

'Minions' wasn't great but it wasn't awful either. There were parts of the film that had me laughing and it's not a bad film at all. 

It is funny, it's just not as funny as I would have hoped it would be. 
It has it's moments.

There are some great characters that are totally unexpected and there are some really memorable moments that will take you by surprise. 
You'd barely recognise Sandra Bullock's voice as Scarlet Overkill in the beginning but you soon realise it's her as the film goes on. She's good as the villain alongside Jon Hamm who plays her husband Herb. Watching the constant battle between Scarlet and the minions was one of the better aspects of the film with their clumsy nature that seems to be foiling her chances of taking over the world. 

Unfortunately, most of the funniest parts of the movie were shown in the trailers so when it actually came to the jokes, they just weren't as funny. You'd already seen it so much that the punchlines were expected and this sort of ruined a lot of the comedy for me. The jokes were funny but funny in the way that a joke from 'Friends' is funny, they make you chuckle but it's not like you're seeing them for the first time. I really wish that they'd made a separate trailer for the film that had very little from the actual plot so that it came as more of a surprise in the film. Pixar's 'Monsters University' had the perfect balance with their trailers, they released random scenes that they created especially for the trailers so that when the film was released you hadn't seen everything already.

I can't help but feel that the personalities of the minions had been diluted for children. In 'Despicable Me' they are a lot more mischievous and naughty compared to 'Minions' where they are more "cute" and accidentally evil to please a younger audience. I definitely think that 'Minions' was more of a kids film than 'Despicable Me' was and it does detract from how much freedom they have to make the jokes they were able to make in 'Despicable Me'. 
It does just feel like a film designed to sell happy meals from McDonald's...

'Minions' suffers from what I like to call the "Vince Vaughn effect".

Vince Vaughn is fantastic in small doses. He's amazing as the secondary character in a supporting role, he comes along now and again and delivers some cracking scenes but then promptly leaves so you can get back to the main plot. 
However, seeing too much of Vince Vaughn is counterproductive. In a lead role, he's not as funny. Vince Vaughn in 'The Break Up' is nothing compared to Vince Vaughn in 'Old School'. Seeing too much of him ruins the craving we get for his little gems and I think 'Minions' is the same. What made them so funny in 'Despicable Me' was the fact that they were so random and so chaotic at times that you couldn't help but laugh. They were a nice addition to the plot but didn't detract from it and in 'Minions' I feel like the intrigue about the minions is slightly ruined. It's like The Joker in 'The Dark Knight', he's phenomenal because he's so rarely on screen so when you do see him he just blows you away. This being said, a whole film where The Joker is the lead character would be overkill. Much like what I thought 'Minions' felt like.

Despite this, there are some fun details in the world that 'Minions' creates.

The time period is great. There's some awesome music to be heard in 'Minions' from Jimi Hendrix to The Doors. They capture the time period really well and make fun of it in good humour too. It's funny to see the lead up to that time through the Minions' travels to find a suitable master. Seeing 60's London is fun and there are some fantastic references to the culture of the time with the likes of The Beatles etc.

Overall, 'Minions' is a good time but not as great as I was hoping it was going to be. 

It will make you laugh and it's fun to see some of the little references to 'Despicable Me'. There are some fantastic actors that do the voices in the film and Sandra Bullock does well as Scarlet Overkill. Kevin, Stuart and Bob are likeable and it's fun to go on their adventure with them. I was happy how they linked it to 'Despicable Me' and was pleased that Gru makes a small cameo.

At the end of the day, I'd rather just watch 'Despicable Me' and I can't say I'd rush back into the cinema to see 'Minions' again. As a novelty it works but I personally think it wears thin after a while. 

Hopefully this yellow font hasn't given you a headache already but it felt fitting for the movie!

BANANA!

Insidious: Chapter 3 (2015)

"If you call out to one of the dead... 

All of them can hear you."

'Insidious: Chapter 3'... 
Because we all need more prequels right?

After attempting to speak with her dead mother, teenage Quinn Brenner finds herself being haunted by an evil demon so she recruits the help of a gifted psychic to help get rid of the entity.

'Insidious: Chapter 2' was the only film that I've ever walked out of in the cinema so that fact alone should give you an idea of my mindset going into 'Insidious: Chapter 3'. I was adamant that I wasn't going to see the third instalment in this overrated franchise but, after hearing some relatively positive reviews, I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt on a quiet Sunday afternoon. 

'Insidious: Chapter 3', on it's own, manages to epitomise everything that is wrong with modern horror today. If someone was teaching a class on why modern horror has gone so far down the pan, I'd expect to see this film on a viewing list. 

What is even more frustrating about 'Insidious: Chapter 3' is that it had the potential to be a decent horror film which, in many ways, is even worse than if it was just a really bad film.

The biggest problem I had with this film was the jump scares... 

Jump scares everywhere.

What's that behind that door?
It's a jump scare.

What's going to happen here?
Oh wait, a jump scare. 

Is this actually going to be a scary scene?
No... It's just another jump scare.

True horror isn't built on jump scares. 
The fear of getting a fright isn't the same as fear itself, a fact that these filmmakers failed to grasp. A 5 second scare from a hand grabbing someone doesn't even come close to a torturously scary 2 minute scene that just won't let up. The difference is vast and it's an important difference. 

There isn't one scene in 'Insidious: Chapter 3' that is genuinely scary because every moment that has genuine potential is ruined by a jump scare. You know when it's coming and you are always guaranteed to jump because who wouldn't jump out of their seat when a loud noise screeches through a cinema? 
The film doesn't give you the opportunity to be scared because every time you settle into a scene, there's another freakin' jump scare. It really puts into perspective how dangerous the demon is because halfway into the film you can't help but think that all it is really doing is grabbing people and making noises... This is so infuriating because it did have some really interesting moments that could have been great but they were completely ruined by the same old "BOO!" moments. 

Therein lies the problem with modern horror. The film is rated 15 to allow for younger teenagers to see the film. I can't speak for this demographic but it doesn't seem like they're interested in the horror experience or the slow burn approach that makes us scared but rather the instantaneous scare from the popcorn flick that's going to make them jump out of their seats. Even on the slow Sunday showing that I went to was full of giggling teenagers that were still probably too young to see the film.

There was no explanation for anything that needed explaining. Granted, a lot of what makes things scary is the unknown but the demon that was haunting young Quinn was interesting enough that we could have delved a little deeper and not lost any of the intrigue. Unfortunately, all we get is a two-dimensional demon who wants to haunt a young girl. There's no substance or weight to it.

The characters are boring and you don't care about anyone involved. Stefanie Scott in particular as the lead is mundane and lifeless, if we're meant to care that she's being haunted then it's not working. I think she's just there as the misunderstood teenager so that the misunderstood teenagers in the audience will relate to her, plus the fact that she practically has her ass out for the whole movie helps the teenage boys in the audience too...

Characters are even forgotten by the film itself until they become useful. There's one character whose only job in the film is to provide the jump scare that is in the trailer... That's it.
We have Dermot Mulroney who plays Quinn's dad who, despite playing a two dimensional character, still manages to pull off a half decent performance. 
Lin Shaye gives a reasonably functional performance as the psychic ass kicker who, despite promising to never talk to the dead again, seems totally incapable of sticking to anything she says. She somehow successfully delivers some of the absolutely horrendous pieces of dialogue so hats off to her, she really holds the film together. 

I always judge a horror by it's ability to keep me thinking about it long after I've left the cinema or turned off the TV. If it makes you turn on a light or makes you see something in a shadow then it's done it's job and 'Insidious: Chapter 3' did not succeed in that. 

I would struggle to even class 'Insidious: Chapter 3' as a horror because it's really more of a thriller. The component parts that make a horror film a horror film aren't there.
I enjoy a good jump scare when it's necessary or if it's unexpected but when the entire film is built around it then it just becomes tiresome. 

I imagine, in the right circumstances, that putting on 'Insidious: Chapter 3' would be a good laugh if you've had enough to drink. It would make everyone jump and you don't really need to pay that much attention to the story.  

Overall, 'Insidious: Chapter 3' is a piece of horror trash that will make you jump but pretty much nothing else. The best ideas in the film are either ruined by cheap scares or not explored enough to be of any value. There are endless plot holes and problems that you could pick apart for days but it's not even worth the effort...

'Insidious: Chapter 3' isn't designed to really scare an audience and unsettle them, it's job is to provide a few cheap jump scares with no substance to sell tickets and popcorn. 
If you are looking for a film to make you jump then you'll probably really enjoy this but I genuinely hope there won't be a "Chapter 4"...

Jurassic World (2015)

"We have an asset out of containment!"

Something tells me that the 'Jurassic Park' franchise should have just stayed a fossil...

22 years after the events of Jurassic Park, Jurassic World is now a fully functioning theme park. In order to bring in new customers, a new dinosaur is created which backfires horribly.

I was totally surprised at the hype that was suddenly upon us with the release of 'Jurassic World' with it being 22 years after the original film, with a sequel that wasn't as good as the first and a third film which should never have been made in the first place. I'm pretty sure I could have happily lived the rest of my life without a 4th Jurassic movie and after seeing the film? I'm still sure I could have happily lived the rest of my life without seeing a 4th Jurassic movie.

What I actually really enjoyed about the film was the park itself. It was very well thought out and was exactly how I imagined the park would look when I originally saw 'Jurassic Park' when I was young. It feels like a Disney theme park and, if it was to happen in reality, Disney would probably own it... 
It had the merchandise stands, the food stalls, the attractions and the rides that you'd want in a Jurassic themed park. It is all geared towards the experience, much like Disneyland, and you really get that it's a worldwide phenomenon. Kudos to the filmmakers for this vision of the park, they nailed it in that sense. Although, being that the events of 'Jurassic Park' still happened before 'Jurassic World' I don't understand how, legally, the park could still be opened... Just saying...

I thought some of the humour in the film was good and some of it really reminds you of the spirit of the original. The entire audience was laughing which was nice. Chris Pratt had a lot to do with this and he's altogether decent as the leading man. He's become very popular lately and there are rumours that he is to play Indiana Jones in yet another reboot. After seeing him in this, I can understand why. He's a good hero, he's got charm and humour with the action abilities to go with it. He even managed to do the slide under the closing gate, perhaps this is a glimpse of what is to come?
I would like to see him play something other than his character from 'Guardians of the Galaxy' but I don't see that happening anytime soon, he does it so well.

Unfortunately that's about as far as my praise can go with 'Jurassic World'.

The plot of the film is totally predictable, generic and as cliché ridden as you like.

One of my main issues with 'Jurassic World' is that the trailer revealed way too much. There are some pretty significant plot points that are revealed in the trailer that completely ruin parts of the film. You know exactly what is going to happen in the big scenes because you've already seen them in the trailer. This then ruins all of the tension and the drama that they try to create in these scenes which really takes you out of the movie. 
With such a big blockbuster there should be little doubt that there will be people filling the seats without seeing 20 odd trailers first.

Alongside huge plot points being ruined in the trailer, you already know a mile off what's going to happen and how it's going to play out. It isn't subtle and you can guess it from the start. Predictability is a massive flaw in any film and, when compared to the original, there's just no contest. The original 'Jurassic Park' had bucketloads of tension, drama and thrills which is poorly imitated in 'Jurassic World'. I guessed it about 20 minutes in and it played out to what I thought. This definitely indicates some poor writing, there could have been other (and better) plots that could have taken the franchise in a fresh direction or in a more unexpected direction at least.

There are a lot of references to the original film which was fun at first but only a handful would have been sufficient. Instead, you are constantly reminded that you are watching a film and are taken out of the story with the amount of "subtle" references and winks to the audience. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the first few but they become tiresome when you're an hour and a half into the movie. I would have loved to have had them all out of the way in the first 20 minutes so that I could sink into the story and forget that I was in a cinema. If I wanted to be reminded of the original film, then I would just watch the original. I understand that it's a sequel so you don't need to bludgeon me to death with it. 
Combine the references with the unlimited supply of product placement and it becomes very hard to actually get into the plot with all of the distractions. Mercedes were the only cars available in 'Jurassic World' apparently, alongside Beats headphones and the trusty Coca-Cola ads. Chris Pratt even manages to take a moment out of a scene to take a big sip of Coke before he continues with his lines. For me, all this just blocks me from actually getting into the plot but if you can get past that then fair play to you.

Bryce Dallas Howard as Claire is just an embarrassment as a 21st century female character. She plays the manager of the park who is asked to look after her nephews who have come to visit the park. She's a poorly written female co-lead whose main worry of the film is about her own maternal instinct. 

She's ridiculed when she tries to be strong and is undermined by her inability to avoid falling in love with Chris Pratt. She inexplicably manages to run away from a T-Rex in heels... She also trudges through a prehistoric jungle in them for the duration of the film, I've seen women on a night out in Glasgow that couldn't last pre-drinks in their heels so how she managed it in 'Jurassic World' is nothing short of amazing. 
Poor show from a film that had the perfect opportunity to have a strong female lead like Ellen Ripley in 'Alien' or Sarah Connor in 'Terminator'. I would have liked to have seen the roles reversed, to have Chris Pratt as Claire's character and have Bryce Dallas Howard as the badass dinosaur keeper/trainer who has to save the day.

There was a harmonious groan from the audience when the on-screen kiss took place and it was a testament to how ridiculous it really was, because all you really need in life is a good man to take care of you right?

It's not a good sign for a film released in 2015 when the effects in 1993 look better than today. The best parts of the effects in 'Jurassic World' were the practical effects. 

Why is that? 

It's because they're real! They look believable! 
The rest of the CGI in the film, in comparison to the practical effects, look very fake because you just don't believe it. Granted, the big fish that eats the shark in the trailer looks great and obviously couldn't be done practically but what was so great about the original 'Jurassic Park' was that the CGI was only used when the filmmakers couldn't do the effect practically. Unfortunately this philosophy is long extinct now and has been replaced by CGI everywhere. It's sad to see because it was spawned by a film that opened the doors with the use of CGI. If it had used more practical effects and less CGI then it could have been a fitting homage to the original and still look great. Technology has come a long way in 22 years and I'm pretty sure a lot more of the CGI could have been done practically.

What I find ironic about the film itself is the fact that it centres around the parks issue of bringing in more customers to the park by creating this super-mega-ultra dinosaur. Everything has to be bigger and better and it backfires on them. This seems to be the case with 'Jurassic World' because after the first three movies, instead of coming up with something original and innovative, they just opt for a bigger dinosaur than the last in an attempt to bring in cinema goers. It's a slap in the face to the audience when the park-goers are demeaned for coming to a bigger attraction which is exactly what the filmmakers have done with the film. It is now a slippery slope because it has had one of the biggest opening weekend ever at the box office, so far it's just $2.8 million shy of 'The Avengers' in 2012. This could well take over 'The Avengers' but nonetheless this means that the door for another sequel has been opened (which was announced literally just after the opening weekend) which I'm sure will sprawl into another 3 or 4 movies... 
How much bigger does it get? 
Will it be an even bigger Indominus Rex than before? Where does it end?

Money, money, money.

Ultimately, 'Jurassic World' is generic. It's a relatively good time as far as blockbusters go but I wouldn't look too deep. It has some laughs and there are enough dinosaurs to keep you occupied but as far as being on the same level as 'Jurassic Park', it isn't even in the same league. There's not much of an attempt to do anything spectacular with the film to make it different or unique. Instead, there's a big dinosaur that is set loose in the park with an excessive amount of CGI. The actual park was the best part of the film and Chris Pratt saves it. This was a fantastic opportunity to breath life into a dead franchise and return it to the glory of the original film, to capture some of that magic with technology they didn't have in 1993. They could have taken it in so many different directions with the park being opened up but instead they go the easy route of just having a big, DNA spliced, CGI dinosaur to wreck havoc. 

I always attach the trailer at the bottom of these but, in this case, I'd recommend you don't watch it unless you've already seen the film...

Spy (2015)

"I look like someone's homophobic aunt!"

It's just 'Get Smart'... without Steve Carrell... or Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson...

Nobody seen that movie?  

A desk-bound CIA analyst volunteers to go undercover in a dangerous mission to save the world after all of the other agents identities are compromised. 

So just 'Get Smart'... with Melissa McCarthy.

'Spy' stars Melissa McCarthy and follows her comical adventure as the new (and the only) CIA operative on a dangerous mission. It wasn't a film that I was particularly excited for but, despite this, I was still expecting a few laughs and some fun slap-stick action.

The film starts off relatively well with a few mild giggles and pretty much stays there for the overly long 2 hour run time. There aren't many laugh out loud moments but you'll be amused for the most part. We get all the Melissa McCarthy fat jokes that we can handle and don't feel too bad to laugh because, after all, she's making the jokes herself... so it's alright to laugh at the fat chick apparently.

Love her or hate her, Melissa McCarthy is a comedy force to be reckoned with. She knows her strengths and what people want and I was feeling a little sick of seeing her playing the exact same role over and over again. However, for the first half of 'Spy' she plays against what you'd expect. It was definitely a slight change of style for McCarthy as the undervalued Susan Cooper, she's very reserved and not at all confident in herself. As the film goes on, her confidence as a CIA agent, and as a woman, grows and she eventually goes full McCarthy.

Unfortunately, the film feels very sluggish at times. Long and drawn out "banter" or waffling steals a lot of time from scenes that eventually just become a little cringe-worthy. A couple of comebacks are great and can be really funny but when it drags on, it really drags on. The run time was stretched to 2 hours but if you were to cut out a lot of the waffling then it would be a solid 1 hour and 30 minute film, which probably would have helped the comedy value immensely. It's just hard to watch a film with so much fat around the edges that, as an editor, I'd love to trim off to get to the punchline. 

There are some surprising action sequences in the film that feel a little out of the blue but are a welcome surprise. There are car chases and some well choreographed fight scenes that could rival some recent action films that have been released which isn't what you'd expect. There's also quite a bit of gore in the film that is, again, slightly out of the blue in this relatively light hearted comedy. It's certainly not 'Evil Dead' or 'Saw' but it has its moments.

It does have some nice references to a lot of classic spy movies and it's fun to watch them play with some of those conventions. However, for me, it was just too close to being a female 'Get Smart'. Most of the characters and the jokes run dangerously close to it and 'Get Smart' just does it so much better. It features a CIA agent that is constantly undervalued and underestimated going on a mission that no one expects them to accomplish. There are twists and turns that are pretty predictable with some pantomime villains but they still manage to save the day, despite their clumsy nature. There are even some scenes in there that are straight out of 'Get Smart' and I found myself wondering at points in the movie why 'Spy' was even made. 

There are a lot of well known faces in 'Spy' and it was nice to see them having a bit of fun with some comedy, not always delivering it perfectly but they look like they are having fun. 

Jude Law was a bit shakey but McCarthy reels him in and provides some much needed comedy timing in a lot of his scenes. His more serious parts of the movie are undoubtedly better but McCarthy is definitely the comedy glue that holds most of the film together, despite some over-indulgence on her part but she keeps it together. 

Jason Statham surprised me as the dimwitted CIA goof. He had a funny character and played against the normal roles that he does, almost laughing at himself in a lot of his scenes. He's actually pretty funny as the clown of the film and it's nice to have him take himself a little less seriously. His wild and fantastic monologues are a recurring joke that he has, they poke a bit of fun at his own films and he's clearly having a ball with it. 

I thought Rose Byrne was pretty awful as the daughter of the evil villain, she's not funny enough to be a funny character but not evil enough to be taken seriously as a villain. She's in a strange grey area where you don't really know if she's being funny or if she's just giving a bad performance...

I realise there is a huge fanbase for Miranda Hart in the BBC TV series 'Miranda' but she's so awkwardly bad in 'Spy'... I understand that this is her unique style of comedy, the awkward but charming ditz, but for me it was clunky and out of place in 'Spy'. Each to their own but, in my opinion, she was the worst part of the film. 

Ultimately, I think 'Spy' is a bit of a knock-off of 'Get Smart' that provides a handful of laughs but not nearly a many good ones as I was expecting. Don't get me wrong, you'll definitely laugh but the best jokes are pretty scattered throughout the film rather than a steady flow of gags. Melissa McCarthy is, for the most part, decent as Susan Cooper but there's a lot of comedy in there that just doesn't land. 

'Spy' limps through and survives as a comedy but as an original comedy? Maybe not. It's just on the right side of 'Get Smart' that it gets away with it but it's too close for comfort at times. 

This being said, each to their own with comedy because what makes me laugh could be totally different to what makes someone else laugh. Comedy is a bit like the horror genre in that sense but I think as movie it isn't great. 

Poltergeist (2015)

"They're here..."

Because everyone was crying out for a 'Poltergeist' remake? Is that why they're here? Because I don't know anyone who was asking for a 'Poltergeist' remake...

A family must come together to rescue their youngest daughter after a group of evil spirits take her hostage.

Just when you thought it was a slow year for horror movies, 'Poltergeist' comes along... and makes it worse.

My expectations are always hopelessly low when sitting down to watch a remake of a horror film, it's a sad fact but it's unavoidable. About 90% of the time you get exactly what you expect... a heap of garbage. However, on the rare occasion, you do get something great. My last experience of this was the 2013 remake 'Evil Dead' which surpassed every expectation I had and proved that a good remake can be done. 

It's worth sitting through the bad ones to find that little gem.

'Poltergeist' is the latest remake fiasco and there was a tiny glimmer of potential in the opening but just when you allow yourself to give it the benefit of the doubt... 
It takes a big ghostly CGI 3D dump on what you hoped it would be.

Not being a particularity huge fan of the original, I thought the remake might be a fresh take on the horror classic (that is admittedly slightly dated now) and help bring it to a whole new audience. Unfortunately, this remake does what it says on the tin and literally just mimics the original film. It replaces all the great practical effects with a heap of bad CGI and all the bad clichés you can think of. 

My main issue with 'Poltergeist' was that, being a remake, it should have taken a modern approach to the 80's horror classic. The original film was certainly unique and new for the audience of the time because they hadn't really seen anything like it before, the clichés of today weren't clichés in 1982. In 2015, we've already seen and grown tired of all the traits that 'Poltergeist' inspired. This means for a modern team of filmmakers to remake the original, they should have known to take it in a different direction as to avoid all the clichés in these types of films. Instead, what we get are all the exact same scenes and concepts from the original film except for the fact that they're using an iPhone in the scene.

This means that the remake comes across as being behind the times, clichéd and predictable.

There's a pathetic attempt at scaring the audience with a handful of jump scares (that you've already seen in the trailer) and some cheap looking CGI that just bombs in doing what it half sets out to do. It's definitely not scary and even the jump scares aren't jumpy. 

The scariest thing about this movie is thinking about how much money was spent on it...
All $62,000,000 of it. 

The characters are hollow and bland and you just don't care about them. The young boy of the family is the only watchable one of the children and you really don't care about the daughter that gets kidnapped by the spirits which is where the drama should be.
What the hell is Sam Rockwell doing in a film like this? 
Sam Rockwell (whose body of work includes 'Green Mile', 'Moon' and 'Seven Psychopaths') is about the only watchable thing in this poor remake. He has a certain level of charm and humour as the father of this crumbling family, he's down on his luck after losing his job (but still has enough money to buy a new house apparently) and is struggling to keep it together. That's about one of the only positives I can give this film.

The plot is a carbon copy of the original with a group of characters that you don't care about. Put those dull characters alongside some bizarre paranormal investigators that are trying to be funny and it just makes you cringe. Like, really cringe. 

There's no tension or atmosphere, it's all just recycled scenes or moments that you've seen a hundred times in a hundred different movies. You always have to suspend disbelief when it comes to a lot of the horror genre and 'Poltergeist' is no different but when things become so silly that you can't even do that then what's the point?
This could have been the perfect opportunity to revitalise a horror film that influenced the genre in the 80's.

It's a cheap money grabber that is just an insult to true horror fans. It really grates on my nerves when the horror genre, and it's fans, are demeaned and cheapened. As if we'll just be satisfied with a few jump scares and a badly thrown together film made to cash in on a 30 year old movie's good reputation.

And to finish it all off, there's a whole parade of sad product placement that is just the cherry on top of this horribly messy, paranormal cake.

So... What's left?

It's a horror film that's not scary. That's pretty much what it boils down to.

It's based on a film that's over 30 years old and doesn't do (or attempt to do) anything new with it. It has a decent actor at the helm but all the Sam Rockwellness in the world couldn't save this remake.

If you're still looking for a good horror this year then you'll have to wait a little longer by the looks of it.