What a wacky horror flick. Plenty of gore and some off-the-wall surreal monsters. I’m not a fan of found footage films, but this one works. Very grim through the first act, wild and scary in act 2, but I sense tongue set in firmly cheek in act 3 where it’s not as overtly wise-cracky as Re-Animator (and sadly, no Barbara Crampton to offer relief from the all-male cast), but it’s got that vibe. Def worth a look – no CGI that I could see. My thumb didn’t stray to the FF button once.

FF=0

If you like bleak films and characters with no hope of redemption (and no desire for it), this remake of the first of a Danish trilogy is for you. I like dark, but this went a little too far into the black for my taste. I found it depressing (probably the filmmaker’s intent) and frustrating (probably not).

FF=2

One hell of a cast, and one hell of an unsettling movie, mainly because the string of real-life murders (he’s estimated to have killed 100+) is presented in such a matter-of-fact tone. Not a lot of gore, but still not for the squeamish.

FF=1

I don’t mind checking my brains at the door (in fact, I rather enjoy it), but this film sucks off IQ through the brain-check locker. No chemistry between the leads, moronic set pieces . . . I can’t think of a single reason to see it. Even Paula Patton isn’t enough.

FF=3

Well, I saw Olympus Has Fallen a while back, so it was only fair I watch this too, right? (That’s okay, the logic escapes me too.) Okay, they’re both Die Hard in the White House. Taking the White House from the inside (WHD) makes more sense (not a lot) than via a full frontal assault (OHF). But WHD has more heart than OHF. Good action scenes in both, but the plots do not bear even cursory scrutiny. My advice? Watch Die Hard again.

FF=3

I liked this film about a turning point in a 14-year old’s life that comes off without rainbows and fireworks. It manages to be feel-good without getting syrupy. It’s all sorts of predictable but diverged just enough from the formula to keep me watching. I’m not a fan of Steve Carell but he did a great, understated job playing a dickhead. I AM becoming a big-time fan of Sam Rockwell who pretty much steals the film (as he did in 7 Psychos).

FF=1

An okay diversion with a lot of familiar CIA-thriller elements (think Bourne and Taken films). But Olga Kurylenko has never been more beautiful.

FF=2

Well done but hurt by the familiarity of possession / exorcism and the inevitable comparison to The Exorcist. Also hurt by the moving-into-a-house-where-bad-things-happened cliché, which gives the viewers an explanation for what they’re seeing. The Exorcist offers no such rationale – what happened to that little girl was beyond reason, and therefore (at least to me) far more disturbing and frightening.

FF=2

Wants to cross MiB with Ghostbusters and fails miserably. Not one original thought. Awful.

FF=5

The title character seems to hold true to how I remember him from the REH stories (been a long time), and certainly resembles the Jeffrey Jones paintings in the Donald Grant collection, RED SHADOWS, but I was struck by a passel of apparent anachronisms. Kane was a 17th century Puritan but he appears to be wandering through a Dark Ages milieu. It’s basically a sword-and-sorcery story but the screenplay seems more intelligent than most of its ilk. James Purefoy is good as Kane, and Max von Sydow has a talky but pivotal role. Worth a look.

FF=2