The word “remake” can make every critic cringe and writhe in their seats. Granted, the original was not very entertaining but that’s the point. A bad film that was bad the first time is pretty sure to be bad the second time around. While, a good film that was good does not need a second cycle to ‘update’ the feels. And yet film studios continue to shell out these abominations in the hopes that one could slip through the cracks and become a hit. So, is the Crazies such a film?

Fuck no. Not at all. Believe it or not it’s tough to say something like that; especially, because there are a lot of people who put a lot of hard work into this film and who likely hope this film may be a substantial offering into a recycled genre. Sadly, a lot of them will be disappointed; as will most of the audience. There’s absolutely no illusion about what you’re getting into when you say to yourself (or, God forbid, someone else), “I really wanna see that movie.” Nevertheless, it’s not an excuse for what you actually get to see.

The story take place in everytown, Iowa (the place has a name, but who cares?). You know: corn fields, baseball, guns, whiteness. In this wonderful cornucopia of fuck-all happens to be the home of an accidental viral outbreak that sends its victims into a frenzy, often killing or brutalizing others around them, before succumbing to the disease. For all intents and purposes, this is your standard horror film. It’s got a spooky plot, a spooky ambiance, and plenty of false scares that jolt you a degree or two out of your seat. The gore is not quite as thick as you think, but when it is gory it’s really gory. Something most people would stay far away from. The other problem with this film is that every horrific situation (save the end) seems to be extremely contrived and farfetched. You would think that an entire town taken over by blood lusty people and shoot-to-kill government cronies could make for a pretty sticky situation, but none of it comes off genuine.

If you wanna see a horror film and this is all there is, then fine; it’ll quench your thirst for blood. But if you’re anyone else on this planet, I suggest you stay far, far away.

Shutter Island has the recipe for success. It has a legendary director at the helm Martin Scorsese (Goodfellas, The Departed) and it stars his current go-to guy Leonardo DiCaprio, who might be giving his best performance to date. If it’s not Leo’s best, it’s definitely his most complex. Based on Dennis Lehane’s (Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone) novel of the same name, Marty and Leo take us on another cinematic ride. With all those ingredients, it should be a masterpiece right?

Shutter Island is an excellent film, let me say that up front. It is well acted and well directed, but times it doesn’t feel like Leonardo DiCaprio and Martin Scorsese; it felt like it could easily be Jimmy Stewart and Alfred Hitchcock. The way it’s shot is reminiscent of the 1950’s from the music to the atmosphere. But there are a lot of scenes that seem to over stay their welcome. Whether they’re in a cave or talking to a prisoner, they just stay long enough for your mind to wander. It’s not a scary film even though scary and disturbing things happen throughout. Somehow Scorsese strings it all together to make a fine piece of work.

However, there is something wrong with Shutter Island but I can’t put my finger on it. At times I think it’s pacing, but the pace of the film adds to the mental aspect, and I don’t think the film would be so successful if it were any shorter. Every time I think of something wrong with the movie, I find something to prove me wrong.

The film is set in 1954 in which federal marshals Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) are sent to Ashecliffe mental hospital on Shutter Island to investigate the disappearance of a patient. Along the way, we see into Teddy’s past concerning his wife and his duty during World War II (which makes think, “Where’s that WWII picture at Marty?”). Ben Kingsley plays Dr. Cawley, that traditional character who feeds the main character and audience the information. The ending is a predictable mind boggler but after much thought and debate, it does hold up and make sense as a great thriller.

Shutter Island is a movie that you need to soak in. It has an ending you’ll be talking about for a while after, and hopefully discovering as you do. It’s not as good as The Departed, my personal Scorsese favorite, but it’s definitely a picture you shouldn’t miss; especially with all the crap that is usually shoveled into January and February.

Valentine’s Day is, for better or worse, a film that cannot fail. Almost every aspect of this financial venture is loaded with a studio’s various and unyielding attempts at success insurance. With a wholesome message, a well timed release date and the celebrity pulling power of over sixty Boeing jet engines, it’s hard to imagine Valentine’s Day doing anything other than phenomenally well in the box office.

I can, of course, accuse Valentine’s Day of these things because I am definitely not part of its targeted demographic. There is a tendency for the camera to move away  from the action, on numerous occasions, in order to employ imagery that is quintessentially unnecessary for the progression of the film’s plot or the relaying of any kind of image that compounds or contextualises any event that may be going on within it. What we are given in these instances is cute. Just cute. At any moment you could find yourself looking at either two toddlers awkwardly kissing each other, a baby, two attractive, rich, Caucasian blondes canoodling in a park, or even a rose petal floating atop a river as a family of ducklings and their mother swim past it. As a consequence of this, I’m lead to believe that Valentine’s Day is aimed squarely at the faces of the fairer sex. It’s a chick flick, and it fulfils its brief well.

And why shouldn’t it? You signpost a product as being targeted at women and suddenly your market is half the population. Score. Aside from this, lip-service is paid to racial, sexual and gender equality throughout to widen the market. George Lopez is of particular note, playing the funny, slightly-poorer-than-the-rest-of-the-cast, world-wizened Mexican immigrant. I wouldn’t bring it up if George Lopez was simply ethnic and present, but the script is full of reminders of the fact that he is ethnic and present. We apparently have to be reminded.

This isn’t to suggest that this is a bad movie, however. For a film that juggles around as many subplots as it does given the extensive cast list, everything is tied off very neatly and satisfyingly. It also showcases a specifically modern kind of comedy. The standardised slapstick is there, but much of the dialogue is characterised by a kind of oddball social awkwardness pulled from the likes of The Office and Arrested Development. It’s slightly more contemporary in style than you might expect from something that’s advertised as a more classical kind of romantic comedy. And, more importantly, it’s quite funny, and I’m unable to claim that I didn’t enjoy it.

However, in spite of Valentine’s Day’s strengths, I must here address anyone thinking of seeing it directly: are you so lacking in imagination as to actually consider taking a loved one to a film named after the event that you are so lacklustrely and dutifully attempting to celebrate? Why not ask your partner what they want to do for the day, or even if they care to make much of a to-do over the whole affair, or, better yet, why not figure out something you’ll both get some kind of mutual enjoyment out of? Maybe you could buy them their favourite sandwich or that shiny thing you saw them eyeing up in that store last Saturday. That one they pointed to saying, “Doesn’t that look nice?” as their eyes widened as if to scream, “Purchase! Purchase it for me!”. Failing that, just give them a cuddle and tell them they’re appreciated, and don’t take them to a generically titled film, which will only serve to highlight your own laziness.

Chinese epics are all about spectacle, and John Woo’s Red Cliff is no exception. It’s just in this case it’s a John Woo kind of spectacle, i.e. less emphasis on gorgeously crafted settings and lovingly choreographed fight scenes that approach the calibre of brilliant ballets, and far more emphasis on explosions and the arbitrary saving of babies. Red Cliff is a welcome treat for anyone who misses the likes of John Woo’s earlier work; it’s a high octane, slightly cheesy, good humoured, exciting action film and it doesn’t pretend to be anything else.

Set in the latter period of the Han dynasty, the Battle of Red Cliff represented a pivotal moment in China’s history in which Prime Minister Cao Cao was defeated by Sun Quan and Liu Bei, ending his campaign to conquer the kingdoms of East Wu and Xu. Here in the West, we’ve been given a reduced version of the original two-part epic released in Asia, the first part of which defeating Titanic as being the highest grossing film upon release in cinematic history, raking in a hefty US$124 million.

Whilst you and I may only cream ourselves over what that must have been like, this version is still worthy of sharing its Asian counterpart’s success (although it probably won’t). The majority of the film is made up of ever more impressive battle sequences that showcase a characteristically visceral kind of fight scene along with grand displays of tactical excellence and wit which never cease to excite or impress. What’s interesting about these sequences is that they’re very much ensemble pieces in nature. Although focus isn’t taken away from old John Woo favourite Tony Leung as Xu General Zhou Yu and Takeshi Kaneshiro’s Zhuge Liang, Woo still gives an appropriate amount of screen time to each of the films principal arse kickers, of which there are many. The result is a varied and fast paced experience, and even in this watered down version of the original release, you’re never left with the sense that Leung and Kaneshiro’s characters haven’t come off as fully realised.

In between battles and political manoeuvring, a number of slightly cheesy romantic sequences between Zhou Yu and his wife ensue; all sentimental scores and fade shots. A cynical viewer might regard this as out of place in relation to the rest of the film, but I can’t help but think they add to its charm. This film is fun, and rarely forgets that brief. More than once I saw Red Cliff arouse laughter and heartfelt applause from its audience.

Efficiently edited, thrilling and surprisingly funny, Red Cliff has been one of the most enjoyable cinema experiences I’ve been subjected to in a long time.