Tag Archives: remake

Star Trek Into Darkness Star Trek Into Darkness 3 star

May 17th, 2013 by surlaroute

Tags: , , ,

“Tell me this is gonna work.”
“I have neither the information nor the confidence to do so…”

I guess it was either in my reviews of Casino Royale or The Muppets that I never got round to posting that I referred back to the first of JJ Abrams’ Star Trek movies (since I didn’t write it in that review) saying something about the current trend of remakes/sequels/reboots/requels? i.e. the way that it’s all been kind of mashed up to a point where a lot of these movies are none of the above – the first Abrams Star Trek is both remake, sequel, and reboot, e.g. A lot of the Marvel movies leading up to The Avengers had a similar feeling – all set-up. Tony Stark is Iron Man at the end of Iron Man and I was like, okay, now can we go on an adventure please? etc. Ditto Batman Begins, The Thing, any number of recent re-dos.

When Chris Pine took to the captain’s chair at the end of that first movie, I felt the same same way – and I kind of expected the second movie to deliver on that. But within minutes of the title credit of Into Darkness, Kirk has been once again unseated as Captain due to characteristic disobedience pre-credits. It’s the first of many moments that make this movie even more (it has to be said) pleasantly surprising than the last of this year’s big movies, Iron Man 3, and I hope at least that part is a trend that continues.

I’m writing this from a bunch of notes about a week after seeing it because I didn’t really know what to think after I saw it and I wanted to hear a few other people’s opinions to see if anyone felt whatever I was feeling. I think this tweet pretty much captured it for me



What I’ve found in the time since seeing Into Darkness is that it only made me realise just how special Shane Black’s Iron Man 3 was and how it’s possibly spoiled the whole of Summer 2013 for me. Into Darkness sure is chaotic and fun, don’t get me wrong; and it does at the same time delve into tricky issues – terror? no, Benedict Cumberbatch’s villain here is a little more complicated than that. But it’s all so much of the same thing as the first movie was – retreading, rehashing, and finally, resetting at the end. Very TV. Very old TV.

How about some of the good… As in the first of Abrams movies, there’s much made of the logic/emotion collision between Spock and Kirk. Though I’m sure this has always been a part of the whole Spock/Kirk set-up, I have to admit that despite enjoying the movies and struggling through at least one season of the original series (I still say only the extended first episode “The Menagerie” really did anything for me), I never really got this as much as I have in Abrams and co’s more refined, delineated take on them. The pre-credits sequence leads to Spock saying the famous line, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” in reference for being prepared to lay down his life before disobeying a Starfleet directive – leading to a coldness between him and Uhura for much of the movie as, to her, it appeared like he didn’t think about her. There’s later a wonderful scene between him and Uhura where he explains to her (paraphrasing, I don’t remember the exact line), “You mistake my decision not to feel as an unwillingness to live, when in fact it is the complete opposite,” – something that resonates with me deeply. I love what they’re doing with Spock in this series.

So, in case it isn’t clear, I was sort of disappointed with this movie – moreso in the days after the final credits rolled than while watching it. I love that big movies like this are now subverting both our expectations (even despite the level of promotion these days – there’s far more space in this movie than I’d been led to believe, for one thing) and “original” events in the old timeline – whether it’s done well as in Iron Man 3 or just a little disappointingly as here. Avoiding spoilers about the true nature of Benedict Cumberbatch’s part here (but you probably have your correct suspicions, as I did), when someone screams that name here, it’s a direct inversion of what we’ve seen before. I kind of love that the way they set up this “parallel” Star Trek franchise in the first Abrams movie looks to be something they’re going to keep drawing upon (I didn’t quite see the point of the repeat Nimoy cameo here, though – Shatner or nothing next time, okay?) But I really hope that the next one really takes us somewhere new.

Evil Dead Evil Dead 3 star

April 19th, 2013 by surlaroute

Tags: ,

Anyone who knows me or reads my reviews will know I’m not the “how dare they?” type that some are when it comes to remakes, especially horror ones – heck, I even have a place in my heart for Gus Van Sant’s Psycho remake (I have a review of that but not Hitchcock’s original; just like I’m posting this while there’s only one of my old “barely a” reviews from 2004 of the original on the site, which I guess says it all…). So I’ve been pretty excited about this one for as long as it’s been rumoured, to say nothing of more recently as the buzz started coming in.

For a movie that’s been hyped as the “most terrifying film you will ever experience”, Evil Dead starts boldly slow. After a kind of unnecessary flashback (which sort of reminded me of the opening scene of Exorcist II now I think about it) establishing the “history” of the book that will cause all the trouble (surely just the sight of the flesh-bound tome is enough to tell you all you need to know?), there’s even more kind of unnecessary contrivance to get to the meat we’re all here for. Though a girl going cold turkey is a pretty good excuse for her and a bunch of her friends to hole up in an old cabin in the woods for a while – no matter what condition it’s in upon arrival – it’s evident from the start here how thin the characters are. The brains (brainy enough to have a good stab at interpreting the contents of the evil book, but not strong enough to resist the many warnings scrawled within its pages), the brawn, the blond, etc – I actually found myself wondering how many, shall we say, less informed viewers will see this and think it’s maybe somehow ripped off or at least related to last year’s Cabin in the Woods.

Much has been said of this movie’s more “serious” approach compared to the original which people remember as being as funny as it was scary and I’ve found myself agreeing with the bemused likes of Robert Florence on Twitter who wrote, “I don’t get these reviews that criticise the new Evil Dead for not being as ‘fun’ or ‘funny’ as the original. They’re thinking of ED2 right?” In an interview on Mark Kermode’s Radio 5 film show, the film’s director Fede Alvarez claimed that Sam Raimi had said he always intended for the original to be plain scary while Kermode countered quoting Raimi from an earlier interview of his where Raimi said he always intended for it to be “the three stooges with blood and guts for custard pies”. I think what we need to do is wonder why Raimi made the much more genuinely funny Evil Dead 2 more of a remake itself than a sequel and I believe it’s likely, like any artist, Raimi was striving for a very particular tone that was an exact degree to one side of the line between comedy and horror – two genres that have always been intertwined (another horror legend Wes Craven has often stated he directs “scares” with much the same attention to timing as the greatest comedy minds) – and he felt after the first movie and given more resources that it was worth another shot.

None of this changes the fact that the first movie, on its surface, is more scary and nasty than it is funny. The laughs come (for me, at least – and I’ve watched it twice in the past couple of years – and again, tonight, just to check – with no diminishment of its impact) because its pace, the sheer barrage of horror, is just so relentless, particularly in the last half hour, and that’s the one thing that this new rendition is frequently lacking. There are so many places where the action slows or stops completely for more discussion and explanation of what’s going on – enough, at least, that my mind wandered, and I began mentally composing this review. Which is great because I didn’t want this to be another movie I fail to write about, but of course doesn’t speak well for the movie.

But I’ll be honest, what I really wanted from this movie was what I’d heard about in recent weeks – a number of horror directors/fans on Twitter have raved about how gory the movie is, and when those people are raving about such things, it’s hard not to get one’s hopes up. On this count, at least, and it’s really the only count that matters, Evil Dead does not disappoint. Almost all varieties of squeamishness are catered for, including my own which is pretty niche in the genre. My personal squirm inducer? Needles, craft knives, small, seemingly innocuous things. One of the horror films that always gets to me is the original 1981 Halloween II – in that movie, set in a hospital, people are variously killed by syringes, scalpels, one person simply slips in blood on the floor and bangs his head badly on the floor (oddly the worst one for me, completely non-violent, just awfully unfortunate and sad). Here, you get almost all those things (the scalpel replaced with the aforementioned craft knife) in just one scene – with a girl cutting her own face off as an aperitif. All of this, as has been mentioned often in promotional interviews, is done with practical effects, not computer effects, and this is probably this movie’s killer move. To make one of my wild comparisons, the practical gore here works in a similar way as the live singing did in Les Misérables (whatever my personal feelings about that movie are). Though live singing – especially as thorough as they did on Les Mis – had rarely been done before, practical effects are almost as rare these days so they come as just as pleasant a surprise. Couple this with some fantastically claustrophobic set and sound design and it’s really hard not to recommend this one despite its relative emptiness, and it’s one I’ll probably watch again more often than needed. There’s plenty of homage to the original to keep the fans happy (and stick around till after the credits to be real happy) and it bodes well for the future of mainstream horror.

A Nightmare on Elm Street [2010] A Nightmare on Elm Street [2010] 3 star

November 5th, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: ,

While some people go into fits of “childhood raped!” when all these remakes get announced, I tend usually to remain a little calmer – it’s not like they’re starting by burning the original. When it comes to the Nightmare on Elm Street series, they can just about do whatever they want by me… more Freddy is always a good thing in my opinion. I flinched when it came out that Robert Englund would not be reprising the role, but when the casting of Jackie Earle Haley was announced, I kinda relaxed. He’s been great in his recent roles and looked like he’d fit the part nicely (though I did wonder if he feared typecasting after playing a child molester in Little Children also).

If there’s one thing that worried me most about this remake it was the enormous shift in the way Freddy’s past crimes are portrayed. Everybody speaks of the fact that Freddy is explicitly a child molester here and defends it, saying “he was always a child molester in the other movies, it just wasn’t talked about” but this is simply not true. The huge difference between “classic” Freddy and “new” Freddy is; the old Freddy killed children, he was a child killer – the new Freddy touched them; and for me it introduces a partially welcome yet cinematically not so welcome complexity to the fact that the parents of those children still burned him alive for this. In both cases the story becomes about “the sins of the father” being revisited on the young, vigilante violence never being the best answer… but in the remake one kinda sees where Freddy is coming from… and interesting though it may be, I’m not sure that’s a good thing.

It’s always nice to see Freddy returned to the darker place he began – the earthier, entirely serious version of the character in Wes Craven’s New Nightmare is a case in point. But I have to admit, I have a monumental soft spot for just about all of the sequels in this franchise, a spot that’s been seriously rekindled by recently watching the epic Never Sleep Again documentary. There was some serious imagination going on in all those sequels, and most of them touched on something deeper too (even if, like in Freddy’s Revenge, it wasn’t always intentional). I came to this remake, unlike those who were unfairly planning to compare it directly to the original, thinking, if it’s only as good as the least of the sequels, then that’s about as good as we can hope for.

The problem is, then, that it’s ultimately neither here nor there. The seriousness of Freddy’s crime and the questionable response of the parents to that crime introduces (at least, I believe it should introduce to any rational mind) too much grey to the proceedings of the main plot, while at the same time it just goes about business as usual in offing its teenage cast in new and unusual ways. We shouldn’t be thinking while Freddy slices and dices his victims, “wait, doesn’t he kinda deserve this kind of vengeance in a way?” especially when the kids concerned aren’t even as interesting as the likes of Nancy, Rod, Glenn, and even going into the sequels, Kristin, Alice, etc. The movie actually has one of the kids at one point suggest that in fact Freddy might never have even touched them in the first place, that the whole thing could just be hysteria gone out of control. This is all very interesting, but an Elm Street movie is so not the place for it, and if it is, then I think you have to be simultaneously a lot more simple and subtle about it.

But I feared as much about this aspect of the story. I figured if nothing else worked, then Haley’s Freddy just might. And on this I’m sad to say, I was wrong again. As with the makeover of Freddy’s backstory, there’s been an effort here to make Freddy’s very look darker and more “realistic”. Again, I feel this is a bad idea to begin with – the guy is operating in the dream world, making any sense of “realism” as literally unimaginative as most of Inception‘s production design – and, in any case, it doesn’t even come across as more realistic anyway. Haley puts on a Christian Bale Batman-like voice and the rest is down to the filmmaking, which at best is only as good as any of the old sequels.

Having said that, Freddy’s actually the only character that seems to be fully written here. In fact, at times I felt so affronted by the mehness of this version’s Nancy that I wondered why – since they changed a few other characters’ names from the original – they couldn’t have changed hers too. Perhaps the blandness of her character was deliberate, a reflection of the fact she has repressed memories of what Freddy did… it wouldn’t surprise me, and again it’d be interesting… but give me the simplicity of Heather Langenkamp as the resourceful girl next door any day over this.

As in the recent Karate Kid remake, there are direct nods to the original presumably in hopes of appeasing genuine fans of the series (honestly? I’d prefer you just make a good Freddy movie). We get Freddy’s head coming through Nancy’s wall (albeit in obvious CG), we get Tina’s bedroom death (which is actually quite terrifyingly done), we get Freddy’s claws coming up through the bathtub (but blink and you’ll miss it, it’s a much shorter scene than the original) and the girl in the school hallway… we even get what I’m sure is the power plant that featured in Nightmare 2… and the references branch out to other series: there’s a cleverly twisted version of the closet scene at the end of Halloween (Nancy hides from Freddy like Laurie did from Michael; Freddy of course, being transdimensional, simply manifests right next to her…) The little girls that were so haunting at the very end of the original (and appeared in places throughout the sequels) are here multiplied, appearing all over the place, further enhancing the new backstory. Of all the nods to the original series however, I think the best may be the score, which does its homage delicately whilst still being its own work.

In all honesty, this isn’t a terrible movie despite all that I’ve said. Like I said, more Freddy is always a good thing and I’ll gladly watch what anybody wants to do with the guy. There are standalone scenes here that are impressive – a great scene in a pharmacy, for instance, where the line between dreams and reality blurs in the way some of my favourite moments in the original series managed; or the ending which, though very similar to the cheesy “last shock” of the original, is frankly played much better here (it doesn’t look like a Tampax commercial for a start) – but the attempt to darken Freddy’s backstory is just way too overwrought and begs far too many questions for one to truly relish what ultimately plays out as the typical good versus evil of any slasher. I can’t wait for the sequel.

The A-Team [2010] The A-Team [2010]1 star

September 27th, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , ,

Oh dear, I have no notes to go by and it’s a while since I watched this, and there’s no way I’m watching it again lol. I think I might’ve been pretty excited when I first heard this was being made… but how long ago was that? Then suddenly it was upon us. It was one of my parents who told me, after the movie had been out for weeks in the states, that Liam Neeson was Hannibal, and I honestly didn’t believe them. And yet there, in various places, were people saying Neeson was one of the best things in it.

I think Neeson is all I have to talk about with this movie. You know, I would probably want to sit here and say how “nobody could fill George Peppard’s shoes” no matter who they cast, but seriously, Liam Neeson? He literally, once again, just plays himself here: only here, that’s not a good thing. I honestly feel like I’m taking crazy pills if anybody thinks Liam Neeson is even half-good as Hannibal here, and that’s just scratching the surface of the pointlessness on display.

This is the kind of movie that’s critic proof because everyone who loves it will simply shoot you down with “it’s The A-Team, it’s SUPPOSED to be dumb, stoopid!” … well, fair enough. I would point to it’s most pathetic thread – the removal of B.A.‘s mohawk. When this first occurred, I mistakenly took issue, thinking it was the remake police ironing out one of the TV show’s most iconic features (they’d already blown up the freakin’ van, for heck’s sake) for the sake of better publicity pictures of one of its actors or something. Instead, this turns out to be a “clever” message about violence, a setting up of a new reason why this B.A. 2.0 even has a mohawk. I would ask, if this movie is supposed to be as dumb as it is elsewhere in its overlong running time, why it’s wasting time making such hokey statements?

I wouldn’t say the script is a mess so much as it’s just equally tedious. The bulk of this movie is literally just the opening credits monologue of the TV series (just to rub it in, before the end credits role, we get that “if you have problem” spiel, supposedly meant to give us oldtimers goosebumps the way, say, the same tactic did in JJ Abrams’ more deserving Star Trek reboot). It took me about half the movie to notice this, so you can imagine how annoyed I was when I did, lol. This fact alone just makes the entire movie a presumptive a**-hole … it’s just sitting there plain expecting you to buy a ticket to the sequels it’s setting up without even trying to earn its own place on your schedule. If you hadn’t figured it out yet, the movie just annoyed the living pi** out of me, and I was never even that much of a fan of the original. Next please.

The Karate Kid [2010] The Karate Kid [2010] 4 star

September 27th, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , ,

I have to start this review with my kneejerk expectations when I first heard about/saw the trailer etc for this movie. I don’t need to be reminded how great the original Karate Kid is. I love it more every time I see it. I even love its sequels… yes, the Hilary Swank one too. I grew up with them. I know that this remake isn’t for me. But knowing and feeling are separate entities, and what I felt when I first saw the trailer was irked. The “kid” was too young. He wasn’t even doing Karate (to rub it in, in one of the trailers I saw, Jackie Chan tells the boy, “I will teach you real Kung Fu…”!). He was spouting “hilarious” sh*t like “you’re like Yoda, and I’m a Jedi…”

As I often do when I’m watching a movie or thinking about how I’m gonna review a movie, I looked around for what other people are saying, sometimes to refresh or clarify the plot in my mind etc. I saw on the IMDb someone flagged up the misconception that the title is “wrong” because even though Karate isn’t practiced in the movie, it refers to what the bullies call Jaden Smith at the start. I’ll be honest, I missed that line, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and still say, sorry, that’s still no excuse for the title fail.

What the title reflects is what ultimately is the movie’s only problem. It’s a movie clearly designed by a committee, afraid to offend anyone and desperate to please everyone so it stays at number one and shifts Blu-ray units. This means that though the fight scenes are surprisingly brutal (they really are), there’s no blood. It means that, though fairly minimal (a pleasant surprise in itself) we have to get those modern touches like the Star Wars line, the love interest dancing to Lady Gaga’s Poker Face, etc. But all that considered, it’s a miracle it works at all.

There are some admirable nods to the original for fans like me. Most notable is the “new” version of the famous “wax on, wax off” sequence which becomes “jacket on, jacket off” here and, I’ll be honest, works surprisingly well. The Beverly Hills apartments Ralph Macchio and mom stayed at in the original cleverly remain here despite the action being relocated to China, too. Most impressively, Jackie Chan fills the shoes of Pat Morita with the utmost reverence, completely diffusing what I thought might have been the movie’s greatest insult.

Like I said at the start, I didn’t need to be reminded how good the original was… I watch it almost every year, and genuinely believe that that movie deserves even greater stature than the same director’s more celebrated classic Rocky. Still, I’m gonna finish by saying that this remake did make me realise just how great the original was… but not in a bad way. It was only because – despite, like I say, clearly being made by a money machine – it turned out to be pretty amazing itself. It’s a rock solid effort, making up for any lack of heart with serious craftsmanship the likes of which – much as people will try complaining we do – we really don’t see a lot in movies these days. If you don’t have the same background with the original as I do, I imagine you’ll like this one very much indeed.

The Wolfman [2010] The Wolfman [2010] 3 star

July 20th, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , , ,

This is another, I feel compelled to begin by saying, that I really wasn’t over anxious to see, merely one of the more interesting looking available to me as we approached midyear and I struggled to reach a grand total of 10 in the 2010 releases I’d seen, therefore enabling me to post a top 10 list at last (additional: lol, like I said, I’m a few weeks behind… said list is coming VERY soon I swear…)

This has a hugely excruciating build to anything of note actually happening, I guess you could call it character development but it really didn’t draw me in or attach me that much to the characters. In retrospect I have to kind of admire even this aspect of the movie. It’s extraordinarily classical in its approach and really at pains to revive the old Universal horror “thing” and to me that’s something, even if it fails, that’s worth gambling on especially in as high profile a release as this.

Finally, Del Toro’s first big transformation occurs, and I have to say that at this stage I feared I was done with the movie for it’s not exactly satisfying. Coupled with the slow faux-romantic buildup, I found myself comparing it unfavourably on Twitter (live-tweeting as I often do while watching movies, it’s a nice notepad and now’s a good time to suggest you follow me there for quicker thoughts on what I’m watching!) to the Twilight movies. Like I said there, it’s almost like someone made a movie for people who hate Twilight who still for whatever reason wanna watch Twilight. (If you think that’s bad, read this … lol).

I have to say, the overriding classicism of the whole thing kinda even helped me through this. There’s a real respectfulness to this movie, with the makeup mirroring the original Karloff Lon Chaney Jr. (update: God, so sorry I left that error in here so long…) monster, the deliberation over the build before the storm, Anthony Hopkins being part his own Helsing of Coppola’s “Dracula”, part Oliver Reed in Curse of the Werewolf, part Orson Welles had he ever played such a role late in life. Even Danny Elfman’s score almost deliberately echoes Wojciech Kilar’s “Dracula” score from 1992. Charlie Chaplin’s daughter even appears in a minor role too, just in case you needed further connection to old Hollywood.

It’s after I’d made all these excuses for the movie that the unexpected occurred… a second, serious transformation, in a lecture theatre filled with skeptical scientists and Del Toro strapped to a chair. There’s literally nowhere to hide and the movie explodes right in front of you. Suddenly it’s as gory and brutal as it needs to be and I found myself loving the slow build even more.

I’ll be honest, I’d still prefer to watch Jack Nicholson and Michelle Pfeiffer in the sexy, satirical, but still homage-ridden Wolf. I count that movie in a very special horror trilogy with Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula and Kenneth Branagh’s Frankenstein as almost all the adaptation these classic tales need, and while Del Toro’s more classical Wolfman might seem to fit better in that set than Mike Nichols’ modern take, it really doesn’t quite do it for me. I certainly can’t blame these guys for trying, but it’s something I feel could never really have worked any better than so many things that came before.

Harriet the Spy: Blog Wars Harriet the Spy: Blog Wars 3 star

July 20th, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , , ,

Words can’t express how much I feared this one, but I knew I would have to watch it if only so my objections could at least be informed, lol. It sat in my collection for a few months before I finally plucked up the courage (okay, I just wanted this week to get my total 2010 movie views up to 10 so I could post a list before the middle of the year… additional: I’m running about 3 weeks behind in actually posting stuff right now so that doesn’t quite make sense lol…).

The first 5 minutes surprised me. Much of the style feels drawn straight from the (in my opinion) flawless 1997 movie by Bronwyn Hughes. It feels very much like Michelle Trachtenberg’s Harriet grown up a few years. It reminds you that, actually, that treasured first film incarnation of Louise Fitzhugh’s eponymous heroine was also a modernisation of the original, which was set in time it was written, the 1960s. Then, “Spy Teen” appears. A typical, commercial, teen movie with a heartthrobby star. The fear strikes, oh no, this über-modern Harriet is surely going to fall for him and the movie’s about to collapse. But she doesn’t… it’s hate at first sight. That’s our Harriet.

And you know what? Despite my stoic expectations that at some point it would surely turn awful somehow, for the life of me I can’t say it did. Of course it’s nowhere close to the Trachtenberg movie let alone the books… and of course I’d still prefer they never even tried this version of the story at all. But given that they did try, this is about as good as they could’ve made it. They genuinely nod their head to the ’97 version, and excuse themselves for any failing in the far worse “Spy Teen” subplot. Even on the Disney TV movie level that it stands, it’s a hell of a lot better than Camp Rock or Get a Clue, etc… but more importantly it was so better than my expectations. I mean I’d actually probably watch it again. For fun.

St. Trinian’s: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold St. Trinian’s: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold 3 star

July 12th, 2010 by surlaroute

Tags: , , , ,

As I said in my review of the first of these revivals of the old British series, I always loved the original Trinian’s movies, and since then I’ve seen them all again on DVD and can tell you I still pretty much do (some aren’t great but always fun). And I even enjoyed that first modern take on the idea… even if, to be honest, I can’t quite remember why right now. I do remember I loved the two first-years in that movie, though, and the first relief here was that they’re back… along with even more of the new intake.

For the most part, for its first half, this movie pretty much appeased my low expectations simply by being clear about its story and easy to follow, along with just a few good giggles (mostly from the younger ones, it has to be said… I can do without the “teen appeal” posing of the older set, I’m sure none of the original Trinian’s girls would’ve been seen dead in Gucci…)

Just when it began to get interesting, that is, delivering on all the setup, there’s a scene that pretty much killed it for me personally. It’s a straight up parody of The Exorcist only it actually concerns real possession, like, it’s not just done as a silly joke, it’s a plot point and everything. I know this is meant to be a silly movie, but that just seemed cheap and plain stupid. It’s not even contained to the one scene, and goes on way too long.

It picks up slightly after this but it’s a tough recovery. The final act here is practically identical to the first movie’s, with the girls descending onto London in a (pretty awesome to behold, has to be said) flashmob scene and infiltration of a Cultural Event. It feels a little lazy, but there is a least a little more from those younger girls from the first movie in this sequence. I think I was just still reeling from the terrible Exorcist gag to get back into it as much as I might’ve in the end. It’s a shame the people behind these remakes feel the need to go so low for a guaranteed laugh from the lowest common denominator etc. Likewise on the Sarah Harding casting and the “cool” treatment of the older girls. It’s way off the original concept to have such mainstream style in a St. Trinian’s movie, at least in my opinion. All this said, I’m sure I won’t be able to resist if they try again.