Assault on Precinct 13 (2005) Reviews

• Generic, uninspired interpretation of the original

  michaeljharvey2008-08-30

  John Carpenter's 1976 original was a little cheesy and low-budget looking at times, but it was still a very well done film. It was short and to the point. Carpenter knew how to build psychological tension and his vision of a street gang attacking a police station was menacing. The original Precinct 13 also offered social commentary. It was made at a time when Americans were fleeing the inner city due to a proliferation of gang violence the police seemed powerless to control. The original Precinct 13 registered with the American public in much the same way as the Death Wish and Dirty Harry films. The trouble with the updated 2005 version is it has nothing to say. It's very much a generic Hollywood thriller/action flick. The big-name cast all turn in mediocre performances, trying their best to work with the mundane script and direction. The psychotic street gang has been replaced with crooked cops. The crooked cop aspect is supposed to be an unexpected plot "twist", but it's been done to death and elicited a bored *sigh* from me. Most of the original's psychological tension has been replaced with endless dialog that never seems to go anywhere. In the 1976 version the street gang is mostly seen as faceless shadows in the dark of night. They seem to kill purely for fun, almost like something out of a horror movie. We don't truly understand their motivations, which makes them far more frightening. The updated version gives us way too much information about the crooked cops and they become not nearly as threatening. Overall, there's a strong feeling of "seen that before" when watching the 2005 version. There's nothing special or unique going on. This isn't a terrible movie, but it doesn't offer any new ideas. It's a classic example of Hollywood playing it safe and winding up with a middle of the road film.

  More

• Nowehere near as good as the original, but worth a viewing

  BrandtSponseller2005-02-06

  A remake of John Carpenter's superior film of the same title from 1976, Assault on Precinct 13 concerns a siege on a largely abandoned police station, which is related to the presence of a notorious criminal, Marion Bishop (Laurence Fishburne). It's left up to a ragtag group of police employees and criminals to defend themselves. I should start by noting that I absolutely love Carpenter's original film. In my view it is one of his best, perfectly capturing the suburban desolation of 1970s Los Angeles, and exquisitely suspenseful and horrifying, even though it's not really a horror film. Despite that, when this remake of Assault on Precinct 13 began, I had high hopes for it. The first scene is well directed, well shot, with excellent dialogue. It turns into an intense action scene at just the right moment, and results in some realistic, gritty deaths. The opening is as good as anything in the Carpenter film. Unfortunately, Assault on Precinct 13's excellence ended right there. It's not exactly a bad film--I enjoyed it more often than not, but it does have more than its share of flaws. In the end, my rating average out to a 7 out of 10. Recommendable, but with reservations. The first problem is that director Jean-Francois Richet tries to do too much--too much backstory, too many characters, too many over-the-top characters, too many quick cuts, too much shaky hand-held camera work, too many "big action moves", too many explosions, too many settings, and it's too dark. That the film is often so quickly edited and dark makes it too often difficult to see what's going on in the action scenes. Carpenter's film succeeded by being very taut, economical, sober and logical in its directorial style. Richet tries to one-up the original by forgoing all of those qualities. By the second or third scene, I was fairly confused. Superfluous characters were popping in and out, people were mumbling dialogue, and there was a whole complex backstory being hinted at and not spelled out very well. The brutal shooting near the beginning of the original film, which sets off the whole sequence of events, was dropped--that thread was completely removed from the film. It was lamentable in that this new Assault loses much of the simple, sensible drive the thread provided, and it was surely a decision based on political correctness. Likewise, Bishop is not allowed to be a clear-cut bad guy here. That saps some of the effectiveness out of his cooperation. In this film, he might be mostly tough talk. The other criminals in the film are either left largely unexplained or guilty of only petty or consensual crimes. I find this kind of political correctness in films reprehensible, although I realize it's primarily a studio decision. On the positive side, the villains here were cleverly conceived, and their nature makes them much more menacing physically. On the negative side, however, Richet lost the Night of the Living Dead (1968) zombie-like nature of the marauders, which saps suspense from the attacks. The logistics of the defense of the police station and details of their dilemma are not very clearly scripted or staged, either, which doesn't help. Another flaw is that some intruders seem to inexplicably hesitate. Another positive, though, is that Richet's film brings back a few small details, such as the capture of the criminal at the beginning of the film, and a substance addiction in one of the heroes leading to a character transformation, found in Rio Bravo (1959), the film that in conjunction with Night of the Living Dead, was the main inspiration for Carpenter's original film. Also on the positive side, this Assault has a skilled (and much more well known) cast. Even though Richter occasionally directed them to be a bit too over-the-top, the performances hit many very interesting notes. And a few of the additions to the original film, such as a Mexican standoff and a couple later scenes outside the police station were excellent. The increased firepower here may also be to some viewer's liking. A viewer less fond of the original, or even unfamiliar with the original, may like Assault better than I did. I may have even liked it better if the original were not so fresh in my memory (I just watched it again it recently--a review is forthcoming). There are enough redeeming aspects for action fans to make it worth at least a rental or a viewing on cable, but approach the film with lowered expectations.

  More

• Waste of talent

  johngammon562007-01-23

  I felt this film was very much a missed opportunity. The plot, of a small group in a building being menaced by killers, is a staple of movies, even taking into account Rio Bravo, from which the original Assault film borrowed. Done well, with enough suspense and plot twists, such a story makes a decent, credible movie. The problem is, this picture comes across as a primer of How Not To make a successful thriller. Not one of the characters, up to and including Ethan Hawke's pill-popping sergeant and Laurence Fishburne's overly literate gangster, is anything other than stereotypical. Dialogue is cliché ridden, often needless, and devoid of humour. There's little tension, just repetitious action, explosions, violence. The producers don't seem to realise that each major character needs their own mini-story to make them interesting to the viewer, and there's very little personality clash apart from the most obvious. Some of it is just not believable even on its own terms: for instance, a professional counsellor would right away put a stop to any flirting on the part of a patient, assuming it to be manipulative behaviour. In keeping with the film's somewhat prepubertal attitudes, there's no romance or sexual tension among the characters – indeed, we're not even sure who the female love interest is. All of which makes for a rather uninvolving couple of hours, unless you are the kind of viewer who loves stories packed with grenades, guns with red-dot sights, car crashes, smashing windows, bullet stricken foreheads, unexplained helicopters, noise etc – video game movies in fact. Others may feel that, in a good film, in order for such things to be effective they need to be kept to the barest minimum in favour of such low-tech fripperies as character development or suspense. Trouble is the former type of viewer is increasingly becoming the only type of viewer.

  More

• An exciting, violent action film!

  croatiansensation292005-05-04

  Now, before you criticize me, I have never seen the original John Carpenter version of this film. Being a huge fan, I really should see it, and after seeing this remake, I will definitely track down the original to see if it is as good as this film. I had a blast! New Years in Detroit, a cold winter's morning as Precinct 13 prepares to close it's doors and move to a new building. There are only three people in the building on New Year's Eve, and as a storm draws closer, a criminal being transported to a maximum security center is re-routed to the deserted precinct. Only, there are some other people that would like to get closer to the villain. Very exciting story and excellent acting by both Ethan Hawke and Laurence Fishbourne take this action over the edge. Some people may find the film ultra violent, but violence on the big screen never bothered me, so I enjoyed it quite a lot! Definitely worth a look for action fans, and fans of the original who are curious. However, those that are disturbed by violent images, would like to steer clear of this film.

  More

• Generic but Enjoyable

  christian1232005-05-16

  On a snowy New Year's Eve, a police station where a bus full of convicts has been jailed comes under attack from corrupt policemen, forcing a police sergeant with a cloudy past (Ethan Hawke) to team with a ruthless mob boss (Lawrence Fishburne) to try to keep them at bay. The original was a pretty good film so I'm still confused about the need to remake it. Yes, it was a little outdated but the film still worked fine. I was expecting the remake to be really bad since the trailer looked lackluster and Ethan Hawke isn't that good of an actor. However, this update turned out to be a decent film. It doesn't approach the original in quality but at least it doesn't insult the original either. They do change some things from the original though that didn't really bother me. Actually, it's kind of better that they tried it in a different way instead of doing it exactly the same (paging Psycho) and there was more reason to remake it. The performances were okay, nothing special. Ethan Hawke was okay as Roenick. He would sometimes go over the top and he was a little weak at some points. Laurence Fishburne was better than Ethan but still only average. Ja Rule actually gives a good performance for a rapper though he doesn't get a lot of screen time. John Leguizamo was okay, kind of dull. Maria Bello gave the best performance out of everyone and she is a pretty underrated actress. Gabriel Byrne was just meh while Drea de Matteo was clearly there for eye candy and nothing more. Jean-François Richet does a decent job at directing and he manages to create some suspense. However, he does keep the film simple and most of the twists are obvious. The script is generic and weak with a lot of clichés and little in the way of originality. The action sequences are slick and enjoyable but they are also kind of sparse. The movie also becomes dull from time to time even though the film isn't really that long. There is also little character development so it's hard to feel sorry for some of these people. The remake is really just a semi-enjoyable, generic action film. It fails to surpass the original in most categories but it still stands as a decent film. In the end, Assault on Precinct 13 is a decent action film and it's worth checking out. Rating 6/10

  More