I watched the 2005 remake of John Carpenter’s 1976 cult classic Assault on Precinct 13 yesterday, but I’m not really sure why I bothered. I’d probably be much better off watching the original.

It’s New Year’s Eve, and the 13th precinct in some American city or other (I never really got which one, but it seemed like Boston or something like that) is about to be shut down. Most of its equipment has been moved to its new location, and there’s only a skeleton crew on duty — an alcoholised, former undercover cop (Ethan Hawke), an old timer ready for retirement, and a secretary. It’s snowing heavily, and a prisoner transport on its way to a prison with four suspected criminals on board is forced to seek refuge at precinct 13. One of the suspected criminals is the gang leader Bishop (Laurence Fishbourne), arrested for drug dealing and the murder of a police officer, and not long after his arrival the electricity and the phones go dead, and armed, masker men start arriving outside, demanding the release of Bishop.

Assault on Precinct 13 is for the most part a well-made movie. Its actors are skilled and seemingly motivated (although it’s kinda hard to tell in the case of Laurence Fishbourne), the action sequences are tight and often even cool, the effects good, and the mood tense and dark. I wasn’t too fond of the hand-held, zoomed-in camera work, though, but I never am, even when I recognise that it might be perceived by some to fit the story. However, while most of the movie was well made, the most important part wasn’t: the writing.

While I’ll give them credit for the plot twists, it was all very predictable. The besiegers weren’t what they first appeared to be, and neither were the besieged. Surprise, surprise. There were a couple of surprising character deaths, but seeing as none of the characters were especially sympathetic, this meant little in the big scheme of things. There might have been a semi-interesting theme going on, about the importance of taking responsibility or something like that, but it kinda drowned in all the gun shots and the gut wounds. And speaking of gut wounds, what is it with Hollywood writiers and a belief that being shot in the gut is something you just shrug off? Granted, a couple of characters bled out and died relatively quickly from this kind of wound, but others hardly seemed to be injured at all, a not very enthralling inconsistency.

More or less a waste of time, unless you’re after a braindead yet at least halfway decent action movie. 4.0/10.