I find it hard to enjoy any remake, especially if the original movie was a mediocre or a crap film. It's equally as painful if a great film like Halloween is remade into something a crap film school student would put together. These movies are usually made by music video directors or first timers that don't have a clue about pacing a horror film correctly. Not a single horror remake has been as scary to the modern audience as much as it's original was to it's audience. Hollywood are cashing in on the name for financial security, this is the sole reason remakes are made.
The second most painful thing about remakes for me is that the modern audience don't even know they are watching a remake. In the space of one week I experienced this as one of my work colleagues asked me if I'd seen the Crazies trailer and I said to him “you mean the remake?” And he didn't know it was a remake. Even more shocking was my own brother wasn't aware he'd just walked out of a remake of 'The Wolfman'... All that has to be done to prevent rubbing salt into the wounds of original fans is to say in the trailer or posters “Based on an original film by Wes Craven” or “A rein-visioning of a horror classic” for instance. Problem is a lot of the films they are now remaking were horrible original films that nobody can call a classic such as 'The Blob', 'Troll', 'The Crazies' (sorry Romero) and 'Sorority Row'. I've read recently that there may be another Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake for 2011 and another Spiderman movie set in high school for 2012 with a possible Robert Pattinson (Twilight) as the hero... it will seem the movie world at least will truly end on that year. So if Hollywood are increasingly scraping the bottom of the barrel for material to recycle with horrible cast, and now RECYCLING what has recently been RECYCLED as well as the increasing acceleration in other forms of technological entertainment it's looking pretty grim for Hollywood.
Below are our reviews on remakes: the good and the bad
A review of bad remakes – Reviews by John:
'Rob Zombie's Halloween' (2007) Rating: -3 out of10
Also known as 'Zombieween' amongst disgruntled fans, this is possibly the single worst remake of all time, from an extremely hypocritical artist who had publicly stated that remakes are the worst thing a director should do. This film doesn't know what it's doing. The first half is sort of a prequel to the story of Michael Myers the iconic serial killer, as it gradually explains how young Michael became psychotic. The second half adapts the original film's story but pointlessly has additional scenes in particular, scenes that are a waste of screen time, such as a scene showing us how Michael got his overalls. Every character including Laurie Strode had been written as obnoxious and verbally abusive which makes it impossible for the audience to actually care for them when Michael is in for the kill. Another thing which got under my skin was Malcolm McDowell's and William Forsythe's horrendous acting which was akin to a bad student film or an episode of Emerdale. Any half-assed director with sense would either ask for a retake or a recast!! I could go on and on about how bad this movie is in detail but it would fill the whole page and probably leave you wanting to kill yourself. What was worse is that Rob Zombie had shown great potential with The Devil's Rejects which I still enjoy to this day because it is so different from anything else today, whereas Zombieween was a mimic of all the serial killer bio-pics with a shooting and lighting style no different from everything else today.
'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' (2003) Rating: 3 ½ out of 10
Not nearly as bad as “Zombieween”, this film is most likely responsible for the remake trend, the use of green colour correction, this slick film is a completely different approach to the original version. However just like “Zombieween” it too fails in sparking fear into the imagination of the audience as the original had achieved. There's barely any blood in both the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween, however the audience were still terrified or disgusted because of the clever film trickery that was presented to them. On a positive note, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre did have some disturbing moments such as the suicide in the car as well as a new way of portraying a grimy environment, albeit an artificial grittiness via the now overused green look and overdone production design. Going back to a negative point I think is worth mentioning, it never once seemed the protagonists were from the 70s which is the time the film is set, this is due to the casting which deliberately chose good looks over unique performance. In hindsight this film could have been a whole lot worse, but having said that, we did not need this film at all.
'My Bloody Valentine 3D' (2009) Rating: 2 out of 10
I must confess, I never watched this movie in 3D, or in theatres, I didn't even buy or rent the DVD/Blu Ray. Instead I ended up watching a pirate copy my friend owned. So I cannot right a complete review on if the 3D worked or not, not can I comment on lighting or production design. That leaves me with the story. A story which is somewhat similar to the original with the 3 main characters, but with a twist on it. Written by Todd Farmer, the same guy who had written Jason X, the story could have been that bad but thankfully it wasn't. Once again I have to complain about the casting; which consists of two famous TV actors, Kerr Smith (Dawson's Creek) and Jensen Ackles (Supernatural, Smallville) who could not support the film from falling apart unfortunately. If decent actors were chosen to portray these main characters rather than obnoxious ones with ego then this movie would be in my 'Good remake' pile below. Instead this movie is in the pile of sh*t because I found it quite boring and it didn't even touch the original, which is amazing since the original didn't have famous people in the roles, a 3D gag or even half the money of this film, but it managed to execute the story more perfectly and is considered a slasher classic. Thus we can all dread the execution of Patrick Lussier's next project, Halloween 3D.
'Dawn of the Dead' (2004) Rating: 3 out of 10
The remake of George Romero's masterpiece, this remake is surprisingly favourable amongst even the Romero fans, and is probably the most liked remake just behind John Carpenter's remake The Thing. However I on the other hand, think this remake doesn't deserve all the hype and praise it's been undeservedly given for quite a few reasons. Firstly I hated this movie, and this was when I actually used to give remakes a chance back in the day, I forced myself to re-watch the film for this review and I still hated it 6 years later. I still dislike the running zombies, and THEY ARE ZOMBIES because there are scenes where people die for minutes (after being bitten) and then get back up. You don't get back up if you have died unless you are a zombie, or were incredibly lucky your doctor struggled to revived you. Problem is that this movie tries to sit on both sides of the fence: the infected persons with rage and the undead. The zombies run like the hyper raged (but still alive) humans in 28 Days later. This doesn't make any sense. It's understandable for infected people who are ALIVE to run extremely fast to attack, but not someone who has just died, especially IF THEY HAVE BEEN DEAD FOR A MONTH... 28 Days later at least had the logic and showed that after a month or so the infected persons ran out of energy from lack of food, and lay on the ground like any malnourished human or animal would. But no this movie has no common sense and has it's zombies more energetic than the starving character Andy across the street! This major flaw in logic I and certain other horror fans could not get past.
The second biggest flaw is the writer's choice of deliberately making sure 80% of the main characters are selfish assholes. And just when you think you can start liking them, they do something obnoxious, selfish or psychotic in the following scene. For instance we are unexpectedly let down by Michael, who all of a sudden thinks he should kill a father (they had just rescued I might add )who has been bitten but Michael is fully aware that his dad's daughter wants to spend her last hours with him. It takes the female protagonist to remind him and the police officer BASIC MORALITY. I could go on.
The third biggest flaw is that it completely lacks any metaphor whatsoever, which by the way is extremely easy to do in a zombie film and is required if you are remaking a film which did so. The original was an obvious reflection on the increasing consumer mindset that was forced in the faces of the American people in the late 70s, one such tool of this was the shopping mall. The original film said to us that materialism, the need to buy more is a sign of mindless emptiness within oneself, exactly mirroring a mindless zombie feeling the need to consume human beings. But I guess James Gunn, the writer of this movie thinks that we are all too mindless to understand any metaphors, so he just won't bother and will instead sprinkle the movie with explosions, forced cameos, cgi effects and a thin plot with one dimensional annoying characters that a high school student would write. Or maybe it is just him being stupid, mindlessly copying every other movie that came before.
'House of Wax' (2005) Rating: 1 out of 10:
A boring, generic and not scary film which has a completely different story to the original and takes the House of Wax idea a bit too literally as the building bizarrely melts like a candle at the end. Perhaps more bizarre is that it has a protagonist who looks exactly like Justin Timberlake, but with a bad attitude problem and somehow this bad attitude scarier than the evil villains themselves. The film also stars Paris Hilton, could this be any worse?
'The Omen 666' (2006) 2 out of 10:
Again, not scary, just boring. This remake tries to have a political edge to it at the start showing footage of the burning Twin Towers etc. but this is probably the most interesting scene as the rest of the film is not only boring, but technically disabled. In many scenes, whilst watching Jag and myself spotted the boom microphone above the actors!! The CGI was also piss poor and the protagonist's voice and character is so one dimensional and monotone that he sends you to sleep. It didn't help that I had seen the original, because the movie pretty much copied most of the scenes. So I guess I knew what was coming, another major flaw with remakes!!
'The Amityville Horror' (2005) Rating: 3 out of 10:
Admittedly has better scares than the other remakes mentioned above, however the bad CGI lets it down a lot, that and the overused blue look to all the night scenes. I actually preferred this to the original which I thought was overrated, but nevertheless it's a very forgetful and superficial film, from the same year that brought us the very memorable and distinctive Devil's Rejects
'The Grudge' (2004) Rating: 3 ½ out of 10
The Unsubtle Hollywoodized version of an original asian horror film, shamefully and unexpectedly produced by Sam Raimi with the same director as the original. This movie is extremely 1 dimensional; in characterization and story. It has some good scares to it, unlike it's extremely predictable and unscary sequel. I guess the film has set out what it wanted to do: a dumbed down version of a tangled story into a popcorn horror for the teenagers on the back row
Now that I've let off an unexpected 2000 word outburst of frustration I will now review the remakes I actually enjoyed.:
Good Remakes – reviews by John:
'John Carpenter's 'The Thing' (1982) Rating: 10 out of 10
I haven't seen the original film so I am not sure if I'm just being one of those people who are ignorant and think the remake is the better or what. Nevertheless this film is visually impressive through it's photography of the Antarctic location as well as the creative and sophisticated special effects used in the gore sequences. Not a shred of cgi was used, and to this day nothing has looked so real as we witness people and animals being ripped apart from the inside as a shape shifting alien comes out of them in all kinds of creative and imaginatively gory ways. The acting is superb and the humour is just right, but kept to a minimal as the atmosphere of isolation and doom is being crafted around us as we watch. It plays on the fear of physical invasion, like an infection that will inevitably eat it's victims alive and this is enhanced by the fact that they become pretty much trapped in the Antarctic. This film is much more advanced at creating the feeling of a grim fate within the audience than the Dawn of the Dead remake tries but fails to achieve 22 years later. What makes the film even more isolated is the clever technique of having an all male cast, depriving the audience of femininity and purity and this adds a certain grimy psychological aspect to the film.
'Night of the living Dead' (1990)
A surprisingly well executed remake directed by the special make-up effects artist Tom Savini, this film does not lack anything, which is unexpected because the last time a make-up effects person went into the directors chair we had 1 dimensional films like Troll and Friday the 13th part 7 where it seemed the director didn't care about performance or story. This film on the other hand not only doesn't suffer from this but it also enhances the characters particularly that of Barbara's who has a character arc from once being a meek young woman in distress and hopelessness at the start, to a heroine that surpasses the others in strength and wisdom. The practical special effects were unsurprisingly amazing, and the stunts, zombie make-up and direction made the walking zombies an incredible threat as they can sneak up on you or trick the characters and the audience into underestimating them, so that they do suddenly appear for the attack, its is much more frightening than the predictable running zombie in the Dawn of the Dead remake. Additionally the musical score is both original and very chilling, and once again as in The Thing remake, we the audience feel the same dread and doom the characters experience, making it more of a memorable and frightening horror film than 'Zombieween' or Dawn of the dead 2004 will ever be.. The only thing I ever remember from those 2 films is feeling angry, disappointed at how superficial and predictable those remakes were.
Mediocre remakes that were bearable – review by John:
'Friday the 13th' (2009) 7 out of 10:
Also predictable and superficial, this film doesn't try to be something it wasn't meant to be. It adheres to the formula of the original Friday the 13th franchise with a setting and situation similar to F13 parts 1 to 4. The writers new exactly what the fans wanted, the only let down in terms of expectation was the lack of the talented Harry Manfredini for the music score. Instead they opted for a very generic industrial sounding music. Probably the most annoying thing about this movie is the shaky camerawork and deliberately poor interior lighting, rendering the audience clueless to the action taking place in front of them. I personally dislike this style as it does not reflect reality in any way, damaging the suspension of disbelief which s a vital technique needed to make a film good. However since fans of the franchise don't go for a great story or filmmaking craftsmanship but more so to see Jason and his ultra violent creative kills, the fan audience will leave satisfied, just as I was the first time I had watched it opening night. Having said that the film was more suspenseful than actually scary, and also relied more on violence just like the majority of the original franchise. The second major problem i had with it was once again, they mostly cast people for their looks and stardom rather than their acting ability, but nevertheless these films were never meant to have great acting in them in the first place so who cares right! Admittedly, being a big fan of the franchise as well as the character of Jason Voorhees, may have clouded my thoughts from properly reviewing this film from an objective start point.
There are many, many more remakes that I have not bothered to watch in these recent years, as what's the point if I know I will come out of the film with £7.00 less and feeling angry about them.
In conclusion:
From my own personal experience in watching horror remakes I conclude that there has been only ONE decent remake per 5 to 10 YEARS, that's probably 5% of horror remakes that are good in the last decade. So my advice if you don't want to see anymore of them, is stop wasting your money seeing them for a start, watch original content instead then perhaps Hollywood will realise that remakes are not as profitable as they were and as a result they will stop making them..
Thanks for reading this lengthy rant, John
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment