I’m sure just
about every movie goer in the past few years has groaned at the news that yet
another successful movie is being remade.
This issue seems particularly common in the sci-fi/horror/fantasy
genres—it’s almost hard to find a classic movie that hasn’t been remade. But, although remakes may be more numerous
now, they’re not a new phenomenon.
Remakes have been made since the very early days of cinema. The 1931 horror classic Dracula is a good
example. While the main version with
Bela Lugosi was being shot by day, simultaneously the Spanish language version,
with a different cast, was shot using the same sets at night! Foreign movies are often remade as well. Arrogant U.S. studios assume (probably
correctly, but still) that most Americans don’t want to read subtitles, or
listen to (often ridiculously inept) dubbing, or simply won’t watch movies
starring actors they’re not familiar with.
As readers can
probably guess, I don’t think much of remakes in general. It is kind of a damned if you do, damned if
you don’t situation with me, usually. If
they don’t change the story much, then it’s just kind of a parroted
rehash. But if they change the story too
much then it often seems like a different movie, whose tone is all wrong, or is
now hampered with a stupid storyline. As
an example of the former, I’m still surprised that the 1998 version of Psycho
was ever made. From everything I’ve read
about it, it’s nearly a shot-for-shot remake of the 1960 original, with the
only real changes being prices being increased to account for inflation. So what’s the point? The only reason I can see that working is if
the original director (Alfred Hitchcock) was bad, or the actors unskilled,
which is an opinion held by very few people.
Rob Zombie’s 2007 Halloween remake is an example of changing the story too
much. In the remake we see Michael Myers
as a child. He’s poor, has an abusive
stepfather (or mother’s boyfriend, anyway), and is bullied at school. These mostly trigger his rampage, and cause
him to go insane. I thought this
explanation was weak, and made Michael much less scary. In the original he’s (apparently) a normal
suburban kid, with a normal family, and he just starts killing for no good
reason. More information about his
background and reasons why he kills make him much less compelling and
frightening, in my opinion.
Anyway, at this
point I’d like to discuss some remakes that have been good. Not great, or better than the originals, but
decent in their own way. (SPOILERS ABOUT
MOSTLY OLDER MOVIES SCATTERED THROUGHOUT, BE FOREWARNED).
1) King
Kong, 2005 remake of 1933 original. It’s
been a long time since I saw it, but I recall liking the original. Yes, it was in black and white, and clearly
the stop-motion special effects were crude, but it was still charming and
fun. Peter Jackson’s remake seems to be
a bit polarizing, but I liked it, too.
It was overlong, but I still think it was respectable. And the effects were very well done, too,
even though they were mostly CGI. Alas,
the 1976 remake, with Jessica Lange and Charles Grodin, was terrible—very
dated, poor effects, bad script.
2) Invasion
of the Body Snatchers, 1978 remake of 1956 original. Basically, they just made everything bigger
in the remake, going from a small town to San
Francisco . The
replication effects are, naturally, more explicit and convincing than in the
original. But the story is still neat
and creepy, and very disturbing in a paranoid way.
3) Dawn
of the Dead, 2004 remake of 1978 original.
I resisted seeing this one, as the original is one of my favorite movies
ever. And the remake isn’t better, but
it’s still good in its own right. They
kept the same basic story, with more characters, but made the zombies fast
instead of slow.
4) The
Hills Have Eyes, 2006 remake of 1977 original.
This remake stayed pretty close to the original story. The major change is much more emphasis on the
cause of the feral family’s plight—nuclear testing. The newer one is a bit more explicit, and
more violent, but not overly so. You
still care about the traveling family, and the interesting normal, healthy
family vs. mutated cannibal family mirroring is still intact.
5) The
Exorcist: Dominion, 2005 remake of Exorcist: The Beginning (2004). This one is convoluted. The studio, Morgan Creek ,
hired Paul Schrader to direct the prequel to The Exorcist. However, after Schrader nearly completed it,
the studio decided it wasn’t frightening enough, so they fired him and brought
in Renny Harlin, and had Harlin reshoot the entire movie, using most of the same
sets and actors. Then after Harlin’s
version came out and tanked, box office wise and critically, Morgan Creek
gave Schrader $35,000 to finish up his version, and allowed him to release
it. I thought Harlin’s version was dumb,
with one particularly huge plot continuity hole. Schader’s version wasn’t awesome like The
Exorcist, but I thought it was decent, and had its moments.
I was surprised,
and amused, to find out that comedy classic Airplane! (1980) was essentially a
remake of a 1957 movie, Zero Hour! The
innovation for the remake was that they totally changed the tone of the
film. The original was a completely
serious airplane disaster movie. The
remake was clearly intentionally funny, one of those laugh a minute
movies. In many cases they replicated
exact lines of dialogue from the original, only with a comedic spin on them.
Now let’s get to
those rare remakes better than the originals.
1) Cape Fear ,
1991 remake of 1962 original. The
original was good. It’s about a
convicted rapist, Max Cady, who’s released and is now looking for revenge on
the man who testified against him, Sam Bowden.
Cady spends the movie terrorizing Sam and his family. It has a great cast, with Gregory Peck as
Sam, and Robert Mitchum as Cady.
However, Martin Scorcese’s remake topped the original. First off, in the 90’s the studio was able to
get away with much more violence, and intense situations than they were in the
60’s, so the movie is way scarier. But
also the story has been made much more ambiguous in the remake, which makes for
a more mature, complicated plot. Remake
Cady actually has a legitimate complaint, as Sam was his lawyer, and
intentionally sabotaged Cady’s defense because Cady had committed the
rape. Also, instead of being a bland,
happy family, the remake Bowdens are a mess—Sam’s marriage is rocky, and their
daughter is rebellious and becoming sexually mature. Cady is especially terrifying because he’s
vicious, determined, patient, and extremely intelligent. Nick Nolte (Sam), Jessica Lange (his wife),
Juliette Lewis (his daughter) and of course Robert DeNiro (Cady) all give
exceptional performances.
2) The
Thing, 1982 remake of the 1951 original.
The original 50’s version was good, but had its flaws. It’s about an alien life form that’s impervious
to bullets, has super healing powers, and is terrorizing an Arctic research
station. Problems with it include the
anti-intellectual vibe of it (the scientist is more concerned with protecting
the creature than his own fellow humans) as well as a tacked on romantic
subplot between the hero and the lone woman at the station. The 1982 remake blows the original out of the
water. Now, the alien is a shape
shifter, which can perfectly imitate any life form, including people. So you don’t know if your friends are human
or alien. This makes for a much more
frightening, paranoid feel to the story.
Also, Rob Bottin’s special effects are fantastic—we get all manner of
bizarre dog-Things, people-Things, unknown creature-Things, all presented in
mind-boggling, gooey detail.
3) The
Fly, 1986 remake of 1958 original. The
original was campy good fun. A mistake
with a scientist’s transporter leaves him with a fly’s head and hand, and the
fly with his head and hand. Even if you
haven’t seen it all the way through, you’ve probably seen the clip of the
hybrid fly-man being eaten in the spider web, yelling “Help Me! Help Me!” in an eerie voice. Director David Cronenberg’s remake is the
same basic story, but is much more compelling.
Once again, part of this is due to the more sophisticated (and grosser)
special effects—instead of a mask, and a glove, as in the original, the
remake’s Jeff Goldblum character is shown becoming a human-fly hybrid in
excruciating, amazing detail. And I’m
usually not big on romance in movies, but in the remake it really
works—Goldblum and co-star Geena Davis’s characters’ doomed relationship is
heart-breaking, but not in a lame, insultingly melodramatic way.
4) The
Blob, 1988 remake of 1958 original. Yet
another 50’s remake in the 80’s. In the
original Steve McQueen and the residents of a small town battle the titular
alien being, which grows to an enormous size.
It’s an enjoyable view, but especially now is not very scary, and is fun
in a so bad it’s good sort of way. The
remake, which I think was unfairly reviewed, and mostly unseen by audiences,
ups the ante. Now the teens in the small
town are contending with both the Blob and nefarious scientists. Obviously the effects were more convincing,
and explicit. Stars Kevin Dillon and
Shawnee Smith are good, too.
5) The
Omega Man, 1971 remake of 1964 original (titled The Last Man on Earth). Based on the Richard Mathewson novel, I Am
Legend, which is about a vampire plague that has killed off nearly all humans. The original, with Vincent Price, is fairly
faithful to the novel, but wasn’t that exciting. I’m actually unable to remember most of it,
which is a bad sign for my appreciation of a movie. The 70’s version was much less faithful to
the book—instead it was very over the top, campy, and cheesy. However, this is a case where cheese is
good—The Omega Man is pretty ludicrous, but it’s definitely fun. And I’ve always been a sucker for 1960’s-70’s
Charlton Heston sci-fi, such as Planet of the Apes, and Soylent Green. In 2008 there was yet another version, which
kept the book’s title. I found this one,
starring Will Smith, to be frustrating.
I liked the beginning, as they set up that Smith’s character is alone,
desperate, and going a little crazy. But
the vampires are absurd—unbelievably fast and strong, and look fake, like CGI
effects often do. Plus the ending never
made any sense to me. So, version #2 was
my pick of the litter.
6) The
Shining, 1997 remake of the 1980 original.
The remake was a made for cable series, but I’m counting it. Stanley Kubrick’s original is legendary—even
non-genre fans have probably seen it, and it’s often held up as being one of
the best horror movies ever. I disagree
with this, to a degree. I like the
Kubrick version, but I think it’s definitely overrated. Most of this is because of plot changes that
were made from Stephen King’s novel (which I adore, obviously). These changes were puzzling. I get why the hedge animals weren’t included
(the special effects of the time weren’t up to snuff) but why remove the boiler
subplot, and more importantly, why take out the main character Jack Torrance’s
redemption at the end? And then there’s
the acting. Jack Nicholson is clearly an
excellent actor, but his portrayal of Torrance
is wrong. In the book Jack is a decent guy,
struggling with alcoholism and then his sanity as the story progresses. Nicholson’s Torrance seems crazy from the beginning, so
his decline is barely noticeable.
Stephen King wasn’t happy with Kubrick’s version, and thus was heavily
involved with the remake. Therefore,
it’s much more faithful to the book.
Actor Steven Weber (best known for the sitcom Wings) does a better job
as Jack, because he seems properly decent and sane at the onset. Also, the remake was a miniseries, so since
it was about two hours longer it could go into more detail than Kubrick’s
version could.
Okay, let’s end
by being negative. Here are the worst
remakes I’ve seen. Keep in mind, I’m
sure many others would make the list, but given my disdain for them, there are
many I’ve never seen, so I can’t comment on them.
1) Texas
Chainsaw Massacre, 2003 remake of the 1974 original. The original is awesome—always talked about
as being one of the best horror films ever, and rightly so. It’s brutal, disturbing, yet oddly bloodless
(seriously, rewatch it—most of the gore is off camera, or suggested). Some older movies don’t hold up over the
decades, but this one definitely still does.
And the remake was a waste of time.
Somehow they made a family of (inbred?) cannibals dull. I know I saw this, but I literally can barely
remember anything from it. Even R. Lee
Ermey couldn’t save it. Worth it only if
you like seeing Jessica Biel
strut around in skimpy outfits.
2) Planet
of the Apes, 2001 remake of the 1968 original.
The original, as I alluded to before, is a classic—interesting,
entertaining, and thought-provoking. The
remake is crap. The plot changes don’t
work at all—humans on the Planet are still intelligent? Why?—and of course there’s the famous ending
that tries to top the original’s shock ending image, but succeeds only in
making no sense. I often enjoy Tim
Burton’s movies, but this was one of his misses. Although, to give it some
credit, the ape makeup is vastly superior to the original’s.
3) The
Evil Dead, 2013 remake of the 1981 original.
This one got fairly complimentary reviews, but I can’t agree. The biggest plot change didn’t work for
me. You’re trying to help a heroin
addict go cold turkey, so you choose a decrepit cabin in the woods, far from
any town, or a hospital?! There were
some good intense moments, but not enough to make it worth making, or
watching. Why bother viewing this pale
retread when you can watch Bruce Campbell doing it better in the original?
4) Day
of the Dead, 2008 remake of the 1985 original.
Cheap, insulting, and moronic remake of George Romero’s great zombie
opus. Among its other faults, I’m not
buying petite Mena Suvari as some military badass. Plus the later plot twist involving the
military scientists didn’t make it for me, either. All flash, and no substance. Followed by a direct-to-video part 2, which I
won’t watch unless forced to at gunpoint.
5) The
Day the Earth Stood Still, 2008 remake of the 1951 original. On the surface, this looks like one I might
have enjoyed. Readers may have noticed
that some of the remakes I liked were 1950’s sci-fi movies remade decades
later, with improved effects and slightly updated storylines. Not in this case. The original had primitive effects, but was
entertaining, and quite charming.
Michael Rennie made for a compelling, charismatic alien Klaatu, and the
movie’s message of peace was appropriate for all eras. The remake had more huge scenes of
destruction, but it’s all so soulless.
Keanu Reeves, let’s face it, is a limited actor—sometimes his wooden, confused-seeming
persona is alright (Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Speed, The first
Matrix), but in this he’s just unlikable and oddly (since he’s so powerful)
drab. They took a fun, thought-provoking
movie and turned it into a depressing, and dull slog.
6) Last
House on the Left, 2009 remake of the 1972 original. This is it, the worst remake I’ve seen. The original is one of my favorite horror
movies. It’s incredibly dark and
disturbing, and at times is difficult to watch.
It’s tiny budget and minimum production values actually accentuate it—it
seems like you’re watching home video footage of a horrific crime. David Hess, as lead villain Krug, is great,
and utterly terrifying. His character
even verbally forces his own son to commit suicide, basically out of
spite! The remake completely overturns
the original’s tone. It’s populated by
actors who are too pretty and clean (the parents in this are absurdly young,
too) and everything is watered down and sanitized. It’s so slick and PG-13-itized that it loses
all its impact, and realism. I don’t
think I can convey how much I hated this movie.
They took a vicious, jaw-dropping classic and made it into something
that could probably be shown uncut on the Disney Channel (I’m exaggerating, of
course, but you get my point).
As usual, I’d welcome readers’ opinions,
or dissenting views, about remakes. As
for upcoming remakes, I’m not hopeful about Poltergeist, but the Mad Max one
actually looks promising. We’ll see.
No comments:
Post a Comment