Last night's list was meant to present a shining beacon of sorts, to show that not all remakes are utter trash. Tonight's is meant to show that, while there may be some diamonds out there, there's a whole lot of rough.
Before starting the list, I'll have to admit something: for the most part I avoid remakes unless I hear good word of mouth about them. I just don't often find the time to give an unworthy rehash of a story I've seen and enjoyed a chance. But I've suffered through my share of them. And here's a few:
Maybe it isn't necessarily bad. After all, Gus Van Sant made a nearly shot-for-shot remake (except for a little added something that was just really, really weird) using the original shooting script. But it's extremely unnecessary, and makes you wonder why they didn't just re-release the original. Sure, it wouldn't have been updated to appeal to a more modern time, but it's the same exact movie. Plus, Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh were both miles better than Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche. I'm glad Vaughn is sticking to stupid comedy, and I'm glad Heche is sticking to...I don't know. Is she still insane?
Again, not necessarily bad. In fact, it's almost a noble effort. Even more in fact, if the acting were a little less bland it might have turned out alright. But they screwed up big time with one of the most important aspects of the film: Damien. As a character, there's supposed to be a sort of evil about him, something he probably doesn't even realize is there. But for this remake, they decided to ditch evil in favor of whiny. Damien is so annoying in this that it makes you long for a day when child abuse isn't illegal anymore. Because he doesn't need minions of Satan protecting him, he needs a slap upside the head.
"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (2003)
The original is down and dirty, and the movie with which Tobe Hooper will always be associated. It managed to be violent and disturbing without spilling blood (outside of one scene in the beginning), and is one of the most influential horror films ever made. The remake tries to mimic the grittiness while modernizing it. It also tries injecting some more gore into it, and tries sexing it up by having Jessica Biel prance around in tight clothing. But it just doesn't reach the greatness of the original. At the end of the day it just feels standard.
It was an interesting idea: making a slasher film that ventures more into the backstory and mind of the slasher himself. And Michael Myers would definitely be an interesting subject for that. But the problem is that Rob Zombie took the film and made it his own, and it was all so uninspired. Not only was it a lot of the same redneck shtick that he played up in the far superior "House of 1000 Corpses" and "The Devil's Rejects", but it took away so much of what made Michael interesting. He didn't live in a normal household, you knew where the anger and violent tendencies were coming from, none of it came from left field, there was no sort of mystery to it. He should have just created his own slasher character instead of using an existing one.
The original: R-rated, dark, John Carpenter, recognizable genre actors, you get the idea. The remake: PG-13, CGI fog, a bunch of teenagers, that guy who plays Clark Kent...you get the idea. "The Fog" probably isn't one of those untouchable classics. A remake of it could have fared pretty well. But it didn't. Instead, it got watered down and made so that they could cram as many people into the theater as possible It doesn't have any of the original's humor, it's attempts at re-capturing some of the darkness fail miserably, and some of the changes inserted into the story are stupid. It's just a stupid movie. A stupid, stupid movie.
It's a story that's been told three times before, did there really need to be a fourth? Well it doesn't really matter, because no matter what the answer may be, "The Invasion" exists. And it's boring. Very boring. It was so delayed that people wondered whether or not it would ever see the light of day, and the Wachowskis were even brought in to try and make the movie more fast-paced and exciting. But they did not succeed, and not even a cast consisting of well-respected actors can save it. Ultimately, it's a forgettable film and you'd be much better off watching the original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", or the first of the three remakes. At least those were brave enough to leave out the happy ending.
First of all, how do you say the title? Second of all, in the decent-sized library of Dark Castle's mediocre to not good horror movies, this stands out as one of the worst. A remake of a campy haunted house feature from the notorious William Castle, it's all over the board. Sometimes it tries to be scary (and fails), sometimes it tries to be funny (and fails), and sometimes it tries to tug at the heartstrings (and fails). Admittedly, some of the gore effects can be cool. But cool effects aren't enough to make a horror film, let alone a horror remake, good. And the entire movie is so annoying and overly stylized that even blood can be difficult to enjoy.
The original is suspenseful and subtle, never overblowing anything and treating the genre with a very quiet dignity. But when Jan De Bont ("Speed", Speed 2") was brought on to helm the remake, all of that was tossed out the window. He turned the quietly chilling haunted house tale into a loud, ugly, way overblown popcorn flick. The act of telling rather than showing is replaced by CGI ghost children. The smaller, even a bit mysterious ending is replaced with some huge epic spiritual showdown. It's as if their intent with this remake was to destroy every bit of credibility the original has. Not even an Owen Wilson decapitation scene makes it watchable.
The remake of Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" managed to be inferior, but entertaining. The remake of Romero's "Day of the Dead" (mostly in name only) manages to be inferior, and a complete slap in the face to the original. It isn't scary, it's more annoying than entertaining, it looks and feels cheap, and it's packed with terrible performances (but what do you expect when Nick Cannon is part of your cast?). It's easy to see why a theatrical release was scrapped, and anyone who hates running zombies can find some fantastic ammo in this. Of course, it's not running as much as it is jumping, crawling on walls and ceilings, and apparently being fantastic athletes overall. It's really inspiring when something like being dead doesn't hinder somebody's hopes and dreams.
Both Nicolas Cage and the film's director Neil LaBute like to talk about how this was meant to be an extremely strange and dark comedy. Now even if they aren't using that as some sort of excuse for making a bad movie, that still means that they tried to inject some weird brand of comedy into a story that nobody was laughing at the first time around. The first "Wicker Man" is dark, chilling, intelligent, filled with great performances, and a classic to the highest degree. The remake is just...odd. That's honestly the best way to describe it. Not bad (though it is), not unwatchable (though it is, outside of this Youtube video), but odd. If you feel like your remake won't be as good, then just concentrate on making something that's worthy. Don't inject it with strangeness so that it stands out, because it won't stand out for the right reasons.
Be warned, these are not the only bad ones out there. There are plenty more, some of which might even be worse. So while you might want to approach remakes with a sort of interest and optimism, be cautious as well. Because you might not know when you'll start begging for those two hours back.
Comments