Throughout the decades each generation had their own films. The 60's had their horror, their action, their drama and their comedy. As did the 70's, 80's, 90's and early 00's. It's not to say that there weren't remakes and even reimaginings back then because there were. Some would even argue that the 1950's was quite reminiscent of today. A decade where popular films from the 1930's and 40's were remade until the likes of Alfred Hitchcock and Robert Wise came along in the early 1960's and said, "We have our own ideas, thank you."
We're almost into a new decade. Less than six months away and it looks like the era of every film we see on screen being a remake or a reimagining is here to stay. Is this a good thing? Is this a bad thing?
It depends.
I personally find it to be quite circumstantial. The way I feel about a remake depends on a lot of factors. I can best explain through example.
Here are 25 remakes and how I feel about them.
 |
| THE BAD SEED 1956 and 1985 |
The original was more direct and to the point whereas the 1985 remake was quite subtle and ambiguous. I felt Patty McCormick's performance to be better than Blair Brown's. McCormick seemed like a genuine little psychopath whereas Brown seemed more like a spoiled brat. I did like how the remake deviated away from all of the religious aspects, but even with the overabundance of Christian themes, the original was still more frightening. I appreciated the definitive ending in the original to the remake's abrupt ending.
 |
| FRIDAY THE 13th 1980 and 2009 |
The original is a classic. One of the all time greats. The remake felt more like a sequel than it did a remake and I for one appreciate that. As far as I'm concerned no toes were stepped on, no legacies were disrespected or tarnished. It was nothing new or original, but fun for a viewing or two. No harm, no foul.
 |
| HALLOWEEN 1978 and 2007 |
I cannot praise John Carpenter's Halloween enough. A simplistic yet deep story. Top of the line performances and a score that not only sets the mood, but in itself becomes a character. A mindless killing machine without motive, purely and simply evil. Mystic and mysterious we wonder what he is, why he is and whether or not he can be stopped. A young woman, compelling and interesting, we want to get to know her. We want to protect her and follow her. An obsessed psychiatrist, we empathize with his situation and want to see good overcome evil. It's why over forty years later we still cherish it for the masterpiece that it is.
On the same hand, I cannot criticize Rob Zombie's utter rubbish enough. I cannot bare myself the shame to even refer to it as HALLOWEEN. Now I'm a fair person. I'll give credit where credit is due. The film was extremely well lit. It had a phenomenal cast (it's a shame he didn't give them anything worth a shit to work with) and it was well shot. Perhaps that's what Zombie is good at. Lighting, casting and shooting. What he sucks at, and I mean to the degree of sucks at more than anyone else on this planet, is writing a script. He set up rules and broke them multiple times through various contradictions of his own convictions. Michael isn't purely and simply evil, he's a product of his environment, a mold of both nature and nurture. While I love Malcolm McDowell as an actor he had no choice but to play Dr. Sam Loomis as a blabbering buffoon because of a poorly constructed script. Psychology 101, introductory class freshman year at any junior college in the country could figure out what Rob Zombie's version of Loomis was too stupid to see. I could go on and on about how much I hate this film and why, but I think my point is clear. If you're going to remake a film there are a lot of what you can do. AND that includes doing your own thing, your own way.....but, but, but, but, but....in a way that doesn't completely shit all over the original. These are beloved stories and beloved characters. Whatever you do, don't ruin them.
 |
| HOUSE OF WAX 1933 and 2005 |
It was the early 1930's of course melodramatic performances and cheap special effects are going to be a part of what you see on screen. Exposition has to fill up the minutes because they don't have the technology at the time to replace it with the CGI that we take for granted today. For what it is, I enjoy it.
As to the remake, I liked it a lot more than most people did. The 4.3/10, C+ rating I feel was a bit harsh. I thought the story was decent, the characters were likable and one of the things that it most certainly got right was making the protagonist as interesting as the antagonist. Really the only thing that I felt the film did wrong was thrown in a cheap twist at the end. Everyone and their dog saw it coming and it was unnecessary. If anything it cheapened the ending. Instead of being left with the eerie and depressing feeling of "what's next?" We're left with a feeling of, set up for a sequel we know we'll never get.
 |
| A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 1984 and 2010 |
I own both films and enjoy both films for different reasons. I preferred the performances in the original. I felt Robert Englund owned the role compared to Jackie Earle Haley simply playing another part. Heather Langenkamp devoted to the role, deep and concentrated compared to Rooney Mara's above decent, yet not as strong performance. Freddy's look was more appealing in the original as well.
Yet the remake had a better story. A better explanation. One that balanced the levels of not enough and too much quite well. Gave where information was needed, excluding details that might come across as patronizing. It was well directed and well edited.
6-20 Coming soon!!
No comments:
Post a Comment