DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES: REMAKES.
I have always found remakes fascinating because the filmmakers that choose to make them are often passionate or interested in the original films, and any kind of passion often results in interesting cinema, even if it is flawed cinema.
However, this is not always the case, and there has been a history of soulless studio forced remakes over the years; amongst the main offenders are 2006's The Wicker Man, 2008’s barbaric slapdash version of The Omen, 2015's atrocious Poltergeist, and last and easily least 2010's A Nightmare on Elm Street, a film so bad it put the final nail in Freddy Kruger’s coffin (he's not coming back from that film neither is the licence).
Remakes, as mentioned can offer amongst the most interesting films cinema has to offer, or the worst. On an exceedingly rare date night, I had taken company to see The Omen, based on my appreciation of the original version, and how I wished I read the film critics’ reviews.
I had always been interesting in film criticism, passionately so, but it went up 10-fold after seeing that film. Plus, it is an example of where film directly influences, your life or effects your life. If the film had been good, who knows how my day could have played out.
I certainly wasn't expecting excellence of any kind, but in my opinion, based on just sheer respect for the craft of cinema and watching and observing so many films over the course of my life, reading books, and learning from film critics, I thought it failed as film in and of itself, not just a remake.
The screenplay had just borrowed the same structure as the original film and made a few changes. If you put your heart into your own work, then audiences will respect and embrace that.
What happened here is the original Richard Donner film had been completely carbon-copied (in a loose sense without wishing to associate it with the original), re-cast, choppily assembled and put out in theatres (and I went to see it without reading the reviews).
I share the same sentiments regarding all the remakes I've mentioned above, but I never went to see those at the theatre, so I wasn't short changed, but I was offended, and in the case of the Poltergeist remake, that hurt.
Now, for the successful remakes. These remakes were so successful they surpass the original films on which they're based namely: Philip Kaufman's 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, 1986's Thing, a remake of the lacklustre 'The Thing from Another World', Martin Scorsese's brilliant remake of Cape Fear, and in recent years The Coen Brothers fantastic remake of True Grit (2010).
These films are commonly accepted, practically universally by film-critics to be superior to the originals, so I'm going to look at some that are on the fence critically or not so widely respected, and ones I just personally admire or feel are worth checking out.
Remakes can go one of two ways: They can either be passionate, reinterpretations of others work that either match or surpass the originals, whilst offering something new and rewarding to viewers, or they can be soulless, studio controlled, cash-ins designed purely to empty the contents of your wallet into a cold corporate abyss. And as far as cinema remake history is concerned, it is an even 50/50 in terms of the quality of movie re-makes.
Remakes have long been a contentious subject in cinema, but the 1998 re-make of Psycho caused much controversy at the time, in terms of the sheer damage it could have inflicted on the reputation of Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece, and it is still a much maligned and debated work of cinema to present day.
Is it as bad as everyone suggests?
I saw it once in 1998 and once was enough - it's a poor excuse for a work of cinema and I think the critics were too kind to it, especially considering its infuriatingly high 22% score on rotten tomatoes.
The now inconic Psycho shower scene is a display of the relationship between sex and death. Everything about the sequence is symbolic: the cleansing shower setting; the repressed nature of Norman Bates; Moira Crane’s body movements as she tries to defend herself; the initial ambiguity of the killer. In essence, we have a film that was setting down the groundwork or rules for generations of horror film fans and filmmakers to come. Gus Van Sant's remake somehow manages to extinguish all the substance from Alfred Hitchcock’s original, bleeding it dry until it is nothing more than a dry rock.
Let us look at the movies!😉
1990's remake of 1955's Desperate Hours took a real critical mauling, and it is still considered a bad movie. But I kind of like it.
Funnily enough, the William Wyler directed original is not in itself a classic by any stretch so it was the perfect choice for a remake.
The story follows escaped convict Michael Bosworth (Mickey Rourke) as he seeks out a temporary hideout, amongst American suburbia, in order to wait for his love interest, partner in crime, and solicitor, Nancy Breyers (Kelly Lynch). He picks the home of middle-class family man, and suburbanite Tim (Anthony Hopkins), and unfortunately for Michael Bosworth, it ends up being the wrong place of refuge.
Desperate Hours was directed by the ill-fated Michael Cimino, who suffered a fall from grace in Hollywood after making the Oscar winning classic, The Deer Hunter, a brave film that captured the unspoken sentiments of an entire generation concerning not just the Vietnamese war, but what it truly means to be an American, or indeed, a war veteran.
Basically, he made some wrong choices after The Deer Hunter and lost his credibility within his industry and large audiences. His time as a successfully commercial film director gradually declined over the decades, and he never made a financially successful film again, even burying a studio in debt with the, in my opinion, excellent, Heaven's Gate, a film that succeeds, but doesn't quite blossom and bloom the way it should, considering the talent behind it.
Many film fans hate Heaven's Gate, but aside from the shockingly bad ending, I really like it.
Desperate Hours is certainly a Hollywood by-product directed by somebody, who, at the time, likely didn't have lots of choices open to him, but that being said, the film does, in my opinion, have the flair of a very capable film-maker and benefits from a solid performance from Mickey Rourke, and some stunning cinematography by Douglas Milsome (he shot Full Metal Jacket).
There is a particularly well shot sequence involving the death of Michael's accomplice, Albert, who, after going on the run, is viciously gunned down by FBI after getting cornered near a river bank. It is an emotive sequence that shows a glimmer of at least what this movie could of been, and includes a quick shot of a Deer, possibly a visual reference? The sequence is certainly evocative of the themes that Michael Cimino delivered so eloquently in The Deer Hunter (violence, and societal indifference breeds violence and is a consequence of others violence either directly or in-directly).
The film fails in breaking out of its Hollywood tropes and unfortunately, they are suffocating in this film. Rourke tries to lift the film out its conventions along with the cinematographer, but it still remains a typical Hollywood movie.
It is clear that Michael Cimino has a story to tell here, or a story he wants to tell, and I think that is present in Michael Bosworth's fairly complex and conflicted persona, which shines through in the scenes with ordinary suburban family man, Tim, played with frustration and anguish by Anthony Hopkins. But the script just doesn't let these character's breath.
Overall, 1990's Desperate Hours is superior to the rigid and miscast 1955 version, an entertaining watch, and a re-make that is certainly worth a second chance.
My criticism would be aimed at the heavy use of CGI in the films later half, which harms the film, but other than that, I could not fault it.
HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL (1999)
In other words, it’s a teenage popcorn horror movie with integrity and in this specific genre, that is an all too rare beast, as audiences would sadly find out with the agonising re-make of 13 Ghosts, which is devoid of integrity, wit, style, or even a purpose.
DESPERATE HOURS (1990)
1990's remake of 1955's Desperate Hours took a real critical mauling, and it is still considered a bad movie. But I kind of like it.
Funnily enough, the William Wyler directed original is not in itself a classic by any stretch so it was the perfect choice for a remake.
The story follows escaped convict Michael Bosworth (Mickey Rourke) as he seeks out a temporary hideout, amongst American suburbia, in order to wait for his love interest, partner in crime, and solicitor, Nancy Breyers (Kelly Lynch). He picks the home of middle-class family man, and suburbanite Tim (Anthony Hopkins), and unfortunately for Michael Bosworth, it ends up being the wrong place of refuge.
Desperate Hours was directed by the ill-fated Michael Cimino, who suffered a fall from grace in Hollywood after making the Oscar winning classic, The Deer Hunter, a brave film that captured the unspoken sentiments of an entire generation concerning not just the Vietnamese war, but what it truly means to be an American, or indeed, a war veteran.
Basically, he made some wrong choices after The Deer Hunter and lost his credibility within his industry and large audiences. His time as a successfully commercial film director gradually declined over the decades, and he never made a financially successful film again, even burying a studio in debt with the, in my opinion, excellent, Heaven's Gate, a film that succeeds, but doesn't quite blossom and bloom the way it should, considering the talent behind it.
Many film fans hate Heaven's Gate, but aside from the shockingly bad ending, I really like it.
Desperate Hours is certainly a Hollywood by-product directed by somebody, who, at the time, likely didn't have lots of choices open to him, but that being said, the film does, in my opinion, have the flair of a very capable film-maker and benefits from a solid performance from Mickey Rourke, and some stunning cinematography by Douglas Milsome (he shot Full Metal Jacket).
There is a particularly well shot sequence involving the death of Michael's accomplice, Albert, who, after going on the run, is viciously gunned down by FBI after getting cornered near a river bank. It is an emotive sequence that shows a glimmer of at least what this movie could of been, and includes a quick shot of a Deer, possibly a visual reference? The sequence is certainly evocative of the themes that Michael Cimino delivered so eloquently in The Deer Hunter (violence, and societal indifference breeds violence and is a consequence of others violence either directly or in-directly).
The film fails in breaking out of its Hollywood tropes and unfortunately, they are suffocating in this film. Rourke tries to lift the film out its conventions along with the cinematographer, but it still remains a typical Hollywood movie.
It is clear that Michael Cimino has a story to tell here, or a story he wants to tell, and I think that is present in Michael Bosworth's fairly complex and conflicted persona, which shines through in the scenes with ordinary suburban family man, Tim, played with frustration and anguish by Anthony Hopkins. But the script just doesn't let these character's breath.
Overall, 1990's Desperate Hours is superior to the rigid and miscast 1955 version, an entertaining watch, and a re-make that is certainly worth a second chance.
CARRIE (2013)
2013's Carrie is not so much a re-make as a third attempt to bring Stephen King's best novel to the big screen. But everyone is going to compare it to Brian DePalma's seminal masterpiece of the same name. Writer Stephen King’s work has proven notoriously difficult to bring to the big screen, with only a handful of critically and commercially successful feature films including 1976’s Carrie, Misery, Dolores Clairborne, Big Driver, and the recent adaptations of I.T. and Gerald’s Game.
Like all good fiction writers, he uses symbolic ideas or otherworldly characters to represent other meanings and this is practically impossible to transfer to cinema directly. Hence, Stephen King’s more human stories transfer much better (his stories of personal empowerment and coming of age tales).
I like and admire Stephen King, but he understands novels better than he does cinema, as we know from his own directorial work, his script for The X-Files episode Chinga, and his opinions on Stanley Kubrick’s eccentric take on his own novel, The Shining.
1976's Carrie is amongst my favourite films. It is cinema as poetry, beautifully crafted and realised.
So, I had low expectations going into the 2013 attempt at Carrie, and was pleasantly surprised. The film was criticised for not doing something new with the Stephen King source material, but I disagree
with this entirely.
The structure echoes the novel, but as a work of cinema, this is different beast.
The structure echoes the novel, but as a work of cinema, this is different beast.
I certainly did not think it matched the 1976 version in technique or creative inspiration, but I felt actress Chloe Grace Moretz's turn as Carrie White was just as good as Sissy Spacek's performance and she has such electric chemistry with actress Julianne Moore in the film, who shines playing Carrie's angst ridden god fearing mother, Margaret White. Moore better's actress Piper Laurie's over the top turn, playing mom, in the still flawless original.
My criticism would be aimed at the heavy use of CGI in the films later half, which harms the film, but other than that, I could not fault it.
Ultimately, director Kimberly Peirce drives this story home and successfully injects it with her own creative style, even if it is not going to break down any conventional walls.
HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL (1999)
In the late 90's Dark Castle Entertainment set about remaking the old William Castle horror movies for the 90's generation. It was an idea that would result in remakes of two including a particularly
awful and loose re-imagining of 13 Ghosts, and this inspired box-office hit, House on Haunted Hill.
The film is a re-imagining of the original Vincent Price led film of the same name, a film of which I am not fond of. It is more comedy than horror, and piss poor, in my opinion.
This stylish re-make does precisely what the original does not deliver on: horror, style, and chills.
It takes a pretty basic concept (theme park owner Steven Price (Geoffrey Rush) offers a million bucks each to a group of strangers should they be willing to stay the night and survive in a haunted asylum), and injects it with a particularly nasty story involving a mental asylum for the criminally insane, the Vannacutt Institute.
The film doesn't stray too far outside its Hollywood conventions, but what is does do, and why it is here, is create a really atmospheric and spooky backdrop in the form of its Victorian style mental asylum, The Vannicutt Institute, and delivers some really inventive and gruesome deaths, which benefit from a confident mixture of practical effects and very ethereal looking CGI, which upon viewing in 1999 I thought were genuinely creepy and effective.
This movie was marketed for a teenage audience, and does exactly what it sets out to, but it doesn't slack on creativity or style, articulately crafting its unpleasant tale along the way, if not digging deep into anything substantive or intellectually resonant.
In other words, it’s a teenage popcorn horror movie with integrity and in this specific genre, that is an all too rare beast, as audiences would sadly find out with the agonising re-make of 13 Ghosts, which is devoid of integrity, wit, style, or even a purpose.So, avoid that one and give this a try if you have overlooked it, and be sure to check out the original 13 Ghosts, as it’s a classic.
I will recommend his 2016 effort, The Shallows, which is a great feministic Jaws hybrid.
I was fascinated by Robocop when I first watched it as a child and still am over 25 years since I first viewed it.
The films unusual blend of ultra violent comic book luridness, combined with a razor sharp satirical edge, just drew me in.
The film tells the tragic story of officer Alex Murphy (Peter Weller), an idealistic but well meaning police officer who, after being brutally gunned down by thugs, is optioned for the top secret Robocop project - an unorthodox experiment which involves combining the cognitive parts of a human being with state of the art robotics to create the perfect human/cyborg hybrid cop.
Robocop was sort of the thing teenage boys dreams were made of, and the film was executed with such craft that it really did raise the benchmark for its genre and the motion picture industry.
Robocop was not just some run-of-the-mill science fiction action film. It was pioneering cinema,featuring at the time, pioneering special effects and an unorthodox blend of graphic violence and satire.
Robocop had a notoriously difficult run in with the censors, both here in England and America. In the early days of DVD, a fully uncut version was released in America, and became a desirable DVD at this time. Obviously by today's standards most, if not everything, gets through
uncut but those of us born before 2000 had to wait for sometime before we saw anything UNCUT.
The story in Robocop hinges on the notion of the 'ghost in the machine, with deceased officer Alex Murphy's soul -his unfinished business - still breaking through all the robotics, but the film goes a step further than that and alludes to a man who, in life, yearned to be the perfect father and in a harsh twist of fate has become more than his ideal, not through an act of God but by pure science and technology.
Not even having his hands and right arm blown off with shotguns are enough to resolve the tension brooding within his soul, and we see this power over the mortal coil when Murphy has unusually not died after being shot multiple times.
The character of Alex Murphy is a man who has met society at its worst head on, with tragic consequences. But instead of dying an agonising death for nothing, he is reborn by the hands of mankind; we better ourselves in Robocop, a grim fairy-tale for the 21st Century. But like all fairy-tales, the story has a moralistic conclusion that suggests the fight against corporations and corruption is going to continue not just on-screen, but more importantly, off screen.
Some sequels would follow that, like practically every initial great movie, would follow the cinematic rule of diminishing returns (that is putting it very lightly). In recent years, an ill advised remake surfaced, a film so emotionally, technically, and cinematic-ally shallow in both content and delivery that I can barely ascertain that even exists. I'll note Robocop 2 did successfully carry over the the right stylistic look from the original, but that is it. The sharp satire, edge and intelligence of the original are completely absent. It is an unworthy sequel in every respect, but it is 10 x better than the recent re-boot.
Robocop has so many strengths as a work of cinema, but its key to success is its slightly tongue in cheek, at times scathing, critique of corporations and the media, something Paul Verhoeven would channel, in my opinion less successfully and more blatantly, in Starship Troopers. If you can balance a statement with a really entertaining pop-corn science fiction movie, then you've met cinema at the best of its ideals, and Robocop achieves this.
The remake doesn't achieve anything. It doesn't fundamentally understand anything in the original film, not even the plot. It is a remake in name only, and a tragic one. Gone is the intelligence of the original, gone is the visionary seedy, industrial, metropolis of Delta City, gone is the lurid violence and sharp script, and gone is the organic performances of a cast working at the top of their craft.
The new Robocop is a load of bollocks basically.
It is quite clear 1987's Robocop was truly laboured on, and the work of a director, in Paul Verhoeven, who had more than just a film to make. He was making a statement, and a vivid, harrowing, and breathtakingly original one.
Ultimately, Robocop, in the hands of outgoing Danish director Paul Verhoeven, had brains and bottle, the likes of which are absent in today's mainstream cinema market, but as for our times themselves, they are growing disturbingly close to the future depicted in this dark futuristic science fiction dream world or should that be nightmare.
HOUSE OF WAX (2005)
2005's House of Wax is a loose re-make of the 1953 Vincent Price film of the same name. Like the original House on Haunted Hill I feel 1953's House of Wax is or was ripe for remaking.
It is, in my opinion, a fairly weak entry in the Vincent Price filmography, even though it has a legion of fans and cult status.
The slasher version does not better the original, but it equals it, if only just.
The story is simple one: A large group of 20-somethings end up breaking down in their truck on the way to a football game, and seek help in a nearby town of Ambrose, which isn't at all what it appears to be, and neither are the residents.
House of Wax is a text-book slasher film through and through, and does not break these conventions, but it is stylishly shot, and has more than a few inventive ideas up its sleeve.
The films conclusion is particularly well done with the house, of course, literally melting into the ground after the young crowd have been sliced and diced.
Actress and television personality Paris Hilton succeeds in her role as drippy blonde Paige but she took a huge amount of criticism at the time for her performance; I've not seen her in many movies since. I personally feel this criticism was woefully invalid. She delivers in what is an important role in any slasher film, the tragic blonde. Her role is brief, but she delivers the anguish, sweat and, tears in spades, relishing her role and her deliciously gory demise.
Spanish-American director Jaume Collet-Serra has great strength as a filmmaker, particularly in crafting tension and working with young casts, and continues to be involved in the Hollywood production cycle to date.
I will recommend his 2016 effort, The Shallows, which is a great feministic Jaws hybrid.Overall, 2005's House of Wax does exactly what it says on tin and does it well. Nobody entered the theatre expecting anything more than a text-book slasher, and the film delivers on this, whilst adding some vivid visual flair to mix.
LET ME IN (2010)
2010's Let Me In is a remake of the 2008 Swedish film Let the Right One In. Both of these films are considered contemporary horror classics.
Let Me In tells the story of a bullied 12-year-old boy and his friendship with a female vampire, portrayed here by actress Chloe Grace Moretz. The film is my least favourite film on this list, but I feel it is a worthy re-make, as I am not particularly fond of the critically lauded original.
I enjoy heavy horror, made with style and possibly some gore, but Let Me In is a breezy, melancholic, horror-drama that draws me in, in part due to actress Chloe Grace Moretz’s mesmerising performance as seductive child vampire Abby.
I will be honest Moretz lifts this film out of what is a very workmanlike directorial aesthetic. What can I say, director Matt Reeves is just going through the motions here? In other words, practically anybody could have directed Let me In, but Chloe Grace Moretz would be crucial in bringing this story to the boil.
Again, Let the Right One In is equally as good, but both are telling a story here that is more vampirically poetic than anything resembling traditional horror, and might not be completely my cup of tea, so to speak.
ROBOCOP (1987)
I was fascinated by Robocop when I first watched it as a child and still am over 25 years since I first viewed it.
The films unusual blend of ultra violent comic book luridness, combined with a razor sharp satirical edge, just drew me in.
The film tells the tragic story of officer Alex Murphy (Peter Weller), an idealistic but well meaning police officer who, after being brutally gunned down by thugs, is optioned for the top secret Robocop project - an unorthodox experiment which involves combining the cognitive parts of a human being with state of the art robotics to create the perfect human/cyborg hybrid cop.
Robocop was sort of the thing teenage boys dreams were made of, and the film was executed with such craft that it really did raise the benchmark for its genre and the motion picture industry.
Robocop was not just some run-of-the-mill science fiction action film. It was pioneering cinema,featuring at the time, pioneering special effects and an unorthodox blend of graphic violence and satire.
Robocop had a notoriously difficult run in with the censors, both here in England and America. In the early days of DVD, a fully uncut version was released in America, and became a desirable DVD at this time. Obviously by today's standards most, if not everything, gets through
uncut but those of us born before 2000 had to wait for sometime before we saw anything UNCUT.
The story in Robocop hinges on the notion of the 'ghost in the machine, with deceased officer Alex Murphy's soul -his unfinished business - still breaking through all the robotics, but the film goes a step further than that and alludes to a man who, in life, yearned to be the perfect father and in a harsh twist of fate has become more than his ideal, not through an act of God but by pure science and technology.
Not even having his hands and right arm blown off with shotguns are enough to resolve the tension brooding within his soul, and we see this power over the mortal coil when Murphy has unusually not died after being shot multiple times.
The character of Alex Murphy is a man who has met society at its worst head on, with tragic consequences. But instead of dying an agonising death for nothing, he is reborn by the hands of mankind; we better ourselves in Robocop, a grim fairy-tale for the 21st Century. But like all fairy-tales, the story has a moralistic conclusion that suggests the fight against corporations and corruption is going to continue not just on-screen, but more importantly, off screen.
Some sequels would follow that, like practically every initial great movie, would follow the cinematic rule of diminishing returns (that is putting it very lightly). In recent years, an ill advised remake surfaced, a film so emotionally, technically, and cinematic-ally shallow in both content and delivery that I can barely ascertain that even exists. I'll note Robocop 2 did successfully carry over the the right stylistic look from the original, but that is it. The sharp satire, edge and intelligence of the original are completely absent. It is an unworthy sequel in every respect, but it is 10 x better than the recent re-boot.
Robocop has so many strengths as a work of cinema, but its key to success is its slightly tongue in cheek, at times scathing, critique of corporations and the media, something Paul Verhoeven would channel, in my opinion less successfully and more blatantly, in Starship Troopers. If you can balance a statement with a really entertaining pop-corn science fiction movie, then you've met cinema at the best of its ideals, and Robocop achieves this.
The remake doesn't achieve anything. It doesn't fundamentally understand anything in the original film, not even the plot. It is a remake in name only, and a tragic one. Gone is the intelligence of the original, gone is the visionary seedy, industrial, metropolis of Delta City, gone is the lurid violence and sharp script, and gone is the organic performances of a cast working at the top of their craft.
The new Robocop is a load of bollocks basically.
It is quite clear 1987's Robocop was truly laboured on, and the work of a director, in Paul Verhoeven, who had more than just a film to make. He was making a statement, and a vivid, harrowing, and breathtakingly original one.
Ultimately, Robocop, in the hands of outgoing Danish director Paul Verhoeven, had brains and bottle, the likes of which are absent in today's mainstream cinema market, but as for our times themselves, they are growing disturbingly close to the future depicted in this dark futuristic science fiction dream world or should that be nightmare.
