As the horror remake explosion continues in Hollywood, true fans of the genre are left to wander in limbo deciding whether to embrace it or to take offence. It must be realized that these films can carry equal weight to the most sorrowful dramas and the most hilarious comedies. There is a delicate balance that exists as directors line up to remake these classics and one must discern whether their intentions are altruistic or parasitic. How do we begin to separate the respectful pilgrims from the marauding thieves? Well, for one, there is an earnestness in their approach marked with a humble disposition that guards the legacy. However, one must stay vigilant and be ready to act when the louse appears ready to grow fat off the back of horror history. In an effort to preempt these mischievous interlopers, Feature Film Review has compiled the list of remakes below that may not transcend the original, but get it right……spirit and mind.
Feature Film Review
October 24, 2008
Please click on a remake or scroll down to to read FFR's reviews.
Feature Film Review
October 24, 2008
Please click on a remake or scroll down to to read FFR's reviews.
Original: Dracula (1931)
Remake: Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)
The mythology of Dracula endures largely due to the ghoul’s frequent appearance in motion pictures (despite invisibility in still photographs). Certainly the silent German classic Nosferatu fashioned the blueprint, but it was the 1931 Universal classic Dracula that brought the bloodsucker’s legacy to a boil. Audiences were shocked by the bold sexuality and hellish happenings of Todd Browning’s adaptation of the Bram Stoker novel. Bela Lugosi’s stage-to-screen vamping as the Transylvanian Count would mark the start (and peak) of his career as his accent, dress and creepy presence would define the character in popular culture.
Many sequels and remakes throughout the decades have either preserved, refined or outright rejected the set of rules defined by those and other Dracula films. England’s Hammer Films brought the Count to the screen in bloody good color, doing for Christopher Lee what the 1931 film had done for Lugosi. A close relative appeared in the late 1960’s daytime gothic soap Dark Shadows, and several stylish retellings of the Dracula tale hit television and silver screens in the following years. But in the early 1990’s, celebrated filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola took a shot at the legend.
A more faithful revisiting of Stoker’s source story than prior attempts, the film is a dark romantic period piece that begins in the 15th Century. Noble Prince Dracula enters battle in defense of the Christian church, and is rewarded with the suicide of his beautiful bride following false news of his death. He renounces God and vows to avenge heaven with all the powers of darkness. Four hundred years later, he sails to London on business and discovers the apparent reincarnation of his lost love. As his power and persuasion grow, his evil is unearthed by the peculiar Dr. Van Helsing, who leads a group of men to destroy the ungodly creature.
The acting talents of Gary Oldman as the Count and Sir Anthony Hopkins as his nemesis Van Helsing clearly enrich the film with mature and convincing characterizations, but the dazzling backgrounds prove just as entertaining. Shadows cast unnaturally, motions and movements appear strange, images shock and soothe the eye; all of these tricks of light and camera add an otherworldly creepiness that grips the viewer from start to finish. And the many forms of Oldman’s Count never cease to amaze – from young warrior to ancient warlock, from beast to bat to a pile of rats! Though understandably promoted as a gothic love story, Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula is undeniably a baroque horror film with just the right touches of modern movie magic.
Original: Manhunter (1986)
Remake: Red Dragon (2002)
In the early stages of what was to be a brilliant career, director Michael Mann decided to adapt Thomas Harris’ novel “Red Dragon” for the silver screen. The film, entitled Manhunter, was intended to revamp the serial killer genre by offering more than a faceless murderer guided by a simplistic tale of revenge. The results turned out to be better than imagined and Mann’s film, along with Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, made 1986 a watershed year in horror film history. The film delivered an involving visual experience marked with an intelligent design rarely seen in the genre since Hitchcock’s Psycho. The more sophisticated horror/crime hybrid laid out by Mann sparked a revival leading to great works such as The Silence of the Lambs (another Harris novel), Seven, and more recently Zodiac. Although not completely original, borrowing heavily from John Carpenter and his masterpiece Halloween, Manhunter should be credited for bringing a much need depth to the horror genre.
Brett Ratner’s remake of Manunter is a very impressive production with its quality of writing down to its extremely talented cast members. The direction is surprisingly competent, given Ratner’s horrid track record (see the Rush Hour saga), but one could argue that anyone could direct this film given the pieces he had at his disposal. This list of contributors reads like a who’s who of Hollywood masters headlined by an impeccable cast including: Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Harvey Keitel, and of course Sir Anthony Hopkins reprising his award-winning role as Dr. Hannibal Lecter. With a spot-on score by Danny Elfman, Red Dragon cannot help but match, or even better Mann’s original.
There are differences between the films that are somewhat significant due to the time frame in which each was made. Manhunter has trouble translating to younger audiences due to its overt celebration of the 80s which may result in Red Dragon having more staying power. The remake has the benefit of leaving certain distractions at the door such as the outrageous wardrobes and dated pop songs. This is not necessarily a critique of Manhunter, but nearly a barrier whose esoteric style may blind audiences from seeing the film’s true worth.
Red Dragon’s screenplay takes Thomas Harris source material in a different direction than its predecessor. Adapted by Oscar-winning writer Ted Tally, the script adds scenes that capitalize more fully on the impeccable cast and offers a deeper look at Harris’ main themes. For instance, the two films begin differently with Tally electing to detail Dr. Lecter’s capture. Having worked with Hopkins on Silence of the Lambs, the writer wanted to exploit the famous actor and start the film on a strong definitive note. Along with a higher emphasis on Lecter, Tally also adds an intellectual element to the story by going deeper into the serial killer Francis Dolarhyde’s preoccupation with poet and painter William Blake. Blake’s painting, The Great Red Dragon and the Woman Clothed with Sun, drives the madman and renders the audience hopelessly absorbed in its meaning. Another interesting twist on the Dolarhyde character is his abusive relationship with his grandmother which draws parallels to Joseph Stefano’s Psycho script and Norman Bates. Together, Tally and Hopkins, give Red Dragon the distinction of being a remake that respects the original while simultaneously having the creativity to successfully expand on Manhunter’s solid foundation.
Original: The Fly (1958)
Remake: The Fly (1986)
The 1958 sci-fi standout The Fly is heralded as one of film’s most stylistic thrillers. Essentially a Vincent Price vehicle, it told the story of a scientist whose experiments result in him losing his head to a fly on the wall, and getting a bulbous insect head replacement. Nowhere as silly as it sounds, this classic is in all seriousness well acted and well intended – as well as a must for any Price devotee. But it also was an idea whose time was yet to come.
After considering and dismissing the idea of a Frankenstein reboot, Canadian director David Cronenberg began transforming a somewhat quaint ‘50’s programmer into a full-on horror rebirth. The resulting Fly was not only one of Cronenberg’s greatest achievements thus far, but one of the best horror films of the 1980’s – and quite possibly one of the best remakes ever made. In fact, it is nearly undisputed that it surpasses the original in almost every way.
Genetics genius Seth Brundle has nearly perfected the process of teleporting objects from one place to another, and his breakthrough attracts the attention of a beautiful tech journalist. As he applies the finishing touches to research, a test run with himself as subject goes horribly wrong – a housefly shares his short jump from one ‘telepod’ to the other. But only Brundle comes out the other side, and having absorbed the fly into his own genetic makeup, he begins a slow, terrifying transformation into what he later laughingly calls “Brundlefly”.
Jeff Goldblum’s leading turn has been characterized as one of the most moving monster portrayals since the aforementioned Frankenstein’s Boris Karloff take on ‘The Creature’ – a twisted flesh and blood abomination resulting from man’s desire to “play god” and interlope in nature’s mysteries. Cronenberg does relay that everlasting (and ever relevant) message, but also allows the film to be what it is at heart – a damn good monster movie. The effects work of Chris Walas is given center stage, as Goldblum loses his body and mind in a scary man-made evolutionary process. The frightening and funny highlight of The Fly may be his “Insect Politics” speech, but the entire experience is an unforgettable exercise in what an inspired remake can be with its head in the right place.
Original: Night of the Living Dead (1968)
Remake: Night of the Living Dead (1990)
Probably the most recognized horror picture of all time due to its generous TV air time, George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead is a classic. Although not the first film to introduce the zombie, it expanded on the creation to produce a more frightening creature that hungers for the taste of human flesh. As the dead awake and descend on the cast relegated to a remote farm house, never has terror been so pure and natural. But contrary to preconceived notions about the film, Night of the Living Dead is far from simplistic. Shot in black and white, guerrilla-style, Romero’s picture is actually rich with socio-political themes, commenting on the nature of war with its newsreel-like construction. Romero’s film can also been seen as quite revolutionary for the time by examining race relations through the casting of an African American as the hero/protagonist. Based on Richard Matheson’s famous novel, “I Am Legend”, Night of the Living Dead is a sterling example of the power that horror films can posses.
After the success of his original, Romero established the “Living Dead” series and made four sequels to his 1968 classic. The first two follow-ups, Dawn of the Dead (1978) and Day of the Dead (1985), we extremely well-received and even became notable entries in horror film pantheon. Due to the success of these films and their faithful following, makeup artist and actor Tom Savini began exploring the possibility of a remake. Having played a part in the sequels, Savini believed that he could put together a color version of the film that would honor Romero’s legacy. With certain stipulations, Romero agreed and allowed the film to go into production.
Having no experience directing feature films, there was an enormous risk involved allowing Savini to helm the project and be responsible for the integrity of the picture. But to everyone’s relief, the fledgling director fared admirably and delivered a film worthy of its namesake. That is not to say that the film is not without its flaws because there are instances where shoddy technique threatens the film. However, once you get past the awkward beginning, Savini’s film begins to work by virtue of some spot-on casting. Tony Todd (Candyman - 1992) as Ben and Tom Towles as Harry Cooper deliver quality performances that prevent the film from dipping below average.
With assistance from Romero in the writing department, Savini’s version does present some variations from the original. For instance, the film depicts its lead female role, Barbara, as a strong woman who gradually becomes a leader over time. This is in stark contrast to Judith O’Dea’s near catatonic performance in Romero’s film. The remake also takes liberties with the ending that prove to be rather refreshing. These changes along with the aforementioned turns by Todd and Towles make Night of the Living Dead (1990) a pleasant surprise and an admirable homage. And given the dishonorable mention for the other remake (Night of the Living Dead 3D - 2006), Savini and Co. deserve credit for their interpretation of one of horror’s greatest films.
Original: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
Remake: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
Director Tobe Hooper’s notorious 1973 Chainsaw was a gritty, low budget attempt to tell the true-life horrors of Wisconsin serial killer Ed Gein (who also inspired Hitchcock’s Psycho), fashioning the horrors into a fictitious horror film classic. A group of five youngsters wander into the backwoods of rural Texas, and run afoul of a bloodthirsty clan of sadists that thrive on human flesh. The family’s beefy assassin Leatherface (a mentally ill murderer who wears the faces of his victims) created the mold for later screen villains such as Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger, and scary movies have never been the same.
What could Hollywood mogul Michael Bay add to the mix to drown out cries of “blasphemy” from film purists? Marcus Nipsel took the directorial reigns of the dreaded update. Recasting the victim roles with attractive twenty-somethings, upping the gore quotient and retooling aspects of the story proved an interesting makeover for Leatherface and family. The preexisting recipe is peppered with some scary spice and even stranger villains than before. R. Lee Ermey revisits his usual foul-mouthed authority figure to play Sheriff Hoyt, a tobacco chewing redneck who nearly steals the show single-handedly.
It also helps to have the original Chainsaw cinematographer Daniel Pearl in command of the camera, reinforcing the snuff film look with much more color and creativity – resulting in a realistic but well-defined framework. Certain memorable scenes from the ’73 version are recreated with grisly success, including the infamous ‘meat hook’ shocker. And just as with that cult trailblazer, this above average remake is certainly not for all tastes. A remake that divides Saw fans right down the middle, Texas Chainsaw Massacre gets away with showing the gory details that its infamous forerunner only dared to mention.
Original: Nosferatu (1922)
Remake: Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)
The first film adaptation of “Dracula,” Nosferatu (loosely translated to “plague-bearer”) introduces the world to the vampire, a bloodsucking monster that would become the face of horror. F. W. Murnau’s seminal silent classic delivers the most frightening imagery ever to be captured on film. Rooted in German Expressionism, Murnau’s twisted vision is buoyed by incredible location shooting that discovers real world oddities to commingle with dreamy distortions. The arch motif present throughout the film is wonderfully executed providing a subconscious gateway between the realm of the presupposed and the uncomfortable state of uncertainty. Calling upon the works of famous German artist such as Munch, Nosferatu is an artistic conveyance that is worthy of the title: “a Symphony of Horror.”
Famed German director Werner Herzog elected to take the challenge of remaking the 1922 classic out of pure respect for Murnau. In his attempt, Herzog stays close to the source material in terms of general storyline and the naturalistic visual style of its predecessor.
Both films follow Stoker’s “Dracula” very loosely as they take liberties with the vampire legend and re-arrange some of the character’s names. However, there are some distinctions between the two versions that are worth noting. First of which being that Herzog was able to actually use the name Count Dracula as opposed to Murnau who named he title character Count Orlok due to conflicts with the Stoker estate. Some other differences occur due to Herzog’s ability to incorporate sound, a luxury unavailable to Murnau. Through dialogue, Nosferatu, the Vampyre is able to present Dracula as a creature who longs to explore the side of humanity rather than reveling in its wicked ways. This proves to be a wonderful asset to the film that allows it to distinguish itself in vampire pantheon by not presenting another resurrection of Lugosi’s cunning Count.
Herzog visual style is worthy of high praise as he offers breathtaking visuals of medieval Europe to compound the effect of the beloved story. Much in the same way as Murnau, Herzog allows the scenery to become a focal point of the feature, allowing its interpretation to haunt the viewer from beginning to end. Ripe with metaphor and supple subjectivity, Herzog’s imagery is hypnotic and a fine tribute to Murnau’s mastery.
The original Nosferatu is perhaps best remembered for inventing one of the most frightening creatures in Max Schreck’s portrayal of Count Orlok. The image of Orlok has haunted so many generations that even a film was made that imaged Schreck as a real vampire (see Shadow of Vampire starring Willem Dafoe). Herzog knew that his adaptation would need a powerful performance to match that of Schreck’s so he called upon his frequent collaborator and master of method Klaus Kinski. The result was nothing short of phenomenal as Kinski’s turn as the horrid count ranks among the best ever brought to screen.
Original: The Thing from Another World (1951)
Remake: The Thing (1982)
Howard Hawks helmed the original film adaptation of the John Campbell, Jr. story “Who Goes There?”, crafting a suspenseful science-fiction classic that still holds up today. A mixed company of soldiers and scientists stationed in the northern arctic retrieve the remnants of a flying saucer crash – a sole inhabitant that thaws and wrecks havoc on their snowy outpost. Masterful direction guides an unusually smart screenplay, carving a well-deserved place for The Thing (From another World) in horror’s icy heart.
Enter John Carpenter. Fresh from the wildly successful Halloween and a few good follow-ups, Carpenter and screenwriter Bill Lancaster reemphasize the source story and heap on the creeps aplenty. This time, a smaller and more isolated group discovers a shape-shifting monstrosity amongst their ranks – one that can absorb and imitate any life-form at any time. Paranoia and power struggles prove as great a threat as the alien menace, as the secluded group further divides and conquers itself in nail-biting fashion.
Carpenter’s frequent leading man Kurt Russell turns in a sly performance, and is buoyed by an excellent supporting cast of character actors. Italian maestro Ennio Morricone lays down the cold, calculating soundtrack, and the director’s go-to cinematographer Dean Cundey gives viewers a good case of cabin fever. Moreover, the special effects wizardry of Albert Whitlock and Rob Bottin broke serious ground in the film industry, concocting an oozing horror that never appears the same way twice. The morphing monster of the title may pale in the shadow of today’s CGI showcases, but true fans of horror will appreciate the technique and tone of this bone-chilling thrill ride. Recently made into a hit video game, rumors of remaking The Thing a third time have made the rounds, but there seems to be little room for improvement over one of Carpenter’s (and horror’s) finest.
Original: Funny Games (1997)
Remake: Funny Games (2007)
One of the more controversial horror films of the 90s, Funny Games is a captivating tale of torture and sadism. The story takes place over the course of day where a family is held hostage by two disturbed young men who like to play cruel games of consequence. However, the nature of director/writer Michael Haneke’s film is not simply a presentation of violence, but a commentary on society’s warped attraction to such material. The film is a slick satire that examines the allure of the macabre by toying with the horror film template. Funny Games hits the mark by forcing the audience to look inward, but it also serves as quality representation of the horror genre that Haneke is calling into question. This irony, along with Haneke’s creative vision and impressive acting, make this Austrian addition to horror an engaging, yet demanding, experience.
Haneke was never pleased with his film’s treatment in the US. Although nominated for the prestigious Palme d’Or (Golden Palm) at Cannes, Funny Games was limited to art house screenings in America. The main reason for the tepid response was the fact that the film was shot with German actors and Americans are notoriously opposed to subtitles. Therefore, when Haneke was offered a chance to remake the film with English-speaking actors he accepted. It is true that the director wanted to topple this language barrier, but the time for a remake also seemed opportune given the direction that horror films had taken.
With a new wave of successful shock-horror films like the Saw franchise and Eli Roth’s Hostage movies, thematically Funny Games now has deeper resonance. Why do people continually fill the seats of theatres to watch these sorts of films one up each other in terms of graphic violence? Haneke addresses this question by having the lead psychopath talk directly to the audience, thereby making the viewers part of the mayhem. The audience no longer has the luxury of being removed and are held accountable for their thoughts, desires, and outrage. We are constantly reminded that we are watching a film and it is our choice whether or not to push stop or allow the madness to play on.
The remake is essentially a shot-for-shot reproduction of the original containing the same basic structure, wardrobe, and location. The most interesting aspect of the latest version is the method in which the new actors approach the rather demanding characters. The new cast proves that it is more that up to the challenge with Tim Roth and Michael Pitt giving inspired performances. However, it is Naomi Watts that drives the film by committing to the role of Ann and exhibiting the emotional stamina to see the picture through.
Original: Cat People (1942)
Remake: Cat People (1982)
Give credit to the original Cat People for being the first to even attempt to bring this crazy storyline to the screen. At first glance, the idea of Serbian cat-women roaming the streets does not seem that enticing; however, the film proves its doubters wrong. The lead actors, Simone Simon and Kent Smith, do not impress, but the film’s cinematography and style does. French director Jacques Tourneur (see I Walked with a Zombie) dazzles the audience with rich contrast courtesy of his noir-like lighting and feel. The film does lack continuity, but Tourneur delivers some wonderful set pieces that are beautifully designed and work to create the film’s chilling atmosphere. More of a cult classic than a master work, there is much to admire in this early addition to the horror genre.
Loosely based on DeWitt Bodeen’s original story, director Paul Schrader’s remake introduces a number of new characters to enhance the narrative. The basic premise is still there, but the new version attempts to bring more depth and expand on the rather short 73 minute runtime of the original. The resulting script turns out to be a fair adaptation yet struggles with sustaining its broad scope. However, when its creative elements become diluted, Schrader’s direction and competent cast make the film work.
Having written the script for the classic Taxi Driver, it seems that Schrader has benefited somewhat from his exposure to the master direction of Martin Scorsese. Schrader brings an interesting eye to Cat People and presents some visually intriguing shots not commonly seen in most horror films. It is by no means an artistic achievement, but goes beyond expectations. What also proves to be a surprise is that Schrader’s Cat People is unabashedly a horror film, supplying enough gore to satiate those with a taste for blood.
The cast contains a host of average stock actors that all do an adequate job. However, the performances of Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange) and Natasha Kinski (daughter of Klaus from Nosferatu, the Vampyre) are worth noting. McDowell is the consummate professional who consistently brings strength to any production. Meanwhile, Kinski drives the sensuality of the film in the role of seductress.
Original: The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
Remake: The Hills Have Eyes (2006)
Wes Craven shocked mid-70’s drive-in audiences with his twisted tale of violence concerning a vacationing family stranded in the desert badlands. They soon are reduced to merely frightened playthings of a band of mutant savages that close in on their makeshift camp over the course of a night and a day. One by one, they are tortured and murdered until only a couple of youths exact fitting revenge. Michael Berryman’s bald deviant “Pluto” earned honorable mention in the category of horror antiheros, and the story was retold in an awful mid-‘80’s sequel.
A few years ago, Craven (by then an industry staple) was approached with the idea of a remake. He made his first smart move by appointing up-and-coming horror Alexander Aja (High Tension) the director, and co-wrote and produced the film himself. Keeping most of the original story and film intact, the creators emphasized the social commentary barely present in the first entry, and made the antagonists even more monstrous. A similarly lost family is attacked by the hill people – surviving members of an abandoned mining town turned nuclear testing ground. Covered in abnormal growths and hideous cancers, they prey upon the misfortunate city folk at their leisure.
An ultra-violent second look at Craven’s little known cult hit found much in common with the Texas Chainsaw remake that came shortly before. Both are films that can never surpass the original, but are highly engrossing fear fests that honor the spirit of their predecessors and introduce new generations of horror fans to films they’ve either missed or passed up a chance to see. Unfortunately, the horror remake has become the rule rather than the exception as of late. Box office speaks volumes, and the drive for Hollywood reinvention of monsters and madmen has been replaced by the rush to rob the grave of horrors past.
Recent additions to the crowded genre of scary remakes include Prom Night, House on Haunted Hill, My Bloody Valentine, The Ring, The Amityville Horror, The Fog, as well as the upcoming Friday the 13th, talk of Nightmare on Elm Street and Evil Dead reboots, and countless others as equally frightening. As filmmakers whistle on their way past the graveyard, be assured there is a line not to be crossed (as in the case of Gus Van Sant’s abysmal and completely unnecessary “restaging” of Hitchcock’s Psycho!).
God have mercy on anyone who ever touches The Exocist…