A Bloody Good Time 11.29.07: Horror History Lessons Part 10
Posted by Joseph Lee on 11.29.2007
Soon to be remade in 2010!
After a week off, I'm back for another Bloody Good Time! This week, as promised, we're covering remakes! Why? Because remakes are a very popular trend that occurred in the 2000 era, which is where are now. About two history lessons left and then we're onto other things. The remake lesson will be in two parts, followed by "torture porn".
Horror has come a long way. We've went from Universal monsters, to gigantic monsters. We've covered ghosts, slashers and exploitation. Now we're in the 2000 era. The slasher craze has died down somewhat. A new craze has just begun.
If you don't know what a remake is, let me tell you. A remake is basically another version of an earlier film, with a different cast. It's usually a more modern, or in some cases, a more American take on a previously released film. There have been other types of the same thing, such as taking the same source material (for say, a book or tv series) and making a new film. There's also reimagining, which is what studio producers call remakes when they want to avoid the negativity of calling their movie a remake. They say their version is different from the original but there's a lot of times when it's not.
My personal opinion of remakes is a negative one. I think that as a rule most remakes turn out to be pretty terrible. I also feel like movies that still hold up do not need to be remade. While some of them turn out to be fairly enjoyable, they still pale in comparison with the original and I've always felt most of them are unnecessary. However, in some cases it could be necessary. Horror producers could easily take an exciting concept that previous filmmakers couldn't get to work as a movie, and make it work. As is the case now, it seems as though they'd rather remake films that were very successful in hopes of remaking that success.
I can't tell you exactly with which movie the remake craze started, but if I had to guess, I'd say The Ring(2002) is what started the current remake trend. Remakes have always been around, and there were even remakes just prior to The Ring that could have helped in starting it. But The Ring was a huge money maker and very popular amongst movie-goers. I'm going to attempt to cover as many remakes as I can, in alphabetical order. I'm going to say how they strayed from the original, as well as how successful they are, and my take on them, if I've seen it.
2001 Maniacs(2005): This is a remake of the 1964 splatter film (remember when we talked about those) Two Thousand Maniacs! This starred Robert Englund as the main bad guy. I don't know how this one differs from the original, but I do know it's tongue-in-cheek and Englund really hams it up. It's fairly entertaining as far as straight-to-video films go. There is a sequel in the works called 2001 Maniacs: Beverly Hellbillys with most of the original cast coming back.
The Amityville Horror(2005): The original was in 1979. How does it differ? I'm pretty sure the Indian subplot wasn't in the original. Most of it remains the same although it's been modernized. The new version stars Ryan Reynolds and Melissa George, as opposed to stars James Brolin and Margot Kidder in the original. I thought the remake was okay, but then again that's what I thought about the original. They didn't really improve on the story or make it any more terrifying. It was a box office success, however, making $109.5 million worldwide. Critical reviews were mixed, most saying it was on par with the original, which wasn't saying much.
Black Christmas(2006): For those who were here when I started slashers you should know how I felt about the original. I thought it was great. I haven't seen this version but the trailer didn't make me want to. I watched the original instead, having not seen it and was blown away. This one apparently completely changes the story, only keeping the basic elements of a psycho in the house. They give "Billy" a backstory. It currently sits at a 17% on Rotten Tomatoes, which should say something about how critics received it.
Carrie(2002): This is a TV movie remake of the classic 1976 original. I haven't seen the remake, although I remember thinking that Angela Bettis (May, 2002) was inspired casting. From the description given my Wikipedia, it doesn't stray too far from the original, which is based off of the Stephen King novel.
Dark Water(2005): Only three years after the Japanese original, this version was released. It stars Jennifer Connelly as the lead. This remake apparently differs a great deal from the original, including implying things to the viewer that the Japanese version did not. It made a decent amount of money, at $50 million worldwide.
Dawn of the Dead(2004): Remake of George A. Romero's classic 1978 film. This one loses all of the social commentary Romero's version had, and features running zombies, which the original didn't have. The main plot remains the same, however. A group of people hide in a mall with zombies outside. This is generally well-liked among horror fans (as well as myself) as it's quite violent and entertaining. There are also cameos from stars of the original (Ken Foree, Scott Reiniger and Tom Savini) and you can tell director Zack Synder had love for the movie he was remaking. Critics loved the new version as well, it even received "two thumbs up" from Ebert and Roeper.
The Fog(2005): A remake of John Carpenter's 1980 original. This one was poorly received by just about everyone. It's sitting at a 5% on Rotten Tomatoes. Most cite the fact that there are many plot holes and it completely abandons most of what made Carpenter's version work. It starred Tom Welling of Smallville fame, as well as Selma Blair.
Godzilla(1998): This was a little before the craze hit, but warrants inclusion because of the fact that it was an iconic movie being remade. In spite of the fact this version made a lot of money (it made $379 million worldwide) critics didn't really enjoy it. I didn't like it because it wasn't Godzilla. It didn't look like Godzilla and didn't act like Godzilla. That's the argument that many other fans have made towards this film.
The Grudge(2004): Based on the Japanese film Ju-On(2003) which was itself a remake of a TV movie. Like The Ring this movie was highly successful, making $183 million. It spawned two sequels (one of which is set for 2008). Critics didn't approve but audiences did, meaning the remake trend would continue. In my opinion, this film doesn't differ nearly that much from the original, but it does lack the scares the original provides.
Halloween(2007): A Rob Zombie film. Most people are divided on this movie. It seems as though Halloween(1978) wasn't even safe from the remake trend. This version gives Michael a long backstory, and attempts to explain why he is what he is. It also features many Zombie regulars including his wife Sherri Moon Zombie. I enjoyed the remake in it's own right. If it hadn't been called Halloween and was about a brand new serial killer, I'm almost sure that others would have too. It pales in comparison to the original, but the original was a masterpiece. Critics hated it but it still managed to earn $71 million worldwide.
The Hills Have Eyes(2006): This is an example of how to take a movie that isn't that good (trust me, it's not) and make it better. The remake was very entertaining as well as horrific, something that I feel the 1977 original couldn't do. Critic reaction was mixed, but it did earn $57 million worldwide and was considered successful enough to make a sequel.
The Hitcher(2007): This one is based off of the 1986 original starring Rutger Hauer. Sean Bean replaces him as the titular role. This one has one major change from the original from what I can tell, and that's Jim is killed off instead of the girl. In the original it's reversed. The Hitcher performed badly at the box office and critically, and was considered a failure by most.
House of Wax(2005): This is loosely based on the 1953 original, which was a remake itself of the 1933 film Mystery of the Wax Museum. It stars Paris Hilton, among others. Critics did not approve, but fans did as it was nominated for the Teen Choice Awards and the MTV Movie Awards (they don't mean anything but work with me here) and it grossed $68 million worldwide.
King Kong(2005): Another remake of the 1933 film (the first remake was in 1976). This was directed by Peter Jackson and stars Jack Black, Adrien Brody and Naomi Watts. It received very positive reviews and ended up making about $550 million. It doesn't differ at all from the original except the special effects are wonderful. Peter Jackson made it a point to make this homage to the film that he loved as a child. You can feel the love throughout the movie whether it's remaking the lost scene or the subtle references to Fay Wray working for RKO pictures. I love this film and it was one of my favorites of 2005.
The Mummy(1999): Another Universal remake. This is actually the most successful of all of the films listed (except for maybe Kong) Critics gave it mixed reactions (although most agreed it was entertaining). Director Stephen Sommers abandoned any actual horror the 1932 original may have had and turned it into an action comedy starring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz. In my opinion, it works. It's hard not to be entertained by this version. I wasn't the only one who thought so. It has made $415 million worldwide. It also gave way to two sequels (one due in 2008) and a spinoff called The Scorpion King(2002). There was even an animated series!
That covers horror remakes A-M, which means we're a good solid half of the alphabet down. Next week I'll get to the remaining remakes, as well as mention some remakes that are on the way. If I missed any that you know of, or you disagree with my opinion on some of them, shoot me an email. I'll be glad to answer them. See you next week!
