Vault Master Rants: REMAKES!

REMAKES! The very word sends shivers of anger down the spines of millions; causes thousands to groan or sigh in anguish. I myself have reactions like this, but why? Why does this one word inspire so much malice; why does it have so much terrible power?! Well mainly because remakes, especially the ones that have been released in the past decade or so, have been mostly mediocre or just plain awful. But why does Hollywood insist on creating remakes of older films that we hold dear to our hearts, and why are so many of them so sub-par? Well, perhaps my meandering thoughts and theories might shed some light on the subject.

REMAKE by definition means to "make anew or in a different form," so the idea is to take something old and breathe new life into it, either by updating the story to be more palpable for modern audiences, or by taking the core idea and doing something completely different with it. This is dangerous territory to be in if you're penning a remake (or a redo, or a reimagining, or a reboot, or whatever you want to call it) because a delicate balance must be maintained: You've got to cater to the fans of the original film (which can be done in a variety of ways, such as callbacks to scenes or quotes from the original work) but you've got to modernize it and create something that today's audiences (with all their newfangled technology and short attention spans) will want to see.

But why remakes? Why can't Hollywood come up with anything original? (A question I hear almost daily.) Well the fact of the matter is... it's all been done folks. We have literally created every iteration of every story known to man; the mines of creativity have been depleted. At this point in human history, every tale has been told and retold. Even actor Robert Englund (who I had the pleasure of seeing in person during a Q&A session I attended two years ago) has said this. Even before that, a gent named Kirby Ferguson brought this fact to my attention years ago with his excellent EVERYTHING IS A REMIX series of videos.

Occasionally, somebody brings something new to the table (e.g. "The Matrix" trilogy introduced us to bullet time) but it is quickly gobbled up by the studios and exploited  at every turn until finally, the audiences (and critics) lose interest, forcing the powers that be in Hollywood to rethink their strategies. And this is nothing new because it's been happening for decades. Take Ridley Scott's ALIEN for instance. Penned by Dan O' Bannon (rest in peace sir), the film presented us with a new type of monster (courtesy of H.R. Geiger and Stan Winston), and an invasive horror theme that shocked audiences.

It was followed up with three sequels (each one getting worse as the series wore on), two crossover films, a confusing prequel (that is in the process of getting sequelized), and a seemingly infinite number of rip-offs. The series is a cash cow, and once it came out, everyone wanted in on the action. Aside from bridging the original to the PROMETHEUS films, or doing another sequel, or a third ALIEN VS. PREDATOR film, there is only one way to milk the franchise: Remake it.

Pictured: The final step before a remake grudgingly goes into production.

Now this isn't leading up to me reporting that ALIEN is being remade (gosh I hope that doesn't happen, the original still looks great and plays out wonderfully), or suggesting that it should be remade, but I'm trying to illustrate that eventually, you hit a wall with a film franchise. Sequels are tricky, especially if actors from previous installments are either too old, not interested, or deceased, and crossovers are harder to do than remakes, because you have TWO or more groups of rabid fans that you are trying to appease.

And remember, making films is not an artistic endeavor for major studios: It's a business, and the goal of a business is to make money. It doesn't matter if the final product is good or bad. What matters to the key players in Hollywood is "will I get a good return on this project?" With all that in mind, I can't really blame studios for churning out remakes, especially since they've been doing them as early as 1904. (According to my research, "The Great Train Robbery" released in 1903 was the first film to ever be remade!)You read that correctly folks... remakes have existed for over one hundred years!

By the way, have you ever seen the HOUSE OF WAX remake with Paris Hilton? It really made you pine for the original right? Well guess what? The "original" HOUSE OF WAX starring Vincent Price was (gasp!) a remake of the 1933 classic MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM! And how many times have the tales of Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, The Phantom of the Opera, and Cinderella (the most remade story/film of all time) been put on celluloid over the decades?

Now you're probably thinking to yourself "Wait a minute Jordan.... it almost seems like you're defending remakes!" Well I am and I'm not; the point I'm trying to make is pretty much "stop bitching and whining about remakes." They're nothing new, you can't stop them from happening, and are almost inevitable in this day and age. Don't stand there and complain that there's nothing original anymore because ORIGINALITY IS DEAD AND EVERYTHING IS A REMIX! All you can really do is hope that the remakes hit theaters are at least well-made, have an engaging storyline and at least a few likeable characters, and hopefully a good cast. (And practical effects over CGI please. I hate CGI... but that is a rant for another day.)

Which brings me to how the big studios have been doing with their remakes in recent years, which is to say... not very well. I can only think of a handful of remakes that actually get the formula correct and turned out to be just as good as, if not even a bit better than, the original film. They take the core idea and change it up just enough to set themselves apart from the original, and the results have sometimes been impressive. In the 80's you had the triple threat of "The Blob," "The Fly," and "The Thing" (which is technically not a remake but a more accurate adaptation of "Who Goes There?"), which all follow the basic template of the classic films, but made interesting changes to the plot and characters, and added in copious amounts of mind-blowing practical f/x!

Stay! I'll put coffee on!

The tale of a silly glob of protoplasm from space that engulfs a few denizens of a small town in the "The Blob," became a flesh-melting gore-fest about science gone terribly wrong in the remake. (The blob was part of a Cold War military experiment if memory serves.) The charming (yet goofy) "The Fly," had a scientist and a fly switch heads after a minor whoops involving teleportation. In the redo, the same thing occurs, but with far more ickier consequences. Aside from Jeff Goldblum's mutation (which is glorious!) you get a cool character arc about a scientist that is trying to do something to help mankind, who then experiences an accident that at first seems beneficial, but in truth is slowly turning him into a monster.

And John Carpenter's The Thing? I could go on an on all day about that one. In the Howard Hawkes' classic, an alien being is thawed out of the Antarctic ice and stalks the crew of a U.S. military base. Attempts to shoot it, burn it, and communicate with it fail, so they electrocute the creature from another world, and end his short reign of terror. In the 80's redo, the creature thaws out and goes to work trying to replicate/assimilate everyone on the base. Tensions run high, paranoia strikes deep, and messy deaths and transformations highlight the already increasingly awesome proceedings!

In the 90's we had Tom Savini's brilliant remake of George A. Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, which kept all of the same elements (the hero is a strong black male; people trapped in a farmhouse fighting off a sudden invasion of the living dead) but made an extremely intelligent move by having Barbara (who was completely catatonic until eaten by her undead brother and all his friends in the original) become a strong female character.

More recently, there's been an increase in lousy and mediocre remakes, but a few have stood out from the crowd. Some of my favorites include James Gunn's DAWN OF THE DEAD, MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D (the only 3D film I truly enjoyed in the theater), and THE CRAZIES (Romero's original is a classic in its own right but just didn't rock my world). Also, the new EVIL DEAD, though lacking in some respects, was pretty darned good as well, if only because it was so unapologetic with its gore.

Now, I know I'm focusing a lot on horror remakes, but that's because they are the current trend in Hollywood, mainly because the genre has become a very lucrative business in the past decade. No really, it's true! Every single horror film released in theaters this year was the NUMBER ONE MOVIE IN THE BOX OFFICE during their respective opening weekends. The number of horror conventions (along with fantasy, sci-fi, and mixed genre cons), 35mm film screenings, and horror film festivals has increased by a staggering amount. It truly is a good time to be a horror fan, and the studios know this.

That is why more genre remakes are on the way including: CARRIE (it doesn't look too bad, plus I love Chloe Grace Moretz), ROBOCOP (a movie that made fans so angry that it's release was pushed back to 2014), OLDBOY (directed by Spike Lee?! Whaaa?), PET SEMATARY (No!), THE CROW (Oh, c'mon!), THE ORPHANAGE (Really? That's not even an old movie!), AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (Blasphemy!), BARBARELLA (:: shrugs ::), GODZILLA (I'm actually looking forward to this, especially after the 1998 Roland Emmerich travesty), WESTWORLD (I could almost get behind this one.), SHORT CIRCUIT (A sequel would be preferred.), THE WARRIORS (I'm torn on this one...!), and there's so many more!

Johnny Five is alive! AND ANNOYED!

Damn it Hollywood, the idea is to remake films that can be IMPROVED UPON! Many of the ones I just listed are heralded classics and stand up extremely well today! And that's the main rule that all the big studios should abide by: "Don't remake it unless you can somehow improve upon the original film, or at least improve some major elements from it." The successful remakes are the ones that feel familiar and new at the same time; that deliver a fresher spin on something we've already seen (and loved) before. But at some point in the (not so) creative process, something gets left out. Someone forgets that "Hey, I know we're trying to put a different spin on things, but shouldn't we try and make this a good movie first and foremost?"


Ah hell, f*ck remakes! Yeah, I know I previously told all of you to quit "whining and bitching," but I can't help it. I tried to be logical, and tried to look at all this as objectively as possible, but I just can't come to terms with the continued onslaught of remakes. I guess it's just plain old human nature to complain about something we have no control over and simply must accept. (Like bills, taxes, shitty drivers, pop music, inflation, religion, politics, etc.) Some of you are probably thinking "Well hey, we can do our part and not go to the theaters to see any of these upcoming remakes. Then Hollywood will get the idea and stop making them," and in a perfect world, you'd be one-hundred percent correct.

Sadly we live in the real world, where thousands still flock to see these unnecessary recreations of the films you and I wax nostalgic over. Those of us that are "wise," may stay home in silent protest (but usually go see the movies we bitch about because there's that tiny chance it might actually be really good), but the masses ultimately choose the outcome.

To conclude my rant (because if I don't stop now, I'll ramble on for another page or two), remakes have been, and always will be around, even moreso since studios are looking for easy cash-grabs. Some will be good, some will be bad, most will be mediocre. And despite our complaints about the unoriginality of Hollywood, and our best efforts to avoid the oncoming deluge of remakes, we will continue to be inexplicably drawn to theaters again and again to carry out this vicious cycle.

But there is a silver lining my friends, and that is this: We will always have the originals. (Well... unless you're talking about the bastardized STAR WARS trilogy which has been criminally altered forever.) To illustrate this one final point, let's choose one of the more high profile remakes that will be coming out in the next year: I choose you ROBOCOP!

The question I will now pose to you is this: What if the ROBOCOP remake sucks?

The Answer: Who cares?! Worse things have been done to the character in film and television in the past. (Particularly that awful live-action series that weakens and totally emasculate Robo. How the hell did it last a full season?!)

Plus, the existence of the remake guarantees two things:

1.) It doesn't matter how good or bad the remake is going to be, because the original film that started it all will remain the way it always has been. (i.e. PERFECT).

2.) The remake will create interest in the original film. Younger generations that may have never heard of ROBOCOP, or may have written it off as a "stupid movie," will discover it, and most likely fall in love with it.

And those two guarantees apply to every single remake. (And sequels and prequels as well.) So take the coming remake apocalypse in stride fellow cinephiles, and remember to embrace the originals and share them with others. If we do that, then we shall survive in these harsh cinematic times.

Quickie Review: EVIL DEAD (2013)

Note: The review itself will be relatively SPOILER FREE, however, as you near the bottom of this post, you WILL get into spoiler territory.

I was torn on whether or not to say anything about the new EVIL DEAD because everyone and their mother has already shared their thoughts about it online. But seeing as how I can't seem to get the movie out of my head, or avoid any conversation about it, I figured I might as well share my thoughts too.

Though I'm still a bit torn about it, I mostly liked the new EVIL DEAD. It's an enjoyable modern exploitation flick that truly delivers all the gore, violence, and awesome makeup f/x that was promised by its creators. EVIL DEAD follows five young adults who come to a spooky cabin in the woods so that their friend Mia (Jane Levy) can go cold turkey from her heroine addiction.

Naturally this cabin, abandoned for decades, was the scene of a demon cleansing (as you'll discover in the unnecessary opening of the film, which does at the very least set the tone for the rest of the movie), and a certain Book of the Dead was left behind. The hippie-looking nerd of the group named Eric finds the Necronomicon (now lacking a face on its cover and also now completely fireproof) and recites a passage from it (despite a note on the pages saying DON'T READ IT, DON'T THINK IT, DON'T SAY IT!).

This awakens something in the woods, which zooms through the trees and right into Mia, who experiences the franchise's typical tree rape before turning super creepy and violent. The movie then plays out exactly as you expect it would, with demonic forces taking over each person and making them self-mutilate and kill until someone violently stops them. However, the film throws a few twists at us (some of which I'm having a little trouble coming to terms with), and splashes the screen with blood, guts, and bodily dismemberment in numerous scenes that will make you cringe, laugh, and/or cheer!

As far as remakes go, EVIL DEAD is one of the few that gets the formula right. To me, remakes are a necessary evil in an age where every story has already been told over and over again. The important thing is to not only be true to the original, but to somehow improve upon the source material. (This should be Hollywood's rule on remakes: If they can't significantly improve on an older film, then they shouldn't remake it.) And if you can't improve on it, at the very least make it digestible for modern audiences, while giving some love to the fans of the original. But above all, just make a decent movie!

Sam Raimi's classic THE EVIL DEAD is (as of my writing this) 32 years old now, and was ripe for a redo, and I'm pretty content with the one handed to us by producers Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell. They picked a young cast of relative unknowns, gave an unknown director a shot (Fede Alvarez was basically picked because Raimi loved his short film PANIC ATTACK), and packed the movie with more visceral practical f/x than I could have possibly imagined. (I'm amazed at what made it into the theatrical cut; I cannot WAIT to see the uncut version on Blu-ray later this year!)

And it's the f/x that saves this movie, because otherwise it isn't all that interesting. As it stands, the script for EVIL DEAD is the only real problem with the movie. Some of the dialogue (courtesy of  Diablo Cody I assume) is groan inducing at times, and the characters are all one-dimensional and uninteresting. (And don't give me crap for saying this. An example of a gorefest that has well-written characters is Peter Jackson's DEAD-ALIVE! It is far gorier than EVIL DEAD, but is a solid film that actually gives its main characters a story arc. C'mon, it's basic screenwriting people!) Had it not been for the copious amounts of carnage in the second act of the movie, this would probably be a generic PG-13 demonic possession flick.

While it didn't entirely blow me away, EVIL DEAD is one of the better horror remakes to come out in a long time. If it is a box office success (and I know it will be) that means at least two more sequels, and possibly an Army of Darkness 2 and an Evil Dead 7! So get out there and support this movie horror fans! The gore and grue is totally worth the price of admission, and makes this film worthy of:

THREE AND-A-HALF 'RADS'

Now, there's a few things I'd like to discuss, but it will be HEAVY ON SPOILERS. If you do not want anything ruined for you, stop now and go see the film. If you have seen the movie, or just don't give a damn, then read on. But remember... ye have been warned!

FINAL WARNING! TURN BACK NOW!

Ok, I pretty much liked this movie and I loved the effects and gore but there were a few things I didn't particularly care for.

1.) The opening: A group of people assemble in the basement of the "Evil Dead cabin," to cleanse a young girl of her demonic possessor. For some reason this involves hanging dead cats from the ceiling, torture implements, melty-faced onlookers, and a backwoods swamp-witch glancing through the Necronomicon for tips. It's unnecessary, and feels tacked on, as if someone believed that viewers wouldn't understand why the Book of the Dead was in the cabin or how the whole possession thing worked. Why didn't they just use the stick with some sort of tape-recorder or diary to provide the exposition and set things in motion?

2.) The demons: The Deadites have super creepy eyes now and love to mutilate themselves when they aren't using weapons on their victims. I don't mind that the demonically possessed are using nailguns, machetes, crowbars, etc. to attack the living, but do they have to behave like typical cinematic possession victims and talk dirty like Linda Blair? It's like the filmmakers decided "Hey, our Evil Dead movie could sure use some more Exorcist!"

Also, I'm not sure if I like that contact with a possessed person's bodily fluids leads to characters becoming possessed themselves. Mia is tree-raped, Olivia is puked on, Natalie is bitten, and Eric... well I'm not quite sure. (Perhaps the utility knife in his gut may have had some of Mia's tongue-blood on it?) Demonic possession being transmitted zombie-style totally worked in DEMONS (a.k.a. DEMONI, love that flick!) but it just didn't feel right here.

3.) Mia's resurrection + final showdown with Abomi-Mia (a.k.a. Grudge Gollum): Earlier in the film, we learn that Mia overdosed once, died, and was resuscitated with a defibrillator. Later in the film, David (Mia's brother) creates a homemade defib device, then buries his possessed sister alive, because it was the least horrifying method of ridding a person of a demon, according to the Book of the Dead. When he's positive that she's croaked, he jolts her back to life with a car battery... and she's fine?! She had her face partially scalded off with boiling water, she cut her tongue in half, and she received other punishment as well, and all it did was get her off drugs and give her a great complexion?!

Dave dies after rescuing Mia by exploding himself and possessed-hippie Eric, and according to the Necronomicon, five souls are all that is required for the "Abomination" to take physical shape and rise from the Earth. Well let's do a head count: Dave, Eric, Olivia, and Natalie are all dead... so why does Grudge Gollum burst forth from the ground?! Is it because Mia briefly died (seems like a major technicality to me), or is it because Grandpa the Dog was bludgeoned to death offscreen with a hammer earlier in the film? (As we learned from THE GATE, sacrifices don't always have to be human.) And why does the demon look like Mia? Why couldn't it be an awesome monster like the thing that Ash chainsaws in the face during the climax of Evil Dead II?!

 4.) The after-credits stinger: Thanks to Marvel, it seems like every movie that comes out sneaks in an extra scene after the credits are over, usually to set up the next film, or show you what happens to a main (or secondary) character after an ambiguous ending. Not so the case for Evil Dead. I waited eagerly for the credits to finish up because I was told "there was something super cool after the credits are over!" I expected a special cameo, or maybe a setup to the next film. What I got instead was the dramatic silhouette of Bruce Campbell saying "Groovy." Really? I'm all for fan service, and I love The Chin, but that was just...dumb! And I'm not the only one that had the "YEEEEEAHHHHHH.... wait huh?!" reaction to that ten second clip in the theater. Plenty of folks on the web are scratching their collective heads as well.

Once again, I did like the movie and think it's a good start to a hopefully continuing Evil Dead franchise, and I look forward to both the inevitable sequel, and the uncut DVD/Blu-ray. What do you think though? Am I being too hard on EVIL DEAD, or do you agree with my complaints? Did you love it, hate it, or have misgivings of your own? Then comment below or hit me up on Facebook or Twitter.

Kicking off 2009 with a Harry Warden double feature!

Well here it is b-movie fans, the first (and definitely not last) update of 2009! For your reading enjoyment, I present you with two items: First, there's the updated review for the classic 1981 slasher film, My Bloody Valentine, complete with screencaps and a fresh review for the new Lions Gate DVD release. (Which by the way is UNCUT!) The second item of interest is a brand new capsule review for My Bloody Valentine 3D, which was a whole helluva lot of fun to see on the big screen. There's tons of gore and mayhem, full frontal female nudity, and the 3D effects were fantastic! Pickaxes, fiery explosions, eyeballs, and more pop out at you, bringing you closer to the action on the screen!

I've got more stuff on the way including this week's Genre Watch post (I've decided that posting a weekly list of upcoming cult DVDs and theatrical releases is far more easier than compiling four weeks of info and putting into one single article), a long overdue capsule review for "The Ghouligans! Super Show," plus I still have to hammer out the rest of the "Wanted on DVD" page.

So enjoy those two reviews slasher fans and be sure to check back at the Vault soon for more new updates! Blog ya later!

New "My Bloody Valentine 3-D" TV Spot. This movie is gonna ROCK!

I am a fan of the original 1981 "My Bloody Valentine" (read my review of it here) and I was stoked when I heard of the remake. I've been following the news on it and here's what I've been hearing: The movie is gory as hell, fun as hell, and really pushes its R-rating! On top of that, the original 1981 classic is coming out UNCUT on DVD courtesy of Lionsgate (here's a sincere "f*ck you" to Paramount for chopping up this oft-forgotten slasher classic nearly three decades ago), so I am totally freakin' excited for mid-January.

Then I saw the new TV Spot and I lost all control! Check it out for yourself and tell me that this movie does not look like its going to be a blast. I dare you!



"My Bloody Valentine 3-D" hits theaters on January 16th (mainly because the powerhouse that is "Friday the 13th" comes out next February and would most surely crush this fellow slasher remake); the Special Edition DVD of the original hits stores January 13th. I can't wait!