Remakes VS. Originals

In recent years the remake has become standard practice in hollywood. First there was the slate of Asian J-horror remakes followed by the current spat of 70's and 80's horror remakes. While remakes have always been popular in Hollywood, they seem to be becoming more and more prevalent as risk taking and original ideas become fewer and fewer. But how many of these remakes or reimaginings (as it has become the popular term for studios to use when referring to these films) live up to the original.

Many of these films, such as When a Stranger Calls, Prom Night, and Sorority Row have very little in common with their predecessors other than their titles. One wonders what's the purpose of "remaking" something and entirely changing the whole premise. This begs the question how close to the original should a remake hue. If the entire concept of a film is being changed should it still be given the same name. Why not create a whole new film with whole new title. Are the studios and filmmakers merely seeking name recognition? Hoping to generate some buzz and curiosity by using a pre-existing recognizable title. However, some of the movies being remade, like The House on Sorority Row are far from household names. So why remake them only to completely change everything but the title? Perhaps it's studio intervention. Forced changes by executives, eager to put their mark on a project.

In recent years we've had remakes of The Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, Friday the 13th, Halloween, Black Christmas,The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Amityville Horror, The Eye, One Missed Call, Dawn of the Dead, Funny Games, The Uninvited (A Tale of Two Sisters), My Bloody Valentine, It's Alive, and The Stepfather to name a few. And that's just the horror movie remakes. Let's not forget other recent redux, like The Taking of Pelham 123, 3:10 to Yuma, Poseidon (The Poseidon Adventure), Fame, and The Day the Earth Stood Still. Even the Oscar award winning Departed was a remake of the Hong Kong action movie Infernal Affairs. There are several more in various stages production or awaiting release. Here are just a few.

A Nightmare on Elm Street

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark

The Wolfman

Red Dawn

Hellrasier

The Host

Let the Right One In

Clash of the Titans

The Crazies

Night of the Demons

Straw Dogs

The Orphanage

Piranha

Footloose

Short Circuit

Mothers Day

Suspira

Boggy Creek

An American Werewolf on London

The Evil Dead

Of course some these may never end up making it the whole way fruition

In my opinion, some remakes simply aren't necessary. I mean is there anyone who really thought that the remaking of Psycho or The Omen were good idea. That there was something that could be added or enhanced by refilming them. Did the updated effects in the remakes of The Haunting, The Mummy, or The House on Haunted Hill make them better movie. Peter Jackson is a accomplished director who's shown an ability to make quality movies on both epic and smaller scales and yet with all it's spectacular effects and enormous scale his King Kong doesn't even come close to capturing the magic of the original. I'm a fan of Rob Zombie's work. I thought House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects were great original works with some obvious 70's grindhouse influences. I like the gritty quality of his visual style along with the uniqueness of his characters and the bleakness and brutality he brings to his story telling. But his Halloween, while not at all a bad movie, can't hold a candle to the original. I feel the same way about the recent "reimagines" of movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Last House on the Left, My Blood Valentine, and The Hills Have Eyes. Not bad movies in their own right, but lacking something in comparison with the original. Perhaps their merely a bit too slick and polished my taste.

I'm not saying there are no good remakes. Occasionally, they may even be arguably better then the original. A few spring to mind, off the top of my head.

David Cronenberg's remake of the Fly is without a doubt one of the best remakes I can think of. Cronenberg mutated the original plot into one that's deals more with ideas of disease and corruption of the body. A Subject that has long fascinated Cronenberg for much of his career and can be seen in other films of his such as The Shivers, Rabid, Video Drome, and even later work like Exitenz. Combine this with standout performances from Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis and you have a near masterpiece.

John Carpenter's version of The Thing is much more bleak visceral experience then Howard Hawks 1951 original. Many of the effects were near ground breaking at the time and still impressive to watch to this day. Carpenter was able to successfully convey an overwhelming sense of isolation in a hostile environment.

Overall, the American remake of the Japanese Ringu is a more cohesive and coherent picture. Both have relatively the same basic story, however structural narrative of the American version is stronger, with mystery being more strongly connected to the main character's job as a journalist. The Japanese version relies mostly only feeding the character clues through visions and premonitions. This is one case where I think the American version works better.

The 80's remake of The Blob can be debated as an improvement to the 1958 classic. A faster pace, more action, better effects, and higher body count make it a bit more fun to watch. The level of gore and violence are much greater then in the original where the violence is mostly implied. However, this is one case where more is more and I think it works. While not oscar caliber, it's a fun little flick. Oh, and by the way, if you haven't heard yet, Rob Zombie is currently getting ready to tackle another take on The Blob.

 Bears little resemblance to the original with Michael Caine, but it has a pretty clever script, with a good pace and a solid cast.

Tarantino's recent take on The Inglourious Basterds is Tarantino at his best, firing all cylinders. Completely rewriting and revising the history books. The original Inglorious Bastards is basically Italian made knock off of the Dirty Dozen. Not a bad film, but it has very little in common with Taratino's film other than the title.

However, I can think of more bad remakes then I can list here. The list of disappointing remakes is near endless. The recent Friday the 13th remake is a good case in point. It combines several elements of the first three films. As Jason was not the killer in the first film, rather his vengeful mother was, the new film works around this by condensing the bulk of the backstory and mythology into the couple minutes of the beginning credits. The rawness of that early-80's film grain, that seemed to only add to a kind of eerie documentary feel is gone. Stylistically, the remake is well polished and technically superior any in the series. It is also much faster and more aggressive, and completely devoid of any suspense, mood, or atmosphere. The kills uninspired not particularly memorable. The characters and story are even more thinly drawn and then those of the original series. Even that memorable Harry Manfredini score is missing. Without which, it doesn't even feel like a Friday the 13th movie. The Friday the 13th films were never great works of art. Plot and characterization were sometimes nonexistent. The production values and effects weren't always the best. Basically, the script was just there to hang a couple of kills on. Everyone knew that, but it usually felt as though the people making them didn't. That they were honestly trying to take the material seriously. It gave them a kind of charm that the remake is missing. You get the feeling the makers of the remake think they knew the formula and tried to follow it, but in the end it just falls flat.

So why remake a classic? Why try to fix something that clearly isn't broken? Why not take a lesser known film with an interesting idea, character, or premise that didn't quite work and remake that? Or better yet, find some new talent with some original ideas, that don't come from a bestselling book, video game, toy, or old television show. I guess in some cases it's the same reason sequels are so abundantly made. If something was popular once, why wouldn't it be again? If someone payed to see something once, why wouldn't they pay to see more of the same. A built-in audience. You don't have to spend as much time or money trying to sell the product.