Posts Tagged ‘remake’

Fame [2009]

Fame [2009]

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

Here’s another that I looked forward to for a long time once it was announced, though perhaps in a different way entirely. The trailers for this and an interview I read with its screenwriter really got my hopes up for this one, and really even as time wore on I never truly thought it was capable of being as bad as so many first expected and later reported it to be. I love the original movie, it works and I believe still would work for a teenager today who was truly interested in entering the arts; this looked simply like an attempt to update it for the X Factor generation, and I figured (and stand by this): if all it is is “better than X Factor”, then that’s better than it could’ve been.

And it is. I was really surprised by how much remains here not only in spirit but actually whole plot points etc of Alan Parker’s original movie. The grit has been removed, yes; the songs, all but one (“Out Here On My Own”), changed entirely or updated (the “Fame” remix)… amazingly, more than a few of these new songs ain’t half bad, like the replacement for “Is it Okay if I Call You Mine?” The cast of teachers: Bebe Neuwirth, Kelsey Grammer, Charles S. Dutton, the mighty Debbie Allen herself, can only be a good thing, right? And the movie still actually makes this path in life look pretty damn hard: something I really didn’t expect. In fact, I found the movie felt so little at times like it was reaching for that reality/talent show type of fame-seeking audience that I wondered who the heck it was trying to appeal to.

No, it’s not great. Yes, the original is the one you should watch. But this is so much better than it could’ve been, better than countless dance movies of the past decade, better, nay, a thousand times better, than the stage show adaptation I had the misfortune to see in the early 00s. That’s all, really: it’s not bad, and certainly not the crime it could’ve been.



Quarantine

Quarantine

Thursday, February 12th, 2009

What is there to say of this but that it’s really not as bad as it’s tempting to go in expecting. While it’s true that you will get a better experience, aside from the lipsync, by watching a dubbed version of [Rec], it’s also undeniable that the Western remake brigade could’ve got away with a lot less respect for the source than they ultimately do here. There are unnecessary changes here and there (in addition, it must be said, to some rather amazing inventions: death by camera, for instance), and the acting isn’t quite as convincing; plus there was simply something about the original being located in a literally foreign place, making the confines of the apartment block all the more alienating; but this is still a fantastic experience that made me jump more than a lot of recent horror movies. Clearly I have to recommend [Rec] first and foremost … but if you do happen to be illiterate or a Xenophobe … there are worse things you could watch.



Night of the Living Dead 3D

Night of the Living Dead 3D

Monday, January 5th, 2009

“Yes. When the dead walk the earth – you gotta call the cops.”

If I rated things based on expectations, this would honestly be nearly a 5 hearter for me.

In honesty, as expected, the 3D is hokey – admittedly this was a home viewing and that’s never been the best place for 3D. What often baffles me about these things is how some of the effects work while others fall flat. To me it seems brightly lit scenes fair best, as does more motion, particularly from left to right (I think that’s right). So, first off, this doesn’t quite fit a movie mostly set at night with (don’t get me wrong, for the sake of the genre, brava! but) slow-moving zombies, lol. But secondly, I guess I just wonder why the people who make these movies don’t figure out if the 3D effects will work before they commit them to the final cut, lol … I mean, I’m sure they do … it just, I don’t know, feels like they don’t :)

That said, I wasn’t totally unmoved by the gimmick – while the stoner character thrusting his spliff out into my face was just a doubled blur, the more subtle smoke ring he blows later works fantastically, and there’s a grisly moment involving the youngest character which is quite stunningly presented not only by pushing the 3D effect but also by freezing the frame. Even if the 3D works better on the big screen, however, let me just take the chance to say I don’t believe it should ever be regarded as more than a gimmick. Since digital effects and processing became so much easier film makers and goers alike have already begun to dishonor the art of the simple cut in making cinema … if we start viewing 3D as the next revolution I really think the art is doomed.

Yes. I seem to have become curmudgeonly.

The acting here, too, in honesty, is simply passable at best. It is, however, better than anticipated, and when you’re comparing it to Romero’s “classic” … let’s just say the acting is the last thing you’re gonna turn to in arguing Romero’s was better. The stoner guy was funny, I loved Sid Haig, and could have definitely used more of Alynia Phillips – who, let’s face it, is here presented as the most blatantly sexy jailbait since the little sister in Slumber Party Massacre, lol (the best info on her age I can find pegs her as being in the 7th grade 3-4 years ago … I sure hope I haven’t just said anything too dirty, lol).

Add to all this that the whole endeavour is clearly kind of questionable from the off, moreso even than the usual remake misgivings. Make up wizard Tom Savini already remade this movie in 1990, doing pretty much the only thing you could do (aside from the aforementioned acting) to improve on Romero’s original, and that’s apply the gore that Romero’s own sequels were so awash with. The world barely needed a remake then, so to do one now with the only addition being the 3D seems kind of insulting in addition to a little pointless and plain unlikely to work.

But there’s still a lot here to love. It’s 80 minutes short – always a fantastic thing to see in any genre but most of all horror. It pays very respectful, very funny, in fact, homage to the original by having the dang thing play in the background for almost the whole first half of the movie – and this is before, joy of joys, it deviates from Romero’s original, and most importantly of all, doesn’t screw that up. From the moment Sid Haig re-enters at the end here, I was honestly pretty hooked. I love the whole backstory introduced here about the bodies meant for cremation and all – and within the same scene of Haig’s wonderful telling of this exposition, the stoner guy’s mind “clinging on” past death as he zombifies … it’s a scene that for me really made the movie worth watching. It returns to Romero’s story in the end, and, as even the most stoned character here knows, everybody dies … no, it doesn’t leave you with anything approaching the chill of the 60s original … but it is a far, far better watch than it has any right to be.



The Hitcher [2007]

The Hitcher [2007]

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

This was a very odd viewing experience – I remembered this being talked about quite a while ago but I didn’t actually realise they’d ultimately made and released it, lol. I loved the first Hitcher movie, the whole storyline is one of those magical basic few like conmen and heist movies that works (just about) every time – see The Vanishing, Breakdown, Duel. As such, the only downfall of this production is really that it seems too familiar, to the point where I actually had to check back over my reviews and see if I hadn’t actually already seen it and forgotten about it (if I’m honest, after a particularly vague weekend, the jury’s still out on that one lol).

Anyway, like I say, there’s not much that can truly be done to break these stories beyond redemption and for me this hit the beats perfectly. Sean Bean is a perfectly fine substitution for Rutger Hauer, the kids in the car are a comfortable step below the glossy teens that usually populate these remakes; even the guy who plays the sheriff, a character who even in the original I seem to recall struck me as particularly creepy in his outright level-headedness lol, though his performance is annoying as hell it somehow works anyway. The “moment” at the end – it would be the hugest spoiler if I even hinted at it especially if you’ve not seen the original – it still made me nearly fall out of my chair and make an embarrassingly audible gasp (in fact, gasp is the wrong word, it was more like a combination of, “Jesus Christ!”, “No!” and gugggghhhhhh lol). Really, I don’t understand any review of this movie that doesn’t at least give it props for going all the way, just like the Texas Chainsaw remake that Michael Bay also had a hand in bringing to the screen, it’s frankly eons above the likes of Prom Night and April Fool’s Day, for god’s sake. I’m giving it an extra heart just for the sake of balance here, lol.



Prom Night [2008]

Prom Night [2008]

Tuesday, July 8th, 2008

I’ve seen the original Prom Night but once – actually relatively recently, it was one of those movies that when I finally sat down to watch I felt like kind of a traitor to my film-loving reputation. It’s not a movie I’d rush to see again, but I know this: it had atmosphere, whereas this version is so full of commonly beautiful blondes and fratboys so shiny you could shatter it with the tap of a toffee hammer. There’s just nothing to speak of here – it’s as background-watchable-missable as this year’s remake of April Fool’s Day saddled with the baffling fact that someone thought it worthy of the big screen. It’s stuff like this that makes me realise no matter how bad I think I waste my time sometimes, there are always people out there doing worse with theirs.



Funny Games U.S.

Funny Games U.S.

Saturday, April 19th, 2008

Again, I’m guilty of not having seen the original here which probably makes me a bad film lover, though it seems to be the right way to approach the thing as the director really made it almost exclusively because he felt too few people had seen the non-English-speaking production … which is kinda sad in itself to begin with.

I guess I want to start before I go “off on one” so to speak (it’s not guaranteed but it’s possible … oh it’s always possible lol …) by saying, I get what the director is trying to do and say with this film (and, presumably, the original) – if only because his self-confessed intentions have been so well-documented. Again, I find this kind of sad – like the saying goes, if you could put it into words, well, what’s the point in painting it? And a lot of the more positive reviews of this movie seem to go in one direction against the criticism, amounting to, “You don’t get it. THIS is what it means,” which to me really says it all.

I didn’t personally get the intention in the end. By which I mean – I get it, but it didn’t work for me as apparently was intended. Though none of the horrors are actually shown onscreen, I felt as the end credits rolled that I’d seen them anyway – that I’d got my kicks, as it were, despite the approach. I saw Naomi Watts in her underwear and tied up, I heard her screams, and those screams were so terrifying that I looked away even though I knew there was nothing to see. So I won’t deny its incredible use of cinema … but, honestly, I never really felt like it was any different from what has come before – Texas Chainsaw, Last House, Clockwork Orange, Straw Dogs. Frankly, Cannibal Holocaust did a much better job of making me feel “involved” in the horror; in this whole department, there’s really only one short sequence here that lived up to what I expected.

Haneke is a fine film maker – you can feel a lot of Kubrickian influence here and I’m interested in seeing his other work. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth are fantastic. All the technical stuff is top notch. It takes a long time to get going, though, and even once it does it’s far from gripping; and in the end, personally I feel it fails miserably in its aspirations. I think those who think the naysayers are missing the point on this one need to go back and look at how intelligent a lot of the old nasties really were.



St. Trinian’s

St. Trinian’s

Saturday, April 19th, 2008

As with the original Star is Born and the political thrillers mentioned in my Vantage Point review, it’s been too long since I last saw one of the original St. Trinian’s movies for me to make a fair comparison here other than to mention that I know for sure I was a huge fan of them when I was little. I imagine it was one of my early, “I want to be one of them!” experiences even if I didn’t really know it at the time. When Rupert Everett first started talking about his involvement with the new version (a few years ago now I think), I was pretty excited but that excitement ebbed as Mischa Barton first joined the cast, then the whole Girls Aloud involvement, the way it was marketed, and finally the reviews.

Ultimately I came to the movie expecting it to fail on all levels – the nostalgia of the old movies, a re-imagining or modern updating thereof that actually worked, even the slightly dodgy “perv appeal” a lot of the criticism has been aimed at. To my astonishment, I enjoyed every second of it and I imagine it’s a movie that I will wind up watching far too many times for my own good in the future. It works on all of the levels mentioned above and then some. No, it’s not going to win any awards. But though it mightn’t seem like it sometimes, I do enjoy a little pure entertainment from time to time; and this is the kind of thing that for me fits the bill. It couldn’t have been better.



A Star is Born [1976]

A Star is Born [1976]

Tuesday, April 8th, 2008

After waiting years to finally get around to seeing this, I was pretty damn excited when I found a copy of it lying around that I’d previously thought unplayable. Sadly, the excitement didn’t last long. I was a huge fan of the 1937 movie when I saw it as a sixteen year old, it was probably the first “old” movie (outside of the ones all kids are exposed to anyway like Wizard of Oz and Snow White etc) I’d seen and among the first to really make me cry my eyes out (“This is Mrs Norman Maine!” lol I can actually barely remember the movie but that line will always be with me). One would think such an influential introduction to the original would put me off the remakes, but how can you refuse the 50s version with Judy Garland and James Mason and then this, with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson?

Well, the problem with this version of the story is, it’s pretty much exactly as I imagined it would be; now that I’ve seen it, I wonder why I was ever so excited by the idea. It’s really more a showcase for Barbra Streisand’s talent and voice built shakily around the bones of the original. It hits all the marks, but somehow the story suddenly feels horribly loose, as though they’re just plodding through the plot points by the number to get to the next big song.

It has its moments, and it’s a worthy production if only for giving the world “Evergreen” – that scene here is by far the most affecting too … really, even in the music department outside of that song, this one disappoints. Compared to the emotion I wanted from it, I really couldn’t feel more let down. I’ve been amazed thinking lately why there hasn’t been another remake of the story since this one; now, having seen it, I don’t know whether to simply realise this is why that is or to wonder even more – afterall, I honestly think even a new remake with a Lindsay or Britney or Ashlee-a-like would have the potential to work better than this overall.