Not SO Horrible

Well, well, well...

There seems to be another remake I can see the merit of doing. Granted, I'm not chomping at the bit for it, nor do I even particularly want it... but at least they've picked something that makes sense rather than another slipshod watering-down of a movie that had been just fine as is.

Roger Corman's classic Little Shop of Horrors. Yeah, okay, it could be fun to see a visually stunning man-eating plant. Right?

I must admit I have not seen the original movie all the way through. Cuttings of it, yes. I have, however, seen the musical movie. And then I'd been perturbed to discover they gave it a happy ending. Seeing the Broadway revival had been a real treat (what with 6 different Audrey II [plant] puppet/contraptions - the final of which moved its giant bulbous head/mouth over the entire audience!)

I sure hope they have the ending from the non-movie musical. (Good gracious, I don't know Corman's actual ending!)

But at least this Hollywood hootennany has a modicum of sense.  Replant.

Here's THE THING

You might recall I've been anticipating the new movie of The Thing.  I'd been interested for another reason beyond the desire to see more of a good (cough) thing.  What really attracted me is the attitude, promises and vision of the man who brought it to the screen, Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr.  In a nutshell:  When the time came that they wanted to remake the property, he came along saying 'Not, a remake... a prequel.'  It would be the same premise, so in essence, a remake, but it would tie into the famous and beloved version by John Carpenter by showing the events of the Norwegian base that the Carpenter characters come across.  And then, end as the other movie began.  All done with utter respect and accuracy out of love.

I'm happy to say that Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr. delivered.  Exactly what he professed to do.

Funnily enough, I longed to see how that axe would get lodged in the door.  And when it finally happened, I wanted to applaud.  I wouldn't have guessed that to be the scenario.  Such clever use of a cherished aspect of the original film to achieve it, too.  And a wee bit of a joke made out of it to boot.  But so much more made me love it than inventive axe usage.

Is it a remake?  Well, yes, but decidedly NO.  The idea of being trapped/isolated in a harsh frozen environment and not able to trust anyone because they might be the Thing remains.  So in that sense, it's the same movie over again.  But other elements make it new and fresh.

For one (cough) thing, it is in fact the prequel.  We're treated to finding the Thing and the joys and eventual horror that come with such a discovery.  Most importantly, though, it enabled the incorporaton of a classic storyline.  The monster movie!  It worked very well.  Since it deals with previous events, it only makes sense that the creature would run around "out in the open."  After all, it's a potentinally giant contorted beastie with huge set (or sets!) of jaws with the ability to grab victims with tentacles or claws.  I mean, really, who would challenge it?  As you probably know from the first movie, a flamethrower is the humans' friend.  Torching the hell out of the Thing happens a lot (again, in both movies.)  If YOU were the Thing, you'd eventually learn that being burned up in this place is a fact of life.  Thus, it would adapt.  Safer to remain hidden and hide AS other beings.  Don't get me wrong, it does that as well in this movie.  The "could be anyone of us" theme is core.  But again, the Thing tries running amok as a monster, chasing the humans through halls and such.  A welcome dimension to the film/concept/story and a terrific delight.

Matching up all the visuals, both sets and items (like the burnt up twisted mass of human and monster that the Carpenter folk found) all were executed beautifully.  When we entered the room that had the giant block of ice, yeah, I got the chills.  And it all felt like the original film.

And when they also began to rehash (more like homage) a part of the original story/movie, namely the "test" for how to determine who the monster is... they then took it away.  Something happens resulting that they are unable to proceed.  But the scene remains.  How?  A believable alternative solution as to how to expose the monster arises.  However, it again adds another dimension to the familiar tale.  The new method is not foolproof.  All it can say is this person might be the monster.  What a great extra level of psychological torture, no?

It had been great not just to see the reason for the axe, but how other key incidents/objects in Carpenter's played out.  Yet it didn't answer all the questions.  I'm glad.  I don't think it should.  Mystery and the unknown is essential to this story.  We also don't have a clear picture of what the Thing looked like when they found it.  It's in ice, remember?  So it's not all that easy to see.  And when it escape, boy howdy!, is it quick.  Quick enough to make me use the words "boy howdy!"

Reportedly this new movie would utilize the same type of special effects as the Carpenter movie.  The tendency nowadays is to just CGI it.  But van Heijningen, Jr. didn't want that.  It had to have the same look as the original if it were to be accepted as on par and part of it.  So they went with animatronics and laytex and all the old school wizardry.  A little CGI, yes, but only when it couldn't be done otherwise or to "clean up" an existing effect.  And it's truly, for my money, exactly that.  It has the same beautiful ickiness of the original.

I also must give credit to Mary Elizabeth Winstead.  I knew her as Ramona Flowers in one of my absoulte favorites Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.  But she's not an elusive cute chick in this flick.  She's a downright action hero.  And she looked taller, to be honest.  van Heijningen, Jr. had been right.  Using a woman as the main character to counter balance the inmitable Kurt Russell helped seal the deal.  Winstead played it with gusto.  Showing the character's vulnerability but ability to rise to the occasion and take charge.  Brava! 

Unfortunately, Buttercup didn't like as much as me.  She had trouble articulating her point of view, but she felt there were no new ideas presented.  Not in the sense of newness that' I've already mentioned, but in terms of it seemed "just any old monster movie," or so is my take on what she'd meant from how she expressed herself.  My response is, well, it's meant to be a backwards extension of Carpenter's film.  Thus, it should have been in a "as before" kind of mode. 'Tis a shame she didn't love it, too, as Buttercup and I usually agree.  But she didn't hate it.  She said she isn't sorry she went.  And thought the F/X were good and such.

I'm going to see it again.  I texted a college friend of mine that I haven't seen in years.  He's a HUGE fan of Carpenter's The Thing.  He said he's been curious about it... and now I get to go with him and hope that he, too, feels the joy of its horrors.

For me, though:
All in all, a triumph.  It's rare when you receive exactly what you wanted.  Especially from Hollywood.

Hollywood is Bad Bandit!

I can't believe I "have to" complain about a remake again.  This one's "idea"  leaves me even more embittered.  They’re remaking the fantastic (both in the senses of story content and quality) Terry Gilliam classic

Time Bandits

Really?

This poor man can’t ever catch a break on getting a NEW film made (he always runs into some sort of snag, there's more about that in one of the posts somewhere here) and now they’re going to re-do one of his best?

What’s more, they’re going to make it more “kid-accessible.” Um, suuuure. I had always considered it a kid movie anyway. Do they really think it’s too intense for younger viewers? I had been 10 when it came out. And yes, I saw it in the theater. And yes, I loved it then (and now [yes, I have seen it recently.]) To say it needs to be more kid-friendly is an insult to Gilliam, storytelling and children.

Unlike some other 80’s F/X, I don’t think this movie needs any help. It even holds up today.

Oh, Hollywood. SO many books and plays and original ideas out there and you still insist on destroying the integrity of a classic.

If only the Evil Genius could point a finger at them.

And does ANYONE want THE MAP to be REMADE?

*SIGH*

Incidentally, I’ve learned that Banky, Clara, Buttercup and Josiecat haven’t seen Time Bandits. Clara quote :
Time traveling midgets!?!?? I’m IN.

Correction:  Buttercup has seen it.  I showed it to her when we had our Gilliam kick.

HollyWood Chuck Out What's Cool

If you’re a regular reader, you know that “remakes” tend to drive me crazy.
Yes, folks, once again I have to put in a rant about the craziness of Holly-world.

This time I have a good and a bad.

Let’s take the bad first. Funnily enough, this “bad” is on account of a cancellation of a remake.

Robert Zemeckis had a CGI and 3D Yellow Submarine in the works. For anyone not aware, Yellow Submarine is The Beatles’ animated movie based upon the song of the same name. Fact is The Beatles themselves had nothing to do with it... they just allowed it to be made. It’s not even their voices in the film. It’s a dizzying, wacky and dazzingly tuneful trip into bewonderment. Some people hate it, others love it.

Well, not that I wanted a remake of it... but if it’s going to be done, it only makes sense to do it precisely the way Zemeckis wanted. It deserves a makeover into newer technology. For ‘simply’ re-drawing an animated feature in redesigns is pointless. And it would need to be eye-popping once again, like the original. (It used some interesting and innovative animation techniques .) Therefore, 3D is definitely warranted in this case. They’d also gotten quite a cool cast member for one of the voices: Cary Elwes, to play George Harrison.

And so, with a cocked head mentality of “ok, let’s try it” I figured it might be good.

And yet, the project has been ceased. Why? Well, apparently Disney is at the helm and since Mars Needs Moms [an animated 3D feature film] did poorly at the box office, it’s been decided that animated 3D movies don’t do well. Wait a second... how does that make sense? What about the built-in fan base of millions of fans of The Beatles, who might be looking for a super snazzy new trip on the Yellow Sub? How can they kibosh all animated movies on the basis of one? That’s like saying people didn’t eat the broccoli puffs, so they won’t want the cream puffs. I just don’t get it. We’re trashing one of the few remakes that have merit for a trumped up reason. Darn it.

The other remake has been in production stop-start for quite some time now, many years. A new writer has been assigned, after the previous script had been rejected. The film is Logan’s Run. I know what those of you who have seen are probably thinking - Why? One of the people I knew in college who I’m friends with on Facebook complained about it when he caught wind of it. I don’t blame him. I can understand the frustration. For some the original film is a classic, and if not a classic then a treasured guilty pleasure. I told him what I’m about to say here.

Quite a long way back, when I had first heard of remaking Logan’s Run, I sighed as usual. But then I saw that this remake would not be using the 1976 movie as its source material. No, they planned to go back to the book. Book? Yep. Logan’s Run is a novel from 1967. Intrigued, I tracked down a copy and gave it a read. I really liked it. Bravo to authors William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. What I liked most about it is the way in which they’d been able to present “foreign” concepts with ease. (I lent the book to someone almost just as long ago so I can’t exactly look stuff up in it!) But as an example, it will say something such as “He turned on the triupalnizer and the room basked in a soothing chill.” We don’t know what a triupalnizer is, but from context (better than I’ve done here) we can surmise what one is and feel immersed in a cool future world.

But most astonishing - everyone’s favorite part of the 1976 movie does not exist. Nope, not even a little bit. Fact is, the entire story has been shifted and rewritten into something almost altogether else from what's in the book. Now that’s a cause for a sigh. And one other mention - the “age limit” of the book vs. the movie. Quick summary: It takes place in a world where once you reach a certain age, it’s your time to die. Those who don’t wish to take part in the glorified mass suicide ritual can ‘choose’ to run. They’re then hunted down by the ‘Sandmen’ who put an end to them if they catch them. Logan, the best Sandman around, well, his time is up. He chooses to run, hence the title. In the film the cut-off age is 30. Yep. No one in the world lives past 30. Well, you see, in the book, the age is 21. Twenty-one! Imagine how horrifying THAT would be! Needless to say, I liked the book better. Truth be told, though, there are parts of the film that are still majorly cool.

And so, at the time many years ago when first announced, the idea had been to be closer to the book. And to keep the true age limit. I’m not sure how true this still is, but we can hope. Said friend on Facebook had not been aware of the book either and when I told him There is no Sanctuary! is not even in it, he realized that he, too, would have to check it out and reluctantly saw that a remake isn’t such a bad idea.

So there you go. Hollywood’s a fickle place.  BUT - we knew that.  We can only ever hope for the best.

Looking for Gold in those Yellow Bricks

We all knew it would happen.

We just hoped it wouldn't happen.

But I'm afraid it is.

<--- That.  Remake.

They're even using the 1939 script.
Um....?

If you ask me, doing a remake would make more sense if they stuck closer to the book.  Then again, the famed movie arguably has a lot of stuff much better than Baum's quick tale.  Sure, today's movieworks with OZ would be fun, but this seems to me to be a case of "just because you can... doesn't mean you should."

Dear Robert Zemeckis, WHY?

Can't we just leave it as is and rejoice in only having OZ re-tooled in the upcoming film
OZ: The Great and Powerful?

A "Novel" Idea

Back in this post, I'd pondered what would happen if novels became "remakes."

Well, it seems some has been brave enough to tackle this idea.

John Scalzi has “rebooted” H. Beam Piper’s 1962 science fiction novel Little Fuzzy.

It had been one of his favorites and what began as an experiment/exercise turned into a Piper Estate sanctioned novel titled Fuzzy Nation.

You can read all the details on Scalzi’s blog here.

Best of luck, sir!

REHASH of the Titans

I don't mean to sound like I'm on a flying high horse... but I told you so.

No, the remake of Clash of the Titans didn't entirely suck, but it had been a waste of time. As I had said in my other posts about it, there's no reason to do THAT story again. Greco-Roman mythology is rich in characters and objects and situations. And yet they chose to try and fix a movie that had not been broken. Oh sure, it's been repackaged with some parts taken out and other characters introduced as well as whole elements shuffled around. But ultimately, note for note, it's the same damn story... and therefore boring. No amount of high-budget effects could resurrect or recapture the glory of the original. Can it be chalked up to having been a kid when I first saw the original? I'll say no... since we'd just watched a good portion of it the other day (prior to seeing the remake) when showing it to a friend who'd never seen it. She'd been impressed, by the way. This new movie, though full of energy, is a lackluster blockbuster.

Here's a question: Why are the other gods even depicted in this film? It turned into the Hades (an addition) and Zeus show. Seriously. Apollo has a line and the other gods/goddesses are shown but never even called by name. From just watching the movie, we have NO idea which lovely lady is Aphrodite and which is Athena. (Oops.) No arguing with Zeus, no conspiring while Zeus is not around, no interaction with the mortals, no Hephaestus tinkering to make the special sword. Nothing. The movie would have functioned just the same without them. A Greek Myth movie with no gods? Interesting. And I'm sorry, I really like Liam Neeson, I really do, but he's terrible in this movie. He has no command of the scene or the insight to the character, no presence. (Not a good thing for the King of the Gods.) And can somebody please give Hades a lozenge? Seriously... did he have to talk like that? Then there's his rivalry with and hatred of Zeus... oh sure, it's part of mythology in some cases... but we saw THIS story before as well. Disney's Hercules. Another rehash. And you know what? Disney prominently featured (and named) the gods quite well. Not to mention presenting the story better.

How did Perseus's mortal father know his name if he found/adopted him? He didn't know his identity and the only way to have "seus" at the end of your name is to be a son of Zeus.

Why could the giant scorpions (now from the blood of Calibos [also reconfigured entirely] and not Medusa) speedily advance toward the humans when fighting them, but have to go like snails when the Djinn enabled them to be ridden? (The new characters of the Djinn... a.k.a. "Hi! I'm a cute special effect and over-convenience to the plot and nothing more!")

And sadly...there's no need for Andromeda to be in this movie. Oh sure, she's interesting enough as a character here. But she's pointless other than her mother praising her beauty above Aphrodite (who, as you know, had no reaction.) Yes, yes, they need her for the sacrifice to the Kraken - except they don't. The Kraken is sent to destroy Argos to punish the mortals and does so anyway, regardless of Andromeda being strung up before him. Her sacrifice will save the town... her one life for the lives of everyone. It's supposed to cause rifts and fighting among the mortals as part of Hades's master plan. But this aspect is so played down it may as well not even have been in the film. Thus, the Kraken attacks and smashes much of the city regardless before Perseus comes with Medusa's head. Andromeda is barely in it and worthless to the story. I say that of the character only, not actress Alexa Davalos who did wonderfully. And Andromeda is not even the love interest of our hero. Nope...
...the love interest is Io. And I'm sorry, all I kept thinking is "You're supposed to be a cow." She is in mythology - turned into a cow by Hera for sleeping with Zeus. Not in THIS movie - she rejected the advance of a god and is doomed not to die. Okay, that's not actually a complaint, since the original film didn't follow Greek mythology to the letter either, shuffling and rewriting a bit. But truly, Io the Not-a-Cow is only here to serve as Bubo the Mechanical Owl Guide from the first film, who makes the briefest of cameos for no reason other than a lame joke.

I missed Ammon, the Burgess Meredith character, serverely.

And it had no ultra-creepy moments like the head of the statue coming to life.

We did so not need lines such as "Don't look the bitch in the eyes."

They wasted one of their best new lines/concepts by having it appear twice. Hades "shocks" Zeus by telling him that although he [Zeus] and the other gods draw power from the prayers and love from the humans, he [Hades] has learned to survive on their fear. Quite a great idea to add. But don't do it twice. When he says it again toward the end of the movie, it has no impact - it's rehashed.

I'll tell you - when a man riding a winged horse (a black Pegasus? [which, by the way, is his only distinction because there are plenty of white ones and he needs to be special {unlike the first time when he'd been the only winged horse left}]) is boring, you've got problems. When the Kraken attack falls flat and retreaded, you've got problems. Though, yes, I did like the Kraken redesign. But I really wish they'd not fully shown it in the trailers. If I didn't know what it looked like perhaps it would have been an exciting scene.

Nothing but amber/sepia. Maybe another reason it felt lackluster is due to no color in this movie. (Not literally, but for all intents and purposes.) It also had F/X for the sake of having F/X. Such as the gods leaving in wisps of light at Zeus's command so that he could have a talk with Hades which amounted ONLY to saying "Release the Kraken" as if the other gods needed to leave for that.

The one truly good part of the movie had been Medusa. Now THAT's a worthy update. Marvelously done. No offense to Ray Harryhausen but this Medusa kicked his Medusa's ass. However, to be absolutely fair - new snake-woman didn't scare us at all. She's fun in this film. Harryhausen's may have been slow and not slunk and twisted around columns and had fewer snakes in her hair but at least she'd been scary. At least there had been tension in the scene. The new version felt slick and cool - not claustrophobic and sinister like the original. As for the other other monsters - yeah, they're pretty good in the remake but they, too, still don't have the grandeur of the original movie.

Like the massive boat later named for them, this movie sank. But it might not have - if they'd used other stories. Here's hoping War of the Gods is the "updated" Greek Myth Movie we're been needing.

UPDATE:  War of the Gods has since been retitled The Immortals
A Myth Take?
Hit or Myth?

Hit or Myth?

I’ve brought up this subject once before in this post. But a couple of things have happened since then that I feel I have to put in another two cents. For another film is in the works which has a great deal to do with the original two cents from the first post.

So here ‘goes:

Clash of the Titans. The remake.

To reiterate what I said before, when I first heard of this redo, my first thought had been: WHY? Yes, I’m pretty much annoyed with a remake of this movie. Even though it’s now passé in terms of its F/X, there is a marvelous charm to the way it IS depicted… I’ve already expressed my appreciation of Ray Harryhausen. Sure, it could, I suppose, use an “update” through no fault of its own. But (and here’s the two cents) why THIS story? Why bother to update something that doesn’t need to be redone? By which I mean — Greco-Roman mythology is teeming with other tales. Leave Clash of the Titans as is. They don’t (although it does make my stomach turn a little) have to keep in direct line with other mythological stories. After all, Clash is already a re-written hodgepodge. (The Kraken isn’t even Greco-Roman.) Point being, if you want to do a mythology film, give us something new by ransacking the multitude to choose from in order to do it. [For more ranting on this, it’s in the other post.]

After seeing the pix and the trailers for it, I’m not as excited as I could be. I’m not exactly disappointed, either. It just looks too “gritty,” along the lines of 300 and Gladiator. Although I can see why a myth film might look as such, I’m not so much a fan of the look. Also, having seen what’s been presented, it doesn’t so much look as if it’s been expanded beyond the original too much (which had been a "selling point" for me.) But I’m still hoping I’m convinced otherwise. [And no, I’m not going to see it in 3-D, since the original film hadn’t been intended/filmed as a 3-D movie… and in this case it seems more like jumping on the bandwagon than trying to re-capture magic as they did with The Nightmare Before Christmas and as is wanted to do with the original Star Wars trilogy.]

ANYWAY, I’ve read an article about another mythology movie in the works. And it’s doing exactly as should be done… i.e. creating a new story based around elements from the wealth of characters, objects and situations.

That film is War of the Gods, and it’s being done by Tarsem Singh, who also did The Cell and The Fall. The Cell I found visually stunning, but the story had left a lot to be desired. I thought it missed the mark entirely. Bart and I watched The Fall quite recently. We liked it. A little disturbing, but in the good way. Also visually stunning. So given that the story bits are borrowed, and that mythology needs to be visually stunning, perhaps we can look forward to this movie. War of the Gods centers around Theseus leading men into battle against the gods.

But I ask you… why can’t we just get Theseus in a good Labyrinth and the Minotaur movie?

Digging for More...

I suppose I should have seen this coming.
I really should have…
…but I didn’t.

Another movie adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island is on the way.
If you’re not already aware, Treasure Island is one of my favorite books. In my opinion, it’s one of the best books ever.

It’s not only a cherished favorite of mine, but Stevenson had been friends with Barrie. I’m sure I’ve mentioned that the stories of Peter Pan and Treasure Island are connected, on purpose. I even have my character Jeremy Strache adore the book in my novel What If It’s a Trick Question?

I’ll admit that the prospect of a Treasure Island done with the flair and caliber of Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl is tempting. But do we really need another adaptation of it? That’s what some said about Hogan’s Peter Pan film. However, there’s a big difference. Before Hogan, no Pan film (other than silent) existed. According to Wikipedia, there are over 50 movie versions of Treasure Island. So why do it again? So that we CAN get the savvy treatment it might deserve? Okay, maybe…

…but then why do they have to go and say they want Long John Silver to be “hipper” and what does that even mean?

Disney already tried a “hip” version of Stevenson’s classic. It didn’t quite work. I can’t say I disliked Treasure Planet, but I certainly did not consider it good. Much to enjoy in it, sure, but overall they didn’t capture the essence of the book for me. Not by a longshot. They spent too much focus re-inventing it into a space theme. But I will say I loved their Jim Hawkins, which is saying a lot, since I love that young man to pieces.

Thus, I’m a little worried about this one… it will probably turn out to be an overt bastardization like the recent movie of Sherlock Holmes.

Oh well…

Howling for Various Reasons...

I’ll take a werewolf over a vampire any day. Night?

So Universal’s remake of The Wolf Man is one of the few re-do’s that I’d looked forward to seeing. Not just because of my penchant for a lyncanthropic story, but it’s one of those few and far between movies which could really benefit from a remake.

Bart and I planned long in advance to go see it on Valentine’s Day… and we did.

But first, we had Netflix ship us the Lon Chaney original. Of course I’d seen it before… just a refresher so that I’d be better able to compare and contrast the two. Bart had seen most of it, but not all.

What we found is it definitely needed another go… I’d seen it a long time ago, so I had a different perspective on it this time around. It lacks, story-wise. A few missed opportunities such as delving more into what happened with Lawrence Talbot’s brother and/or the strained relationship with his father. Lawrence is actually a cad. Surely he’s meant to come across as suave and smooth. And it might have been so in 1941. But to us he didn’t seem likable at all.

We hoped they’d fix such issues in the new flick.

The new version, The Wolfman (note it’s now one word, which I liked, at the very least as a differentiating factor), is pretty good.

Bart says he received exactly what he wanted… a well shot, well acted, period piece fantasia.

Rick Baker, the special effects wizard who worked on a number of werewolf movies including the wonderful and acclaimed An American Werewolf in London, does another stellar job of a transformation sequences. And yet, I didn’t feel in awe of them. Don’t get me wrong…amazing work! But it didn’t feel fresh, either. Then again, how many ways can we portray a man turning into a wolf-creature? And I’ve seen a LOT of ‘em.

They did, actually, fix the parts of the story which we found lacking or unappealing. It’s much more atuned to the relationships. I’m just not so enthralled with what they did with them. Bart had been, with some very good insights as to what they wanted to achieve.

Watching the Wolfman run amok on all fours proved the best treat of all. (I’m not so fond of a Man Wolf [wherein the werewolf is more or less a human figure.]) They did a nice job of looking like the original Wolf Man, while convincingly updating it as well.

The look of it is to be commended. I thought so from the trailer and the movie did not disappoint in that regard. By which I mean it definitely has the feel and appearance of an old Universal monster flick - with the shadowy trees and fog. The colors are muted, so that it could almost pass for black and white.

I did however, think they missed the mark on the Gypsy Woman, Maleva. Geraldine Chaplain does a great job (and is a very nice choice) but she doesn’t really have much to do a great job with in this film. Maleva seems to be in it because she’d been in the original. I’ll spoil a minor part… the Gypsy Bela role is not in the remake. Thus, she doesn’t creepily go to the crypt and such. Oh sure, she has her own newly made scene instead. But she doesn’t feel like a major mysterious presence in this movie. Rather she’s like a tag along from the first movie.

So is the silver wolf-head cane. It’s there… but only because it’s from the first movie. In fact, Lawrence comes to his estate already with it, unlike the first movie where he buys it at a shop to hit on a young lady. To go against myself a little here (but not quite), I sort of liked that it merely makes an appearance in this film. It certainly isn’t central to the plot as it is in the original. What makes it curious is that at one point in the movie it certainly seems like they’re going to put it to use as in the original. But that moment never comes… hence my vague disenchantment for including it at all, then. However, the scene in which one would have thought the 1941 bit would resurface, I am much happier with the way it works out in the 2010 version. So I’m torn on the cane, you see.

And we all know the poem... "Even a man who is pure of heart And says his prayers at night... Can become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the Autumn moon is bright." Yes, it's in the movie. At the very beginning. On a tombstone. And never heard of again. It, too, seems like it's included out out of expected necessity. Nothing more is made of it other than the sense of "HERE's the poem. HAPPY?"

There’s also a “twist” in this version. Again, I both liked and hated it. It factors nicely into Bart’s insight/interpretation of the themes of the story and the relationships, though, which makes me appreciate it a bit more. Okay, I didn't hate this twist, per se. I just thought it a little too gimmicky. But it's not as if it doesn't work.

So that’s pretty much it. Not perfect, no. But good fun.
And at least it doesn’t taint the original movie.

RebooterMAN

Yes, yes, I know. I need to stop getting so worked up over what’s brewing in Hollywood. I would, I Reallywood, if they’d stop giving me stuff to rant about. It’s just ludicrous.

Back in this post, I (I’ll say it) bitched about their remaking of The Amityville Horror so soon.
As in about 5 or 6 years after the first remake. Seriously?

Okay, when I first heard the term “reboot” applied to moviemaking, I did think it had appeal and merit. Taking a long running series that ran itself into the ground, so to speak, and starting fresh.

Now, however, they are rebooting Spider-Man. Oh sure, I couldn’t even sit through that last one they tried to pass off as a movie, and the second had its muck ups, and even though I loved the first one I had a few issues on which I had to look the other way…

But a “reboot” so SOON? Why not let it die down first? Let US have a fresh take on it, too, with the first set out of our minds before re-presenting it? (Out of our minds - that’s about right.) And it’s entirely new - cast, crew, director, etc.

All this is said with my current disdain and growing intolerance for superhero flicks aside. If it had been any recent franchise rebooted so soon I’d still be exasperated.

Good gravy.

(Just for the record, I did eventually watch Iron Man, even after my “sick of superheroes” stance. And I have to say - I did love it. I do not have a single bad thing to say about that film. Executed beautifully.)

(And no, they're not going with Spider-Ham... I just felt it deserved it.)

Yes, Virginia, There Is A Carol...

A Christmas Carol, in any form since the Dickens text, is essentially nothing more than a remake. Yet unlike the epidemic, the appeal of this story withstands time, inviting new adaptations and never dulling the glow of the original. No, not all versions are great, but each one has its moments. For it’s hard to miss when you’re aiming with material right on the bull’s eye from the start.

And here we are, 166 years since Dickens first brought it to life, able to partake in a most dazzling and faithful (but fresh!) silver screen extravaganza full of life.

Bravo to Robert Zemeckis and Jim Carrey for presenting another holiday gem.

In the previous post I mentioned a hope that this version would become the definitive. It’s close. I can honestly say this is my favorite cinematic presentation of A Christmas Carol. I might even go as far as to say my favorite adaptation, period. I would say that, definitively, but, like Scrooge, I learned a thing or two.

It should have been obvious to me (but then kindness, compassion and celebration should have been obvious to Ebenezer, too) that there cannot be a definitive. For as much as I loved this movie, I didn’t have a completely satisfied glow, either. Why not? Well, I found myself missing tidbits of other productions. Whether an actor’s looks or delivery of a line, an insert indigenous to a production, the magic of the stage (like the “snowing window” of Chicago's The Goodman Theatre) and well, you get the idea. The tale itself outshines any presentation.

That said, Bravo, again.
How wonderful to live in this "day and age" when such fantastic worlds can be brought to life. And quite literally, since performance capture is all the rage. Zemeckis dropped us right into an ideal Dickensian landscape. Looking both realistic and stylized, we couldn’t ask for a better atmosphere. And in 3-D, we may as well have been carrying a walking stick.

Using such sophisticated animation allowed for some wonderful new imagery. Such as the Ghost of Christmas Future. Ever seen a solidifying shadow in motion? I have, thanks to the team at ImageMovers Digital.

It’s quite balanced between sugary and brooding, delivering its share of thrills with a touch of slapstick to lighten the mood. Quite honestly, overall, it does have a darker tone and can be pretty scary.

I also enjoyed the choices made for a lot of bits. Such as varying the methods of the Ghosts use to bring Scrooge to a new scene. Past looked quite a bit like flying around London with Peter Pan. Present waves his cornucopia torch and the floor is transparent, whisking the room as a frame over rooftops with directional torch thrusts… and as I recall (memory could be fading) a fading in and out of the Future. Another example of a nice touch is watching the Ghost of Christmas Present aging convincingly throughout their time together. Not just his appearance achieved by animation but in his movements a la Jim Carrey’s acting.

And a moment on that… Carrey. Imagine the psychological ramifications of playing Scrooge at every age in the production. And on top of that, all three Ghosts of Christmas. Wow. The only other major instances of that would be Dickens himself getting into the heads of the characters and Patrick Stewart, who did the one man show. It just seems powerful to me – to act out the entire life of one man who needs redemption. And also his “tormentors,” whom Zemeckis saw as aspects of Scrooge. Carrey pulled it off beautifully.

Some liberties are taken. But nothing that undermines or detracts from the experience. Even in one of the more peculiar choices, I can see the rationale immediately. And any and all of them can be chalked up to the nuances "indigenous" to various versions, which I spoke of earlier.

If I had to say something I did not like, it would have to be a matter of personal taste. I think of Fred, Scrooge’s nephew, as blonde and younger, for some reason. That’s just me. And the depiction of Bob Cratchit had to grow on me. Bart noticed a line missing. Present never said, “but most of all beware this boy” among the litany of forewarning bestowed in the scene. Just pointing it out, for the scene in the film certainly held its own as match for the uneasiness the text causes. (It’s one of the scary bits!) And not that other bits aren't absent, but then, they're certainly excusable given the wonders added this time around.

Did we need another artistic interpretation of Dickens' masterpiece?

You bet we did, given that we've never been able to see it, as they say, "quite like this."

I’m as pleased as Fred’s punch. Something else to look forward to each Xmas!

Thank you ImageMovers Digital, Disney, Jim Carrey, Robert Zemeckis and all your crew.

You’ve given us a wonderful gift from the past, in our present, for the future.

Is It Xmas Yet?

The Remakery Horror

Okay, if you've been reading my posts,

you know that I "so" have a "thing" about movie remakes.

Short version: It's out of hand. Few and far between are movie remakes worthy / warranted / ideal. But otherwise, it's just maddening.

Who would have thought I could find something entirely NEW (get it?) to get vexed at regarding the proverbial reboot?

The original movie came out in 1979.

The remake came out in 2005.

The NEW remake is already being handled. So... maybe 2010?

SERIOUSLY? We need another version of this movie? So soon?

Why not just make a haunted house film and have people think "Hey, that's kinda like that other one..." and not slap the 'name' on it. Hasn't this town suffered enough? Oh sure, the "recognizable" name is what allegedly will draw people to it. Instant money bucket? PERHAPS, but so soon? It could be, however, that someone is just not yet satisfied with the manifestations of the Lutz family's plight and feels the need to rectify it. If so, I admire that, I really do... but so soon?

Have we all gone mad?

Make us believe in the unbelievable INDEED!

Fright...Delight?

You probably know by now that I love remakes.

But you probably already know that sometimes, just sometimes, it seems warranted.

Well, I've known about the remake of Fright Night for some time now.  I've not been happy about it, until now.

Maybe I'm okay with it.

In the original movie, Charlie Brewster watches a late night horror show (the kind with a host who bumpers the commercials.) Much like Svengoolie or Elvira, Mistress of the Dark. When Charlie believes a real vampire (played by Chris Sarandon) has moved in next door, his only hope is to seek the help of Peter Vincent, the Great Vampire Killer (played by Roddy McDowall) - the host of the late night horror host program, "Fright Night." Peter Vincent tries to tell Charlie that's just a character he plays. But when Charlie is proven correct - the neighbor is a vampire - Peter Vincent must step up to the role. It's a great little movie. Very well balanced between comedy and horror. Personally, I think that's a difficult genre to pull off.

It doesn't need a remake, though.

Unless you put a twist on it...? Such as... the "meta" approach.

In the new movie, the Charlie Parker character will be a fan of Fright Night. As in, having seen the movie. The movie I just spoke about. Well, wouldn't you know it but a vampire moves in next door? Since the late night horror host format is not as popular as it had been during the first movie... who can he turn to? The only person who can help him is Chris Sarandon... after all, he played the undead dude in the first movie...

Last night visiting at Banky's, I told both Banky and Clara this idea.

They agreed. It's just silly enough to work.

UPDATE

Until They Foouund the Sea of 3-D?

Well, it seems as if the toy to the left there (and any other bit of merchandising) isn't the only time we'll get to see the Yellow Submarine in three dimensions. Robert Zemeckis plans to bring it back... in digital 3-D.

Yes, also with motion capture performances.

Yes, it's slated to include all the original songs. (Not sure about George Martin's instrumentals, though. I like these very much. Quite a few of them are in my regular rotation for writing. )

Yes, it's a remake. I'll tell you - I don't know if I should laugh, cry or be damn excited.

Sack FULL of Remakes...

It seems as if every time a movie comes up while talking with Banky and Clara, I unfortunately tell them, “It’s being remade.” It usually elicits eye rolls from them, too.

I just heard a rumor that El Orfanato (The Orphanage) is being redone in English. *eye roll*
In a sea of mediocre to lousy scary movies, The Orphanage is one of the few truly creepy and clever ones. Why risk tainting it by a so-so or terrible remake? (Oh sure, there’s a chance it will be good. But there’s no need for it to even be good when the original is superior to start.)

Another reason it seems to make no sense is: Hasn’t everyone who’s going to see this movie already (in theory) seen it? I mean, it pretty much infiltrated the Hollywood market. Quite publicized, quite popular. Thus, who (in theory) is going to bother to go see a remake? I suppose those who are put off by subtitles. Which, to me, is a shame that people are.

And for anyone who doesn’t already know, The Orphanage is derived from Peter Pan. Writer Sergio G. Sánchez had been so unnerved by the idea/image of a mother waiting desperately at the window for her child(ren) to return. He crafted this cool horror movie around the sad and spooky concept. Notice how many times a window is shown in the flick. That, and the little boy in it is reading Peter Pan. There are a few other more than obvious references as well.

I know I am still haunted by the sack-headed kid.

And no matter how much we complain, the unnecessary remakes will just keep coming…

No Amity Here

Today I'd been sucked in by a stupid movie. I turned on the TV and saw it, chuckled, pressed the TiVo arrow to make it rewind and lo and behold, the start of the film! (It just happened to be the half hour in recorded TiVo memory.) What movie? Amityville II: The Possession. Hadn't seen this one before. You know what amazed me? It's a better movie than the remake which came out not so long ago. (Dragonfly and I sometimes go to bad horror movies on purpose and have Thai food.) And seriously, this sequel to the original film turned out superior. Oh don't worry, I'm not even going to try and tell you it's a good movie. It's not. It's filled with plotholes, there's not a genuine scare in it and it's utterly laughable. But that's my point. Still, it's a better film. [In all honesty, some terrific make-up and transmogrification F/X, though.]

All the aforementioned aside, what bothered me is that it had nothing to do with Amityville. Oh sure, the famous house with it's allegedly Jack-O-Lantern shaped eyes featured prominently. But here's the thing: It didn't have to. It could have been any haunted house story. No real connection (other than someone going crazy and killing the family) could be made to the original. No one even mentioned the history of the house. And someone going crazy and killing the family could happen to anyone. Wait...ok, you know what I mean. Next, it suddenly transferred to a poorly executed The Exorcist. (Should have known from the title, I suppose.) Two movies going on in the same film and neither one done any justice. And STILL, better than the latest incarnation of The Amityville Horror.

But what really set me off toward the keyboard is the use of religious iconography as a bane to the dark forces haunting houses and people. Of course, it's not just this particular movie. It's not the first time I thought of this issue. The problem I have applys to any film with such elements. But it struck me again watching this movie. And my problem? Why is it that Christian symobls and words are what offends and gets rid of the evil? There are plenty of other religious icons out there. What if the evil is of a different faith? I'm sorry, it's presumptuous and rude.

Okay, that's my two cents.

I'll Stop Ranting If They'll Stop Remaking...

Hi.
I’ve returned.

On the trip back with Cassidy from visiting with Lemonie and Jiboo, I brought up that a bunch more remakes are coming. I asked Cassidy: Did this happen before? Meaning were we (our generation) flooded with remakes? We decided that there had been an occasional redo, but no… we had a plethora of new (or adapted from sources other than previous film) stories. So what’s wrong with Hollywood? Why this sudden barrage of these (mostly) unnecessary remakes?
What are the latest ones that prompted me to rant AGAIN about this problem? Only one of the next batch springs to mind. I Saw What You Did! The reason this one comes to mind is Bart had TiVo record it out of curiosity. (He has a Wish List for Joan Crawford [who is in the movie for the briefest amount of time]). Though it may have been utterly unnerving in the mid-60’s, we couldn’t help but laugh at it. And now… it’s being redone. I wonder if they’re going to get another well-known actress for the BIT part. Note the "top billing" for almost no scenes at all. I remember my father complaining how they over-hyped Farah Fawcett in Logan's Run [also slated for remake] when she appeared all of five minutes.
By the way, the line in the movie is: I saw what you did and I know who you are! It's spoken by one of two girls making crank calls… and YES, one of the calls they place just happens to be someone who committed murder moments before. (GASP!) It might be a little easier to find said girls in this day and age…

Ah, the redundancy of Hollywood… Please stop the inanity.

I am going to attempt to finish MC* by Friday night. Don’t hold me to it… as I re-discovered last week, Life has a way of throwing curves…

* Initials only of the book I am currently writing.

A Myth Take?

I've gone off about remakes before, but here is yet another I want to comment on... don't worry, I'm not going to bend your ear - yet. I'll save that for when I actually see the film.

When I first heard they planned on a remake of Clash of the Titans, my usual question popped up: WHY? Okay, truthfully, I would like to see the miracles of current Hollywood take a stab at this mythological movie. But that's just it... why THIS one? I couldn't fathom remaking the same story over again just beefed up. As we all know, stories abound in mythology. There are stories and backstories within each, too. So why taint the first film by simply doing it again? Let's also not forget it's the last film Ray Harryhausen worked on and I've talked about how much I admire his work. So why tinker with a marvel? It has been pointed out to me that "name recognition" is part of the 'game' but then, it also seems like cheating. If you don't believe your myth movie will attract attention and stand on its own merit, then don't even try. You know?

Well, it's been a couple of years since I first heard of plans to remake the moive. A lot has happened - to change my mind.

First of all, someone must have heard me grumbling. For as of now, this Clash will not be a straight remake. It's not just the same story over again, as they are in fact using other bits of myth. Already the characters of Io, Hades and even Theseus have been cast. None of them were in the first film. And how cool to have Theseus (my favorite.) Perseus is the only hero seen in original. So...okay, two heroes? Buddy pic? Could be. No real story details have emerged. But with both heroes, other gods and characters... won't that be a lot to fit into a movie?

Which brings me to point two. As with many films these days, an epic fantasy franchise is expected to appear. They are reportedly already writing a set of movies, interwining the adventures of mythology. Sign me up!

Let's hope it takes a place on the shelf of the greats.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood...

I’ve already made it known that Forbidden Planet is one of the few film do-overs that I am excited about. Well, last night I learned that the script for the remake had leaked to the internet. What is it about human nature that we have to ruin and spoil? (I, too, am guilty to a degree. But generally I have limitations on how much I am willing to uncover about a work. I certainly don’t understand leaking a whole script!) And so, the entire screenplay is being scrapped and started up from scratch.

J. Michael Straczynski had this to say:
Meanwhile, on a wholly different note…not of triumph but of annoyance….because so much of the Forbidden Planet screenplay was leaked out, Warners and I have decided to chuck the screenplay in its entirety and start over. This is the direct result of the leaks that showed up on the nets, including detailed script reviews of a project that was barely a week old, and which would effectively destroy any anticipation of the movie because by the time it finally reached the screen in 2010 or thereabouts, the story would be old news. So we're starting fresh, and we're going to keep a tight lid on the script this
time.

So to the sites that say, "Where's the harm, it's not like they're gonna toss out the script because we blew the contents of same all over the nets," well, yes, that's exactly what it's like, and it's precisely your responsibility that a year's worth of work was destroyed.

So we start anew, with the determined hope that the next draft will be even better, and far more secure, than the last one.

Let’s hope it’s for the better, eh? Come on now, InterWeb Info Stalkers, don’t cause another delay. I really want to see this movie!

Another remake with merit is A Nightmare on Elm Street. I spoke about this one briefly in this post. It’s rapidly becoming more than a dream project. The director (Samuel Bayer), script (Wesley Strick) and location (right here in Chicago!) are set. I read a little about the changes to this one. Just enough to whet my appetite, unlike those who have to devour the whole feast like FP. Elm Street is being “updated.” That can be a dirty word sometimes. Or at least hackneyed. But in this case it seems they are using their heads. For instance, in this day and age of instant access to info, it stands to reason that the likes of an event such as your parents as teenagers taking down a child molester/killer would not be a hushed up secret to the Elm Street kids. In other words, they might as well just look it up instead of dragging the riddles of the past out of their parents. One of the kids will now have a podcast. Sounds about right. Bring it on. [Currently April 16, 2010]

And the other horror remake which I guess I am on the fence about, but holding slight hopes for is Hellraiser. Recently, Gary Tunnicliffe took a stab at a redesign of Pinhead, the head honcho Cenobite. I didn’t think he did too bad a job. No, I didn’t love it, but I could “see” it. Apparently, I had been dead wrong. Hellraiser creator Clive Barker spoke out about it, citing his reasons why the new version entirely missed the point of the character. And having heard him explain, it became clear what part of it didn’t sit right. I’m not going to outline it here (nor is there a picture) for this character, his visage and details are certainly not for the faint of heart. Quite horrific. If you’re interested, it’s out there in the ‘net. I just rather enjoyed an author saying, ‘Nope. That’s not my character.’ Let’s hope they find a suitable re-design. (Or maybe Pinhead should remain the same? [It should be noted that Tunnicliffe had stated that Pinhead did not need reinvented but tried it for the sheer challenge.])

Lastly, Heroes will be back for another season after Fugitives.

Well, amen.