Ahhhhh! Remakes!!

The horror move remake....or reboot, or "re-imagining" or whatever you want to call it.  Some people absolutely loathe them, some people simply tolerate them, and others like me, view a remake just like any other film. It will either be good or it won't.  I think there are many remakes that were done right, and (GASP) some that were better than the original!

I will admit that many times I just don't see the point of a remake, especially when the original still holds up over time. Having said that, there are many times where I am pleasantly surprised, and other times I want to puke in my suit. 

For this article, I'm going to throw out a mix of horror remakes that I liked, along with a few I thought were putrid.

Side note before we get started. Whenever someone screams "REMAKES SUCK!" someone else will say, "What about 'The Fly' and 'The Thing'?", and the first person will inevitably agree, which immediately destroys the REMAKES SUCK! argument. The reason I bring it up is....because The Fly/Thing argument has been made so often, I am going to leave those two films off this list.

So, enough rambling.....onto the list!

---

GOOD: "Maniac" (2012)

William Lustig's 1981 film "Maniac" starring the late, great Joe Spinell, is one of my favorite films. It's gritty, nasty and unrelenting. Who would have thought a remake would be any good?  Yet it is!  Elijah Wood, in his creepiest role bay far, does a great job, and the conceit of the film, in that it's shown entirely from the perspective of the killer, is a gimmick that completely works! I thought it was a good choice to move the setting to LA and I like the sort of "neon" styling to the film. This is a remake that, while it can never surpass the original, comes very close to matching it.

---

---

BAD: "Psycho" (1998)

What is the point of doing a remake if you're not even going to attempt to bring anything new to the table? This effort (if you can call it that) by director Gus Van Sant is a complete waste of time. The only reason I saw it is because I wanted to see if it really was as bad as I had heard.  Well, it's wasn't.  It was actually worse.  It's almost a shot for shot remake, and copies most of Hitchcock's camera angles and editing.  Hell, they even re-used most of the original score (though with a new arrangement by Danny Elfman and Steve Bartek). Vince Vaughn gives a performance worse than a plank of wood, and the movie is a complete failure. If you're going to try and remake a horror classic, by one of cinema's greatest directors, at least try to put your own stamp on it. Skip this one at all costs!

---

---

GOOD: "The Crazies" (2010)

I am definitely a fan of George Romero's 1973 original, but I think that this remake is the rare type that actually surpasses the original, even if it's just by a small margin. For those who are unfamiliar with the plot, a biological weapon, the Trixie virus, is accidentally released in a small town, turning some of them into, you guessed it, "crazed" killers who go about picking off their neighbors one-by-one.  I think what makes this one good is that each member of the requisite group of survivors is actually likeable. There are a lot of great set pieces, and the only real negative I can think of is that the film might be a bit too long, but I think the ending definitely makes up for that!  

---

---

BAD: "The Fog" (2005)

There are decent remakes.  There are bad remakes, and then there's this steaming pile of garbage. It seems that all John Carpenter films are destined to be remade, and John Carpenter himself has said that he doesn't mind the checks, so we're stuck with dreck like this. The 1980 original, is a creepy and atmospheric ghost story that has since reached classic status. The original cast has been de-aged to the point where they seem like a bunch of college students stumbling around after a drunken frat party, and the original films gloom has been replaced with shitty CGI fog.  I'll also never understand the decision to toss some nonsense about reincarnation into the relatively simple plot of ghostly pirates seeking bloody vengeance.  "The Fog" is one of those films where you kind of just have to nod your head when people say, "Remakes suck!"

---

---

GOOD: "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1978)

(Credit: United Artists)

This is another film that is often mentioned as one of the best remakes of all time, and rightfully so.  It has a great cast, including Donald Sutherland, Leonard Nimoy, Jeff Goldblum and Brooke Adams.  It's a tense, anxiety-filled thriller that is expertly directed by Phil Kaufman. The film does a great job of moving the story from the original McCarthy era setting to post-Vietnam, and the cinematography, with a ton of great closeups and low-angle shots, adds to the sense of paranoia that pervades the film.  Not to mention that, for my money, this film has one of the greatest endings of any horror film.  The next time someone tells you that remakes suck, instead of mentioning "The Fly" again, throw this one at them!

---

BAD: "When a Stranger Calls" (2006)

(Credit: Screen Gems)

Let's face it, the 1979 original is not exactly great, but it definitely has a lot of charm and it's generally well regarded by horror fans, mostly because of Carol Kane's convincing performance.  Come on, we all thought the idea that the calls were coming from inside the house was pretty cool!  In this pointless remake, director Simon West thinks that if he just makes the soundtrack boom with loud noises, people will be scared. Somehow, close-ups on phones that aren't even ringing and violently shaking bushes as star Camilla Belle runs past them are supposed to be frightening. The original is tame by today's "gore" standards, but it achieved it's goal of creeping us out.  The remake does nothing except make us wish it would just be over.

---

GOOD: "The Hills Have Eyes" (2006)

(Credit: Screen Gems)

Wes Craven's 1977 original is considered one of the most relentlessly brutal horror films, especially of that era.  Well, Alexandre Aja's remake takes that brutality to a whole new level.  The raw depravity of it surprised even The Horror Nerd a bit when I saw it in the theater, but I have to say, the extreme violence and horror made sense in the context of the story.  The cringe inducing set pieces weren't just there "to be there". There are fantastic performances throughout the film, and the cinematography is outstanding.  I think what makes it particularly unbearable is that the victims are actually likeable, and they do not deserve the fate that befalls them. Basically, this film is an endurance test for all but the most jaded and desensitized film-goer.

---

BAD: "The Omen" (2006)

(Credit: 20th Century Fox)

I'm pretty sure that the only reason this waste of celluloid was made was because some studio executive realized that the could build a marketing campaign around the fact that they could release the film on 6/6/2006 (6/6/6, get it? So cool!) Star Liev Schreiber does his best to carry this film, but it's just too much weight.  It just plods along, and it's incredibly boring.  Richard Donner's 1976 original slowly builds a sense of dread and every so often, a shocking death scene comes along. Gregory Peck also does a fantastic job of making us think that maybe, just maybe, his kid is not the son of the devil, but that he might just be going crazy and it's all in his head. Somehow, director John Moore took a story about the Son of Satan and made it completely tiresome.  Do yourself a favor, stick to the original where the haunting score alone puts this entire remake to shame.

---

---

GOOD: "Evil Dead" (2013)

(Credit: Tri-Star Pictures)

I always take a lot of heat for this one, and I get it, I really do. I understand the reverence for Sam Raimi's original "The Evil Dead" and I am well aware of it's importance in horror film history.  However, I do not revere it the way many horror fans do, and I will always maintain that the sequel is far superior. But, we're talking about Fede Alvarez's remake here, which I feel is one of the best horror remakes to ever come along. I like the sub-plot that our group of future victims is helping one of their own overcome a heroin addiction. Well, of course, Deadite mayhem ensues, and the blood flows, quite liberally I might add.  There is none of the absurd humor or overacting that makes the original so charming. This is one of the bloodiest, most visceral horror films of the 21st century so far, and it's unrelenting.  This is a great example of what a filmmaker can do when they take the original, and build upon it to turn it into something new.  Trust me horror fans, it's totally OK to love the original and enjoy the remake at the same time!

---

BAD: "Halloween" (2007)

(Credit: Dimension Films)

 I saved this one for last because it always gets me in trouble. There are a LOT of people who like this film.  There are some who even say that it's better than John Carpenter's original. Well, they're wrong. I get why they might say that though.  Director Rob Zombie amps up the violence and gore in his waste of time remake, and that's what 21st century horror audiences seem to want. They can't deal with tension or a slow burn.  They just want to see gore and violence.  While that has it's place to be sure, it doesn't "make" a movie.  I just don't see why so many people love this movie.  Rob Zombie has a good eye for cinematography, I'll give him that, but I'm sorry (not) folks, but he is a terrible writer.  He took everything that made the original good, and bastardized it, including giving Michael Myers some lame backstory about being a sad kid who had a shitty childhood.  WHAT?  Michael Myers used to be a symbol of evil.  A seemingly normal person from a suburban family who becomes a killer.  Now he's just another troubled kid lashing out at the world? Fuck outta' here!  We're not supposed to feel sorry for Michael Myers!  Oh, and what the hell is that scene where Michael holds up a photo of one of the characters like he's a detective asking someone, "Have you seen this person?"  I could go on and on, but I feel my blood pressure going up. Stop, just stop.  Please stop pretending that this is a good movie just because you are a fan of Rob Zombie.  
​
ps: I wonder if Malcolm McDowell regrets taking on the iconic role of Dr. Loomis. I know I would.

---

(Credit: thebuzzmag.ca)

---

Well, there you have it folks.  Five remakes I liked, and five, well, not so much.  What do you think?  Do you agree? Disagree? Think I should quit giving my opinion?  

I hope you enjoyed my choices in any case, and I am already thinking about some more remakes I'd like to write about.

Thanks for reading!

​The Horror Nerd