Out with the old and in with the slightly reconstructed adaptation of the original version!

I have always been curious as to what prompts a filmmaker to want to remake an already established film. Is it to pay homage? Is it because they want to refresh a staled narrative for modern audiences? Or is it simply a lack of an original concept on their part?

A remake is defined as:  “to make a new or different version of (something, such as a movie, song, etc.): to make (something) into something else.”  Merriam-Webster Dictionary.  

Film remakes should probably serve a purpose. They should be about modernising an aging or dated setting while substantiating the original plot and maybe mending any of the ‘holes’ that were obvious to a viewer. I think that if you are going to remake a movie, do it justice. Try to stay authentic to its origins but express your individuality enough to demonstrate your intention. A remake should basically be a revamp. But that’s just my viewpoint. 

On that note, I have decided to dedicate a chapter to discussing Originals versus Remakes. Please let me know what you think about this topic and also the films I have chosen to look at. 

 

 

 

The Hills Have Eyes (1977): Wes Craven was undoubtedly one of the most brilliant and prolific Horror filmmakers. Period!  The plot of this film was inspired by a Scottish legend. Rumours of a cannibal clan residing in a cave during the Middle Ages would provide an indefectible foundation for a truly horrific tale to thrive from. Wes Craven often ‘borrowed’ incentives from real-life accounts of ‘tales’ he had read about and what makes this movie great is the way Craven humanizes his villains so that the audience finds themselves identifying with them on an almost sympathetic level. The film is gritty and somewhat understated but the shock factor is still prominent. There are still plenty of ‘hide your eyes’ moments for those with delicate sensitivities, but, by today’s comparative standards it would be viewed as fairly mild. Craven mentioned his homage to Tobe Hooper’s Texas Chainsaw Massacre which is visually pretty obvious. The plot- A family travelling to California are stranded when they break down in a deserted location. Unbeknown to the travellers, the surrounding hills are inhabited by another ‘family’; a herd of savages, who are ravenously hungry in both the literal and allegorical sense. The Carters become unwitting victims in an onslaught of attacks, with the survival rate being imminently minimal. This movie has remained a cult favourite with Craven and horror fans alike; myself being included in both of those categories. 

VERSUS

 

The Hills Have Eyes (2006): I will start by saying that I am an admirer of director Alexandre Aja’s work, particularly Haute Tension (2003). The first submission of this film’s remake was apparently too gory and violent for the US censorship boards’ liking. In my (humble) opinion this version is somewhat overdone. Aja draws out the tension to the point of redundancy in parts. His brutalizing is unessentially indulgent in part and comparatively, to its predecessor, the characters are a little one-dimensional. That aside, Wes Craven personally selected Alexandre Aja to helm the ship of this remake and Craven himself produced the film. The revamped mutants are indeed more horrific and their insatiable lust for flesh is again both literal and emblematic. The desperation in this version does translate more competently and what Aja does well is to accelerate that urgency and desperation for the family to survive. Although the characters seem a tad lacklustre, the acting is quite good and their terror certainly feels genuine. This version is obviously slicker with a bigger budget and overall, it’s an okay experience. 

 

---

 

Thirteen Ghosts (1960): The plot- The impoverished Cyrus Zorba inherits a mansion from his deceased occultist uncle Plato, and moves in with his wife and 2 children. The house comes with a live-in housekeeper, 12 ‘imprisoned’ ghosts and a very large fortune that is hidden somewhere deep within the residence. A ’13th’ ghost is needed to free the trapped spirits from the fortress. Plato’s shonky lawyer Benjamin Rush is actually the real villain of this film, while the ghosts themselves are quite docile compared with today’s standards. The film is incredibly gimmicky, but for its time it was relatively effective. The director William Castle provided the audience with the option of viewing the film through something called ‘Illusion-O’; a tinted filter that changed the colour of the appearance of the spirits on the screen. Castle was renowned for his use of showmanship to promote his films. The movie is a quite charming, entertaining production with very campy, theatrical aspects. I don’t think it will ever reside in any ‘horror greats’ hall of fame collection but it’s enjoyable enough and definitely worth a watch.

VERSUS

 

Thirteen Ghosts (2001): I personally think that this remake was an incredibly underrated film. It’s a visually illustrious production with some amazing special effects. The characters are fairly uninspiring and the film itself is very noticeably a by-product of its time, but it’s actually a really fun movie. Dark Castle Entertainment is a collective that was responsible for several horror films including another William Castle remake The House on Haunted Hill (1999). Almost all of the films produced by Dark Castle have the same recognizable style and substance to them. This version has amplified the overall experience by making a few modifications to the characters and the spectres. The result is a much darker, more action-driven experience. The ‘ghosts ‘ themselves are terror-inducing with backbone and grit. The violence is accelerated and generous. The nephew still inherits the mansion and moves in with his children and the nanny, however. his wife is deceased and this was actually a clever deviation from the prototype because his grief serves as the catalyst to induct the ‘thirteenth ghost’ and that works, pretty well. Unlike the original, there is more of a real sense of horror with this film even though it feels a little trite at times. This movie definitely has its flaws, but I still have a soft spot for it and recommend it for the watch. 

 

---

 

My Bloody Valentine (1981): A Canadian slasher film (yes, they exist), My Bloody Valentine remains a cult classic with both horror and slasher buffs alike. Set in the mining town Valentine Bluffs, the plot centres on Valentine’s Day; the anniversary of the day on which a horrific accident that took place in a mining shaft where an act of negligence left a group of miners trapped. Long story short, miner Harry Warden was reduced to cannibalism to survive and it sent him insane, resulting in a lot of grisly murders. Cut to twenty years later and a Valentine’s Day dance is to be held for the first time since that ordeal. A spate of violent killings prompts the police and the mayor to cancel the dance. The local teens are unimpressed and they hold a party in the mines instead where (you guessed it) blood-spatter ensues. This film is a fantastic 80s slasher film. It’s chocked full of frenzy, there are plenty of surprise elements and the plot is fairly unique. The Valentine’s theme is done well, utilizing aspects of it consistently and nicely. The kills are creative, there’s a love story for the romantics and the story flows nicely. My Bloody Valentine often gets overlooked within its genre but in all honesty, it is actually one of the better films to surpass the generation. 

VERSUS

 

My Bloody Valentine (2009): While it remains loyal (Ish) to the original plot, this remake adds some extra flair and content and, I am honestly quite a fan of this film. I think it received some unflattering reviews when it was released. It isn’t perfect, but it has some great kill sequences and the acting isn’t too bad. Director Patrick Lussier (Drive Angry) creates a well-rounded narrative that is mostly consistent and interesting. There are plenty of fast-paced kills and just enough decelerated tensions to make it work. I would have liked a little more creativity, being that it’s a slasher, but I was willing to overlook this because as a whole, this is a true horror movie. I did not see the 3D version in theatres but I’ve never been a lover of that particular gimmick anyway. The identity of the killer remains quite ambivalent until the end of the film, adding a mystery element that is both enduring and onerous. The film has an ominous tone that enhances the gore, heightening those moments when a crimson flow saturates the landscape. 

 

 

---

 

Suspiria (1977): I have said it before, and I’m saying it again; Dario Argento is the master of horror. With that out of the way, I will now discuss what is most certainly his most iconic and peculiar film Suspiria. The first film in the sequence of the trilogy ‘The Three Mothers’, the film is a showcase of visual mastery with its vivid red aesthetics and highly saturated composition. Although the plot is somewhat obscure, the content is perpetual and stylised, meaning there is never a dull moment and the viewer can graciously overlook this blemish. Plot- an American ballet dancer joins a prestigious academy in Germany where it promptly becomes apparent that something is not quite routine. The students tend to mysteriously vanish, or just end up dead. The school is actually just a front for a deranged coven of witches (obviously) and the protagonist must then destroy it. Argento’s use of colours builds atmosphere and delivers an illusory facet in such a brilliant manner that beautifully compliment the erratic momentum of the narrative’s unfolding. I would love to recommend that everybody watch all of Argento’s movies, but most people won’t have seen any of them. So, if you are brave enough to sample one…. maybe make it Suspiria. 

VERSUS

 

Suspiria (2018): As apprehensive as I was to see this film, I was admittedly pretty shocked and amazed by how much I (gulp)enjoyed this remake of the iconic Argento prototype. Luca Guadagnino (Call Me by Your Name) made copious changes to the story, constructing a more lucid narrative for the audience to comprehend. This story has more depth resulting in a more compelling watch. The protagonist Susie Banion is a dancer who attends an academy in Germany. The school is run by a coven of witches. These are the commonalities of both films. The palette in Guadagnino’s version is individually bleak with him opting for dreary, neutral tones only using reds to represent allusions to danger and violence. The multifaceted Tilda Swinton is brilliant in her multiple roles, and Dakota Johnson delivers an incomparable performance blurring the lines of timidity and ambiguity with a disquiet progression. Accompanied by a remarkable score created by Thom Yorke from Radiohead, Guadagnino’s film is both a homage and a triumph. It’s a lesson in how to ‘remake’ a film the right way and of all of the remakes I have mentioned this is by far the most accomplished achievement.