Dear Hollywood... Stop It!

Another week, another story claiming that yet another film is being remade. Recently, there's been news that Kindergarten Cop, Sister Act and The Craft are all to undergo a remake. We've got a remake of Ghostbusters in the works, along with The Crow and quite a few others.

Frankly, I'm sick of it.

I'm sick and tired of this mindless rehashing of previous material.

(At least Robert Zemeckis has said a remake of Back To The Future will happen over his dead body. Literally.)

 Firstly, let me preface my remarks with a caveat: not all remakes are bad. There have been some decent remakes over the years.Al Pacino's Scarface is a remake, and a damn good one at that. The 1954 remake of A Star Is Born (with Judy Garland and James Mason) is sublime and- in a rarity for a horror remake (more on that to come)- 2006's remake of The Omen at least managed to capture some of the menace of the original. The 2004 version of The Manchurian Candidate makes a decent fist of updating the Cold War paranoia of the original. George Clooney's bash at Ocean's Eleven had some charm and wit (least said about the sequels the better) and even The Italian Job should get a mention because it at least tries to do something with the established formula (although the original is obviously better)

However, the vast majority of remakes are bad. In some cases, really bad. But nearly always emotionally bankrupt and utterly vapid. Case in point - last year's remake of RoboCop. A few flashes of inspiration aside, it was a dull, dull film and resembled the original about as much as I resemble Danny DeVito: the most passing of resemblances, but generally nothing alike. Arthur - atrocious. The Women - a waste of talent. Straw Dogs - terrible. Do you see where I'm going with this?

The phenomenon of horror remakes seems particularly egregious. It seems as if every seminal horror film- Psycho, Halloween, A Nightmare On Elm Street, The Wicker Man, Friday The 13th, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, My Bloody Valentine, Dawn Of The Dead, Carrie, Black Christmas, The Thing, The Amityville Horror, Poltergeist and When A Stranger Calls to name but a few- have had a remake or retread or 'reimagining'. And with very few exceptions, these have been dull, bludgeoning unimaginitive fare with all the subtlety and menace of the originals leached out. The reason most of these original films work is the atmosphere that's created and that is sorely lacking in the remakes, who tend to throw atmosphere out of the window and go for cheap shocks and gore.

I'll be the first to admit that the original versions of Psycho and The Wicker Man are two of my favourite films. So any attempt at a remake was always going to have a oh-hell-no kneejerk reaction. But Gus Van Sant's virtual shot-for-shot colour remake of Hitchcock's masterpiece is awful. Why go for a shot-for-shot remake? Unless a remake improves on the original in some way, there's no point in doing it. As for Neil LaBute's truly execrable Wicker Man remake, there's absolutely nothing to recommend it- apart from the fact that it spawned an amusing gif with Nicolas Cage and the bees.

No! Not the bees!

I get that Hollywood is there to make money and that's why franchises do so well- you hit upon a successful formula and rework it and rework it and people know what they're going to see and settle back and enjoy it. Fast And Furious 7 is one of the highest opening films of the year and the phenomenal success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films show there's a definite appetite for franchise.

However, this shouldn't be at the expense of original screenplays and original work. Independent cinema is providing some of the most thought-provoking and original films which deserve to be seen on a grand scale. Occasionally you get a breakthrough/crossover- the prevalence of Whiplash and The Grand Budapest Hotel at this year's Oscars, for instance- but so much good cinema is being lost or becoming niche because they can't get a distributor.

Hollywood is a multi-billion dollar industry. Surely some of that prodigious and slightly obscene wealth can be used to bankroll a couple of decent original screenplays? I'm not saying all cinema has to become an indie darling's fantasy (I'm too much of a fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe for that) but take a chance now and again. Invest in some original talent. And leave perfectly good films that don't need a revamp alone.

Tez

Mini Countdown: 5 Unnecessary Remakes

With recent news that Robocop is due to be remade, A Star Is Born is being remade for the third time and that Michael Bay has been sniffing around the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, remakes have been on my mind.


I understand that remakes are popular- see, for example, the amount reeled off Hayden Panettierre's character in Scream 4 when challenged by the killer on horror remakes. However, it is rare to find a well-done remake. I enjoyed the 2004 remake of The Manchurian Candidate andthe 1954 version of A Star Is Born is a delight to behold, but generally remakes tend to be by-the-numbers or lacking a certain spark evident in the original.


Below are, in my opinion, five of the most egregious examples of unnecessary remakes.

1. The Wicker Man (2006, dir. Neil LaBute)


The Wicker Man (1973) is not only one of the finest British films ever made, it is also one of the finest thrillers. Atmospheric, tense and skilful in its manipulation, it is a cult classic. To say that this remake doesn't come close to capturing a millionth of the original's class is a sad understatement. This is an absolute travesty. Rightly deserving its five Razzie nominations, this despicable waste of money and talent (Molly Parker, Frances Conroy and Ellen Burstyn for example) should be erased from the canon of film.

 

2. Psycho (1998, dir. Gus Van Sant)


For anyone who has seen Van Sant's preposterous scene-for-scene reimagining of Hitchcock's 1960 classic, you may have noticed a deeply disturbing rolling sound accompanying the action of the film: that noise is Hitchcock turning in his grave. If you're going to try and assay one of cinema's most well-known films, do something more imaginative with it than a bland rehash. Even facile additions (such as Vince Vaughn's pleasuring himself whilst spying on Anne Heche) do nothing but disappoint. This is a rare blot on Van Sant's copybook; as a film-maker he is so much better than this. 

3. Halloween (2007, dir. Rob Zombie)


Another example of a remake which bleeds the tension and atmosphere of the original dry and replaces it with something dull, bludgeoning, uninspired, lacklustre and frankly boring. Had I not been with friends when I saw this, I would have walked out. There is a decent cameo by Sheri Moon Zombie as Michael's mother and Malcolm McDowell slices the ham thick as Dr. Loomis but this is generally just unwatchable tripe.

4. The Ladykillers (2004, dir. Joel & Ethan Coen)


There's a quintessential British charm to The Ladykillers, one of the most well-liked of all the Ealing comedies. Sadly that charm doesn't travel into this slightly leaden Southern Fried adaptation. Despite a pretty fearsome performance by Irma P. Hall as Mrs Munson (the titular lady), the other performances lack any credible spark, led by the front by the Colonel Sanders-like Tom Hanks (in the Alec Guinness role).

5. Sleuth (2007, dir. Kenneth Branagh)


I wanted to like this film, being a fan of Joseph L. Mankiewicz's 1972 original. Kenneth Branagh directing, Harold Pinter writing, Michael Caine acting (along with Jude Law, who I can take or leave and prefer to leave, if I'm honest)- the signs looked favourable. Alas, not so much when push comes to shove. Whilst Pinter's script is whip-sharp and the actors spar convincingly, the stripped-back minimalism of the house and the alteration of certain plot points take away a certain oomph present in the original. 




There are bound to be more in the cinematic canon. Let me know some of your most unnecessary remakes in the comments below.


Tez