remake – Page 3 – Colin McMahon

A Rose by any Other Name… Can be Confusing: The Thing (2011)

Posted on October 9, 2015 by Colin McMahon

In 1982, one of the greatest horror movies was released. I say this as a fan of John Carpenter, and as someone who really loves Halloween: John Carpenter’s best film by far is The Thing. The film can be seen as a masterwork, both in terms of paranoia/suspense and in terms of practical effects at work. That said, upon initial release – The Thing did not fare well. Many critics (Roger Ebert included) were grossed out by the film’s excessive gore, and found the effects to be a little too real. Carpenter’s The Thing went on to be a box-office flop… with fame and deserved acclaim not being bestowed for many years.

Really? People found this too gross? Go figure.

Sounds like perfect material for Hollywood in 2011, right? So audiences were treated to The Thing again in 2011. Ready for the kicker though? Despite the name, The Thing is not, nor was it ever intended to be (by its director anyway) a remake. This film is a prequel.

A prequel with the same name. Makes… absolutely no sense. So why did it happen? The short answer is: I don’t know. After spending a few hours digging, I have not found an answer beyond this: they did not want the film to have a “:” in the title. Makes sense right? These days there is little that implies Hollywood marketing the way that a colon can. For example, take a look at this unofficial poster art for (one of) the upcoming Jungle Book movie:

That’s right. They’re making two Jungle Book movies at the same time. One is not made by Disney, however, and so it is titled Jungle Book: Origins to differentiate… and to let audiences now that the studio is hopeful for a franchise. Well, I do agree with director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. The Thing: Origins or anything like that would have sounded pretty dumb.

But what about The Thing From Another World?

While 2011’s film was no remake, Carpenter’s sure as heck was. Really, all three films have shared the same basis, and that is the Who Goes There? novella written by John W. Campbell. Say, Who Goes There? would be a great title for a horror movie… oh but it doesn’t have The Thing in it. And everyone knows that, if a movie is to be financially successful, it must name the money-making property behind it.

So, while the director says one thing – I believe another factor strongly went into influencing the title for The Thing: Studio interference. This happens a lot in movies and happened a ton on this one. For example, one of the greatest criticisms leveled against the 2011 film was the effects. Gone were the brilliant practical effects of the 1982 classic, replaced by cheap, fake-looking CGI. What was the director thinking?

The director was all for practical effects. In fact, here is a look at the original effects for the new movie, before they were all replaced in post-production:

Pretty cool looking (although still nowhere near as bloody as 1982). Yet apparently, for whatever reason, the studio did not feel confident in this look. CGI is all the rage after all. ‘Cause this:

Looks so much better than this:

Apparently.

Also, The Thing (2011) lost its original ending, as the studio felt it was too confusing. The original ending featured many more alien designs, and has been dubbed “the pilot ending” by the director. In case you were wondering, we got “the Tetris ending” in the theatrical cut.

The point is: this movie had more than one master, and sadly that usually never works out in the film’s favor. I also know for a fact the script went through at least one complete rewrite from a scriptwriter whose other work has been.. less than stellar.

From the research I have done it appears that two goals were in mind. The first (from the director and crew) was to create a prequel that paid tribute to everything that makes the Carpenter film fantastic. The second was a bid to update The Thing for modern audiences in the 21st century, without risking grossing audiences out this time.

Nothing risky about this. Audiences love computers!

How did it turn out? The Thing bombed at the box office… again. History repeated itself, at least in that respect. Sadly, I don’t believe the 2011 prequel is destined for the same late recognition as the 1982 original, in part for the abysmal effects. The film is simply nowhere near the level of its predecessor, and I don’t believe it would be even if the effects were left alone. The paranoia isn’t there, the performances aren’t there. It is simply… lesser.

This was a film that started out pure but was then corrupted and taken over by an outside force, and in that respect – the title actually makes sense.

Forgotten Classics: A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Posted on July 16, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Samuel Bayer and Fede Alvarez have one thing in common: they were both no-names who got the chance to direct big budget horror. Alvarez used his opportunity to bring new, gory life to Evil Dead, while Samuel… Samuel, Samuel, Samuel. Our buddy Samuel directed the A Nightmare on Elm Street remake. Let the record show: I think the original is just all right. Granted, it has been a few years since I last saw Wes Craven‘s most famous horror movie but I still feel like I can remember all the good parts (and the bad parts – namely Heather Langenkamp’s acting). But let’s not talk about Wes Craven, not right now anyway. Let’s talk about Samuel Bayer and the lovely little film he made a few years ago.

I just watched the new A Nightmare on Elm Street yesterday and boy, I knew I had a winner within the first ten minutes. It’s not ever script that opens a movie with dialogue like:

Girl: “Dreams aren’t real.”

Guy: “No, you don’t understand. This dream is real.”

Girl: “No, dreams aren’t real.”

That’s from the opening couple. You can tell, from witty dialogue like that (thank you for your script, Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer… two people wrote this????) that these two must have a dynamite relationship. Rest assured, it isn’t just the script that’s top notch. Bayer is obviously one stellar director and has gathered a terrific cast. Look at how frightened actor Kellen Lutz appears in this scene:

He perfectly captures the look of someone who just realized he left the water running at home.

Yes, that is how terrified people look in their nightmares… or when they realize there’s still eighty minutes left to go. Better get used to a lot of young teen (all played by people in their twenties) stares in this film. Really though, they have such classic material to work with. The original film has several memorable moments, with none more than the rise of Krueger’s glove from the bath tub. Rest assured – that scene is in the movie.

Rest assured, it has nothing to do with anything else. In the original, this sequence helped escalate the tension that Freddy was actively stalking the protagonist, Nancy. Tension and protagonists are so 1984.

In fact, this film does not feel the need to really introduce the audience to the main character until the 45 minute mark in the movie. That’s right: for the first three-quarters of an hour you are watching characters whose actions have no real consequence on the plot. Doesn’t that just sound engaging? Bayer must have mimicked the Rob Zombie approach when it came to protagonists: not needed because the killer is just SO interesting.

Let’s talk about Freddy Krueger then (played by Jackie Earle Haley…).

First off: what is the point of remakes? It’s a big question but I’m sure that most would agree that one such function is to update a film to the modern era. Sure, Freddy Krueger was scary but that was way back in 1984! Let’s have a look:

Hmmm, actually that doesn't hold up too badly. — Hmmm, actually that doesn’t hold up too badly.

Well, if that’s what they could do in 1984 then 2010 must be –

…………………… it looks like the Cowardly Lion had a really bad shave.

Yes, 2010 also knows that make-up is a thing of the past and nothing looks more believable than computer graphics on a man’s face. Jackie Earle Haley is kind of a creepy guy, anyone who has seen Shutter Island can attest to that. Obviously the best thing to do with a talented actor is to cover him in CGI until nothing can be seen of his face or performance. Well, if his visual performance is anything to go on, how is his acting?

Before you ask, at least 90% of his dialogue is delivered in that same monotone, gravely voice. Acting is also for the 1980’s.

Another function of remakes can be to put a new spin on a character. In this case, the movie sets up Freddy Krueger as an innocent victim. A man wrongfully burned by over-zealous parents. This arguably makes for a better origin than this original roots. If Krueger were innocent than the movie could show how people always make the worst monsters, as well as expressing the dangers of mob justice. That is – until the final twenty minutes when the movie reveals that yes, Freddy still did it. Mob justice is the best justice, who needs the police? Great morals for today’s society.

If any out there remained unconvinced that this movie is worth checking out, allow me to share a favorite scene. Nancy is badly injured by Freddy and romantic hopeful, Quentin, rushes her to the hospital for care. There Nancy meets her mother and says she doesn’t want any sedation. The doctors prepare to sedate her anyway so Quentin rescues her from the hospital…. that’s the sequence. What bearing does it have on the story (other than extending it for five more minutes): Quentin steals some shots of adrenaline. Yes, because there are no other sources of energy out there – everyone knows you have to go to the hospital to receive a pick-me-up.

In the age of talented-but-unknown horror directors (like Adam Green and Ti West), it is great Samuel Bayer got the chance to leave his mark on such a famous horror franchise. He did to A Nightmare on Elm Street what Freddy Krueger did to his victims. Karma.

What's With the HUVr Board?

Posted on March 7, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Earlier this week, the unimaginable happened. Hoverboards: that wonderful piece of fantastical technology in Back to the Future Part II, were announced as upcoming “real” technology. If you haven’t seen it already, please view the announcement below.

Well, unless you are the most… let’s say hopeful of individuals; you recognize the tongue-and-cheek for what it is. Indeed, not long after this video was uploaded (and the internet subsequently exploded) people began to doubt the validity of this unveiling. If hoverboards could suddenly be real, why hadn’t anyone ever seen any hover technology before? Hover technology that looked like that, anyway. Here’s the more common, real-world example:

So HUVr’s announcement was a fake. In honesty, they probably weren’t really trying to fool anyone. The question then becomes why: why is this video being released? Anyone can fake the news on the internet (that’s the wonderful thing about the internet) but this is different. There is money behind this.

Christopher Lloyd, Tony Hawk, Terrell Owens. While not huge names, these people weren’t free. Also the website has a nice professional touch and the video is quite expertly made. Not the typical Sunday prank to be sure. In fact, this doesn’t appear like a prank at all. This is viral marketing.

The Back to the Future remake is coming.

I don’t say that as a definite, just the most likely in a list of possibilities. Next year marks 2015, the year that Marty McFly made famous in Back to the Future Part II. How fitting would it be to relaunch the series thirty years after the original took place. Instead of traveling thirty years back to the fifties, suddenly the eighties are ripe for parody (seriously, think of how well 1980’s nostalgia is selling right now).

Two things Back to the Future Part II is remembered for: hoverboards and all the stupid Facebook posts claiming that this is the date that Marty Mcfly went to the future (above is the actual date). — Two things *Back to the Future Part II* is remembered for: hoverboards and all the stupid Facebook posts claiming that this is the date that Marty Mcfly went to the future (above is the actual date).

Could it be Back to the Future Part IV instead? Not likely. While Hollywood has resurrected characters past their prime (looking at you, Indiana), both Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd are too old (and too forgotten) to be Hollywood stars. Just watch the announcement, thirty years really makes a difference.

Remake. The timing is right. The Back to the Future movies are classics of a past generation. It is time to update the image. Who knows, maybe in the sequel they’ll travel to 2045, hoverboards could be real by then.