Thursday Guilty Pleasure: Week Three

Yes, I know it's Friday--humor us, will ya? Missy Yearian of Chickapin Parish and myself are back in your face with movies we're ashamed to admit we actually love. I dig deep into the mists of time for a movie that proves not all horror films of the '30s are classics, while Ms. Yearian defends one of those notorious Platinum Dunes remakes...

Maniac (1934)

I'm fully convinced that Ed Wood must have traveled 20 years into the past, changed his name to Dwain Esper, and brought this film into being. There's really no other way to explain how a motion picture that so smacks of the King of Bad Cinema could have emerged during the golden age of classic horror.

The tale of a mad scientist and his vaudevillian comedian accomplice on a mission to reanimate corpses, it's really just about as bad as you'd think it would be. OK, well, it's actually a whole lot worse. The actors seem to have been people just pulled in off the street and told to make random gestures and exclamations, the production value is on a par with the local high school's presentation of Brigadoon, and best of all, the whole thing is punctuated by an unbearably overwrought narration about the dangers of the criminal mind or some such nonsense.

And yet, despite all this--or perhaps because of it--I couldn't take my eyes off this flick when I first watched it as part of one of those 80,000-horror-movies-for-50-cents collections which I picked up a while back at my nearest soulless big box outlet. What's interesting to me, is that when you think of bad movies of this caliber, you're usually not going back any further than the 1950s. If you want to be extra thorough, you can find some real clunkers from Monogram and their ilk from the '40s. But the '30s? For some reason, most people only think of the likes of Frankenstein, The Invisible Man, Dracula, etc. when discussing that era. Well folks, allow me to present you with a glaring exception to the rule.

Maniac is a kind of torture, but a sublime kind. It's the same kind of experience one gets watching Bride of the Monster or Plan 9 from Outer Space only, for whatever reason, far less infamous. Watch it for one of the most overacted death scenes in history. Watch it because its original pre-Hays Code title was Sex Maniac. Watch it because it features an actress named Phyllis Diller, who isn't the one we all know. For all these reasons and more, watch Maniac.

And when you do, you'll discover the wonderful, unifying truth that I did: Really bad movies have been around as long as there have been movies.



And now, gather round as Missy extols the virtues of the TCM remake...

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

This one is sure to get me kicked out of the Cool Kids Club, for I love the remake of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. I know it’s like a rule for all of us to have a hate on for Platinum Dunes, and I do. I swear I do. When they made that Amityville Horror remake, I held up my middle finger. When they remade Friday the 13th, I held up my other middle finger. And when they trotted out A Nightmare on Elm Street, I turned around, pulled my pants down, and mooned a metaphorical Michael Bay.

But I can’t help it. I love a movie that begins with a traumatized victim whipping a gun out of her vagina. Could she walk so well with a gun in her spam purse? Probably not! But who cares? Wouldn’t gravity sort of make it fall out from between her meat curtains since she was clearly wearing no underwear? Most likely! But what difference does this really make? I’ll tell you. It makes no difference… none at all. The moment is sheer absurdity, and that is what makes it so awesome.

You see, the original is clearly like the best horror movie in the history of history. (Yes, I know that’s debatable, but just give me some leeway, will you?) And it was so frightening because it was so simple. The idea that something so macabre, something so grisly, could exist behind the front door of a simple farmhouse is a terrifying one (and one that kept me up nights as I grew up in a house just like it). And this remake all but obliterates that notion.

Our baddies live in some dilapidated manor—a home anyone would be stupid to enter. But stupid is exactly what they are. And if you’re looking for a film wherein people you kind of can’t stand (especially Morgan who must be an intentionally irritating character who does almost as a good as job of pissing you off as Franklin) get picked off, this is the movie for you. Gone are the days when you want to see people live. Gone are the days when you don’t know what’s going to happen. This movie is an exercise in predictability.

I realize that makes it sound just awful, and you know, it really is. But there’s something oh-so-comforting in that predictability that just draws me in. This movie is like a sweater you keep in the bottom drawer of your dresser and only trot out when you’re feeling lonely. It’s just a comforting piece of shit, my friends. And sometimes, that’s exactly what you need.

Tweet

Thursday Guilty Pleasure: Week One

Because it simply wasn't argumentative enough, every Tuesday in October, to delve into the films we're too scared to watch twice, Missy Yearian of Chickapin Parish and myself are also joining forces throughout October to bring you Thursday Guilty Pleasures, in which we regale you with the movies that we know we're supposed to hate, but we unabashedly love, nevertheless. So buckle in and prepare to cringe, as we get it all off our chests. Be gentle, please...

Van Helsing (2004)

Wow, you're still reading? Yes, B-Sol of The Vault of Horror enjoyed the hell out of Stephen Sommers' gauche, gaudy Universal mashup starring Hugh Jackman as Gabriel "I'm too cool to be named Abraham" Van Helsing. Am I proud of that fact? No. But I'd be a fool to deny it.

Maybe it's the thrill of unleashing it on my kids, who had already been exposed to all the classic Universal monsters, and so got all the references. Maybe it was just the coolness factor of having all those classic monsters in one movie. But whatever it was, I would be lying if I didn't say that this loud confection of a horror/action flick held my attention, and then some.

I fully understand why people generally hated it--it's approach is in many ways completely anathema to the classic horror cinema it's trying to emulate; the camp factor is totally off the charts; the guy playing Dracula is pretty dreadful. Still, there were just enough old-school Universal references peppered without, and a certain respect for the lore of the classic monsters, that gave my inner horror geek a treat and a half.

I defy you to tell me, also, that this film doesn't feature one of the most faithful representations of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein Monster ever put on the screen. Say what you want about the rest of the painful hamminess going on in this flick, but Shuler Hensley is magnificent in a role which somehow seeks to translate the creature of the novel, while still giving a nod to the 1930s movie series. And I proudly admit to the childish grin that crossed my face when he shouted out "Friend!"

My only regret about seeing it is that Sommers' previous helming of The Mummy remake for Universal prevented everyone's favorite bandaged ancient Egyptian from making an appearance amongst his monstrous brethren. Van Helsing is a deeply flawed movie, and not at all what hardcore fans of classic monster cinema were hoping for, but I can't help but have a whole lot of fun with it.



And now, I yield the floor to Missy, and her first guilty pleasure of the month...

House of Wax (2005)

Look, I don’t have a good excuse for having seen this. I mean, it’s got everything working against it. It’s a remake (ew) and it stars Paris Hilton (double ew). And I really should have had the strength to say NO! But I didn’t. And as such, here we are staring down the barrel of week one, and I am about to admit a few shameful things to you.

Thing the First: I love The Simple Life. I own every season on DVD, and anytime I am feeling a little bit sad, I’ll pop them in (season two is my favorite) and a big ole stupid grin will spread across my face. I mean, really, if you let these entitled jerkwads into your lives, you deserve everything you get, right? Right?

It’s possible you’ve stopped reading now that you know this shameful secret. For those of you who are giving me the benefit of the doubt, let me explain why I tell you this. In watching five seasons of this show, I developed a keen understanding of Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie. Mostly, I discovered that Nicole is the smart (and devious) one and that Paris has no identity at all. Because of this lack of personality, I thought, “Gee. Maybe she’ll be like Brad Pitt.* And it will be like she’s this blank slate onto which any character can be painted! Maybe she’ll be the greatest actress of all time!” What can I say? I am like a child, and I have great, great optimism. And that’s why I went to see House of Wax.

I was definitely wrong about Paris Hilton.

Thing the Second: I effing loved House of Wax. I loved it way more than it deserves to be loved. I mean, like, if you had kids, and one of them was like The Changeling or something, and the other was House of Wax, you would totally love The Changeling more, right? Yeah, me too. Everyone knows parents don’t really love their kids “the same but in different ways.” House of Wax is totally the DJ Conner of the family. You can’t help but forget he exists when someone as awesome as Darlene is around. (Well, until the later seasons when you have to deal with Becky 2, and then all bets are off. Wait, what was I talking about?)

Thing the Third: That CGI ending with the titular house catching fire and the knife separating the wax babies is totally like the most awesome thing in the history of CGI. And I want to marry it every time I see it, which is a lot because I watch this movie a lot, and I guess that’s Thing the Fourth.

Thing the Fifth: I would probably stalk Elisha Cuthbert, but only after that crazy garage guy chops off the tip of her finger because that’s when you know she’s a badass, and that’s when I realize that House of Wax is actually awesome and totally fun and not something I should be ashamed of at all.

Wait…. What are we doing here?

* Please note that I do not actually like Brad Pitt, but I do believe he has put in some convincing performances, and I believe that is because he is a non-person, and as such, he can become anything.

Tweet

VAULTCAST: Talking with Meir Zarchi, Steven Monroe & Sarah Butler of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE!

One of the privileges I've been afforded since launching The Vault of Horror is being able to interact with those individuals directly involved with the films that have affected me over the years. I had just such an experience earlier this week when, after catching the remake of I Spit on Your Grave at a screening in Manhattan, I was afforded the opportunity to speak about it with the film's director, Steven Monroe; the star, Sarah Butler, who plays Jennifer Hill; and of course, the one and only Meir Zarchi himself--both producer of the remake and director of the still-controversial 1978 original.

It's my distinct pleasure to be able to share this with you, and I'm grateful to all participants for pulling no punches and expecting nothing less in return, especially Mr. Zarchi in our discussion of the much-debated issues of misogyny. Also, thanks to Alexis Hoyt and the rest of the fine people at Falco Ink for reaching out and making these interviews possible. You can listen in on the embedded player below, or proceed to the official Vaultcast page for download...

Tweet

I Spit on Your Grave, Version 2.0: All the Depravity, with Half the Misogyny!

If you were one of those who were concerned that Cinetel Films' remake of Meir Zarchi's infamous grindhouse "classic" I Spit on Your Grave was going to be a tame, watered-down, "safe" affair--well, allow me to inform you that you need not be concerned. Steven R. Monroe's much-debated new version, I'm here to announce, is not at all afraid to shock, disturb, and thoroughly get inside your head. In a time when horror film seems to be devolving more and more into self-parody, I Spit on Your Grave is a raw, unflinching, grueling experience, lacking even an ounce of post-ironic camp. And dare I say it, a superior film to the original.

Granted, many might point out that this isn't really saying much, considering that the original I Spit on Your Grave isn't exactly Suspiria or The Shining. What it did have going for it, however, was that raw power to deeply disturb, and I can honestly say that, despite a few choices that reflect a different mindset at work than 30 years ago, on the whole the film manages to pack a similar punch to the original, while at the same time giving us a better-made and more engaging motion picture.

One of the biggest problems I always had about the original was the way in which it was angled as some sort of pro-feminist ode to the empowerment of women, when if you come down to it, it is more a shamelessly misogynistic attempt to titillate through the gratuitous depiction of rape and dehumanization of women. This time around, Monroe and company manage to create a work that doesn't cop out, yet chooses to take a higher moral ground, if that makes any sense at all. Don't get me wrong, the film isn't without a certain element of sordid titillation, but one never gets the sense of over-the-top sleaziness one gets from the original.

For those not aware, I Spit on Your Grave (or ISOYG) tells the story of one Jennifer Hill (played here by Sarah Butler), a beautiful young writer who is brutally raped by a gang of backwoods hooligans while staying at a secluded cabin, only to escape and later wreak a bloody vengeance upon all of them. This time around, those same basic elements are still in place, and in fact there is even a certain attempt to duplicate the gritty, washed out look of '70s-era grindhouse cinema, for which kudos go to British cinematographer Neil Lisk. This technical aspect is just another area in which this remake trumps the original.

I would be loathe to say that I "enjoyed" the film more than I "enjoyed" the original, since I can't feel comfortable using that word in relation whatsoever to either version. This is grim, cringe-inducing film-making of the highest order, and rest assured that there were more than a few hoity-toity reviewers at the sneak preview I attended uttering exclamations of disgust and glancing around the room in disbelief that we were all actually witnessing what was happening on screen. Nevertheless, what I will say is that I was able to appreciate the quality of the finished product, and the way it took me back to my younger days, in which my ironic, angsty self would actively push the envelope to seek out the most disturbing cinematic experiences possible. I don't do that so much anymore, and I admit a movie like ISOYG is no longer really my cup of tea. But one cannot help but be impressed with the chances it takes, and the bold manner in which Stuart Morse's script embraces the material head-on.

I'm happy to report that the film-makers did make the decision to somewhat truncate the original's infamous 30-minute rape scene (nearly one third of the entire running time of the movie). Nevertheless, just because it is cut short from the longest rape scene in movie history, doesn't exactly make it a walk in the park, or anything short of thoroughly unsettling. And frankly, if you're the kind of person who's going to find fault with less rapiness in your I Spit on Your Grave, well, I don't feel a really compelling need to know you. Also, Morse's script makes the wise choice of removing all the contemptible nonsense about Jennifer seducing the man who raped her just so she could punish him. That little bit of high-grade woman-hating was thankfully excised, but make no mistake--retribution is still handily meted out.

Which brings me to my next observation, having very much to do with the revenge aspect of the film. In general, I'm all about revenge movies. Give me Death Wish, Braveheart, or any number of cheesy Steven Segal flicks, and I'm instantly and perversely happy. Hell, you're listening to someone who watched Mel Gibson's Payback on his wedding night, while eating from a gigantic bowl of hot wings. There's just something that appeals to me deep inside about watching despicable wrong-doers get what they have coming to them, in gratuitous fashion.

And yet, this movie seemed to taunt me, to toy with the fascination many seem to have with that kind of movie. Because although I may be tarred and feathered for saying it, I couldn't help but feel that in the context of the story, there's no way these guys deserved what she did to them, heinous though their crime was. And that's not to say they didn't deserve death, which they most assuredly did; just not the biblically epic series of elaborate, sadistic tortures visited upon them by Jennifer. It is almost as if the film-makers are glutting us with the notion of vengeance, testing us to see how much we can handle--"Oh yeah, you want to see some payback. Want these guys to get what they have coming to them? OK, well how about this? Can you handle this? What's wrong, too much for you?"

The feeling of grim satisfaction that usually attends these kinds of films here quickly evaporates, due to the simple fact that Jennifer has become a far worse monster than any of her attackers ever were. This is even more the case than in the original; here, Jennifer has several weeks to plot her revenge, and comes up with a series of horrific set-pieces that make much of the Camille Keaton's revenge in the original seem like Elmo's World.

The influence of the torture porn movement, and Saw in particular, is evident in the manner in which Jennifer exacts her cold and calculated vengeance, depicted in far more elaborate and sadistic fashion than in the Camille Keaton original. Aside from one unforgivably bad CGI shot, this stuff is about as rough to sit through as anything witnessed in the heyday of grindhouse horror.

Granted, much of it is far-fetched in its overly choreographed nature, but that's simply one of the feats of suspension of disbelief expected of the viewer, much like the mysterious ability of this waifish girl to physically overpower her attackers. I could've also done without the endless stream of corny one-liners that pour from Sarah Butler's lips during the film's final act. Her character's descent into lame Schwarzenegger-style quips really took me out of it, and felt out of place in a movie like this.

From a dramatic standpoint, matters are salvaged via the efforts of our gang of thugs, led by Jeff Branson in the role of Johnny. Unlike anyone portrayed in the original, Branson takes us on an emotional journey here; we can see the wheels turning in his head, the processes that lead him to such dark places. It's a very strong performance, as is that of Chad Lindberg as the mentally handicapped Matthew, a highly controversial character from the original that was thankfully not sacrificed at the altar of political correctness this time out. Also impressive is Welsh actor Andrew Howard in a downright chilling turn as the morally bankrupt Sheriff Storch.

The addition of this character, in fact, is one of the ways the films actually ups the ante from the original in terms of head games it seeks to play with the viewer. Even those thoroughly familiar with the original will be pretty much caught off guard by this new character, an addition to the which brings along with it quite a bit of baggage. Unlike his young and dumb cohorts, the Sherrif is an authority figure and family man, making his actions all the more unthinkably reprehensible. As a family man myself, there were certain moments in this film that nearly made me physically ill. A dear friend of mine, who had the privilege of being shown the script before filming even began, let me know all about this fresh, warped twist, yet it still did nothing prepare me for it.

I have a lot of respect for the always on-point Anchor Bay Films for having the gumption to theatrically release the unrated cut of this film--the version I witnessed Wednesday night--despite the fact that an R-rated cut does exist. In the age of PG-13 slasher films, and cop-out unrated DVD releases, that truly is a rarity. Much like the Last House on the Left remake, which I also thought was quite good, though not as good as this, this is a movie that bucks the trend of much of modern horror, which is to either go the route of tongue-in-cheek or give us a stylized, "isn't this cool" version of horror violence. I Spit on Your Grave is like a kick to the gut, and impressively derives its shock value without going the easier route of traditional exploitation cinema.

Tweet

21st Century Terrors, Part 9: 2008

Welcome back, after quite a long hiatus, to the Vault's rather exhaustive look back at the decade of horror cinema that ended last December. It's probably for the best anyway, since the more distance that accumulates, the easier it is to properly judge exactly what it was that went down, and exactly what it all meant. When last we left off, we found ourselves smack dab in the middle of the late '00s, right at the moment when the remake craze had truly strapped the horror genre to the speedboat like Fonzie...

One of the decade's most egregious remake offenses occurred this year, when American filmmakers took what had been one of the most talked about foreign films of the previous year, [REC], and turned it into Quarantine, a virtual scene-for-scene English translation of the Spanish original, with Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter in the lead role. It was a very cynical affair, too, with the Spanish version being purposely withheld from home video or theatrical release in America until the inferior remake had had a chance to run its course with a public who generally believed it to be an original work.

Quarantine may have been the most obvious and most cynical of the bunch, but it was far from the only. Alexandre Aja, who had previously given us the admittedly well-made redo of Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes, this time dished up the Keifer-Sutherland vehicle Mirrors, a remake of the 2003 South Korean film Into the Mirror. Jessica Alba headlined The Eye, a vastly inferior rehash of a 2002 flick out of Hong Kong. And the utterly inane One Missed Call, taken from a 2003 Japanese movie, assaulted our senses as well. The bankruptcy of ideas was reaching epic proportions.

But it didn't end there. Cult classics and long-time favorites of American horror cinema continued to be liberally raped, as well. Take the PG-13 version of Prom Night, which took an enjoyable little Jamie Lee Curtis slasher of the early 1980s and turned it into something that could've aired in prime time on Nickelodeon. And then, although it pains me to even bring it up, there was the tragically wrong-headed remake of George Romero's Day of the Dead, undertaken by '80s veteran Steve Miner, who should've known better. The less said about that abortion, the better.

But although the heyday of the early-to-mid portion of the decade was decidedly over, there was still enough original, engaging material out there to keep the die-hard fans entertained, even while the masses were being spoon-fed Hollywood's easily digestible pap. For example, for those savvy enough to seek it out, there was The Midnight Meat Train, a grim and unrelenting adaptation of one of Clive Barker's classic short stories that stands as possibly the finest Barker screen adaptation since Hellraiser (superior in fact, if you ask this blogger.)

And although they divided fans--as most horror films of the recent past always seem to do--films like The Strangers and The Ruins were fresh and interesting enough to provide some relief from the onslaught of garbage. The former, borrowing liberally from the grand tradition of home invasion cinema, was a taut psychological thriller that threw in a sprinkling of torture porn sensibility for good measure. And the latter, an adaptation of the wildly successful 2006 novel by Scott B. Smith (author of A Simple Plan, brilliantly adapted by Sam Raimi in 1998), took the painfully trite teen horror sub-genre and gave it a much-needed supernatural kick in the ass.

On its last legs, the zombie subgenre offered up Dance of the Dead, an endearing take on some well-worn territory that managed to succeed by grafting familiar tropes into a high school setting, resulting in something like a John Hughes-esque response to Shaun of the Dead. And although nowhere even approaching the sublimity that rom-zom-com achieved, this one at least gave us some hot zombie sex, and cemented Pat Benatar's "Shadows of the Night" as one of the most memorable rock songs ever featured in a horror film.

But of course, no discussion of horror film in 2008 would be complete without bringing up Darren Lynn Bousman's Repo! The Genetic Opera, one of the most unique, confounding, and possibly ingenious movies to hit the genre in some time. A bold rock opera with a star-studded cast, it scores major points for effort and originality, even if the finished product is admittedly not without significant flaws. Most impressively of all, however, is the way the film managed to become more of a cultural event than most horror films do these days--even if that status was achieved in a much more carefully orchestrated and less organic manner than with such films as The Rocky Horror Picture Show, for example.

And then, there was Let the Right One In. The film, which for my money, was the most memorable, best-made and most evocative the horror genre gave us for the entire decade. Yes, it was not entirely a horror movie, but whatever it was, this unique Swedish adaptation of the vampire novel of the same name was a damn fine motion picture. Standing out head and shoulders in the crowd of mediocrity that was 2008, Let the Right One In was the kind of film that reminded many--this blogger included--of not only why they love horror film in the first place, but why they love film, period.

The touching tale of Oskar and Eli, the young mortal boy and the otherwordly vampire girl with whom he falls charmingly and platonically in love, LTROI was the finest of all the foreign horror that washed ashore during this period. It may also very well be one of, if not the best vampire film ever made. If the 2000s in horror is remembered for nothing else at all, it will always be remembered for giving us Let the Right One In.

With the decade creaking to a close, the horror genre was stumbling toward the '10s with all the grace of an unraveling mummy. There were gems to be found, no question--it was just taking more and more effort to look for them. But for those willing to trudge through the muck spewed forth by the remake machine, it was still a pretty decent time to be a horror fan. And fans certainly had more than enough movies over to which argue vociferously--and if that's not what being a fanboy is all about, I don't know what is.

Also in 2008:

• Saw V
• Shutter
• Splinter
• Teeth
• Zombie Strippers

Part 1: 2000
Part 2: 2001
Part 3: 2002
Part 4: 2003
Part 5: 2004
Part 6: 2005
Part 7: 2006
Part 8: 2007

Tweet

More Posters for Matt Reeves' Let Me In

By Paige MacGregor

Some new posters have been released for director Matt Reeves' remake of the Swedish horror film Låt den rätte komma in (Let the Right One In), and comparison among the four appears to prove the popularly held belief that foreign posters for U.S. films are much better than those created for domestic use.

The first poster is extremely simple, featuring the film's title, slightly bloody against an icy white background:

The second U.S. poster is, in my opinion, the most impressive of the domestic posters released for Let Me In to date. This poster features actress Chloe Moretz curled up in the fetal position in a pool of what appears to be blood:

The third domestic poster for Let Me In is also extremely simple. Personally, I think that having yet another snowy background, this time with a snow angel centered in the middle of the poster, is boring--but what do I know about poster design?

The final Let Me In poster is my favorite of the four and is, of course, the one poster designed for foreign release. A close-up of Chloe Moretz's face fills the poster, and the greyscale color scheme used draws viewers' attention to one of the only splashes of color in the image: a bright red drop of blood oozing out of Moretz's mouth and dribbling down her lip. Deliciously creepy.

One other film poster created for Let Me In was released earlier this year, using stand-ins due to the fact that the roles had not yet been cast.

For more information on Matt Reeves' Let Me In, currently scheduled for release next month, head over to the film's official Facebook page or IMDb page.

Tweet

Hump-Day Harangue: The "Let Me In" Trailer--OK It Won't Suck, But Is It Necessary?

Let's get this out of the way right off the bat, because I've been sitting on this and mulling it over for quite a while. As many of you know, and have probably seen elsewhere, the first official trailer for Let Me In, Matt Reeves adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist's Swedish novel Let the Right One In, was unveiled earlier this month. For those who haven't seen it yet, here it is:



To merely refer to it as an adaptation of the novel is to be a bit coy however, as we all know that the book was, only two years ago, adapted into a superb Swedish film by Tomas Alfredson. It was a film which many called the greatest vampire movie of all time, and I would personally rank among the best films I've seen in recent years, perhaps second only to There Will Be Blood as the best film of the '00s. It was powerful, it was moving, it was expertly acted and directed, with an unforgettable score and a timeless quality few contemporary films maintain.

And so, to a certain extent, we must admit that Reeves' Let Me In is just another in a long line of English-language horror remakes put together in the wake of a successful foreign film, much as we saw with Quarantine ([REC]), The Ring (Ringu) and many others. Yes, Reeves claims to be going back to the original source material, but you and I both know that this movie would not have been made were it not for Alfredson's film. So what do we make of it?

Granted, my knee-jerk reaction is to lament the inanity of the American movie machine, which seems to have lost all faith in American audiences consuming anything that isn't completely spoon-fed to them. I mean, why not simply dub these successful foreign films into English if you're so worried about Americans not wanting to read subtitles? Did they remake The Good, The Bad and the Ugly in 1968 with all American actors? I guess the closest thing I can think of to this modern phenomenon is the way the original Gojira was ruined with new footage to appeal to American audiences in 1956. Is that really the model to be emulating?

But on the other hand, everything I've seen regarding this American version has been impressive. Chloe Moretz of Kick-Ass seems pitch-perfect as Eli (or Abby if they insist) and this Kodi Smit-McPhee kid they got to play Oskar (Owen...sigh, what's wrong with Oskar??) also seems up to the task. Checking out the trailer also gives me even more hope that this will be a good movie--the look is right, it seems to be faithful to the material, and the relationship between the two leads feels right. Also, love that Morse code ending. This does not seem (too much) like a watered-down Americanization. Some of the calm beauty of the Swedish film seems to be replaced with the typically dire, potboiler tone most Americans are more used to, but that could very well be the way the trailer is edited. And of course, Eli has been unequivocally confirmed as a girl, which was to be expected.

Still, one has to ask, why bother? If the reason is to truly go back to the book and do something different, they don't seem to going about it that way at all. Watching that trailer felt very much like watching Alfredson's film, down to specific moments and shots being mimicked (much like Quarantine did.) Sure, they're apparently exploring some stuff from the novel that wasn't in the other movie, such as the ultra-bizarre Hakan subplot, but quite frankly, from what I've seen, that doesn't seem to be playing much of a major part. Rather, it seems mainly to be aping Alfredson's work. And if that's the case, no matter how great it is, I'm still going to be walking away scratching my head wondering why it was even attempted. Or more accurately, I'll be shaking my head, knowing precisely the only reason it was attempted: another easy payday.

I'm so on the fence about this project, it's not even funny. Let the Right One In is a movie that's very close to my heart, and sure, I know the old saying, no matter what they do with it, the original still exists for me to enjoy. I just can't decide whether I'm happy about this new version or not. It does seem intriguing and well-made, I just hope that Reeves and company live up to their promise and give us something fresh and new--the novel is fertile enough ground to allow that--rather than just another spoon-fed American remake.

* * * * * * * * * *

REMINDER: For those who feel they missed out on the greatness that was Kevin Geeks Out!, I encourage you to get down to 92YTribeca in Manhattan this Friday night for the encore presentation of Mr. Maher's most acclaimed shlockfest of them all: Kevin Geeks Out About Sharks! I attended the initial presentation, and I can tell you it's a night you will carry with you till you sleep in Davey Jones' locker. Shark cupcakes will be provided for all, plus the first 10 people to arrive get a copy of the sold-out comic book Grizzly Shark and Sea Bear!

Kevin Geeks Out! returns for one night only, so don't miss out, dweebs! Get the ticket info and stuff at Kevin's blog.

Tweet

VAULTCAST: Conversations in the Dark... w/Doug Plomitallo

Remakes are indeed such a ripe subject for endless pontification, that this week in CitD, I return to the well for more! This time around, I'm joined by Doug Plomitallo, creator of the horror anthology web series Scared Stiff. We tackle some of the many problems with remakes, and why those within the horror film industry seem to be so obsessed with them. We also get off on a few long-winded tangents I found too entertaining to edit out, so enjoy!

Listen in on the embedded player below, or proceed directly to the Vaultcast page, where you can download it.

Conversations in the Dark: Doug Plomitallo

The Vaultcast!

Scared Stiff: http://www.scaredstiff.tv
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/ScaredStiffTV
Twitter: http://twitter.com/scaredstiffshow

Tweet

Meeting of the Minds: The Nightmare on Elm Street Remake

If I haven't already just come out and said it by now, I guess now is as good a time as any: Yes, I liked the Nightmare on Elm Street remake. And yes, I realize I seem to be in the minority on this (that's happening a lot lately, I must be getting soft in my old age.) Apparently most horror fans--or at least most over the age of 16--seem to have nothing but bile and vitriol for the latest Platinum Dunes product. One of the most bilious and vitriolic happens to be none other than VoH contributor Marilyn Merlot. So, as with our horror vs. thriller debate, I figured what better way to hash out the issue than another one-on-one discussion...

B-Sol: OK so, obviously you didn't care for it at all.

Marilyn Merlot: No, I didn't. It's ironic that the kids in the movie are trying not to fall asleep, because I think the audience was also trying to not fall asleep.

BS: Well, I have to say that your opinion seems to be the one most people have. I went in thinking I'd feel the same way, but I actually kind of liked it. I surprised myself! I mean, I wouldn't say I loved it or went nuts for it, but I thought it was fun, and not the disaster I was expecting.

MM: You thought it was fun... I'm perplexed to hear you say that.

BS: I thought it worked on its own merits. It's still a very cool concept, and even though it didn't pull it off as well as the original, I still thought it was an effective horror movie. The original is still much scarier, but I thought this one brought some interesting things to the table.

MM: I just don't see it. The plot and the characters all fell flat for me. Take nancy for example, someone who in the original carried the film and was a leading part. This new Nancy was not a strong character, and pale and way too skinny, with no power in her. I did not like the fact that they changed some characters. Like Katie Cassidy should have been Tina, not Kris. Don't get me going on the famous bed scene with her going up the wall and to the ceiling, and the major blood bath--that didn't happen. Granted, she did get knocked around pretty good, but thats it!

BS: Yes, they did turn Nancy emo, this is true. And the rest of the characters were pretty lame and annoying, especially Quentin, who seemed to be there to appeal to the Twilight crowd. I also thought it was weird that they carried over Nancy, but none of her friends from the original. That said, I really liked how they delved into the Freddy backstory, and gave Jackie Earle Haley a lot to do. The movie was basically more about Freddy than the kids, which is different from the original, but I thought it was a cool direction. I even liked how they make you think for a second that he might've been innocent!

MM: Yes, her friends were annoying, and I'm still upset over the fact that we had no Johnny Depp character. Another famous bed scene, and another blood bath that didn't happen. The fact that Freddy might have been innocent was a cool concept, but I didn't like the new Freddy... from the makeup to his voice. It just didn't sit right with me.

BS: OK, I'll agree with part of that. His look did nothing for me. They made him look like a realistic burn victim, which was the wrong way to go. He wound up looking like an alien, or a turtle or something. But other than his appearance, I think he himself did a pretty good job with the role. I was OK with the more normal-sounding voice.

MM: Granted, the guy does creep me out in real life ever since I saw him in Little Children starring Kate Winslet. He is a great actor. This was not the role for him!

BS: I kept thinking of the Little Children part while I was watching this, and how they also went fully into the territory of child molestation here, too. They always kind of stayed away from that in the old ones, I think on purpose.

MM: The whole thing about him molesting the children, but no one actually saying he did, was a little weird to me. The whole plot of the movie just didn't work. I did not find it scary or suspenseful. Are you actually telling me you did? Seriously B-Sol, I'm starting to question your judgment on movies!

BS: I bet you're not the only one! I may very well be getting soft lately, but I actually liked how a lot of it was presented. It might not have been as scary or suspenseful as the original, but the Freddy scenes were still very well done, when they weren't relying too heavily on CGI. I, for one, loved the part where they paid tribute to the Tina murder from the original, where she's floating in the air. That really worked for me.

MM: By that point, nothing worked for me.

BS: I did come away feeling the whole thing was kind of unnecessary--at least from a creative standpoint, I'm sure it's making a lot of money. But as remakes of horror classics go, this was definitely one of the more acceptable ones in recent memory. Yes, that's a lukewarm endorsement; I liked it, but not as strongly as you hated it, I think.

MM: There were so many key points in the original that they left out. I even had to laugh at some mistakes that I caught in the movie. For example, Nancy is watching this one kid blog on video about his Freddy dreams ,and we see him die on film. Who uploaded it for him after? Or the fact that when Kris is home alone she puts the alarm system on, but her boyfriend has no problem climbing through the bedroom window with no alarm going off--then when he goes outside to check on the dog that ran out... again, no alarm. Sorry, the movie was poorly done.

BS: Yes, it did have a slew of logic issues, no doubt about that, but those kinds of technicalities didn't put me off. I initially had high hopes for the movie, which came way down after reading a lot of responses. But then when i saw it, I think I wound up somewhere in the middle. I was hoping mainly for a solid, mainstream horror movie that was fun without being actively awful or offending my horror snob sensibilities. And I actually think that's what I got. Unlike, say, the Friday the 13th remake, which was so lame and pointless it actually made me angry. Almost as angry as this Nightmare remake has made you!

MM: I would watch the remake of Friday the 13th anyday!

BS: So that one you liked??

MM: I actually didn't mind that one, but then again, you never cared for the original, so for you to judge the remake isn't acceptable to me... With all due respect, of course!

BS: I am a died-in-the-wool F13 hater, and yes, I did find the remake to be very faithful to the old ones, which explains why I didn't like it.

MM: If you don't like the original, it's just not fair for you to judge a remake.

BS: Well, clearly we are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to the Michael Bay-produced horror remakes. How about you stick with Friday the 13th, I stick with A Nightmare on Elm Street, and we call it a day?

MM: Agreed.... Now just don't fall asleep...

Tweet

Chloe Moretz Goes Vamp in Reeves' Let Me In

By Paige MacGregor

The first image of Chloe Moretz in Matt Reeves’ Let Me In appeared online Friday courtesy of Entertainment Weekly (although the image quality isn’t great because it was only available in print and therefore had to be scanned for the internet). Moretz is best-known for her recent breakout role as the controversial foul-mouthed, gun-toting superhero Hit Girl in Matthew Vaughn’s Kick-Ass. When not decked out in a black mask and purple wig, Moretz looks like any other 13-year-old girl; vulnerable and innocent, perfect for her role as the unassuming yet inherently creepy young girl named Abby in Let Me In.

The image doesn’t give us much information about Reeves’ film, a remake of Swedish vampire movie Let the Right One In (based on the book by John Ajvide Lindgvist), unless you’re already familiar with the original. The blood dripping down Moretz’ chin in the still, however, does indicate that the actress gets to do some vampy stuff; and given her credentials, we’re hoping it’s more along the lines of Kick-Ass than Twilight. Regardless, the image confirms that Moretz really is involved with Let Me In (Let Me In is slated for release this October, and it was hard for me to believe I’d get another dose of the young actress in the same year as Kick-Ass), which has me much more excited about Reeves’ remake than I otherwise might be.

Despite the fact that I was bored by Let the Right One In (I know, I know, it’s an amazing movie and I’m going to re-watch because everyone tells me that it’s so good), I’m expecting quite a bit from Let Me In given the immense talent of Chloe Moretz, who reminds me of a young Natalie Portman in The Professional. I’m particularly curious to see Moretz’ portrayal of Abby, a mysterious girl who befriends the film’s protagonist, a 12-year-old outcast named Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee). Let Me In will follow Owen, a lonely boy who spends his days plotting revenge on the children that bully him and his nights spying on the other inhabitants of his apartment complex. Owen meets and befriends Abby, a girl around his age who only comes out at night and always with bare feet, seemingly impervious to the effects of the elements.

Peter Hall of Cinematical.com had the opportunity to speak with Matt Reeves at SXSW, and at that time the director made comparisons between Chloe and Linda Blair in The Exorcist:

"When I was working on Chloe I kept saying, it's not about playing a vampire,
it's about taking her and making her real and to deal with those darker sides of
ourselves, the primal nature. When you think of the Exorcist you think of Linda
Blair and pea soup and all this madness, but really if you look at the first
half of that film, the stuff between her and Ellen Burstyn is so naturalistic
and so real. She's incredible in it! People think 'Oh, it's the Exorcist and
she's just doing crazy,' but she's so terrific in it and so believable as this
young, 13-year old girl. That was really what I meant in the approach of trying
to get into that tone. To take this story as if it were utterly real, and if
it's real, that would be horrifying."

For more information on Reeves' film, visit the IMDb page for Let Me In.

Tweet

VAULTCAST: Conversations in the Dark... w/Andre Dumas

Remakes! There, doesn't that just make your stomach get all tight and your palms cold and sweaty? Horror fans tend to get a bit up in arms at the very notion of remakes, but take a listen as The Horror Digest's Andre Dumas and myself wax philosophic about exactly why remakes are not always a bad thing, and how they can actually serve an important purpose!

So if you want to find out exactly what we mean, or if you want to listen to us pick the movies we'd most like to see remade, and the ones we wish never were, listen in on the embedded player below, jump to the Vaultcast page, or download it right here.

Conversations in the Dark: Andre Dumas

The Vaultcast!

The Horror Digest: http://horrordigest.blogspot.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/thehorrordigest

Tweet

21st Century Terrors, Part 7: 2006

If the early to mid '00s can be seen as a period of growth, rebirth and renewal for horror films, then it's entirely possible that 2006 was the year the horror bubble burst.

The media and the masses had witnessed the ascendancy of the genre into the mainstream, and Hollywood was apparently watching as well. As with many things, everybody wanted to jump on the bandwagon, and this, dear readers, is when things tend to get run into the ground. Seeing the success of horror at the box office, lots of people wanted, to quote Vic Tayback, a piece of the action.

Naturally, the conclusion lots of folks jump to when a phenomenon like this occurs is that what worked before will work again, and to an even greater level. But this discounts the law of diminished returns, and what tends to happen is that an initial good idea gets beaten to death (sort of like the point I've been making in the past three paragraphs).

To put an even finer point on things, 2006 was the year the infamous remake craze really went off the rails. What started as a semi-interesting concept, taking classic horror flicks of recent decades and retooling them for today's horror audience, suddenly became an exercise in extreme banality. I give you, for example, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning--a prequel to a remake, and the movie that let us know that the only reason Leatherface likes to dress in women's clothes and eat people is that he was picked on in the schoolyard.

We had films like When a Stranger Calls, The Omen and Black Christmas, slick redos of '70s horror fare tweaked for the YouTube generation, in the process completely missing the point of what made the originals work. Critically/commercially successful remakes of recent years, things like Dawn of the Dead, for example, seemed to have opened the floodgates for those who believed that just about any horror property of the past was fair game. And as the ensuing years wore on--and right into the present day--the practice continues, much to the consternation of genre die-hards everywhere.

But chief among all of these, and more than deserving of being singled out, would be the poster movie for horrifically bad remakes--The Wicker Man. This unintentionally perversely funny disaster of a film seemed to be the distillation of everything that was going wrong regarding Hollywood's new obsession with remaking horror movies. Every ounce of what made the immortal original film work so well seemed to have been scientifically removed, with the gripping Edward Woodward replaced by Nic Cage doing a caricature of himself, and the austere and foreboding Chris Lee replaced by a granola-crunching Ellen Burstyn.

On the positive side, the movie became a kind of camp classic in the MST3K mode, an instant cult fave for those who simply can't get enough of really bad movies. But the sad thing was that it was intended to be a serious, modern revision of a thriller revered by filmgoers for years. In other words, it was the product of folks completely out of touch with the genre they were representing, and the audience they were aiming it at.

That said, one particular remake of 2006, in all fairness, did stand out from the rest, gaining a bit more of a fan following, and that was Alexandre Aja's intense retelling of the Wes Craven chestnut The Hills Have Eyes. Some--this blogger included--even declared that one to be superior to the original. But sadly, Hills Have Eyes would prove to be part of a dwindling exception.

And if remakes weren't derivative enough, the sequel engine continued to churn 'em out, as well. Saw and Final Destination, two of the decade's chief horror franchises, put out their third chapters in 2006. The Grudge (in itself an American remake of an Asian film), also put out a sequel as well, one which was poorly received, to say the least.

But don't let it be said that 2006 didn't nevertheless offer some worthwhile stuff in the way of actual, original (or reasonably original) material and ideas. After all, 2006 was also the year of the deviantly funny Slither, and Poultrygeist. Love them or hate them, there were plenty of fans who would take them any day of the week over another dull remake/sequel.

A few of these non-remake/sequels particularly stand out. One of these is Hatchet. Putting my own personal preferences aside, Adam Green's Hatchet was a direct response to the glut of unimaginative stuff being foisted upon the populace, and admittedly tried to do something new--a fresh take on the horror movie sensibilities of the 1980s. Part Scream, part Rob Zombie. The buzz on the film was tremendous, and even though fans were divided between those who dug the film's quirky approach and those who found it a rather overhyped affair, it certainly got fans talking.

Another of these was Fido, a Canadian export which proved that despite the well-worn path carved by the likes of Return of the Living Dead and Shaun of the Dead, there was still great stuff to be mined in the subgenre of zombie comedy. Grafting the Romero mythos onto a retro-1950s aesthetic, Fido was somehow able to take a bunch of derivative sources and synthesize them into a truly fun and original idea. In a year in which horror seemed to be losing its creative way to a degree, Fido was a glimmer of hope.

And thirdly, from across the Pacific came The Host, a powerful reinvention of the old-school kaiji subgenre from South Korea. The most fascinating giant monster picture to come along in years, The Host managed to pack a terrific punch without becoming self-referential or relying on nostalgia for or knowledge of the lengthy tradition of Asian monster movies that had come before. It also pretty much directly led to the American marketing barrage known as Cloverfield.

Responding to the need for originality, albeit ignoring the need for quality, the After Dark Horrorfest series would also kick off in 2006. Yes, 2006 was the year that gave us "8 Films to Die For". The most widely distributed "filmfest" package of its kind, After Dark Horrorfest would assemble eight films from independent filmmakers, and grant them wide distribution across America.

It was a testament to the box office clout of horror that such a distribution deal was able to be struck, but with films like Penny Dreadful, The Gravedancers and Wicked Little Things, it became clear that for the most part they were typical direct-to-video specials. Nevertheless, the After Dark Horrorfest continues to this day, and is a viable conduit for B-horror flicks to still reach the public in a theatrical format.

The horror movie business may have begun to eat itself in 2006, but it was far from out of steam. Complaining or not, fans continued to turn out in droves, and the sheer number of projects was staggering. Although the horror bubble may arguably have burst, there would still be some major twists and turns in store before the end of the decade.

Also in 2006:

• Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon
• Black Sheep
• Night of the Living Dead: 3-D
• See No Evil
• Silent Hill
• Snoop Dogg's Hood of Horror
• Turistas

Part 1: 2000
Part 2: 2001
Part 3: 2002
Part 4: 2003
Part 5: 2004
Part 6: 2005

Tweet