October Horror Movie Challenge: Day 8

After a few technical difficulties (realizing that Friday the 13th series was no longer on Netflix streaming), I decided to watch Halloween II. The theme for today was to watch remakes and sequels, so this actually wasn't a bad choice. It's a sequel to a remake, after all!

I liked the film. I'm not sure how much I remember liking/disliking the first Rob Zombie Halloween, but I think it seemed mostly like a direct copy of the original. That's probably wrong, but whatever, it's been years. This sequel film though doesn't seem to bear much of any resemblance to the second film. Of course, I barely remember anything about that film either (instead I prefer to focus all my memories on Halloween III Season of the Witch). Halloween II is nice and worth checking out even for Halloween fans to see what is done with it.

All I had to do was see the opening for Friday the 13th Part VI to know that it wasn't one to be taken seriously. Instead of trying their hardest to try and replicate scary stuff in the first 5 films, this one is made to be a joke. It's meant to be a big gag of the horror world and everyone should definitely recognize this. I mean, come on, the intro is a ridiculous Bond parody scene. It was okay, not particularly good, but worth a laugh.

The Blob (Remake)

Year: 1988
Director: Chuck Russell
Writer: Theodore Simpson, Kay Linaker
Genre: Horror: Sci-fi

The Blob has always seemed like something that just isn't appealing to me. Despite never seeing the original or any of either film, they both just seemed super cornball. I mean, come on, you've got a big glob of slime terrorizing a town. What is meant to be truly scary about that? It just seems too funny. Although there's nothing wrong with funny horror based on weird living/non-living entities I just wasn't ready to watch.

Grabbing The Blob I wasn't sure what version I had but popped it in and started watching. As it turned out it was the remake and while it was excellent it may have forever tainted my future opinion of the original. I say this because the remake is so fun and has great effects that the original may just seem completely dull in comparison, which is really too bad. I guess I'll find out when giving it a watch.

Anyway, The Blob is a great, goofy film. It starts out with a meteor crashing in the forest. Aliens don't pop out or anything, but instead we see some weird pink goo bubbling in the rock. A homeless man pokes at it, gets it stuck on his hand, and is rushed to the hospital by the lead teens. Everyone watching the movie knows how bad this is, but the film lets it build up for a little bit... making you wonder just when something will happen. Once it does, though, boy it lets it out.

Like I mentioned earlier, the effects are fantastic. They are so perfect and if there is another remake in the future they will probably be ruined with computer graphics. What we see from this late 80s film is pure artistic skill of putting skeletal people inside a pink blob, which is somewhat translucent. It's super effective to watch a face slide into the front of the blob, or see the remains of people terrorized by it.

As far as acting and storytelling goes it was well done too. It all helped progress the ridiculous story forward and get you into the world. The way the organism was depicted made it seem actually fearsome as well, instead of as just some funny-looking goo. I wouldn't say it was actually menacing, but there were parts that were slightly nerve-wracking. Overall, it was a tremendously enjoyable film.

Night of the Demons (Remake)

Year: 2009
Director: Adam Gierasch
Writer: Jace Anderson, Adam Gierasch
Genre: Horror

It might be a bad idea for me to share my thoughts on Night of the Demons because I really didn't enjoy the original. I know it has a bit of a following though, and I'll admit, it did some creative things with interesting characters. Still, I didn't enjoy it much and the same holds true for this more recent version.

Honestly, the first thing I thought of when watching was Hellraiser: Hellworld. If you've never seen that film you should continue to never see it. For those that have watched it though it probably doesn't need to be said that nothing should ever be bad enough to remind you of it. Thankfully, after the introduction the film crept away from memories of Hellworld and I felt immediately better. Still didn't like the film though.

There were some positive points in the movie for me. I really liked how they managed to keep in a famous scene with a breast but also inject a bit more into it. The changes brought into the film do make it a bit better than the original. That's just my thought on the matter though as many will probably find that a near-sacrilegious statement.

Carrie (Remake)

Year: 2002
Director: David Carson
Writer: Bryan Fuller
Genre: Horror

Carrie is a pretty damn famous piece of work. The novel and first film rendition are modern classics, so it always seems weird to see remakes for them. Still, in the world of remakes I would say this is a pretty decent one. It also happens to be a made-for-TV remake which makes it all the more surprising as to how decent it is. Of course, IT was also a TV special so apparently that path doesn't always spell doom.

The film is very much like the older version with some modern flair. The characters are more 2000s teen, which may be a good or bad thing. Still, the basics remain the same. Carrie is still ostracized, living with a fanatically religious mother, and discovering her psychic powers. At times it seems exactly like the original film, although it strays from that path by bringing more of the novel into the movie. This may please some.

As it is a TV movie the effects are very laughable at times. Still, you've got to give them credit for trying to remain authentic to the source material. Presumably the TV audience wouldn't really care one way or the other. Angela Bettis plays Carrie - and she seems to have a knack for these kinds of roles. I remember thinking she did pretty well in the film May. Apparently she was also in Girl, Interrupted and Toolbox Murders but somehow I don't remember. You think I would since she has such distinctive facial features.

Anyway, the film definitely works. Some choices are a bit laughable, but beyond that I liked it a lot. It fares better than the Psycho remake at least where there's absolutely nothing new thrown into the mix. This version of Carrie has a distinctive spirit so I commend it for trying.

The Stepford Wives (Remake)

Year: 2004
Director: Frank Oz
Writer: Paul Rudnik
Genre: Thriller, comedy

I don't know what Frank Oz was thinking when he made this movie but I can attempt to guess at it. It's the 2000s and feminism is over and done with. Women are completely equal. Actually, women might even be more powerful now and are definitely wearing the pants and asserting it. So, let's make fun of that! Even the original movie was pretty hilarious! Men wanting their wives to be subordinates to them? Naaaah that's so dumb we've got to ratchet it up times a million now! That's what I think he was thinking and it just not work for me.

You see, in this take of the film, Joanna is no longer a sort of meek feminist. She's now a powerhouse media icon along the lines of Oprah. She has tremendous power and only loses it when one of her TV shows causes far too much of a ruckus for the CEO. They fire her, and in an attempt to make her feel better, her husband whisks the family away to the gated community of Stepford.

One of the things I don't like about this film is that it immediately presents the women as 100% warped from the get go. There's no question as to the fakeness of them and maybe they figured everyone already knew. Still, that basically kills off all potential growing drama when there's nothing to wonder about. Beyond that, Joanna is tremendously unlikable. She is what I imagine a lot of men view feminists as. They are always stiff and unfeeling in their dark power suits and have nothing but disdain for most around them. Since I believe the point of the original The Stepford Wives is still pertinent I find this version to be mocking the mere notion of it.

Anyway, beyond that the movie is actually very different from the original film. It takes mostly a life of its own by injecting some new characters and changing around the big reveal. I guess that's cool because then it would give people more of a reason to see the new film. There's nothing more useless than a remake that is a carbon copy of the original. Still, I'm not sure the changes that were made were for the best. I guess there's nothing I can do about it now though except wait for the eventual remake of this remake to come out down the line.

Psycho

Year: 1998
Director: Gus Van Sant
Writer: Joseph Stefano
Genre: Horror: Mystery

Everyone and their mother knows Psycho. Being one of Alfred Hitchcock's seminal pieces is certainly no small matter. From what I know, when Psycho came out in 1960 everyone was stunned when the heroine was killed about halfway through the movie. That shower scene has gone on to be one of the most famous and recognizable moments in any film. With a movie as important to the genre as this it seems strange anyone would even dare to remake it.

However, the remake did happen and it follows the strict plot of the original. If you were to play the original alongside it most aspects would remain unchanged. Because of this, the movie is quite good. It's a testament to the original's story and method of storytelling that it still works well today. But then, if the original was such a good film then why waste the time remaking it?

There's a saying that if something isn't broke then don't fix it. Psycho wasn't broken and there was no need to go in and spice the film up with more current actors. Sure, they fulfilled their parts well but why watch this? The original is perfectly watchable today. Unless someone can't view the black and white version it is silly to need to watch this one. Even the shower and stair scenes are replicated as best as possible. They were made to look just as hokey as they did back then.

Basically I feel that there's no reason to watch this movie. If you're going to check out Psycho you should go with the original.

Black Christmas

Year: 2006
Director: Glen Morgan
Writer: Glen Morgan
Genre: Horror: Slasher

Black Christmas is a modern slasher classic. When it came out in the 70s it was known even if many people wished it didn't exist. Some years later this remake came out and mostly attempts to re-write the story, as far as I can recall anyway. It's been years since I've seen the original but I'm pretty sure there wasn't nearly as much back story.

It seems particular of  modern horror remakes to give killers fleshed out reasons to kill. In this version, we see that the killer was hated by his mother as a child. He only killed out of revenge and the hatred that his mother had taught him. This is all revealed early on so we're sure to know what he's capable of. Why did we need to have a story for him? Modern audiences appear to prefer it when we get to see someone succumb to evil, rather than simply embody it from the start.

Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't. For me, I felt for the guy and found it odd that he really didn't play a central role beyond during the backstory segments. If you're going to focus so much time on him why not give him more screen time for the finale? It was an odd decision.

Another thing I didn't like was that the murder's signature thing is trash bags and poking eyes out. Honestly, I don't recall this from the original at all (the eye part). I know he suffocates a girl early on in the film but I was pretty sure there was only one scene like that, not multiple. I also didn't like that the trash bags were not opaque. For some reason I'm also thinking that was the case in the original, though I could be wrong.

It then seems extremely strange to me that they would tone down the suffocation violence but make everything else much more brutal. I guess that was also decided upon because Hollywood also seems to think moviegoers love ultra gore. Maybe they do?

For the most part this didn't feel like a remake. Sure, it took place in the same location with the same kind of cast but things played out in a new way. If you're looking for a mildly entertaining holiday-themed slasher than this would be a fine pick.

I Spit on Your Grave

Year: 2010
Director: Steven R. Monroe
Writer: Stuart Morse
Genre: Horror: Exploitation

I Spit on Your Grave/Day of the Woman was a film that I never thought would be remade. The first (and only) time I watched the original I was petrified through most of it. Sure, there was no murderer or giant monster but all that happened onscreen was intense. It seemed the kind of movie nobody wanted to touch then and would never touch again.

But then a remake happened and somehow left me feeling the exact same way. What's interesting to me is while the rape scenes were toned down of actual graphic content, they were kept long in other ways. The buildup and abuse carried out by the group of men was just as hard to watch as the scenes that would follow.

What also struck me was that I believe the way that revenge was served was more graphic than before. It was also more creative. I figure these scenes must have been amped up because a movie-going audience would accept it after the atrocities the woman had to go through. Still, it was surprisingly hard to sit and watch it all. I needed a break in the middle of it and took one (something I rarely do).

This is the kind of movie you don't watch with friends, if ever. It stands as a very powerful film around the same caliber of Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom and Men Behind the Sun.

My Bloody Valentine

Year: 2009
Director: Patrick Lussier
Writer: Todd Farmer, Zane Smith
Genre: Horror: Slasher

My Bloody Valentine (3D) is a remake I actually contemplated going to see when it was out. To me, it seemed like the perfect way to cap off a Valentine's Day date. However, as fate would have it I never went to see it then. Watching the film today lets me know that was probably the best twist of fate ever.

This movie is entirely too dull. The premise presented is neat enough... A miner killed his partners in a mine shaft, then it collapsed, leaving him in a coma for years after. He came to some years later and started killing once again before being shot down during his spree. More years pass and then it seems our miner killer is back again!

It's close enough in soul to the original except that it doesn't feel nearly as fun. It's all dull and you never find yourself caring for anyone. The movie almost feels like a horrible train wreck at points. There is a part where a woman is completely naked and running from the murderer. Yes, 100% nude. This takes the "girl in skimpy outfit running from maniac" to the extreme and I can't say I liked it one bit.

None of the lead males are especially compelling either. I mean, are we supposed to feel for the young cop on the force who had some of his friends die to the maniac? I could initially understand that but nearly a minute after he is introduce we find out he's a huge cheater. I don't know about you, but knowing someone is cheating rather uncaringly on their partner isn't going to bond me with them. As for the other guy, well, he just feels like a slab of concrete. He's got no real personality that shines through. Oh, there's a "twist" ending too. I figured it out early on and I'm sure anyone else watching will catch it too.

Maybe I sound harsh but I'm mad that I wasted an hour and 40 minutes on this thing. If you like or want to watch it though, then more power to ya.

The Stepfather

Year: 2009
Director: Nelson McCormick
Writer: J.S. Cardone
Genre: Horror: Thriller

I don't know what it was about the 1987 original but I really liked The Stepfather. Because of my enjoyment of that version I was a little apprehensive about giving this movie a view. Either way, I've gone and done it and it wasn't so painful.

This film is very similar to the first. Basically, you've got a man who goes around trying to find his perfect family. He meets divorced women with kids and worms his way in until he can marry them. However, things seem to never exactly work out so he murders them and runs away to find a new family. This is the tale of just one family and it's decent.

 The characters are all decently believable. It's good to see characters actively raising attention about how strange the father is. In many movies, characters just tend to gloss over that stuff (so that the killer can keep on killing). Sometimes it feels like characters are too detective-like but I suppose that's better than simply going with the flow. It creates a "staccato" murdering spree which is neat.

The movie isn't incredible or great or too good but it's okay. Fans of the original might as well see it for better or for worse.

When a Stranger Calls

Year: 2006
Director: Simon West
Writer: Jake Wade Wall
Genre: Horror: Thriller

First off, let me just announce that I've decided to watch some remakes. I've avoided many of them because my memories and enjoyment of the old films eels like it will be hurt by viewing a remade version. Either way, here's the movie that kicked off my remake adventure.

When a Stranger Calls first came out in 1979 and quickly became famous for the unexpected location of the murderer. It was a film that followed the story of a young woman who was simply trying to babysit some children but had a lot more in store for her. The film has some famous lines such as "have you checked the children?" and "it's coming from inside the house!".

Thankfully, the idea and even these classic lines are still present in the remake. In fact, it surprised me how faithful the remake was to the original's theme, if not everything else. The theme was left untouched even with the various updates to the world.

What really surprised me about this remake was that it didn't fall into the trap that so many horror remakes do. It didn't attempt to amp up violence or make everything suddenly more sexual. In fact, there is only verbal discussion of anything sexual at any point. No girl ever gets her shirt torn off and doesn't have outrageously large breasts. Our heroine looks pretty, but a normal pretty - not Hollywood manufactured. She wins extra points for wearing an outfit that seems normal for a babysitter and not something super low cut to show herself off (to who? Certainly not the children!). I'm really pleased with these choices and wish that more remakes could learn from this example.

House of Wax

Year: 2005
Director: Jaume Collet-Serra
Writer: Chad Hayes
Genre: Horror: Thriller

I'll readily admit that I never really liked the 1953 House of Wax. It's certainly a piece to see because it's rather creative, but definitely a relic of another era. This version of the film is very different and even casts Paris Hilton as one of the characters (not simply a cameo). The film was so proud of having her in it that her face even appears to be on the cover, just wax-ified.

Despite the really awkward casting choice the movie is surprisingly engrossing. Also, Ms. Hilton is not the lead character. Thank goodness! The story is changed up quite a bit. In this version, there are a group of teens (or 20 somethings?) who are just trying to travel to a big football game. One of their cars breaks down along the way and so they travel to the nearest town to try and get it fixed. Of course, visiting the town leads into murders.

What surprised me first was how much time in the film is spent building up the story and characters. For what felt like more than 20 minutes the movie lets you experience the characters and their interactions. It throws out red herrings and slowly casts a feeling of dread over everything. Maybe at 30 minutes they finally enter the town. It's incredible to see modern movies not just try to jump right into insanity. It's not quite up to Psycho quality lead-in, of course, but it's better than a lot of modern attempts.

Because of the building up of characters and helping viewers to become attached to them it is more worrying when they are cast into dangerous circumstances. It seems like a little bit of the film was inspired by Saw at one point, but aside from that it kept a strangely classic vibe. The climax is exciting and was also just really cool to watch. It was a fun watch and I hope others think so too.