Generally one remakes a film because they feel there is something missing, something that can be improved on or done better. Sometimes they are updated to make them more relevant to 'today's audience' which is usually code for 'younger/more familiar actors', 'needs more gore' or someone has a career they are trying to promote, depending on the whim of the director. This film has all three, including introducing a needless love story angle which just fizzles based on the way the characters are presented. Instead of a creepy soundtrack, I'm expected to be terrorized by a bunch of pop songs? Hardly menacing in any way and worse, serving to immediately date the film.
The movie is shot well-its not hard to look at and the people you are supposed to sympathize with are all very pretty/sexy. I was thinking with a little money and some newer actors and the available technology/effects they would at least do something daring with the film. Instead it was one endless nu horror cliche after another with CW/television level acting. In addition, the characters were just so unsympathetic. The main character is cheating on the girlfriend with the DJ which is explained away because the girlfriend just "Up and left town for 6 months" without saying where she was. Huh? So essentially, she is missing for half a year? When he happens to pick her up on the main road into town, ala Jamie Lee Curtis' character in the original, they just go on like "hey no big deal, glad you're home! lets have sex!" Her mom acts like some cold cardboard Ice Storm extra, the priest is either totally drunk or totally sober depending on what scene and "Stevie Wayne" the heroine of the original is acted by Blair like some house cat who dialed in what is probably one of the worst performances in the film though not the only one.
While the effects in the original film are simply done and creepy due to looking 'natural' (i.e. its really 'fog' they created in much of the first film) whereas every sequence where the CGI is used feels forced-I'm thinking particularly of the scene with the aunt burning up but the fog itself it too digitized to be creepy). Really the only sequence that was interesting to watch were with the Elizabeth Dane, where the make up seemed good, the effects natural looking and the acting believable. Sadly, I cannot say the same for the rest of the film.
The only person I felt sorry for was the old man with his dogs but his story arc seems unexplainable and meaningless, other than showing cruelty towards him and his dogs. In the original film, this doesn't even matter. Dogs are shown barking, not being left as a steaming corpse on a dock or worse yelping in pain in the darkness. What would the dead even care about the dogs anyway since the plots revenge angle is about the people? You can tell a lot of this was created to please a very specific demographic (I'm thinking people who watch the Buffy, or those who feel the Final Destination films are rife with pathos) but if you wanted to see a reasonably scary horror film, this isn't the one.
This film has so many plot holes that, rather than the viewer being able to ignore them, the film collapses into them. I am not sure why Carpenter was even involved other than writing and directing the original. This isn't the worst film I have ever seen, but I really felt like it didn't do the main thing a horror film should do which was to scare me or at least keep me entertained and it did neither.
No comments:
Post a Comment