“Remakes”, “Reimaginings”, “Reboots”: Everything Old is New Again

Tomorrow, a new version of Wes Craven's horror classic A Nightmare on Elm Street is being released. From the plot synopsis, it appears to follows the original Nightmare exactly but with a new actor (Jackie Earl Haley from The Watchmen, Little Children and Shutter Island) taking over Robert Englund's role as Freddie Krueger. I was discussing the film with a friend and a question came up with how I felt about remakes.

While I would love to give a simple, kneejerk answer of "they stink. It's just Hollywood being lazy, unimaginative and greedy" (and that is no doubt true in many cases), I can't use that as a blanket statement. There are too many remakes that were worthy of being done and more than justified their existence:

• The Fly – the first and biggest example that I think when I think of worthy remakes. The original was a cheesy sci-fi film that is worthy of being ridiculed. The remake, on the other hand, was dark, scary, intentionally funny and featured Jeff Goldblum in Academy Award-nominated performance. The ending of the film is heartbreaking and proves the number 1 rule of worthy remakes – bring something new to the table.
  
• The Fugitive – One of Harrison Ford's best action movies that is a prime example of how to pace a chase movie (the plot is concisely taken care of before the opening credits are even done) that was a worthy nomination for Best Picture and proved a great showcase both for Ford and Best Supporting Actor Tommy Lee Jones. The movie does so many things right (beginning with the fact that you are rooting for both of the actors even though they are at odds with each other) that to write it off as a "cheap remake" of the 1960s tv series would be to do this movie a great disservice.
  
• Batman Begins – Granted, almost no one will blame Christopher Nolan for choosing to go back to the beginning of Batman rather than continue from the abomination that is Batman & Robin (a film that almost completely derailed a franchise). Thus, in this case, "rebooting" the franchise turned out to be a brilliant decision because it allowed Nolan to start fresh and tell the story in his fashion.
  
• Star Trek – This will remain the perfect example of how to do a reboot that satisfies fans of the original while allowing you to start new. Unlike Batman Begins, Abrams had the unenviable job of having to do a prequel that didn't mess with the continuity of the original series (and Star Trek fans would have been rabid if there were). His solution was brilliant – create an alternate universe. This way, he can tell whatever story he wants and there is no continuity to worry about. In hindsight, it's obvious but brilliant nonetheless.
  

What the above movies have in common is that the film makers were less concerned with simply riding on the coat tails of the original source material and were more interested in telling a new story in an interesting way. In those cases, the fact that it's not "original" is trivial because the story or the style of storytelling is so fresh that it is more than forgivable. In too many cases, though, a remake is so faithful to the original and there is absolutely nothing new about it that you wonder if it would just have been easier to clean up the original print and rerelease that. Possibly the worst example of this is Gus Van Sant's Psycho. The remake is, literally, a shot-for-shot remake of the Alfred Hitchcock classic, complete with the same music, same dialogue and same camera angles. The only difference is that there are different actors in the roles and the remake is in color while the original is in black and white. To call that "fresh" is a joke at best and makes you wonder why the studio even wasted the time and talents of Van Sant and actors like Vince Vaughn, Julianne Moore, Viggo Mortensen and William H. Macy among others.

Thus, will Nightmare on Elm Street be a worthy remake like The Fly or will it ring hollow and unnecessary like Psycho? I am a fan of the original film (despite its low budget and laughable acting, there are scenes that truly feel like they have come from a nightmare) and am cynical at best. But, I will go see it and, hopefully, will be proven wrong. Hopefully, director Samuel Bayer will find a new way to haunt our dreams and not make me say "Now, where the original DVD again?"

Explosions, Gun Fights, Sexy Women & a Nonsensical Plot -- Now THAT'S a Movie!!

I love steak. I love it medium with onions and mushrooms and some mashed potatoes and gravy on the side. Combine that with a good salad covered in French dressing and you have yourself a meal.

Other times, I enjoy getting a Big Mac with french fries, apple pie and a chocolate shake? Is it good for me? Not even remotely close. But it's quick, it's cheap and it tastes good. And, at the moment, that's all that matters.

The same goes for movies. I've got 600+ DVDs and counting in my collection. I've got ones that I will regard as classics (Godfather, Pulp Fiction, 12 Angry Men, Princess Bride, Raiders of the Lost Ark) but occassionally I'm in the mood for a movie that is completely nonsensical but moves fast and never slows down for trivial items like plot or characterization.

The Losers more than fits that bill. Based on a comic book (and sounding more than a bit like The A-Team which is also coming out this summer), a group of Army experts are set up in a mission and presumed dead. Fortunately they didn't die but they vow revenge upon the insanely evil mastermind Max (Jason Patric displaying more personality than he has in any role previously) who has moved on from them and moved onto purchasing eco-friendly terrorist weapons (making this an oddly appropriate movie to be released on Earth Day).

The team consists of the leader Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, The Watchmen), tech expert and wise-ass (Chris Evans, Fantastic Four and the upcoming Captain America), weapons expert Roque (Idris Elba, The Office), sharpshooter Cougar (Oscar Jaenada) and Pooch (Columbus Short). The group is funded by and assisted by the misterious Aisha (Zoe Saldana, Avatar and Star Trek). The movie basically is a collection of action set pieces including a short but hilarious breaking into a building by Jensen (while the punchline is revealed in the trailer, the build up is even better).

Director Sylvain White (Stomp the Yard) moves the movie along at a crisp pace. Realizing that the plot makes less than zero sense (after sitting through it, I'm STILL trying to figure it out and can't), he wisely does a series of quick cuts reminiscent of Michael Bay but ably keeps the movie at a comic book level. Unlike the more ambitious but ultimately disappointing Kick Ass, The Losers maintains it's tone throughout the entire film.

Is this film good in the classical sense of the word (subtety, complexity, growth of characters, etc)? Not even close. But, sometimes you don't want "good". Sometimes all you want is the Big Mac and this will more than satisfy your hunger.

Grade: B-

A huge pet peeve of mine (talkers in a theater)....

This afternoon, I went to see August:Osage County up at Playhouse Square in Downtown Cleveland (part of the Broadway series that I'm a season subscriber to). The play was a 3 1/2 hour serious melodrama done in the style of Tennessee Williams and Eugene O'Neil and, while slow at the beginning, quickly picked up steam as the play went along and ended on a really powerful note.

This posting isn't about the play however. It's about the group of women who were sitting 2 rows back of me in the theater. Throughout the entire play, they wouldn't stop talking. They would make comments to each other and to themselves almost nonstop. And, we're not talking quiet whisperings, we're talking almost normal volume conversations. And the comments they made were beyond inane. For example, at one point a character mentions that he's been married 38 years so, of course, the genius in the group said to her friend "38 years, huh?". And the dialogue remained this scintilating and at the same relative volume. If the action or dialogue on the stage got louder, so did the conversation in the group. It went beyond distracting into the aggravatingly annoying.

I would have said something to them along the lines of "some of us paid to hear the actors on stage, not you" but I was convinced by my mother and sister to not say anything and just "deal with it" (they were probably afraid that I would be less than tactful and it would, no doubt, result in ME being asked to leave the theater). Thus, I spent the bulk of 3 1/2 hours simmering and wishing that they would FINALLY shut up.

What annoys me is that this is a problem that is more and more prevalent. I know it's been a problem in movie theaters for years but, until now, I've been happy to avoid encountering it in a live theater production. At least in that situation, the patrons realize that this is not their home where they can make comments throughout and that it is rude to the other guests who paid some fairly expensive prices to hear something that can only be done once (at least with a movie, I can always watch it again later to catch dialogue or a performance that I might have missed -- with live theater, that isn't possible). But today proved to me that society is becoming less and less civil.

As further evidence of lack of civility, at least 3 times in the play I heard someone's cell phone go off. I have yet to figure out why people can't learn to switch the phone to vibrate. I do that as a matter of course but there is still a segment of the population who have to master this complex feat. Because of that, during some intense sequence in the play, I'm suddenly hear a phone going off. It's distracting and too easily takes us out of the play.

On behalf of all of us who like to actually hear the actors and get lost is a story that we paid money to watch, I beg now of the segment that feels a need to talk or let their phones ring. I beg that you either respect our rights to enjoy the play withour constant commentary. Either that of just not come and restrict yourself to watching stuff on a TV set where your blather will only annoy your family members.

They might have to put up -- I don't. Please respect that fact

Kick Ass: Who wants to be a superhero?

Almost every boy when growing up dreamed of becoming a super hero. Whether you were Superman and were turning back time by flying backwards around the world or you were Batman and you using the Bat-arang on some villains, it was a normal fantasy. For me, I always wanted to be Spiderman. Not just because of the web-slinging ability (though, that was cool) but it was because he talked smack to the villains while kicking their butts at the same time. That was the cool thing about him – he was a nerd in high school but the moment he slipped on the red and blue costume, he was ultra cool.

Anyway, for most of us, those fantasies drifted away as we grew up. As teenagers, we still read comic books but there was less of the overt fantasizing as there was when we were younger. And, eventually, when we grew up, the fantasies went away entirely. We realized that, while it was a nice fantasy, to actually live out that fantasy in real life would result in most of us getting killed. If I walked up to a mugger while wearing a red & blue webbed skin-tight outfit, I better have the proportional strength of a spider because, otherwise, that mugger was going to pummel me into submission within 30 seconds.

That is the world that Kick
Ass lives in. None of the superheros in the movie have the ability to fly, spin webs, shoot beams from their eyes or have adamantium claws shooting from their fingers. Instead, these are ordinary people; people who live in our world and go through the problems that we face. Because they have no super powers, their weaknesses are simple: bullets, knives, fire and everything else that can hurt you and I.

The main character in Kick Ass is Dave Lizewski, an ordinary high school student who, one day, decides to become a super hero. Not because of some quest for vengeance but simply because he was tired of seeing people not helping others in need. So he puts on a green-dyed wet suit, adds 2 batons at weapons and calls himself "Kick Ass". At first, he gets nearly killed (literally) but he continues to pursue it and becomes an Internet sensation when one bystander captures on video his fighting back of some muggers.

This video now brings him to the attention of 2 other superheros – Big Daddy (a former cop played by Nicholas Cage) and Hit Girl (his 11-year-old assassin daughter played by Chloe Moretz from (500) Days of Summer). Big Daddy (who looks A LOT like Batman) has own personal vendetta against a mobster who was responsible for his wife's death and his false imprisonment years back. These lead to a series of ultra-violent encounters between the superheros and the mob.

This is a fascinating idea to explore. Most superhero movies (including Watchmen which had god-like character among the normal heros) all involve the standard superhero types – either they have super powers or they are insanely wealthy and brilliant and create their own super machines. Either way, these are not people I can directly relate to or expect to see in my normal life. With Kick Ass, these people you might be able to meet on our streets.

Unfortunately, what hurts the movie the most is its tone. The movie starts off as a parody of super hero films and at times is winking at the genre. Unfortunately, these moments are mixed with some extremely violent sequences. While directors like Quentin Tarantino can pull off that juxtaposition well, director Matthew Vaughn has a much tougher time and it becomes difficult to get caught up in the film because of the clashing of the moods.

In addition, the major character of Kick Ass is never made to be that interesting. While Aaron Johnson does a solid job making him ordinary, the movie makes him so ordinary that you start to lose any reason to be interested in him other than he goes around wearing a green wet suit. The movie could have jettisoned his entire story line and focused on Big Daddy and Hit Girl and the story would have been a far more interesting tale. With Big Daddy/Hit Girl, you have a father whose obsession with a past injustice causes him to turn his 11-year-old daughter into a lethal weapon and a child who can recite types of guns as easily as most little girls can name Hannah Montana songs. That is the story I'm interested in, not one about a kid who wants to be a superhero because he just decided to one day.

What's really a shame is that the movie does have one really good performance from Chloe Moretz. Like (500) Days of Summer, Chloe portrays a character who acts much older than her age. The fact that the actress is, in real life, only 11 years old, makes her performance all the more impressive. She avoids any cute young child ticks that she could have gone for and, instead, acts like a much older person. If the movie had focused it's attention on her, that would have been a superhero story that you would most definitely want to follow.

Grade: C+

South Park:Still brilliant after all these years

Last week was South Park's 200th episode which they aptly titled "200" (Trey Park and Matt Stone are not the most subtle guys in the world). The episode, not their best work, was more of a "thank you" to the fans by bringing in references from a large number of their past episodes ranging from Mecha-Streisand to Tom Cruise's "In the Closet" episode to Al Gore's "Man/Bear Pig" and even hinted that we would find out who Cartman's dad was (it turns out that Cartman's mom WASN'T his dad after all).

What amazed me wasn't so much the episode but, realizing how long the show has been on. As of now, it has been on for 14 seasons. The only prime-time fictional network shows on the air currently that can claim a longer life are The Simpsons (22 seasons) and Law & Order (20 seasons). That's a severely impressive feat to achieve.

What is even more impressive is that the show is still as relevant, if not more so, than it was in the beginning. While it still sometimes relies a little heavily on scatalogical humor (a recent episode about the legalization of marijuana was more concerned with crude sight gags than anything else), it still manages to attack some very worthy targets. Just in recent seasons they have been spot on with some of their best satires ever:

• "Margaritaville" -- they managed to combine their commentary on the failing economy, the inability to truly explain what caused it, the publics reaction to it, the resurrection of Christ and a Margarita maker into a story that SOMEHOW made sense (the scene where we discover how the government determines how to save companies is blissfully brilliant)
• "You have 0 Friends" -- I have personal affection for this one because my long-time reluctance to join Facebook and this episode poked holes at the public's obsession with social networking. The fact that they managed to work in an extended Tron reference makes it all the sweeter.
• "Woodland Critter Christmas" -- the episode that dares you to become offended with images you truly wonder how they got past Comedy Central but done with such smart humor (it sounds and plays out just like a cheesy Christmas special) that you sit there in wonderment.
• "The Passion of the Jew" -- another one I have personal affection for because it echoed my feelings about "The Passion of the Christ" perfectly (the movie WAS a glorified snuff film) and the public's knee-jerk reaction to it ("well, that guilt tripped me back into religion").

While the show might not get as much attention as it used to, when they can still crank out episodes like those above as well as others, it makes me hope that Parker & Stone never grow up and keep picking apart worthy targets for another 200 episodes to come.

Clash of the Titans: The gods must be boring

I will state at the very beginning that it has been decades since I watched the original Clash of the Titans. I vaguely remembering the stiffness of Harry Hamlin's acting and creepiness of the Medusa. But, the memories are so vague, that I was able to judge the new Clash on its own merits. Unfortunately, even when compared against absolutely nothing, Clash of the Titans still fails on almost all accounts.

Clash follows the adventures of Perseus, a demigod who was the result of a late night bedding between Zeus and a mortal woman. Cast at sea at birth by his angry human father, Perseus is found by a fisherman who raises him. The fisherman and his family are later killed by Hades as a result of collateral damage when Hades attacks a town who rebelled against the gods. Perseus vows vengeance against Hades and is told that, in order to defeat, he must first defeat the Kraken, a deadly sea creature that Hades vows to let loose upon the town in 10 days because of their insolence. Perseus now has to gather the tools he will need to defeat both the Kraken as well as Hades.

Unfortunately, I managed to make the movie more exciting than it was. There was not one single moment in the film that I was ever engaged or caught up in the story. The action scenes were just set pieces with anonymous characters whose names I couldn't remember 5 minutes after the film ended. One of the biggest reasons is that the character of Perseus is barely drawn. All of the opening scenes are rushed and we don't really know or care about the character or his motivations. And Sam Worthington (a robotic actor who somehow is suddenly popping up in major movies including Avatar and Terminator: Salvation (I said they were "major" not necessarily "good") does little to bring any charm or charisma to a character that we should be rooting for. As a result, he comes across than little more than an computer effect in a giant video game of a movie.

In addition, the movie appears to be only half-way thought out. Like the original story, Andromeda (a princess of the town under attack) is told that she must be sacrificed in order for the town to avoid destruction. However, unlike the original movie where Perseus was in love with Andromeda (thereby providing his motivation), here Perseus has one brief scene with her and his motivation for destroying the town has nothing at all to do with her. Thus, since the main character care little for her, there's no reason at all for us to care about her fate as well. To show how trivial that subplot is, they could have dropped it entirely and it would not have affected the story in the least.

What is really sad is that there are some good actors in this movie including Liam Neeson as Zeus and Ralph Fiennes as Hades. The last time these two actors worked together was in Schindler's List and their one scene in that movie together had more tension, drama and suspense than all of Clash combined. But the fault didn't lie with the actors, it lay with the script. For Zeus, his actions were contrary at best. At times he was dismissive of Perseus and refused to step while, at other times, he became a concerned father who wanted to protect his son. The switches in attitude were based on the story demands and no actual true character motivation. Likewise, Hades had none of the creepiness or danger that Fiennes is more than capable of bringing to his roles. They tried their best but the direction and script completely let them down.

What finally did it for me was the conclusion. Without going into too great of detail, the final battle between Hades and Perseus was the single most anti-climatic battle I have ever seen in a movie. Throughout the movie, Perseus made it clear that he was gunning for Hades and, when he did finally face him, the battle was over in a matter of seconds. It is the equivalent of, in Return of the Jedi, Luke faces Darth Vader and the Emperor at the end and, instead of the light saber duel, Luke instead quickly shoots both of them dead with one shot each. Instead, they treated the Kraken as the "big" battle and even that was over in a matter of moments upon Perseus' arrival. By making the big battles so quick and perfunctory, it reflects the filmmaker's attitude towards the story and lack of general knowledge of packing and story telling.

As I mentioned, I only vaguely remember the original Clash of the Titans so that wasn't the movie I was comparing it to. Instead, the Greek mythology film I had in my head while watching the remake was Walt Disney's Hercules. And that is the Greek myth retelling that I will gladly and happily go back to in the future.

GRADE: D-