The curse of the impostor: Films that should have NEVER been remade

Nothing is as admirable, nor fashionable, than originality — yet in our never ending quest for the original, we often stumble upon the unwelcome, and far too often ugly, remake. The impostor, the imitator, the great pretender… No matter how good a remake may be, it will always be just that. A re hashing of someone else’s creativity.

Let’s celebrate the worst of the worst.

Halloween
A film that defined, and inspired a genre. John Carpenter’s Halloween may not have been the first Slasher but it is without doubt the most iconic. This seminal thriller was shot with such brutal honesty creating a timeless classic that need never be remade. Fast forward to 2007 and step right up Rob Zombie. As a lifelong horror fan himself, he should have known better than to mess with, what is essentially, blood-curdling perfection. Michael Myers, the knife-wielding, mask-wearing super villain, is introduced to us in the original as a young child, dressed in a clown suit, living with his loving family in a ‘normal’ neighbourhood who out of the blue stabs his older sister to death. The genius of this being the chilling realisation that, perhaps, evil is just born and not created — unlike in Zombie’s remake, where young Myers lives with his prostitute, drug-taking mother who he regularly sees being violently abused by her clients. In this instance, is it so surprising that a child surrounded by such ugly violence would turn to violence himself? Combine this with Zombie’s attempt to create a pointless backstory and completely strip away the myth that surrounds Myers, this film is instantly less terrifying and lacking the character of the original.

A Nightmare On Elm Street
After the runaway success of the Saw franchise, plenty of directors jumped on the gore bandwagon — and while it might work for some horrors lacking in depth and substance, it ain’t gonna work on a Wes Craven, the Godfather of all Slashers, original. His version was dark, uncomfortable, and edge-of-your-seat horrifying. But the 2010 remake? Well, it was what no horror movie can ever afford to be: Boring.

Flatliners
When I heard the Flatliners remake was all systems go, my initial reaction was simply ‘why?’ The original cast made up of an irresistible, long haired Kevin Bacon, a platinum blond Kiefer Sutherland, and a very big-haired and beautiful Julia Roberts cannot be bettered. Flatliners is a sci-fi classic, and no matter what they do with the modern version it will never compete with the chilling charm of the original.

Psycho
Without doubt, the most offensive of all remakes — Gus Van Sant’s shot-for-shot rehashing that merely turned Alfred Hitchcock’s black and white classic into colour. Criminal.

The Hitcher
A dark, thrilling tale of everyone’s worst nightmare — two young-and-in-love teens pick innocently pick up a hitchhiker who turns out to be a horrifying serial-killer who proceeds to fill their every waking moment with terror. Rutger Hauer is stunning as the psychopathic hitchhiker, but in the remake Sean Bean, try as he might, was never going to match Hauer’s career-best performance. Instead, the 2007 version relied on gratuitous gore instead of spine-tingling suspense to terrify the audience which only resulted in a hot mess.

Footloose
A timeless 80s classic with an electrifying soundtrack, and the fancy footwork of a baby-faced Kevin Bacon, films don’t get much better or feel-good than this. So, the remake wasn’t horrible, but the point is there was no point — there was no need to give the original a modern makeover. The new version was ‘sexed-up’ to the eyeballs, which took away from the old-fashioned charisma of the original. Plus, you can’t compete with the Bacon!

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
As a HUGE Tim Burton fan, it pains me to slate one of his films but, sadly, the fantastically bizarre new version couldn’t lace the boots of the 1971 film. Gene Wilder’s Wonka was flawless, his witty one liners were tantamount to the allure and success of the story. The 2005 version ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory‘ was, well, just fuckin’ weird, and not in a good way.

The Vanishing
A stone-cold 1988 Dutch masterpiece as unforgettable as it is extraordinary with THAT famous ending. So yep, of course, they went and remade it — only five years later. But not even an impressive cast of Jeff Bridges, Sandra Bullock and Kiefer Sutherland could save this baby from the depths of disaster. Oh, and they changed the notorious ending. Stick with the original, kids.

You're so cool

All things considered, I think Quentin Tarantino's True Romance is my favourite love story of all time - more so than Romeo and Juliet, Noah and Allie, Sam and Molly, and definitely more so than that 200-year-old vampire and his weird girlfriend who keeps clutching at that 'gaping hole in her chest' (you all know what I'm talking about, don't pretend). 
I mean, for someone like me who ain't super crazy about all that lovey-dovey, 'all I need is you', flowers and heart-shaped chocolate stuff, this was always going to be the story for me. You know? Amid kung-fu films, cocaine, guns, Elvis, gangsters, car chases, pie-eating, and Brad Pitt thrown into the mix, there's romance. It's not too in your face, but it's there and it's bloody beautiful. 


Who says that stealing a pimp's cocaine and running across the country away from gangsters trying to get it back doesn't sound like the perfect opportunity for an intoxicating love story?


Hey, let's face it we're all suckers for a love story but give us something we can really believe in, and get behind - something we can invest ourselves in, and we'll feel a part of the story. Give us something that starts off hopeless, tragic even; give us something that everyone else is writing off as a ten minute fling, and we're hooked. 


Clarence and Alabama prove that love is enough. And not only that they prove that you can find love in the most unusual of circumstances, and once you've found it nothing is impossible. No matter the crazy obstacles that come your way, if you've got romance you've got everything. You've got the world at your feet. 


Clarence and Alabama prove that out of catastrophe comes love, no wait not love, romance. Out of catastrophe can come romance. Wild, exciting, beautiful, twisted romance. True romance. 

I had to come all the way from the highway and byways of Tallahassee, Florida to MotorCity, Detroit to find my true love. If you gave me a million years to ponder, I would never have guessed that true romance and Detroit would ever go together. And til this day, the events that followed all still seems like a distant dream. But the dream was real and was to change our lives forever. I kept asking Clarence why our world seemed to be collapsing and things seemed to be getting so shitty. And he'd say, "that's the way it goes, but don't forget, it goes the other way too." That's the way romance is... Usually, that's the way it goes, but every once in awhile, it goes the other way too. 

Book vs. Film: We Need To Talk About Kevin

Okay, so it only seems right to begin by saying that, yes, there is little point in 'comparing' books and films because they are mediums utterly alien from one another, but it's thursday evening and my insomniac tendencies are a good enough reason/excuse for me to do just that.

In the blue corner we have, what is undoubtedly, my favourite book of all time 'We Need To Talk About Kevin', aaaaanndd in the red corner we have, which is undoubtedly, one of the most disappointing films I have seen in a long time 'We Need To Talk About Kevin'. 

Where oh where to begin? Hmm, I know the development of the relationships between the characters. Without giving anything important away or spoiling it for those who have not had the gorgeous pleasure of reading Lionel Shriver's exquisite novel, I will simply say this: The power of this story hinges on the beautiful and meticulous development of the relationship between Kevin and his mother, and Kevin and his father. The manipulation that she wrote so intoxicatingly was ignored in the film - in my eyes, this was a huge mistake on the director's part. Due to this the film was left lacking in so many areas in comparison with the impact of the twists and turns of the book. 

The cinematography was stunning. The film itself was a beauty to watch - the lighting, the cut aways, the angles, the photography etc was all beautiful but no amount of fancy camera work can disguise a hollow screenplay. Honestly, there were so many moments where I felt as if I wouldn't have had a clue what was going on if I hadn't read the book. 

Of course, a book is afforded the luxury of infinity if it wants it - there is no limit to how long, and how detailed a novel may be. Whereas a film is relatively bound by limits, and we would be here all year if they were to include each detail of the book BUT that doesn't mean they shouldn't try. 

For me, the beauty and power of this story - and what made it unique - was the detail. (Slight spoiler alert) the way in which Kevin chose his victims down to the nth degree, and planned his attack for weeks in advance making sure not a hair was out of place. This was all crucial to the ending. This was an insight into the mind of this so-called monster, but in the film we saw none of that. In the film the victims were but a mention. 

In the book you feel torn between two sides - should you sympathise with Kevin? Should you feel sorry for the mother, or should you think she could have done better as a parent? Was Kevin just born evil, or is it deeper than that? 

If you ever get the chance to read the book by Lionel Shriver please, please do. I urge and implore you to read it as it is quite simply an incredible and powerful book. It will tear you to pieces, reduce you to tears and leave you open mouthed with astonishment and fear. The characters are portrayed and developed so fantastically, and the storyline grows naturally and believably. Unlike the film, that felt fragmented and lacking with no real explanation as to what was going on and why. It just seems like a crap mum with a bratty kid who loses it one day and kills a load of kids at his school, when in reality it is so, so much more complex and exciting than that. 

You know, sometimes I just think certain things are not meant to be put into film - they just don’t translate onto the screen, and this is one of them. You need the words to grasp the story and escape into the world. Of course, this completely works both ways - could you imagine Pulp Fiction as a novel? No, wouldn’t work. Film is an extraordinary medium when done well, and (apart from a good book) there is little better than a great film. For now I think I'll just stick with Tarantino, my old faithful....

Drive.

The film, directed by Nicolas Winding Refn, is one of those rare masterpieces where the cinematography, screenplay, acting, soundtrack and cast melt into one glorious piece of art. An unusual and intelligently directed film that is full of twists and turns and packs more than just a few punches..
The clever use of camera angles and lighting was reminiscent of Tarantino's Pulp Fiction at times (I'm not sure I could give a film a greater compliment).
The subtle, and genius screenplay combined with impressive acting performances from the entire cast (even the extras) served up a large portion, with plenty of side dishes, of suspense and tension from the opening scene to the last.
Ryan Gosling's performance as the 'driver' was convincing, menacing and, most importantly, believable. He conveyed the angst and anonymity with passion and conviction.
My favourite thing? The soundtrack. It was cool, understated and powerful.
Out of ten, this blockbuster gets an eleven. (and Ryan Gosling - that's a given!)

Have you seen it yet? What did you think?