The Good, The Bad, The Ugly: Film Remakes, Part Two

The Thing From Another World, 1951

Yet, some remakes are exceptional. Howard Hawks’ The Thing From Another World was a chilling and cerebral kind of horror film. What made it so original and just plain cool was just how real it felt. There were no tongue-in-cheek witticisms and the cards were not played close to the vest; you really believed these folks felt terrified and overwhelmed by what was happening. The starkness of the film was only helped by its location in the cold Arctic. Furthermore, it had a true moral center: an allusion to the Cold War and questions about just how much science should mess with nature.

At first, John Carpenter’s The Thing seems to adhere to the “LOUDER, BLOODIER, DUMBER” mantra. However, it simplifies and perfects the Cold War analogy: you just don’t know the people around you and you should only trust yourself. Inventive special effects heighten the moments of gore to images seared onto your brain. Unlike the original, the ending is the bleakest of bleak. There really is no escaping the film once you watch it. It is a perfect example of a cinematic landmark.

It doesn’t happen often, but some foreign directors remake their very own films for Hollywood. There is usually nothing exciting to report; either they’re the same but with Hollywood actors or they’re terrible beyond belief— the second installment of The Ring series and The Vanishing come to mind.

The Thing, 1982

Still, some films discover something that seems to happen almost by accident. When you think of the fact that the original flick was meant as a response to Hollywood cinema in the first place, it doesn’t appear so original. French director Michael Haneke takes an extremely scientific approach to his subject and he could not care less about teaching the audience anything. There is no right or wrong, no good or evil; people are punished just because. Case in point, his almost shot-for-shot remake of his Funny Games. This time there are A-list actors, but he still shows no mercy. Now that we see a fresh-scrubbed Naomi Watts, we think maybe there will be a miraculous escape. Nope. The bleakness stays in the picture. Ho-hum.

As far as those films that try to replicate exactly what the first film created—without changing a thing—to try to recapture the magic? The result is like watching goldfish swim in the same circles, repeatedly. Unfortunately, there are also the films that try to be so different from the previous incarnations, they end up becoming the most destructive horror creation of all: one that tries to maim with force, but only ends up boring you to death.

At last, we get to the pure craziness of the infamous Wicker Man remake. I’m not a huge fan of the original. However, the ending leaves a lasting ache in the solar plexus. Cold and unemotional up until the protagonist’s wailing pleas, the moral center is one of the strongest of any classic horror films: mind your own beeswax. Neil Labute removed that from the original and directed one of the most confusing pieces of cinema of all-time. There are long stretches of dull punctuated with ludicrous sequences and dialogue, not to mention, the hammiest of the hambones, Nicolas Cage, giving one idiotic performance. Cruel for no reason, it comes across as amateurish and silly at best. Oh, but the bees!!

The most successful horror film remake doesn’t happen often because it’s so difficult and it takes a committed, caring team behind the camera. And a good horror remake isn’t necessarily one that improves upon the original material. The true test is that each can stand as its own monster and be deeply innovative. As far as the audience goes, these films can reach across groups—whether they are teens looking for scares or adults looking for something smart—and bring something different for everyone, possessing distinct and different flavors from their fathers.

For the next installment, the genre that takes the most delicate of touches even when there are bodily fluids involved: the comedy.

Pages: 1 2