Red Dawn (2012)
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
Directed by stunt coordinator and second unit director Dan Bradley, Red Dawn offers nothing more than a formulaic narrative and a simplistic plot, supplemented by some distinctly PG-13 rated action scenes. Unlike the original film, written and directed by legendary filmmaker John Milius, there is little character development, a conspicuous lack of political commentary and nothing of note to say on the nature of war. Furthermore there is no credible attempt to explain how the US was invaded by North Korea. It is casually brushed aside after a vague opening montage and then conspicuously ignored for the remainder of the story. It is possible that such material may well have existed in the original cut of the film, when the enemy was China and there was no time or resources to replace it. Or it could just be poor writing.
Upon its release in 1984, the original version of Red Dawn was denounced as Reaganite propaganda by some critics. However, irrespective of director John Milius’ politics, the film had quite a powerful anti-war commentary. It also had characters you cared about with a credible story arc. You got to watch them grow up and make hard decisions. There was some depth to the proceedings, as well as things going “boom”. Dan Bradley’s remake has nothing other than things going “boom” and even that is not especially well done. The teenage cast lack a credible journey, simply morphing from green kids to crack troops, courtesy of a training montage. The main antagonist, Captain Cho (Will Yun Lee) lacks any backstory and is simply flagged as “bad” when he executes a lead character’s father. Calling Red Dawn perfunctory is generous.
Even the presence of Chris Hemsworth fails to improve the situation. Furthermore, this time round his character has prior military experience which mitigates the main theme of the story that wars are often fought by the young, who have to learn on their feet. The much revised script by Carl Ellsworth and Jeremy Passmore makes a few vague attempts to try and say something meaningful but these fail. Hence one character espouses “I miss Call of Duty” only for his colleague to admonish him with the philosophical retort “Dude, we're living Call of Duty... It sucks”. Viewers can’t even take solace in a gritty action scene, as the film is meticulously edited to meet the criteria of its chosen rating. The fire-fights are bloodless and there’s a single and rather obvious use of the word “Fuck” in a contrived kiss off line. Even the film’s title no longer makes any sense due to the plot changes.
Remastered Games
I played through Sniper Elite V2 Remastered this week and the graphical overhaul is impressive and the addition of photo mode provides an amusing diversion. It is a superior iteration of the game than the original 2012 release. However, I have read reviews that have found this new version unsatisfactory. There have been complaints that the game lack the scope and sophistication of Sniper Elite III and 4. If you explore such comments further you soon find that those who have made them seem to fundamentally confuse a remaster of a game with a remake. Sniper Elite V2 Remastered has been lovingly dragged up to visual standards of the latter versions of the games by Rebellion Developments, but it’s original 2012 structure, mechanics and limitations are still present. If you require a succinct metaphor it is the difference between redecorating and refurbishing a house.
I played through Sniper Elite V2 Remastered this week and the graphical overhaul is impressive and the addition of photo mode provides an amusing diversion. It is a superior iteration of the game than the original 2012 release. However, I have read reviews that have found this new version unsatisfactory. There have been complaints that the game lack the scope and sophistication of Sniper Elite III and 4. If you explore such comments further you soon find that those who have made them seem to fundamentally confuse a remaster of a game with a remake. Sniper Elite V2 Remastered has been lovingly dragged up to visual standards of the latter versions of the games by Rebellion Developments, but it’s original 2012 structure, mechanics and limitations are still present. If you require a succinct metaphor it is the difference between redecorating and refurbishing a house.
The recently released Resident Evil 2 is a remake of the original 1998 PlayStation game. Unlike the original, which uses “tank controls” and fixed camera angles, the new version features over-the-shoulder third-person shooter gameplay similar to Resident Evil 4. The game has found favour with both critics and players and although it remains true to the themes and idiom of the original, it is more than just a graphical overhaul. The developers, Capcom R&D Division 1, refined the existing mechanics and systems, improved the environment, rather than just recreating it with improved assets and textures, resulting in a new product that is compatible with the prevailing tastes of contemporary gamers. It is not an exact duplicate of the PlayStation version, neither has it wondered entirely “off script”. It therefore clearly fits the criteria of what constitutes a remake, instead of a remaster. Clearly this process has not been applied to Sniper Elite V2 Remastered by Rebellion Developments.
Another debate surrounding remastered games is over their relative value and whether development resources would be better focused on creating entirely new titles. I’d argue that Sniper Elite V2 Remastered is a positive example of a game that been remastered. The fact that I didn’t have to pay the full retail price (which wasn’t excessive to begin with) because I owned the previous version, helped with my positive opinion. Furthermore when it was announced, Rebellion Developments also pointed out that a new instalment in the franchise was currently being worked on, so the remaster was not at the expense of anything else. However, on the other side of the coin, let us remember how Activision handled the remaster of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. The game benefited from improved graphics and assets but suffered from a somewhat egregious business model. Activision decided to initially release it as part of a premium bundle when players bought Infinite Warfare. Then there was also the inclusion of microtransactions that were not present in the original. Finally, the DLC multiplayer maps that were free with the 2007 version of the game were gated behind a paywall in this 2016 remaster.
It is naïve to expect ethical business management by default from the video games industry, so gamers are left having to keep their wits about them when it comes to determining whether a remastered game is or is not good value. Rebellion Developments have at least been fair with their remasters so far, with respect of content and pricing. Other publishers have taken a different route. The Skyrim Special Edition may well have an improved aesthetic but still contains bugs that have existed in every other iteration and port of the game. It is therefore up to us as consumers to make clear what “is” a good value remaster and what isn’t. We should also be vocal if we discover that a remaster comes at the expense of something new. Polite, measured and intelligent lobbying can and does work. As does screaming and throwing your toys out of the pram, but the latter comes at the cost of dignity, moral rectitude and credibility. In the meantime, I suspect we shall continue to see remasters of all types, as nostalgia is a proven seller. May be on occasions, a successful remaster acts as a litmus test, proving sufficient interest to justify a new entry in an existing franchise.
Evil Dead (2013)
Urugyan writer and director Fede Alvarez obviously has a great deal of passion for the horror genre and certainly understands it a lot better than may other mainstream film makers. Make no mistake, Evil Dead is an extremely hard R rated movie and is certainly not like the usual tame studio output we see so often these days. There is also an emphasis on physical effects rather than CGI. The film also endeavours to re-invent the movies iconic plot to avoid a scene-by-scene retread of Sam Raimi's original. The idea of a groups of friends electing to stay somewhere isolated to help one of the group go "cold turkey", is a clever one. Perhaps the smartest thing the production does is the removal of the character Ash. Replacing someone such as Bruce Campbell is virtually impossible.
Urugyan writer and director Fede Alvarez obviously has a great deal of passion for the horror genre and certainly understands it a lot better than may other mainstream film makers. Make no mistake, Evil Dead is an extremely hard R rated movie and is certainly not like the usual tame studio output we see so often these days. There is also an emphasis on physical effects rather than CGI. The film also endeavours to re-invent the movies iconic plot to avoid a scene-by-scene retread of Sam Raimi's original. The idea of a groups of friends electing to stay somewhere isolated to help one of the group go "cold turkey", is a clever one. Perhaps the smartest thing the production does is the removal of the character Ash. Replacing someone such as Bruce Campbell is virtually impossible.
They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, because despite all its positive points, Evil Dead still manages to fall short of the mark. Don't get me wrong, this is far from a poor film. It will meet a lot of horror fan’s needs, especially those looking for a fix of hardcore gore. It's just that once again we see that there’s a fine line between fandom and homage as opposed to what is in fact just a fan service by someone who is a little too close to the subject they love. Sadly, Evil Dead leans towards the latter to its detriment. There is an unnecessary prologue, Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues screenplay falls very flat and the performances seem strained. Overall there is too much focus on production values, rather than the strong character interaction.
Violence and profanity are just two of the many tools a film maker has at their disposal. The key to using them effectively is to do so in a pertinent fashion that validates their presence. Watching something unpleasant happen to a character that you relate to in some capacity, has a great deal of impact. Viewing clinically accurate effects work, just for the sake of it, without the benefit of a wider context is less effective and possibly the biggest school boy mistakes you can make in the horror genre. When you consider the lengths that cinematographer Aaron Morton has gone to makes the woods in which Evil Dead is set in, seem genuinely malevolent, it is a shame that the atmosphere was not more directly linked to the physical on-screen horror.
Overall this reboot of Evil Dead has far more in common with the works of Eli Roth rather than Sam Raimi. Glimpses of invention and originality are ultimately lost in the frenetic third act when the focus shifts from suspense and horror to mayhem and mutilation. The joy of being scared is replaced with the challenge of enduring the repulsive. As the movie didn’t meet its full potential a new franchise did not materialise. The 2015 Starz TV show Ash vs Evil Dead further put pay to any further cinematic outings. Some degree of praise should be given to all concerned for at least trying to buck the current movie trend. Evil Dead has at least had the courage to try and please the traditional horror market rather than simply court the most commercially viable demographic.
The Omen (2006)
Director John Moore is no stranger to remakes, having produced a new version of The Flight of the Phoenix in 2004. Remakes per se are not necessarily a bad thing as long as they bring something new to the table and explores the narrative in a different fashion. This is why Gus Van Sant’s shot-by-shot remake of Hitchcock's Psycho is so universally reviled and deemed to be pointless, because it doesn’t do any of those things. Which brings me to The Omen which is not an exact copy of Richard Donner’s 1976 film, but it does follow the original screenplay. The movie treads a fine line, adding some additional embellishments to the proceeding such as the opening sequence set in the Vatican as the Pontiff considers the impending Biblical prophecy. Yet it still feels a little too familiar to those older viewers who are au fait with the original movie. Furthermore, the 1976 horror classic was a milestone in the horror genre. It was a big budget production, professionally made with a quality cast. Such a critical and commercial success casts a long shadow and remaking such a production is always going to be an uphill struggle.
Director John Moore is no stranger to remakes, having produced a new version of The Flight of the Phoenix in 2004. Remakes per se are not necessarily a bad thing as long as they bring something new to the table and explores the narrative in a different fashion. This is why Gus Van Sant’s shot-by-shot remake of Hitchcock's Psycho is so universally reviled and deemed to be pointless, because it doesn’t do any of those things. Which brings me to The Omen which is not an exact copy of Richard Donner’s 1976 film, but it does follow the original screenplay. The movie treads a fine line, adding some additional embellishments to the proceeding such as the opening sequence set in the Vatican as the Pontiff considers the impending Biblical prophecy. Yet it still feels a little too familiar to those older viewers who are au fait with the original movie. Furthermore, the 1976 horror classic was a milestone in the horror genre. It was a big budget production, professionally made with a quality cast. Such a critical and commercial success casts a long shadow and remaking such a production is always going to be an uphill struggle.
Moore’s The Omen is competently made, with good use of various European locations such as London and Rome. Malta doubles for Israel in the second act. There is also a strong cast of character actors such as Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Gambon and David Thewlis. What essentially carries the film is the central performance by Liev Shreiber as Robert Torn. He remains credible and behaves like he’s struggling to come to terms with the situation. His relationship with his wife Katherine (Julia Stiles) is also plausible. Mia Farrow adds her acting weight to the role of the sinister nanny Mrs Baylock. Horror fans will also be pleased to see genre stalwart Giovanni Lombardo Radice (AKA John Morghen) as Father Spiletto. The only weak link in the proceedings is Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick as Damien. He is dressed, made up and shot to look sinister which broadly works but he doesn’t do anything particularly evil and thus doesn’t pose an effective threat.
There are flashes of creativity and an attempt to do more than what was done previously. For example, there is a good use of colour throughout the movie. Red is often a signifier off impending death. When Father Brennan senses that demonic forces are closing in during a storm, we see a person in a red raincoat run through the frame in the background. He also passes someone with a red umbrella. It’s a recurring motif throughout the films set pieces. The score is suitably atmospheric and composer Marco Beltrami wisely references Jerry Goldmsith iconic theme but largely does his own thing. Director John Moore also adds several visionary sequences that reflect the growing fear in both Katherine and Robert Thorn. These work as jump scare but more to the point, provide “omens” of the future and reinforce the idea that Damien’s existence is not just an immediate threat to them but has long term consequences for the future of man.
Overall, The Omen is still a little too close to the original and ultimately just adds a modern veneer to the story, rather than doing something substantially different. Then there is the issue of the death scenes which are one of the motifs of the franchise. The original film’s set pieces where ground breaking, in particular David Warner’s decapitation by a sheet of glass, which has now become a genre “treasure”. What made these scenes so visceral in back in 1976 was the fact that they were physical effects and stunts. This time round they’re simply CGI excesses. For example the roving camera follows the falling scaffolding pipe down from the church spire as it impales Father Brennan, in a manner that instantly negates any sense of credibility. Yes, it looks very photogenic, but the brain knows that such a shot is a technical deceit and as a result this sequence lacks the impact of the original. Similarly, the death of photographer Keith Jennings diminished due to it obvious digital construction.
If you have not seen the 1976 version of The Omen and therefore have no respective emotional baggage pertaining to it, then you’ll find the 2006 remake to be an adequate big budget horror movie that fulfils its own remit. For older viewers and horror aficionados, the main obstacle to enjoying the film is its perceived redundancy. Although well made in most respects it doesn’t quite do enough to set it apart from the original. Does it entertain? Yes, but that has to be offset against a strong sense of “so what”. It is interesting to note that The Omen cost $25 million to make and made an adequate $119,496,523 internationally. Yet despite this no sequel has been forthcoming and I suspect that the studio is a little too aware of the audience ambivalence towards such remakes. The cost of another instalment could finance at least two or three other original properties and given the return on investment the horror genre can provide (for example the Saw franchise) this is probably deemed the wiser course of action.