This was set to be the shortest review ever on my blog: one word - "Why? "- as in whatever possessed the people behind this film to think that they could improve upon the original 1973 movie by remaking it or even "reimagining" it? To describe it as a failure is being too kind to failures in general; it is nothing short of an abomination.
Although the original film from a screenplay by dramatist Anthony Shaffer has itself been chopped about since its creation and only recently can be more or less seen in the form originally intended, it remains a landmark of British moviemaking, not just as a horror film but as one commenting on the continuing power of the old religions -- beautifully shot and beautifully scored. Writer-director Neil LeBute, somewhat of a misogynist one feels, has relocated the story to an island in the Puget Sound inhabited by a weird matriarchal society headed by Ellen Burstyn and including untrustworthy, witchy females like Ruth Conroy, Molly Parker, and Leelee Sobieski. The leader of the pagan community in the original film was Christopher Lee who brought rather more gravitas to the role. However the biggest mistake was casting Nicolas Cage in the lead -- although I believe this remake was largely his doing. Whereas Edward Woodward in the original was the perfect potential sacifice, being both a virgin and a devout Christian, Cage probably could not picture himself in either of these categories and comes across as a loudmouth and insensitive lout. Also missing are the signs of oldtime customs and ritual, to say nothing about the very memorable Britt Eckland character.
I can think of only one reason for this movie existing. Perhaps it will inspire viewers to discover the original and absolutely brilliant 1973 movie if they do not know it already, while anyone who is familiar with it will share my disgust at the effrontery of Cage's and LeBute's remake.
3 comments:
I thought the same when I read of the remake - why. Unlike you I couldn't bring myself to watch it. I was dragged to the first Narnia film - about which I had the same conclusion. Reading of the second one - I realised why, especially for the intended age group - they're seeing it for the first time so they don't know what they're missing (BBC adaptation rules). Like all the period adaptations on TV. I mean how many times can you redo Oliver Twist? But for some that will be the first time they see it, and seeing a really old version with dodgy fashion sense and old style camera work wouldn't sell it to the new audience - it all needs to be new-new-new, which means you get the promo to sell it all too. Also redoing something old is possbily safer for the studio because the film has roots, so it's less likely to flop. Blame the big budgets killing originality. All of this however does not make me want to go near all these remakes one bit - the reverse actually. Come on cinema going people can you be more demanding?
Currently viewing Hostel. Mmm. Blood. I knew that power drill had another use.....
I only saw the orignal a couple of years ago, so it was hard for me not to think of Callum everytime Edward Woodwood appeared, but getting over that I did find it interesting, it held my attention. Rache
To almost match your first thought - complete unbelievable self-indulgent rubbish.
Post a Comment