Recently in Remakes/Sequels Category

Directed by Dennis Iliadis. Starring: Tony Goldwyn, Monica Potter, Garrett Dilahunt, Riki Lindhome, Sara Paxton, Martha MacIsaac, Michael Bowen. Horror/Gore/Suspense/Remake. Synopsis: A gang led by an escaped convicts abducts two girl, brutalizing both and happen to end up staying at the home of the parents of one of the victims, who take out their revenge when they realize who their guests really are.

The Last House On The Left, in its original 1972 version, is one of the seminal movies of the wonderful movie- making decade that was the '70s, in my humble opinion. So, in this era of remakes, it only made sense that we would see this story updated to the particular way of life we experience now in the early 21st century, which is both very similar to 35 years ago...yet wildly different. Those of you of a certain age know exactly what I mean.

The basic premise is still the same, for those of you familiar with the original story: a group of ruthless young thugs, led by one who has just been illegally freed from the chains of the law, abduct and brutalize two young women in all manner of ways. After this, they find themselves in need of shelter while on the lam in a heavy rainstorm and happen upon a nice couple who have a comfy, warm house. Its just that the couple happen to be.....that's right, the parents of one of their victims. When they find out who their guest really are and what they've done, well, as you might guess, there is hell to pay.

Now, lets get something out of the way early. There are two kinds of people who will watch this flick: 1) those who have seen the original movie 2) those who haven't. I know what you're thinking: "Of course, doofus, you can say that about every remake ever made, tell us something we don't know!"

Point well taken.

I mention it, with full knowledge that it will do nothing for the image my already suspect intelligence,  only because I think the lines of who really likes the flick versus those who don't will be drawn starkly along the lines of who has seen the original and who hasn't. Again, that is often the case with remakes, but I think it is especially true in the case of this one.

So, you might ask, did you see the '72 original?

Yes, I did.

Well, did you like the original?

Oh, yeah.

O.k., so, let's cut to the chase. Did you like the 2009 version?!?

Not particularly.

Now, understand what I mean. The newer version is not a bad flick, in fact, its pretty good. Gore fans will be satisfied if not ecstatic at what they see (head stuck in a microwave, yes!!!) and, as we all know, who doesn't love to see a little justifiable revenge. The acting is good, as you might expect with the parents, Tony Goldwyn (Nixon, The Pelican Brief) and Monica Potter (Saw)  as well as the rest of the cast, especially Dillahunt as crazy ringleader Krug, Lindhome as sexy/psycho Sadie, and Sara Paxton as the victimized daughter.

My issue is, knowing the original, this one just didn't measure up as much. And, part of me thinks its because it couldn't. Look, seeing the original is one thing, but if you either saw it during the 70s or have vivid memories of that time period, you understand that there was in that flick an element of shock and "Wow, I've never seen that before!", that you're not going to get telling basically the same tale in the 2000s. And, the original Last House, in my view, went further than this one with less (e.g. budget, FXs, etc.).

Look, not to be a spoiler for those who haven't seen either, but the original has some unforgettable lines & scenes in spite of its low budget campy feel...just to give you an idea, what do you think about lines like "Piss your pants!" and dialogue exhangle like "Oh, poor little guy". "He's not little, you just scared him". That's right, those lines refer to just what you think they do in your nasty little minds and its wonderful.

Rightly or wrongly, I'm judging the current version by that standard and its not as good in spite of superior acting, FX, and cinematography...the more I think of it, maybe its because of those superior things that the remake is not as good.

So, now for the 64 thousand dollar question: is it worth seeing? Of course it is. Just because I wasn't blown away shouldn't mean anything, what the hell do I know anyway? I have a feeling those of you who did not like or did not see the original will like this just fine. I can't look at this flick from that point of view, so I won't try to. You'll just have to watch it yourselves and make up your own minds.

Which is likely what you were going to do anyway, no matter what I said.   

Directed by James Wong. Starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Ryan Merriman, Kris Lemche. Horror. A teen has a premonition of impending doom before she and her classmates board a rollercoaster during a gathering of graduating high school  students. She gets off the ride at the last minute, followed for different reasons by five of her classmates, who watch minutes later as the ride ends in tragedy. Afterwards, the six survivors seem to be the victims of random accidents that claim or threaten their lives...in the order they were seated on the roller coaster before getting off. 

Final Destination 3 follows the same basic theme and pattern as its predecessor, with the difference that the "supernatural" aspect is less played out as compared to the first installment. In this one, our group of doomed teens are enjoying a school sponsored gathering at night at an amusement park. One of the group (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) starts having uneasy feelings about the intimidating looking roller coaster that is the main attraction in the park.

These feelings come to a head when she is seated on the ride and has a graphic premonition of the ride malfunctioning and her and her classmates going to their gruesome deaths. As you might guess, when she snaps back to reality, she is still safe and sound on the ride but no longer wants to go along.

She freaks out, convinces the operators to let her off, along with 5 of her pals who get off for various reasons. Minutes later, the ride, along with her boyfriend who is still strapped in, suffers the catastrophic fate that she just foresaw.

As you would think, she is now the object of some suspicion, though not as much as her predecessor from Final Destination . It seems that one of her friends (Ryan Merriman) has done his homework and finds out from the Internet that this is not the first time such a thing has happened and that what the survivors can soon expect is to start dying off in "accidental" ways...in the order they would have died had they stayed on the coaster.

As a horror movie buff, I can't say this film is not entertaining, but it just doesn't have the "it" factor for me to really get pumped out about it. In fact, I saw this version first, then went out and got the original just to be sure that I was giving it a fair shot and realizing that, usually, the first one is better than the sequel(s). Its not scary nor does it, in my opinion, really try to be. The story itself could be interesting to some, but it combines so many elements of supernatural, urban legend, and slasher that, to me, its ineffective.

I think the real focus here is to show people dying in completely unexpected (and unrealistic) ways. I understand that seeing someone die horribly and unnaturally while sitting in the car at the drive thru or lifting weights is different, but I didn't see it as particularly innovative, scary, or thought provoking.

Almost none of the characters have any depth or dimensions other than their character's caricature, but you would expect that in this type of film. The acting is acceptable, certainly nothing special, but not as bad as you've seen if you regularly watch this genre. And, of course, we see actors obviously in their 20's pretending to be teens. Am I the only one who is bothered by that? How can I become invested in a character if I don't buy that character at all?

If you want to see young, nubile, twenty-somethings getting offed in impossible ways, with some graphic gore and skin thrown in, this is your deal. If not, you're not missing much if you give this one a pass.

But, that's just what I think.               

Directed by Stuart Baird. Starring Tommy Lee Jones, Wesley Snipes, Robert Downey, Jr., Joe Pantoliano, Daniel Roebuck, Tom  Wood, Irene Jacob, Kate Nelligan. Action/Drama.  Synopsis: The sequel to The Fugitive follows Deputy U.S. Marshal Sam Gerard and his group of deputies as they track another fugitive from justice who has deep ties to the intelligence community of the United States.

This is an underrated sequel to the hit movie The Fugitive, with the scene stealing Tommy Lee Jones back as Sam Gerard and his entire posse intact with one minor change. As much as everyone enjoyed Tommy Lee in the original (The "I want you to search every outhouse, henhouse, chicken house..." line is an all time classic), it seemed, to me, to make sense to bring him and his group back for another one because, with all due respect to the great Harrison Ford, a hell of an argument can be made that Jones and his scenes were the best part of the Fugitive. But, I think one of the reasons this flick is underrated is that people think of it, incorrectly in my view, as a sequel.

Of course, I understand why people do that, but to me, a sequel is a continuation or telling of something new directly related to the first film (more like a prequel). This movie is entirely different, with some of the characters from the first movie telling a different story with no relation or connection to the first. To borrow a phrase from television, this movie was more like a "spin off" to me, in the same way that Maud and The Jefferson's were spin offs of All in the Family.   So, for what that thought is worth, it's wrong to cast this as a sequel in my opinion and, since by definition sequels are only made when the first movie is a success and its very hard to go home again, sequels more often than not are less loved than their originals.

Be that as it may, U.S. Marshals is very good as a stand alone project, and there is no need to have seen the Fugitive to fully appreciate or enjoy the film, though if you did see the first, you will probably feel a little deeper kinship with the Marshal characters.

Sam Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones Cobb) is back here, the same wisecracking, dedicated to his jog ace Marshal that we saw in the Fugitive, and this time he is on the trail of an elusive man named Mark (Wesley Snipes Passenger 57) who is wanted for the murder of a government agent. Mark is especially adept at hiding, and seems to avoid violence (Great line from this movie from Tommy Lee: "I'm trying to figure out why this guy keeps going out of his way not to kill people") and has a top shelf girlfriend (Irene Jacob) who he is obviously devoted to, so much so that the gang figures he will contact her sooner or later. 

Most of the rest of Sam's gang is back (Joe Pantoliano, Daniel Roebuck, Tom Wood) but there are a couple of important newcomers from the first movie. Kate Nelligan comes in as Sam's boss with her elegance and the implication of a past romance between the two, and Robert Downey Jr.(Chaplin) is agent specially assigned to this case that Sam just can't seem to take a shine to, so to speak. Well, for good reason, as we soon learn he has divided loyalties. 

There is more of a conspiratorial plot in this one than in the first, and much more pure action scenes from Snipes than with Harrison Ford as Dr. Kimble in the Fugitive.  Like the first one, we can expect the theme of the film to be the "good guy mistaken for the bad guy" thing, but, here, we are not totally sure that Mark is really a good guy, and we also have a good idea of who the bad guys are and one of them,  at least, is closer to Sam than he thinks. In the first one, we knew all the time that the hero was innocent, but didn't who the bad guys were or why they were until the end. That approach might be a little more effective for those who prefer at least a little twist with their flicks. But, to me, U.S. Marshals works fine because it is really an action film that could be mistaken for a drama, while the Fugitive was really a drama that could have been mistaken for an action film.

The whole thing revolves around Jones and Snipes and they both deliver, especially Jones, who goes from being a scene stealing supporting character to leading man with ease, which is not easy. Maybe even harder was Snipes' job, to essentially "replace" Harrison Ford as the one running from Jones. I wonder if the cool scene where Snipes bungee jumps from a skyscraper onto a moving train is more of a homage to Ford's waterfall plunge in the Fugitive or just action hero Wesley being Wesley?   Maybe a little bit of both.

The bottom line, U.S Marshals is a good movie that might not be quite as good as its predecessor, but that's o.k. if you go into understanding that its two separate movies telling separate stories, which will be easier if you are one of the few people who did not see the first. Also, special kudos on the special features for those of you who are thinking of getting the DVD, there is an excellent feature on the history of the U.S. Marshals, which will be interesting for all who like to know these sorts of things.  

Directed by Alexandre Aja. Starring Ted Levine, Kathleen Quinlan, Dan Byrd, Aaron Stanford, Tom Bower, Billy Drago. Horror. Synopsis: A family traveling through the desert in the western part of the U.S. is besieged by a murderous family of mutant humans. A remake of an original screenplay and movie by Wes Craven.

I'm a horror movie fan and, by definition, a fan of most things Wes Craven. But, I have to admit that I had not seen the original Hills Have Eyes, so I was able to go into this DVD with an open mind, wondering only if Wes would be happy to have this remake associated with his name, which is synonymous with horror.

I think he'd be pretty pleased.

This movie is strictly formulaic horror fare, and you know the drill. Group of people (in this case a family) become stranded/trapped and set upon by the bad guys/monsters. In this film, the monsters are human, but mutant humans of considerable strength and insatiable bloodlust derived, apparently, from there being in the area of some nuclear testing back in the day which led to a generation of horribly disfigured descendants. Now, those of you with even the slightest knowledge of mutations, genetics, or the effects of radiation will have to suspend your disbelief as to the ability of people so affected by radiation to still have the ability to reproduce and pass the mutation along, (not to mention live in a town that, apparently, is not known to anyone else) but I'm betting you can do that.

Although this formula is nothing new and the first half hour of the movie drags a little, as you prepare for the inevitable, you will find yourself hating the mutants and pulling for the-sometimes-less- than- clear thinking family members to survive and take out their revenge.

In a film like this, the makeup is more important than usual because, lets be honest, if the mutants aren't scary or repulsive, well, that's half the battle right there. They will disgust you, for the most part, by their appearance and any attempt to create any feelings of sympathy went out the window, at least for me, when you realize how violent they are.

Along those lines, this is not an easy film to watch, and may be unwatchable for some. There is extreme violence, both implied and not. You'll see one of the family members burned alive and the attempted rape of another, not to mention the disturbing image of one of the mutants trying to suckle at the breast of another reluctant female family member.

On the other hand, the surviving family members give almost as good as they get and, those of you who are-like me-dog lovers will find some more justification for the truism that dogs "are man's best friend". 

The acting is good, especially when you accept the fact that this is horror and not Shakespeare. Ted Levine (Silence of the Lambs) and Kathleen Quinlan (A Civil Action) are the patriarch and matriarch of the nuclear family that has the misfortune to break down in the desert, near the mutants but, of course , out of cell phone range and friendly humans. Dan Byrd (Salem's Lot) is one of the children and is once again impressive. You get the feeling that we will be seeing a lot of Mr. Byrd in the future, I don't think talent like this will join the "forgotten child actor" club. Aaron Stanford does a wonderful job as the irritating son-in-law. Fans of notable but nameless character actors will recognize Tom Bower (The Negotiator, True Believer, The Badge).Billy Drago (The Untouchables) is unrecognizable in his role as one of the meanest mutants, but its still doubtful he is as evil as he was as Frank Nitti in his most famous role. (Isn't that scene where Kevin Costner's Eliot Ness throws Drago's Frank Nitti off the roof-while historically inaccurate-one of your all time favorites? C'mon, admit it. I do.) 

If you are horror movie fan and like your flicks with plenty of gore and vengeance, you will like The Hills Have Eyes. Period.  

Directed by Simon West. Starring Camilla Belle, Tommy Flanagan, Kate Cassidy, Tessa Thompson. Horror/Suspense. Synopsis: A remake of the 1979 film  of the same name telling the story of  a young teen aged girl who is terrorized throughout the night ,while babysitting, by  threatening phone calls from an unknown stranger  who ultimately finds his way into the home.  

I'm not one who is always down on remakes. Sometimes they work (Scarface), sometimes they don't (The Longest Yard). I do believe that, most often, you can't go home again. What I mean by that is, if you are going to remake a movie that was fairly popular and very memorable in its time-and was itself based on an urban legend that dates back in many forms at least forty years-you had better bring something new to table, whether its a different twist, feel, ...something, because we all know the story, and it is going to take us being enthralled with the character and sympathetic to her situation to have us jumping out of our seats like we did in '79. ( Not to mention the fact that we're no longer in 5th grade)

This version of When a Stranger Calls doesn't work for several reasons. First, it is updated to the present day, using the same characters, for the most part, as the original. Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) is a high school student who has just run afoul of her parents by going 800 minutes over her cell phone limit. (Hey, we've all been there. A little chit-chat, and the next thing you know, 12+ hours in the red)  This was due to her cheating boyfriend...who had the nerve to actually kiss Jill's erstwhile best bud Tiffany (Kate Cassidy). As if that weren't enough, Jill's upper-middle class suburban hell gets a little hotter when Dad insists that she is going to have to babysit to pay off her debt for the overuse of the cell phone.

So, in addition to missing the big bonfire, Jill is barred by Dad from driving and using her cell phone as punishment as he drives her way out to the middle of nowhere to babysit for a rich couple who live in a house only slightly smaller than a small mid-western town. As if this was not already an all too evident recipe for disaster, what real life empathy we might be able to muster is hard to bring up because it is just so...obvious. Jill's Dad actually asks her "if she is going to be all right out here..." showing that he also has some concerns about his daughter. But, that doesn't stop him from dropping young Jill off to babysit for people she doesn't know (By Goodness, that bill has to be paid!!!)

O.k., you're thinking I'm being a little too tough here, but it gets better. Jill meets the Mandrakises, a rich power couple who are so busy and important that, even though they are only going to dinner and a movie, they almost forget to tell Jill where the kids are. Further making the set up just a little too unrealistic to get us where we need to be is the fact that, apparently, there is a live in maid upstairs, so Jill shouldn't worry if she hears "some bumping around up there"  O.k., I'm an open minded guy, but the movie started to lose me here. I know that set up was put in there for two reasons: 1) to have there be another potential explanation for the noise Jill will surely hear after it gets dark and to add to the psychological terror she (and the audience) will feel and 2) give Jill a dead body to find later on. Fine.

But, I hate to state the obvious: if they have a live in maid why do they need a babysitter for six hours?   

There's more. There is a guest house that their adult son sometimes stays in, but he has the bad habit of not telling them when he will be there. O.k., now its getting to be too much. Maybe I can deal with a young man needing to get away from his parents to the extent that he needs to crash in the guest house even though the main house is only slightly smaller than Dubuque, Iowa.

But, again, wouldn't you at least check on the guest house...maybe big bro could babysit? By this time, I'm saying to myself "Unless the couple are in on it, this is just too unreal....", whether that observation is accurate or not I will leave to those of you who have not seen the film.

Well, it quickly gets dark and, (surprise!!!), its a windy and rainy night when the calls start coming in, interspersed with crank calls from Jill's buds (calling from the bonfire where the cell reception is so bad that it always cuts out later when Jill starts asking for help). Jill is the first teenager in a half-century not to have the TV and/or stereo going the whole time as she starts to field the calls.

Later, when best bud Tiffany shows up at the house (That Tiffany is something isn't she? Jill is no longer talking to her, but she manages to track Jill down at a house Jill has never been before) and the two engage in girl talk for a while. Jill, already uneasy about the calls, does just what anyone else would do in that situation: alone except for two kids she hasn't seen , no car, cops won't help you until you are already under attack, nasty storm outside, nobody answering their phone, homicidal lunatic calling every 10 minutes. So, when her best friend comes, what does heroine Jilly do? Well, she asks her to leave, of course, damn near pushing her out the front door.   

I could go on, but you get the point. The set up and plot are just too far fetched and the circumstances too unrealistic. I'm not familiar with Camilla Belle's work outside of this film, but I think she has some talent. There just isn't much too work with in this script. Hey, Tom Hanks was in He Knows Your Alone, Kevin Bacon was in Friday the 13th, and Johnny Depp was in Nightmare on Elm Street  , so there is life after teen age slasher flicks and I think Ms. Belle may do just fine.

I think the big problem here is that, unlike the original, in this version the entire movie is attempting to focus only on the calls throughout the night with no background or serious character development. Really, the best part of the film is the house, its wonderful looking and is best described as what those in the 70's probably thought all modern houses would look like by the 21st century. 

Look, there may be some who will enjoy this, but its hard for me to see anyone over 18 with any real life experience being scared or enthralled. (I mean, this family is superrich, and you're telling me someone calling from that palace can't even get the local cops to send a car over...c'mon. As a former law enforcement officer, I don't know whether to laugh or get mad)

And, it should be said that the film at least tries to scare you without resorting to cheap gore, although there are other cheap cliche scare tactics (a black cat....I'm not kidding) If you go see or rent this one, understand what you are getting. Unrealistic camp without the usual good parts and cheap titillation which we all decry yet can't get enough of. Its a film that made an honest effort, which is what keeps it out of the Dud category, but took itself way too seriously and didn't give us enough credit. 

Directed by Jonathan Demme. Starring Denzel Washington, Meryl Streep, Liev Schrieber, Jon Voight, Jeffrey Wright, Vera Farmiga, Kimberly Elise. Sci/Fi/Drama.  Synopsis: An Army officer with disturbing dreams after the Gulf War finds that his curious memories of one major incident are exactly the same as other soldiers who were there, particularly one former soldier who was awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroics and is now on the short list for Vice President. But, is the memory real, or was it somehow planted in all of them for political purposes?

My first disclosure is that I have never seen the original of this film, which I know is considered by many to be a classic. Clearly, it is not a complete remake since it is modernized to the present day and the antagonists are not a foreign communist power but a seedy, greedy corporation...named Manchurian.

In this version of the story, a Gulf War combat veteran officer (Denzel Washington Inside Man) is doing public relations for the Army, in particular telling people about the Congressional Medal of Honor, the nation's highest. This is of particular relevance because one of the soldiers (Liev Schreiber The Omen) who served under him in Kuwait is no a representative from the State of New York who is a dark horse candidate to land a spot on the presidential ticket in the Vice-President slot.

He also happens to be the son of a very influential and manipulative Senator (Meryl Streep The Devil Wears Prada)  Now, all of this sounds just fine, but some of the other member of the unit who are still alive when their hero comrade makes his run for office realize that they share the exact same memories of that fateful night in Kuwait...and now share the same nightmares all these years later.

As you might predict, Denzel's character is the one who takes it the furthest, coming to believe that he and his fellow soldiers have been the victim of some kind of brain washing experiment, maybe even to put one of them into the White House.

I know this movie did not do as well as expected at the box office, given the Hall of Fame cast and the fact that the original film was such a classic. I don't know, maybe you can't go home again, but I don't think the story is dated in the way we might have thought if it had been released in, say, 1998, when the biggest threat to our security-at least publicly-was seen to be a oversexed Commander in Chief and a loose intern. No, the story is not dated and it works for me, with the required suspension of disbelief.

The performances of the actors is wonderful as you would expect. To me, the definition of "wasting time" is to actually spend minutes on a blog saying that Streep and Washington are outstanding as the leads...what else am I going to "tell" you? That the sun will rise in the East?

Schreiber is real good here, too, and he has to be, since the film really revolves around the viewer feeling some empathy for him, as he is not really the bad guy here. Who is? Well, I'm no spoiler, but I will give a hint to those who have not seen the film. The term "bad guy" should not be taken too literally.

So, I liked it, though I would be interested to hear the views of people who have seen and enjoyed the original with Frank Sinatra. That would be interesting.