If it’s not broke, remake it: The top 5 Horror remakes

If it’s not broke, remake it: The top 5 Horror remakes

Howdy, fellow frighteners, I’m back again for my penultimate Halloween list before the big one on Monday. Today’s countdown concerns The Good ol’ classic Horror movie and how Hollywood basterdizes the legacy of the film by remaking it. Well, that’s one way to look at it, but this list counts down the top five of these remakes. 

Without further ado, as I have probably lost your attention anyway. So here’s the top 5. 

Honourable mention. Ok, because I did it last time. I’ll do it again. Just missing out on our top 5, is the newest film on the list. 

The Film: Let Me in (2010) The Original let the right one in (2008)

Why it missed out: Let Me In is a good remake. This film is one of a few horror films that are remade for an American audience as the general belief is that Americans don’t like reading subtitles. Whereas Let the right one goes at an  incredibly slow pace, Let Me In goes quicker, but clearly lacks the subtlety that the original does. 

The reason that the movie is not on the list, is mainly due to the quality of the original. It’s harsh to say, but whereas the other movies on the list either offer up a different interpretation or improve upon the original, Let Me In just feels like a remake. 

Number 5: The Ring (2002) The Original: Ringu (1998)

Why it’s on the list: Another Americanized version of a foreign film for. However, a slightly longer gap that Let Me In. The Ring is an interesting concept concerning a Killer TV Tape. The original is a chilling tale made all the more terrifying, by not grasping what’s going on a lot of the time. 

Evidently, The Ring doesn’t have this capability. But, The Ring does make up for it in the story and a truly scary villain. She is one creepy little girl. 

Number 4: Cape Fear (1991) The Original: Cape Fear (1962)

Why it’s on the list: Maybe more of a Horror- Thriller hybrid, but to me Cape Fear is still a Horror film. It has a villain coming to town and trying to tear apart the people in the town. If it’s a Giant Shark, an Alien or a Man, the concept is still the same. 

Like all good remakes, Cape Fear doesn’t just imitate the original; it takes a life on of its own. Instead of the brooding a tense Max Cady, played by Robert Michum, we have the snarling and educated terminator-esque psychopath, played by good ol’ Bobby De-Niro, who’s performance isn’t just as good as Michum. It could be better. 

Number 3: Dawn of the Dead (2004) The Original: Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Why it’s on the list: The first time I watched Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead, I was expecting just your basic horror remake. However, what I saw was a face passed, thrill filled, horror movie, which breathed Adrenaline filled life into an old and somewhat tired concept. 

Sure, it’s probably not as good as Romero’s original. However, it’s different and entertaining. Plus, it’s got Ving Rhames in it, so you know it’s going to be awesome. 

Number 2: The Fly (1986) The Original: The Fly (1958)

Why it’s on the list: A David Cronenberg movie on the list? Surprising.  Well he is my favourite Horror movie director after all. And The Fly, showcases how good Cronenberg is. Based on the 1950s Vincent Price movie, Cronenberg takes The Fly and makes it his own. 

Cronenberg strips away the camp and throws on buckets of creepy. However, the standout performance is Geoff Goldbloom. Usually camp

Number 1: The Thing (1982) The Original: The Thing from Another World (1951)

Why it’s on the list: Much like The Fly, The Thing is a remake that surpasses its original. Based on a 50’s B movie, John Carpenter’s ‘something in the snow’ classic turns a somewhat cheesy concept and throws a bucket load of creativity and realism into it. 

Ok, some of the performances are a bit overblown, but it was made in the 80s so it’s probably a given. However, what The Thing excels in is realism. Even though it’s about aliens and mutants. That is some feat, but what do you expect from John Carpenter. 

What do you think? Do you agree with my list? Not at all? Tell me why in the comments bellow.

Don’t forget to Like me on Facebook

Follow me on Twitter @glamgrunge

Until next time, Enjoy The Show.
Daniel Morris.

Review Recall: Poltergeist

Review Recall: Poltergeist 

To Celebrate Halloween, I thought I’d give you guys a scary(ish) edition of Review Recall this week. So we’re heading back to 1982 and Tobe Hooper’s spectre spectacle, Poltergeist. 

The Plot: Steve Freeling (Craig T. Nelson) lives with his family in a home that his own company built. However, one day Steve discovers that there house is being haunted. Not to worry, as at first, the haunt seems friendly; amusing the wife and family, but Steve is reticent. 

Like so many other Horror films, the Ghosts turn evil. Terrorising Steve’s family and eventually kidnapping his daughter to another dimension. Scary stuff. Panic stricken, Steve is at a loss for something to do. Desperately, with support of his wife Diana Freeling (JoBeth Williams) they hire a medium to get their daughter back and free there family from the ghosts not so happy haunts. 

The Film: Tobe Hooper is widely regarded as one of the masters of horror. He created such greats as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Salem’s Lot. However, Poltergeist may arguably be his finest piece of work. 

Arriving at a time when Ghost stories were a thing of a past, Poltergeist feels like a fresh take on an old concept even twenty seven years down the line. The movie bubbles along nicely, until it gets down to the spine tingling scares. That’s when the film really gets going and the scares come quick and fast. 

What I personally like about Poltergeist is the originality in some of the set pieces like the Tree scene and the use of that terrifying clown. The whole movie has been heavily parodied by several different outlets, so it’s no surprise that some of the scares seem a tad predictable. However, that being said, I imagine they wouldn’t have been predictable back in 1982. 

The Performances: Hey look its Mr Incredible. Why doesn’t he just super strength the ghosts away? Sorry, it’s hard for me to hear Craig T. Nelson and not picture those red spandex and blond quiff from The Incredibles. 

That being said Nelson does offer up a fine performance in Poltergeist, proving that his not just a voice actor. Don’t get me wrong, he does stretch his big vocal cords in the movie, but he also uses a lot of physicality and plays a nice centrefold to this supernatural scare-fest. 

However, the stealer of the show is definitely exorcist Tangina (Zelda Rubenstein), who bubbles with character in every squeaky yet powerful word. Her performance is so enjoyable; you want the film to centre on her. This also might have something to do with the performances of the other family and friends bar Nelson as they aren’t exactly fantastic. 

Verdict: A great ghost story and a scintillating scare flick. If you haven’t already seen this horror movie, you should do it NOW. You won’t complain. 7.5/10

What do you think? Do you agree with my review? Or am I being too generous? 

Don’t forget to follow me on twitter@ glamgrunge

Add me on Facebook

Until next time, enjoy the show.

Daniel Morris.

Top Five Horror Film Directors

Top Five Horror Film Directors

My top ten favourite Scary Movie characters was the most read article on my blog. For that I thank everyone who read it. Its stuff like that, which makes doing this blog worthwhile. Over the next week I’ll do a few lists all horror movie related, culminating in a top ten Horror films list on Halloween.  One because, I like it when my blog does well. Two, lists are always pretty fun and three, Halloween is definitely one of my favourite times of years, so I like to celebrate the time to scare. Over the next week I’ll do a few lists, culminating in a top ten Horror films list on Halloween. 

So today’s list goes to the men behind the camera. The top five Horror Movie directors. 

Honourable Mention: Ok, so it was so hard for me to get it down to a top five, but just missing out on the top five lists is: 

The Director: George A. Romero. Known For: Dawn of the Dead (1985), Night of the Living Dead (1968) and The Crazies (1973)

Why he missed out: OK, so I think I’ll get a lot of stick for this omission, but I’m prepared to take it. Yes, the man did pretty much invent Zombies and I do love Zombies. I had to look at how many films I love of the director in question.  While Night of the Living Dead is fantastic and the original Dawn of the Dead is great, the other guys on the list have more films I prefer. Also, for me Romero’s reputation is going down the toilet a bit for every copout Zombie film he makes. I swear, in a few years we’re going to have ‘Afternoon of the Dead’, and ‘Elevenses with the Dead’. 

Ok, so now you know who just missed out, let’s get on with the list. 

Number Five Rob Zombie. Known For: House of 1000 corpses (2003), The Devils Rejects (2005) and The Haunted World of El Superbeasto (2009)

Why he’s on the list: I know what you’re screaming at the screen right now. How on earth could I put Rob Zombie on a list that George A. Romero missed out on? Am I Right? Well for me Rob Zombie has one of the most distinctive voices out of any filmmaker, regardless what genre. I’m sure I’m not the only person who hears of a new film looking for a director and says ‘I’d love to see Rob Zombie’s take on that’. Because, like him or hate him, the man is defiantly a visionary. Also, the two Halloween remakes aside, he’s a pretty talented director. 

Number Four: John Carpenter Known For: The Thing (1982), Christine (1983), and Halloween (1978)

Why he’s on the list: Just beating his Halloween predecessor, John Carpenter slots in at number four. Undeniably, one of the four fathers of horror and a cult figure when it comes to scare flicks. However, I have to admit, the Halloween series isn’t one of my favourites.  I do have to respect the franchise though. On the other hand, Christine and The Thing are great movies full of suspense and scare and are two of my personal favourite scary films. If a guy can make one of the sexiest cars ever seem scary, he deserves his place in the list. 

Number Three: Sam Raimi Known For: The Evil Dead (1981) Army of Darkness (1992) and Drag me to Hell (2009).

Why he’s on the list: I’m not going to say he’s the most cult horror film director of all time (we can wait for number one on the list for that prize) but he’s definitely up there. The Evil Dead’s are cult classics that have definitely kept Bruce Campbell’s movie career alive a lot longer than it should. Like every other director on this list, Raimi has such a unique voice when it comes to horror as he is able to blend the gory with the funny, to make a horror movie that is as comic as it is scary. 

Number Two: Wes Craven Known For: The Hills Have Eyes (1977) A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) and Scream (1996)

Why he’s on the list: Like Carpenter, Wes Craven is one of the staples of modern horror and definitely a master of his craft. I don’t know any film director who has managed to have three successful film franchises (Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream and The Hills Have Eyes). First starting as tense gore specialist with Nightmare on Elm Street, Craven has been able to adapt over time and grown into a satirical horror film maker, able to make fun of the conventions he once created. However, also like Carpenter, Craven has made some duds as stinkers Scream Four and Red Eye have proven. 

And our Winner is: 

Number One: David Cronenberg Known For: The Fly (1986), Videodrome (1983) and Scanners (1981)

Why he’s on the list: Not just one of the best horror movie directors, Mr Cronenberg is one of the best movie directors. Much like Raimi, Cronenberg has given us a unique blend of quirky comedy, with over the top gore, mixed with suspense with a seasoning of political connotations. For me, Videodrome is one of the most underrated horror movies of all time and if you haven’t seen it, I implore you to do so. Cronenberg has also taken his horror roots and applied them to his latest movies, Ala A History of Violence. What’s more, David Cronenberg has got more great horror films than any other director on the list, while some of the others have made some stinkers, Cronenberg really hasn’t. So it’s consistency that is the key of making David Cronenberg my favourite horror film director. 

What do you guys think? Do I make sense? Or do you disagree totally? Feel free to get in contact and let me know. 

Don’t forget to follow me on Twitter @glamgrunge

Like me on Facebook.

Until next time, go to the movies.

Daniel Morris.

Cartoons: There nor for Kids.

Cartoons: There not for kids. 

Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, Tom and Jerry are all very famous examples of past children’s cartoons. South Park, American Dad, Futurama and Archer, all current examples of cartons. However, there is one major difference though; these new cartoons aren’t aimed for kids. We are currently in the midst of a new generation. The generation of the Adult Cartoon. 

However, along with this new generation, there is a stigma attached with it. That cartoons shouldn’t be for adults and that animation is a child’s medium. In today’s article, I’ll be exploring the influx of adult cartoons and the validity of the argument that cartoon’s should be for kids.

I’m not saying that adult themed cartoons are a new concept as The Simpsons and South Park have been around for over twenty and fifteen years respectively. That being said, it’s hard to ignore the influx of more mature cartoons over the last few years. But, why this sudden influx of cartoons with kick?

I think partly we can thank cartoons like Simpsons and South Park that have been able to appeal to adults and gain financial and critical success while doing so. The success of these two cartoons have shown other storytellers that cartoons are able to contain an universal appeal. 

Animation definitely opens up opportunities for stories that live action sadly lacks. Animation aids comedy as there are fewer limitations. Despite, TV shows having bigger budgets today, in live action you have to abide by certain restrictions. 

Cartoons have no such restrictions. If somebody can conceive the idea, it can be showcased in the cartoon. Just Imagine Futurama in live action. Interesting,? yes. But would it work? No. 

Some stories need animation in order to work, dependent on tone. I am of the firm belief that whatever medium that best suits the story is the medium that should be used. But, why aim it at adults? Surely, the cartoons would work if you tone down the adult themes and appeal it to a younger audience.

Well maybe not. There is a generation of young adults today that grew up with cartoons as children. Cartoons such as, The Rugrats, Hey Arnold, Loony Toons, The Angry Beavers, Pinky and the Brain, Pokémon, the list goes on. As adults we have fond memories of these cartoons. 

We can easily relate when they come on to our screen. This may be different for  an older generation, who simply can’t grasp the concept that cartoons don’t have to be ‘child friendly’.

That being said, why do cartoons have to be a ‘kids’ thing? It’s the same with animated movies. There’s a stigma with animation that it has to be for children. This is simply not the case. Animation is a medium of telling the story and it’s the content of the story which should determine a products audience. 

Just like Live Action, Animation is just another platform for story tellers to create. There shouldn’t be any stigma for attached to it. If an adult comedy works, better in live action, then have it in live action. If an adult comedy works better as animation, then have it animation. Cartoons don’t have to be just for kids.

What do you think? Any feedback is good feedback. 

Don’t forget to follow me on Twitter @glamgrunge.

Add me on Facebook.

Until next time, enjoy the show.

Daniel Morris.

Babyface or Bust?

Babyface or Bust?

After watching TNA’s Bound for Glory PPV, I had originally planned that my next column be about them dropping the ball and a certain Hulkster being an outright A hole. However, upon hearing the spoilers about Impact, I have decided to hold off on it, as it could potentially all be a part of a bigger story. 

So my wrestling Column this week is about something that has bothered me for a long time. It might even be my biggest gripe about the WWE today. I just don’t like how they book Babyface talent anymore.

 I grew up in the ‘Attitude’ Era of wrestling so I probably have taken for granted what was the pinnacle of sports entertainment as the norm. But, when watching wrestling as a kid, I naturally rooted for the Babyfaces. 

This probably had something to do with my moral compass as a youngster, wanting the good guy to prevail and the person who had done wrong, to be punished. 

However, looking back, it also had something to do about how the Babyfaces were booked at the time. They were always the underdog.  Whether it is Stone Cold Steve Austin, fighting the Corporation, The Rock getting screwed by Vince McMahon, or Mankind being screwed over continuously. The Babyfaces were the ones most likely to lose, as they so often did. 

This made it ever so sweeter if they won and made it easier to invest in them as characters. They had flaws, and weaknesses. The more we can see ourselves as a character, no matter how distorted the vision, the easier it is to relate to said character. 

This is a direct contrast to the Babyfaces in the business today. The main event Babyfaces at least. The likes of John Cena, Randy Orton and HHH are more or less unstoppable. It’s not just that they hardly loose clean, but they very rarely look weak. 

It’s a very rare occasion when we see John Cena ending the show looking beaten and defeated. OK, Randy Orton has recently lost clean to Henry, Twice. But, he’s never sold a beat down by Henry and the next week he looks as good as ever. 

For me, that kind of good guy character just doesn’t work. I need a flawed protagonist to invest in. It’s the reason that I have never been a Superman fan. The man never looks weak, no matter what Lex Luthor throws at him. Even when faced with Kryptonite, he still bounces back relatively quickly. 

Don’t, get me wrong, Superman can be intriguing as a character.  As it was in the earlier Smallville seasons. But, the reason for this is that the writers took the time to find faults in his character and explore his weaknesses in other ways.  

I would have no problem WWE doing this with John Cena’s character. I have said in previous articles, that I would quite like to see Cena being restricted by a moral code. Someone, who is all powerful when it comes to physique, but can’t win due to his own morals. That is weakness and that would work. 

However, in today’s wrestling world it’s the Heel that is seen as week, not the Babyface. Bar the exception of Henry, who despite his lack of in ring ability is getting over, just for the fact that he’s something different.  

Every other heel in the WWE is exactly the same. They are weak cowards who cheat to win, but never truly beat the Babyface. Just look at the great Heels of the past, they won more than they lost. Not today. That being said, I’m not of the belief that Babyfaces have to be beaten clean. I often like it when Heels win by cheating. But, it needs to be defiant. 

Personally, I would have The Miz win every match by cheating, but purposeful cheating. If he got his ass handed to him ever match, but still managed to win, he would gain major heat and would seemingly be unbeatable. 

I know how the WWE would counter my argument as John Cena and Randy Orton are the two most popular Babyfaces in the company at the moment. So I imagine they think they’re doing something right. But, in years to come they will never be seen as good as the truly great Babyfaces like The Rock, Stone Cold, Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart. 

For me, if the WWE don’t change the Babyface, its product is a bust. 

What do you think? Am I right? Or do you like the way Babyfaces are portrayed in WWE? Let me know.

Follow me on Twitter @glamgrunge

Add me on Facebook.

Until next time, enjoy the show.

Daniel Morris.