Category Archives: Remakes

Movie Review: Evil Dead (2013)

Leave a reply
Image via YouTube

Well, if you’re going to remake a classic that didn’t need to be remade, then you might as well remake it like this.

“Evil Dead” pulls a Sean Parker and removes the “The.” While it would be funny if this was the only change made in this remake, “Evil Dead” defies a lot of expectations by actually being its own movie. Unlike the recent “Carrie” remake, “Evil Dead” knows exactly what kind of movie it wants to be: a spectacularly gory horror movie. At that, it definitely succeeds.

Once again, “Evil Dead” begins with a group of young adults heading up for a pleasant weekend in a cabin in the woods. At this point, you’d think that people would watch enough horror movies to know that you’re probably screwed if you go to stay in a cabin in the woods.* Even if reminders of “The Evil Dead” past abound, including the car, a deck of cards, and that ticking clock, this new group has no clue what they’re in for.

You could sit there and try and figure out which character is supposed to be in the place of which character from the original, or you could look at them as separate people. The characters in “Evil Dead” are definitely more fully fleshed out than in the original, even though their paper-thin nature is what made the characters originally so funny. The most important characters here are David (Shiloh Fernandez) and his sister Mia (Jane Levy). Their mother had died, David wasn’t there for them, and Mia tries to get off drugs once and for all.

While the original almost immediately jumps into demon play, “Evil Dead” takes its sweet time, which allows for some solid buildup. During this time, we learn that Olivia (Jessica Lucas) is a nurse who is somewhat helpful to Mia, even though she doesn’t realize that her possession isn’t actually withdrawl. Meanwhile, Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) finds the infamous Sumerian text and begins to piece together what is really going on. You see, Eric is smart, and we know this because he has long hair, a beard, and glasses. Meanwhile, we learn that Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore) is an attractive blonde who is in this movie because she is an attractive blonde. At least Fede Alvarez gives his caricatures decent backstories.

These cabin dwellers are certainly a little less oblivious than the first bunch, or at least they are the victims of some plausible misdirection. Also, the demons themselves are a little different this time around. It seems to be more clear where they come from, and they are also much more personal in their taunting. This comes back to how well developed the characters are at the beginning. Yet David, like Ash, doesn’t have much more of a comeback beyond “Shut up!”

Once everyone figures out what exactly is going on, “Evil Dead” is relentless. It relishes it buckets of blood and shocking violence. I don’t use the word “shocking” lightly because that is something that is nearly impossible to do nowadays. “Evil Dead” shows everything from discarded flesh to mutilated arms. Normally, this would be just too much and if this already sounds like too much for you, then you definitely should not watch “Evil Dead.” Yet, “Evil Dead” earns the right to show too much, as the film tries to replicate the experience of hell literally breaking loose on earth.

“Evil Dead” also highlights how well the original film holds up today, despite many sequels, knockoffs, and raised stakes in gore and torture porn. There’s still nothing as perplexing and weird as a tree coming to life and committing rape. That scene is handled quite differently in the remake, as if here it is actually trying to give itself a purpose for existing. Maybe it just really felt the need to be in the remake, given how infamous that scene is. The great thing about “Evil Dead” is that you don’t need to be a fan of the original trilogy in order to enjoy it. Yet, those who are will find themselves rewarded. “Evil Dead” was produced by Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell, who clearly knew which scenes fans were dying to get recreated.

“Evil Dead” might be even more bloody disgusting than the original, but its also surprisingly more hopeful. “Evil Dead” is as much a redemption story as it is a horror film. Independent from the original, it is a high quality horror film, mining screams from the utmost depths of unimaginable fright. It is just as scary to see an arm pop out of the ground and scare someone as it is to see someone saw off their own arm in order to save themselves. These are two things that happen in “Evil Dead,” many times over.

Unfortunately, “Evil Dead” loses a few valuable traits in its translation from 1981 to 2013. It lacks the visceral sense of humor of “The Evil Dead” as well as its audacity and simplicity. The original felt like commentary on all of horror in general. Through a bleeding projector and some off-putting point of view shots, the film transported the viewer right into it and then asked if they still enjoyed watching a horror film as it tore itself apart from the inside. The new one is a bit more of a back-to-basics horror film, often asking the audience to just sit back and be scared. That is not necessarily a bad thing, because “Evil Dead” delivers damn well on that promise. Still, it sometimes feels like “Evil Dead” homogenizes a revolutionary cult classic.

Nonetheless, “Evil Dead” is a fine practice in plausible insanity. Despite a lack in laughs, it never takes itself too seriously. “Evil Dead” is a sometimes fun, sometimes scary, practice in developing a bunch of characters, and then trying to find ways to kill them all off.

*Come on, guys. This is why Cancun was invented!

IT’S JUST LIKE “THE HAPPENING” LULZ. Image via Bitch Magazine

Movie Review: 21 Jump Street

Leave a reply

If Hollywood wants to continue remaking movies, then remakes must declare themselves as being one. That helps in making “21 Jump Street,” a modern update of the TV series that made Johnny Depp a star, so good.

Early in the movie, when Chief Hardy (Nick Offerman) is assigning mismatched officers Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) to a new job as undercover officers at a local high school, he notes that the people who make these assignments lack creativity and instead steal old ideas from the 80s. The studio was truly a good sport on this one.


“21 Jump Street” might as well have been called “Not Another Cop Comedy.” It is more “MacGruber” than “Starsky & Hutch,” with a hint of “Hot Fuzz.” “21 Jump Street” works because it knows all of the beats that a cop comedy should go through, yet it is funny and self-aware at each of them. Call it a post-modernist cop comedy, if you want to be all English major about it.

Schmidt and Jenko go back a long way. In high school, Schmidt was president of the juggling society and Jenko was a jock. Jenko frequently beat Schmidt up. However, they form a tight, unlikely bond at the end of high school and go into the police academy together. Schmidt is always the smart one and Jenko, well, he looks and acts like a cop. Or at least the kind you would see in a movie.

The duo find their lives as cops surprisingly dull; they mainly patrol a park while riding bikes and stop kids from feeding the ducks. The scene of them trying to stop a group of drug pushers shows just how many possible ways there are to make riding a bike funny.

Schmidt and Jenko prove to be hopelessly incompetent as cops. Because of their youthful looks, they are placed in a program that puts under cover cops in high schools, under the jurisdiction of the tough Captain Dickson (Ice Cube). It was Ice Cube’s performance here that made me remember what a good actor he can be, and almost made me totally forget those “Are We There Yet?” movies. But I digress. Anyone who watched the show will already know that 21 Jump Street refers to the abandoned church (not sure how it was in the show but here, they worship some kind of Korean Jesus) where all of the undercovers meet. Schmidt and Jenko are assigned to the same high school they once went to in order to bust the kingpin of a potentially deadly new drug. Jenko can’t wait to return, and Schmidt is quite afraid.

Schmidt and Jenko find out that this is nothing like the high school experience they had. Now, veganism and tolerance are popular. So Jenko has a particularly hard time fitting in, especially when he inadvertently commits a hate crime on his first day.

Schmidt, meanwhile, has a much easier time fitting in. He enrolls in a drama class and takes the part of Peter Pan in the school’s latest production. One of the funniest scenes in the entire movie comes during his audition. Soon enough, he gets in on the cool crowd by befriending Eric Molson (Dave Franco, who shows that talent runs in the family).

“21 Jump Street” is the kind of movie that has been done so many times before, and it knows that. And while the plot beats are pretty predictable, it is the way that the story and all of the jokes are done that makes it a winner. Everyone should know from the start that at least one of them will have a relationship with a student, and at least one of them will pursue a teacher. But what is funny about it the fact that the teacher (Ellie Kemper) is actually the pursuer and the fact that the relationship that forms between Schmidt and fellow drama student Molly (Brie Larson) is actually kind of sweet. I give credit to the stellar screenplay by Michael Bacall, a highly talented writer who is also responsible for “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” and “Project X.” He has a good ear and eye for the way teenagers talk and act nowadays, the kind that most writers lack. With this movie and the past two mentioned, Bacall has made himself an indispensable comedy writer.

Usually, two directors working on one movie would seem like a bad thing, like the old saying of too many chefs in the kitchen. But Chris Miller and Phil Lord are a dynamic directing duo, and perhaps both of their sensibilities contribute to the very even balance between comedy, drama, and action throughout. Miller and Lord, with the combination of Bacall, hysterically play with audience expectations throughout. They will only blow something up when they feel like it. It is as if they are shouting “F**k You, Michael Bay!” in certain scenes.

“21 Jump Street” serves partially as a vehicle for Channing Tatum’s comedy career. Seriously, who ever thought Tatum could be this funny? This is the same actor who starred in the “Step Up” movies and was once a male stripper. As Tobias Funke might say, “this is ripe for parody!” Tatum is a standout because he is such a great team player, willing to mock his own appearance for laughs. I don’t know if I could ever see him doing standup, but I could definitely see him acting in more movies like this. Mark Maron could make a great WTF Podcast about him.

Perhaps to the shock of everyone, Tatum gives the movie its heart. Despite once being a jock and a bully, Jenko is sensitive and a loyal friend. Think of him as more Troy Barnes than Andrew Clarke.

Tatum and Hill play off each other well, and they gave me enough reason to want to see the sequel mentioned at the end that may have only been a joke. This is the rare occasion when I actually would not mind seeing a comedy get a sequel. That is, as long as they don’t “Austin Powers” it and make it exactly like the original. If there were to be a sequel, I would hope there would be more scenes with Offerman’s police chief, who is criminally underused here. I suspect that many of his original scenes had to be left out during editing.

I find much joy in the financial success that “21 Jump Street” has had at the box office, and by the end of next week, it will likely cross $100 million. On the one hand, this could drive studios to continue on the sequel/remake trend as an alternate for producing original ideas. Or, this will make them realize that what truly makes a good comedy (or a good movie, in general) is to take a lot of risks, and hire a good writer. “21 Jump Street” is not a short movie, and a large chunk of it involves Schmidt and Jenko going through the side effects of a drug over the course of one day. Yes, it becomes totally necessary that we see the disgusting way in which they try and expel the drug from their bodies. A stupid comedy with a few laughs will do well its opening weekend, break even, and then be totally forgotten about. One that is as funny as “21 Jump Street” will merit repeat viewings.

Things That Should Possibly Happen: A Carrie Remake

Leave a reply
That awkward moment when someone pours pig guts all over you at prom.

New remake gets “Carrie”-d away, said the worst headline writer ever.


Hollywood doesn’t seem to understand that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. However, I’m done yelling at studio executives who probably aren’t listening, and I’m also tired of referring to every person who works in the film industry collectively as Hollywood. The idea that existing properties are more valued than original ones needs to change, but there is no way that it will ever happen overnight.

The latest remake being concocted is of “Carrie,” Brian De Palma’s twisted horror thriller. “Carrie” seems to have little justification for a remake. “Carrie” stands out to me because because nothing really exciting happens until the very end, yet the whole experience is a thrill to watch. The promised finale lasts under five minutes, yet it is as spectacular and horrifying today as it was in 1976. The slow buildup is a perfect display of Hitchcockian tension. This is a subtlety that most horror movies today are devoid of, and I fear that a modern update of “Carrie” would be substitute real scares for extra buckets of blood. And not just pig’s blood.

However, there is one saving grace to the “Carrie” remake. Chloe Moretz, better known as Hit-Girl from “Kick-Ass,” has signed to take Sissy Spacek’s place as “Carrie.” Now, Moretz is not quite Sissy Spacek yet but then again, neither was Sissy Spacek when she took this role. Moretz can play a hard-edged teen, but can she bring Spacek’s creepiness and vulnerability back? Also, the movie will be directed by Kimberly Peirce, who directed “Boys Don’t Cry.” I have yet to see “Boys Don’t Cry,” but some extra female perspective for this story could be interesting.

Either way, I’m standing by the original. And unless Peirce really screws up, there is no way this could be as bad as the Broadway musical. Discounting the fact that this story should never be a musical, it was apparently terrible.

Read more about the remake here.

Movie Review: The A-Team

Leave a reply

I hate the existence question. This is when a critic ponders why the movie being reviewed even exists. Every movie has a purpose, whether it is to entertain, provoke thought, or simply steal your money. However, when it comes to remakes of old TV shows, I feel it is totally appropriate to ask, “why must this exist?”

For proof of this, I turn to “The A-Team.” No reason, really. Studio must’ve needed a script quickly and didn’t feel like coming up with a new idea. This movie is a result of Hollywood’s continued lack of ingenuity.
“The A-Team” reminded me a lot of those times when you walk up to a group of kids and one of them says some weird word. Once everyone starts laughing you say, “what’s so funny?” Then, some kid responds by saying “inside joke.” You feel uncomfortable not understanding what is going on and even more annoyed that some joke is so important that it can’t be shared with the rest of the world.
This leads us to the film’s opening. Even though it introduces every single character, there still seems to be something lacking from the backstory. The only way to truly understand what is going on is to have seen the 80s TV series. But who has time for that?
Anyway, our film begins somewhere around the American-Mexican border. While under some intense kidnapping conditions, we meet the team. There’s the cigar smoking Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson), the wily Lt. Peck (Bradley Cooper), mentally disturbed Murdock (Sharlto Copley), and conflicted killer B.A. Baracus (Quinton ‘Rampage’ Jackson).
That whole opening scene becomes pretty much pointless, as the film suddenly transitions eight years later from Mexico to Iraq (I guess director Joe Carnahan thought it went better, since both places have sand). Despite so many successful missions, nobody in the military trusts the A-Team because, hey, this is a Hollywood action film. The team is sent on a covert mission to stop some bad business involving counterfeiting Iraqi money. They are setup for murdering a general and wrongfully imprisoned. The rest of the film is them proving their innocence and finding the real bad guys.
What follows is a fairly ridiculous assault on the brain. If the explosions don’t get you, then the extremely twisted (and not in a good way) story lines will. “The A-Team” wants to be a film that relies on twists for good storytelling. The only problem is that it relies on many rather than a few. Sometimes, they occur so closely together that they get tangled. Other times, they just seem to have no reason to be there, except to be really annoying.
Not only does it try to handle so many twists, but it also tries to tackle so many stories. It wants to be both a continuation of the show and an origin story. I can’t speak for how it made fans feel, but all I can say for people new to this story is that it left us in the dark. Should this film even be taken as a serious drama, or a comedy?
At this point, I shouldn’t really expect much story. However, I do expect some production value. While the film certainly looked like it had a budget, it doesn’t look like much of it was used wisely. The film opts for the typical, shaky-cam shot action sequences. Why do action directors love shaky-cam? It creates more nausea than thrills. Have we become so A.D.D. that even a shot that lasts more than two seconds feels long?
Most of the action feels like video game violence. Everything else is so poorly edited that it often feels more like an extended trailer than a feature length film. It just puts “A-Team” into part of this horrible trend of mainstream movies that seem to be marketing products and sequels over actual stories.
What continues to annoy me about the film is some of its underlying smugness. That’s probably because of Carnahan, who also directed “Smokin’ Aces.” “Smokin’ Aces” did Tarantino much worse than it actually thought. Likewise, “A-Team” does corny 80s action much worse than it thinks.
Despite this litany of problems, the film manages to find a few bright spots in the ensemble. Neeson and Cooper just seem to be playing Neeson and Cooper. While it’s hard to ever complain about Neeson’s acting, it’s time for Cooper to find a new character. But it was the other half of the team that was most engaging. This is only Copley’s second performance, but he already knows what kind of an actor he wants to be. He brought to Murdock the same dimwitted charm that made Wikus both so likable and hatable in “District 9.” Jackson does a great job playing Mr. T about as well as Mr. T ever could. His character is also the closest the film comes to creating a sort of satire of a certain archetype.
What “The A-Team” ultimately represents is a death of creativity in Hollywood. It also shows that the moviegoing audience has suddenly lost interest in good ideas. Why couldn’t the inspired take on 80s action in “MacGruber” take hold but the uninspired mess based on an 80s TV show could? For those looking for just a good throwaway experience, this is your movie. For those wanting action with a little more watchability, “Inception” is just a few weeks away.

The Coen Brothers & The Dude Reunite: Yay(?)

Leave a reply

Normally, I’d be jumping for absolute joy when hearing that The Coen Brothers and Jeff “The Dude” Bridges will be making their first movie together since “The Big Lebowski.”

Great start, right? Well of course, there’s two sides to everything. Variety reports that it will be a remake of the 1969 John Wayne Western “True Grit.” Unfortunately, I can’t provide much detailed analysis of “True Grit” because I haven’t seen it yet. What I do know is that it’s about a drunken U.S. Marshal who helps a 14-year-old girl find her father’s murderer. Also, this film earned Wayne the first and only Oscar of his career (likely to make up for snubbing his performance in “The Searchers”).
Now, I pretty much always express outrage when Hollywood decides to remake classics. While someone had the decency to kill that “Rosemary’s Baby” remake, that proposed “Bonnie & Clyde” remake has yet to be shot down. And while I’m not surprised that someone like Michael Bay (who was on board for the “Baby” remake) would try and ruin a classic, I would never expect it from the Joel and Ethan Coen, who have come up with some of the most amazingly original stories of the past 30 years.
There isn’t really much good to remakes, but some people do defend them. Often, they can be good, but that’s in the rare circumstance where the director takes the old film and puts a new spin to it that’s entertaining and unique. Perhaps the Coen Brothers are just the people to do that. It already seems that they’re planning on telling the story from the girl’s perspective (apparently in the original, the story is told from the perspective of Wayne). Not only that, but the Coen Brothers shoot most of their best films west of the Mississippi. Adding their unique eye to regional accents and mannerisms probably couldn’t hurt the film either. They can also shoot a pretty good shootout, too.
So, take this project as you will. While I know the Coen Brothers are capable of inventing their own stories, I’ll still probably line up for anything with the names Coen and Bridges on it.
I couldn’t think of a good “Lebowski” quote to randomly incorporate into the article, so this clip is just about as good: