Dear Hollywood: Reboot Your Attitude

This morning, I awoke to the news that there is currently a bidding war for the rights to Train To Busan (2016), the intention being that James Wan wants to produce a remake. I, for one, hate this idea.

Train To Busan is barely two years old and, in my eyes, completely fine as it is. It was a tremendous success for Korean cinema and undoubtedly a thoroughly entertaining film in its own right. The only reason they are trying to buy the rights is to piggyback off director Yeon Sang-ho's success and make more money for an idea that's already been executed well.

Remakes are problematic, in many senses of the word. I admittedly have a strong disdain for them, purely because most remakes that are put out into the world in recent years are unnecessary and reflect badly on the original material.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

For example, when A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) was announced a few years ago, I knew a lot of people who were excited for it. I was biased and hated the entire concept of the franchise being rebooted because I have such fond memories of watching the original films as a kid and, to me, no one else was worthy of playing the iconic antagonist, Freddy Krueger.

Lo and behold, I was right: post-release, the film received a lot of negative feedback from both critics and fans alike. While I cannot deny Jackie Earle Haley's talent as an actor, something he most definitely proved in Watchmen (2009), he just couldn't fill Robert Englund's shoes effectively. But I digress. If anything, the director and visionaries behind that film are to blame, not the actors hired.

It leads me to question whether Hollywood are aware of the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". In many of these examples, from The Thing (2011) to Godzilla (1998), it seems to me that the people behind the scenes think that new-age technology and advancements in CGI make up for what they lack in original concept or writing. One of the main selling points of the Nightmare remake was that they had made Freddy Krueger look like a real burn victim and demonised his character further by writing him to be a blatant child rapist.

Yes, the franchise is a horror and yes, Freddy Krueger's character isn't supposed to be redeemable, but at least the original was both terrifying and amusing at the same time. Haley's portrayal of Krueger was downright disgusting and unpleasant to watch, and not in the fun way that you'd expect from watching a horror film.

Alice in Wonderland (2010)

On the flip-side, CGI can be used effectively to bring a concept into the modern day and even improve upon a concept that's already been done.

For example, whilst I wouldn't say it's my favourite film ever, I thoroughly enjoyed Alice in Wonderland (2010), a remake of the 1951 Disney animated feature. The special effects used to enlarge Helena Bonham Carter's head, elongate Crispin Glover's body or even transform Matt Lucas into two, incredibly chubby twins were cartoonish and slightly disturbing, stereotypical of auteur Tim Burton's films but also a truly accurate homage to both the original film's unique eccentricities and Lewis Carroll's book. 

In some cases, an updated version of a film can be just as iconic as it's predecessor. It (2017) quickly became popular for its new depiction of the classic villain Pennywise, originally played by Tim Curry and now donned by brilliantly talented Bill Skarsgård. Pennywise will always be known for the red hair, the white gloves and Tim Curry's unnerving smile but now we can recognise him to be freakishly tall with blazing, orange hair and eyes that move in different directions. This newer version will be thought of fondly, in retrospect, as are most villains (e.g. Leatherface, Ghostface, Jason Voorhees etc.)

Ex Machina (2015)

However, when it comes down to it, there are too many remakes being churned out of Hollywood, like overly-tenderised meat through a grinder: so much of the film's original flair is lost through cheap tactics (such as jump scares, CGI or lazy writing) and becomes disappointing. It seems ridiculous to me that Hollywood allocates money to these projects and not ones that are more original concepts, such as Get Out (2017) or The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016).

For me, the front-runners of genuinely exceptional and well-executed films right now are A24, an independent film company that have produced films already considered culturally iconic in cinema, such as Under the Skin (2013), Ex Machina (2015), Lady Bird (2017) and Hereditary (2018). These films are deemed successful due to their content, not their budget, and that's the big difference.

If Hollywood continues to churn out garbage, then I fear people will become accustomed to it, unable to truly appreciate original work when it finally gets its chance to shine. There is nothing wrong with a remake...as long as it's done well. And I can't say that it's the case for most remakes I've seen in recent years.

- K

Film Reviews: See Evil, Hear Evil, Speak Evil [Don't Breathe, 2016]

Don't Breathe (2016)

[Reader disclaimer: there will be some spoilers discussed. This piece may also contains material of a mature/graphic/sensitive nature].

It's safe to say that I'm not particularly fond of modern horror films: I think that's pretty clear from my opinions on social media and on this blog. So, when I was recommended Don't Breathe (2016), I was sceptical. How do I know that this won't just be another 90 minutes of unnecessary jump-scares, poorly-lit or overly saturated shots because it's "trendy" or a skimpy blonde running through the dark, screaming her silly, little head off? 

I'm pleased to say it wasn't that but I can't say that there was much more to it. As my flatmate put it afterwards, "it didn't get any worse, it just never got any better".

Don't Breathe, directed by Fede Alvarez, follows three, young burglars breaking into a war veteran's house to steal his settlement money, a fortune that he acquired after the death of his daughter by the hand's of a rich, entitled woman named Cindy (whose family paid him off). He is also blind, so a seemingly easy target for burglary.

I will say that the opening shot to this film immediately grabbed me: we are introduced through a drone shot of a long, desolate road and it pans down to show a man dragging a seemingly dead (or at least badly wounded and unconscious) woman. There is no diegetic sound, only the gradual increase of suspenseful music. It's a great introduction to a film because we are already on the edge of our seats, questioning the motives of the male character, intrigued by the unconscious one. 

However, when you look at Don't Breathe under a magnifying glass (and trust me, you don't have to look hard), it's a painfully simplistic film. The premise itself is pretty vanilla but when you consider all of the factors that make this film the way it is, it's also borderline lazy in places. 

The first thing that instantly bothered me was that there are so many extreme close-ups of objects e.g. a shard of glass, a hammer, a remote control, which are blatant signifiers for foreshadowing. It's a director's job to direct the audience, of course, but in this writer's opinion it should be more a gentle persuasion than clumsily yanking you by the wrist and shouting "look at this thing, it will be important later!" It's almost condescending, in a way. 

Perhaps this is due to the fact that I watch horror films on a regular basis, and therefore can identify signifiers earlier than most people, but I digress. 

The second thing, something that always rubs me up the wrong way, is jump-scares. When done properly, they are effective: Hereditary (2018) and Gerald's Game (2017) are clear, modern examples of such. But I couldn't help but feel that, for the entire duration of this film, the scares are a little obvious and generic, slapping them in places where you'll always expect them to be. This typical method usually drags me away from the world that the film is trying to establish and ends up boring me. 

I will give credit to Stephen Lang's performance as the 'Blind Man', though. His character was unnerving and every time he was in a scene, everything felt incredibly intense and he managed to build suspense by just staring at other characters with his clouded, unsettling eyes. It takes a truly dedicated actor to pull off a performance like that with very little dialogue to work with and I commend him for it.

However, Lang's performance barely makes up for the rest of the film. The misdirection, the forcibly expositional dialogue, even the plot twist (which I would honestly not even consider a twist as much as it's just a disturbing addition to an already uneventful plot) ended up falling flat for me. 

The inclusion of Rocky's character (played by Jane Levy), in retrospect, also feels insanely artificial and cliche: she is the only character who is given an explicit backstory, and even then we know that's because she is marked to be the 'final girl', and therefore the only character likely to survive. Because we are not given backstories for either of the other burglars, their deaths feel inconsequential and unimportant as a result. 

All in all, I feel as though Don't Breathe tiptoes along the divide of mediocrity and a decent watch. I'm left feeling frustrated, because I feel if they had pushed the boat out a little more, it could've been a genuinely awesome horror flick but it just never got there, falling short of its own potential.

If you liked this film, I'd also recommend the following:

• See No Evil (1971)
• Panic Room (2002)
• The Strangers (2008)
• You're Next (2011)
• Hush (2016)

Overall rating: 6/10

- K