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
No comments:
Post a Comment