|
|
Ron Miller's DARK CORRIDORS VOL. 8, No. 38 |
|
REMAKES THAT WORKED |
 Naomi Watts with digital Kong from Peter Jackson's 2005 "King Kong," one of the all-time best remakes. |
Finding the right formula
for a remake isn't easy
By RON MILLER
of TheColumnists.com
When Hammer Films of England began to remake the classic Universal "Golden Age" monster movies in the 1950s, it was readily apparent it was going to be like walking a tightrope over a crocodile pit.
The first of the remakes was "The Curse of Frankenstein" in 1957, starring Peter Cushing as Dr. Frankenstein and Christopher Lee as The Monster he makes from the parts of dead bodies. It was a box office success, launching Hammer on a new course in the horror genre and the two actors as a new team of deadly adversaries.
But it was a disappointment to many fans who had longed to see a new series of tales about Dr. Frankenstein and his Monster. For one thing, Lee's Monster was a shambling, mishapen hulk with grotesquely scarred features. He didn't remotely resemble the established "look" of the Frankenstein Monster with its flat-topped head and "bolts" in the neck for attachment of electrical power lines. Worse yet, under his nauseating makeup, Lee wasn't able to do much acting--at least not the sort of acting done by the legendary Boris Karloff in the 1931 original.
There was a practical reason why Hammer's Monster didn't resemble Universal's classic version: Universal wasn't releasing "The Curse of Frankenstein" and had a patent on the square-headed Frankenstein look. (Hammer finally used it in "The Evil of Frankenstein," which Universal did release.)
The remake concentrated much more on Dr. Frankenstein (Cushing) than on the Monster, which spoiled the show for many fans. Later, the series followed Dr. Frankenstein from village to village as he created a long series of undistinguished monsters. The series needed a strong monster actor with personality. That's what kept the Universal series going through eight films between 1931-48. Karloff, Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney Jr. each played the monster until former stunt man Glenn Strange took over the part in "The House of Frankenstein" in 1944.
Speaking of "The House of Frankenstein," that was one of the first all-star monster movies from Universal, featuring Dracula (John Carradine), The Wolf Man (Lon Chaney, Jr.), Frankenstein's Monster (Glenn Strange), the Mad Doctor (Boris Karloff) and The Hunchback (J. Carrol Naish). NBC remade it as a TV miniseries half a century later, resulting in one of the most laughably awful TV horror shows ever. It was also a ratings disaster.
Hammer's 1959 remake of the 1932 Universal classic called "The Mummy" really was more a remake of "The Mummy's Hand," a 1940 film Universal used to re-imagine the 1932 film with a new living mummy character called Kharis, played in the first film by western star Tom Tyler, but in the remaining three films of the series by Lon Chaney, Jr. In the original 1932 film, the mummy (Boris Karloff) returned to life when one of the archeologists who discovered its tomb read aloud the incantations from a sacred scroll. After strangling the interloper, the mummy strides away, then reappears as an unwrapped, slightly wrinkled old chap in a fez, played again by Karloff.
In Hammer's "The Mummy," Christopher Lee is kept alive for 3,000 years by members of a cult who finally revive him to use as a weapon of vengeance against the infidels. Though blessed with color, a wide screen and modern special effects, the Hammer "Mummy" never became a really viable new series and Lee never went near the role again.
Stephen Sommers' much later "Mummy" films from Universal--"The Mummy" (1999) and "The Mummy Returns" (2001)--were box office performers, but overdid the special effects wizardry to the nth degree and never really made the monster character personal enough for anyone to care about. Though they used the name Im-Ho-Tep from the 1932 original, they, too, owed more to the serial-like storylines of the later Kharis mummy series from Universal.
Universal itself remade its greatest silent movie classic, the 1925 "Phantom of the Opera," in 1943 with Claude Rains in the role created by Lon Chaney, Sr. This version is beautifully filmed in color, has the services of a great actor in Rains and the benefit of sound, which allowed them to cast Susanna Foster and Nelson Eddy, two players with magnificent operatic voices,, something we never heard in the 1925 silent version.
But nobody claims the horror level of the 1943 remake was anywhere near the 1925 version, especially in the "unmasking" sequence, still a reliable shocker when Mary Philbin rips off the mask of Chaney, revealing his horribly scarred remains of a face. Rains had a sissy scar by horror movie standards.
The 1962 "Phantom" remake by Hammer Films--with Herbert Lom in the title role--falls below either of the earlier versions in either scare points or all-around entertainment value. Several other remakes have followed, without creating any mass of admirers, including even the elaborate 2004 version based on the Andrew Lloyd Webber stage musical, which has only one real asset: The beautiful, radiant Emily Rossum as Christine, the phantom's "protege."
The very best of Universal's Frankenstein series was "The Bride of Frankenstein" in 1935, featuring bravura performances by Karloff as The Monster, Colin Clive as Dr. Frankenstein and Elsa Lanchester as the monster's repulsive man-made "bride." This was a highly inventive sequel, far better than the original, and was brilliantly directed by James Whale with a magnificent musical score by Franz Waxman.
But it was reduced to rubble when director Franc Roddam remade it as "The Bride" in 1985 with a daringly bold attempt to be as stylishly inventive as Whale was half a century earlier. Roddam cast rock singer Sting as Dr. Frankenstein and Jennifer Beals, fresh from the starring role in "Flashdance," as The Bride.
Beals wasn't the stitched-up, bird-like monstrosity Lanchester was--which always made me fully understand why Karloff's Monster decided to blow himself, his bride and everybody else in the laboratory to pieces rather than take her on a honeymoon, saying, "We belong dead!" (Her reaction was pretty similar--a prolonged screech at first sight of him!) In fact, Beals was long, tall and sublimely naked much of the time. She was the hot-looking monster even Warren Beatty might date.
As for The Monster himself, Roddam cast hunky Clancy Brown in the role and gave him a dwarf sidekick, played by the late David Rappaport. Considering the Monster's bad vibes about dwarves in most of the Universal movies, it was rather revolutionary to see this one befriend the Monster and become his mentor as they stalked around the countryside, waiting for Sting to whip up a bride for the big guy.
Though I found myself liking "The Bride" here and there, it had nothing like the juice of the original 1935 classic.
Some other remakes of classics that really tanked: "Island of Dr. Moreau," the 1977 remake of "Island of Lost Souls" (1933) with Burt Lancaster trying, unsuccessfully, to top the twisted performance of Charles Laughton in the original; "King Kong," the absolutely dreadful 1976 remake of the 1933 classic, this time with future Oscar-winner Jessica Lange in the paw of a giant gorilla played by an actor in an ape suit; "Godzilla," the 1998 re-imagining of the 1954 Japanese monster movie, which had its moments, thanks to modern special effects, but totally trashed the original concept of the fire-breathing mythological lizard from Tokyo Bay; "The Thing," John Carpenter's 1982 attempt to be faithful to the original short novel rather than the terrifying 1951 classic film "The Thing From Another World," resulting in zero thrills and a hodgepodge of gooey special effects.
I should point out that I'm not opposed to all remakes--as some purists definitely are. I think sometimes a horror film works perfectly for its era, but doesn't have the same impact in a different era where the audience has been primed to expect something different.
For example, a remake of Fritz Lang's 1926 silent classic "Metropolis" could not possibly work today. We're past the future Lang's film predicted and the world has pretty much rejected totalitarian regimes where "have nots" work as slaves in an underground world. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia may have wanted to go there, but they were overthrown. The idea is out of vogue.
By the same token, the original "Frankenstein," "Dracula" and "The Wolf Man" all play like fairy tales today. To do them as they were originally done would be a big mistake. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy those originals a great deal--if we see them as representatives samples of their cultural era.
A good remake should respect the original material while searching for new relevancy in its themes or issues that relate to today's moviegoers. Otherwise, why call it a remake? Why not just come up with a modern story with a similar theme? An ideal way to do a remake is to forge strong links to the original film for older viewers to appreciate and enjoy while tailoring the film overall to today's audience with both content, setting and technical effects.
Here are some remakes of classic horror films that I think did it right:
1. THE HORROR OF DRACULA (1958) This remake
of the 1931 Universal
"Dracula" by Hammer Films was lively, exciting and
bold, introducing Christopher Lee as Count Dracula, the vampire,
and Peter Cushing as his human nemesis, Prof. Van Helsing. The
original, atmospherically directed by Tod Browning, was a filmed
stage play, capturing Bela Lugosi's Broadway performance as Dracula,
but otherwise coming over as a rather stiff and slow drama. Lugosi,
an authentic Eastern European, remains the ultimate Dracula,
but Lee's sexy, bloodlusting count was just what the character
needed to satisfy younger moviegoers in a new era when sexual
candor was in vogue and the censors would permit the free flow
of blood in bright color.
2. KING KONG (2005) Peter Jackson's whopping remake of the 1933 classic about a giant ape brought to New York to be put on exhibit is the ideal example of a modern remake. Jackson wisely kept the storyline in the 1933 time period when a giant ape on the loose in Manhattan wouldn't need to face guided missiles, jet planes, anti-tank guns and anything but some gnat-like bi-planes and their machine guns. Jackson re-created the Depression Era with gusto and today's smoothly modern digital technology made his prehistoric monsters in the Skull Island scenes truly terrifying and his giant Kong a credible, sympathetic character all the way. Gosh, he even made a sort of love affair between sexy blonde Naomi Watts and Kong poignant rather than ridiculous.
3. THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1939) was RKO's remake of the Victor Hugo classic first made by Universal with Lon Chaney Sr. as a silent in 1923. This version was respectful of the original and boasted a sensitive performance by Charles Laughton as Quasimodo and a glorious turn by young Maureen O'Hara as his Esmerealda. One can look at both films today and see distinct advantages to each. They co-exist as the best two versions of the classic tale of a grotesque, but good-hearted man who defied his civilization to protect his beloved Esmeralda.
4. HOUSE OF WAX (1953) was a remake of Warner Bros.' 1933 "Mystery of the Wax Museum," which starred Lionel Atwill as the horribly scarred proprietor of a wax museum whose latest "sculptures" were really women he killed, then covered in hot wax. The remake made a horror star of Vincent Price in the Atwill role. The original was one of the few two-color Technicolor films of the early 1930s and still holds up well, except for some incredibly stupid comic relief. The remake was the most popular of all 3-D films, done in the boom period when the Natural Vision two-projector 3-D system helped the movies fight back against television by giving moviegoers something they couldn't see on the tube. Directed by Andre De Toth, a one-eyed man who couldn't see the 3-D effects he created, "House of Wax," if you can see it in 3-D, remains a stirring horror film and a dazzling example of a remake.
5. INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1978) was the first remake of the 1956 film made by Don Siegel for low budget house Allied Artists. The original film was not a big hit in its day, but became an iconic horror film because of its thematic notion that humans could be replaced by alien life forms that mimiced them so exactly that nobody could identify them as clones until it was too late. Grown in "pods" in the basements of suburban homes, these "pod people" had a scary McCarthy Era sub-text that really resonated with 1950s film critics. Phil Kaufman's very tense remake, adding color and more disturbing special effects, linked itself solidly to the original film, even starting with the 1956 film's hero, played again by Kevin McCarthy, still running down the freeway, trying to warn people of the invasion. The original film featured soon-to-be famous movie director Sam Peckinpah ("The Wild Bunch") in a small role, so the remake cast Siegel, the original film's director, as a player in the remake. This remains a very impressive way to remake an original classic, almost making it play like a sequel. Two other remakes have been tried--the 1994 film called "Body Snatchers" and the current box office flop "Invasion" with Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig.
6. THE FLY (1986) was David Cronenberg's brilliant re-invention of the 1958 classic in which Al Hedison stepped into an experimental atomic teleporter machine, got his atoms mixed up with those of a housefly that accidentally got in with him, and emerged with his head on a fly's tiny body and the fly's head on his regular body. Cronenberg jacked up the horror level considerably with modern FX so that Jeff Goldblum as the evolving fly/man was truly a revolting monster who could scare your pants off tout suite. Cronenberg permitted this harrowing film to go way over the top into slimy gore overkill, especially when Goldblum's screen wife (and then real-life wife) Geena Davis gives birth to a giant fly larva. Yuck!
7. DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1941) was a second sound version of the classic Robert Louis Stevenson story about a physician named Jekyll who develops a serum that will bring out his evil side as a new configuration of his body, a repulsive and murderous scoundrel he calls Mr. Hyde. Fredric March won the Best Actor Oscar in 1932 in the first sound version, a stylish thriller directed by Rouben Mamoulian with March in a grotesque ape-like makeup as Mr. Hyde. Since the story was in public domain, MGM did a remake just nine years later with Spencer Tracy turning into Hyde without use of special makeup. Tracy's performance is incandescent, though he does chew the scenery quite a bit as Mr. Hyde. And this version, directed by Victor Fleming just two years after he did "Gone With the Wind," has two other very spectacular reasons to watch it: Both Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner at the very peak of their beauty as pawns of Jekyll-Hyde. Both versions are now available on the same DVD at a very reasonable price from most online movie merchants.
©2007 by Ron Miller. This column first posted Sept. 3, 2007.
Ron
Miller is a former nationally syndicated television columnist
and the author of "Mystery! A Celebration," the official
companion book to PBS' "Mystery!" series. He currently
writes about television mysteries for MYSTERY SCENE magazine.
You can comment on this column online. Please address your message to either "The Editors" or Ron Miller. To send an email, click here and don't forget to mention Ron's name: talkback@thecolumnists.com
|
|
|
Archives |
|
|