Some Thoughts on the Latest Remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers

When it was announced this past week that Warner Bros. will be producing another remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the fourth to date) it reminded me none of these remakes are sequels to Don Siegel's 1956 original (all these films are based on Jack Finney's 1955 novel Body Snatchers) or Philip Kaufman's 1978 version. This makes this series of films singular in the annals of horror. However, I find it apt there's never been an Body Snatchers sequel. There's something absolute about its premise, making it difficult to move beyond the initial concept- aliens who can replicate human bodies and plan to take over the planet. 

Whenever this story is retold the body snatchers are always a metaphor for the fears of the time, whether it be the red scare and McCarthyism or post-Watergate paranoia; every era offers an analogy. There's also something timelessly terrifying about this premise; You the know the person you love isn't the same but the changes are subtle, which is more unsettling. What if we had our humanity completely taken away? For me, Kaufman's film is one of the bleakest horror films ever made. It's ending captures has a hopeless dread that reverberates to this day.

I haven't seen the last remake- 2007's The Invasion, directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel- so I can't comment on that film but I admire how each of these films' directors have a distinct take on this story. When Abel Ferrara did his version in 1993, it was set on an army base rather than in small town or city- the previous versions' settings. The new version will be written by David Leslie Johnson, who wrote The Conjuring 2. I liked that film despite it being slightly overlong. Producer John Davis (1987's Predator) is also on board. I'm curious to see who will direct. I'd like to see Duncan Jones get a shot, whose Moon and Source Code are two of the better sci-fi films of the last decade. I'd like to see what Patty Jenkins could do with the material; I think Wonder Woman is among the strongest recent superhero films both in theme and character. Jenkins can absolutely make an intelligent and emotional genre film.

So, what do you think of another Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake? And who would you like to direct?

 

Thoughts on The "Stargate" and "Cliffhanger" Reboots

Yesterday it was announced that director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, White House Down) and former producing partner Dean Devlin were set to make a new Stargate film for MGM, based on the 1994 film of the same name that Emmerich and Devlin co-wrote, and which Emmerich directed. The film is said to be the first film in a proposed new trilogy. The original Stargate starred Kurt Russell and James Spader. In the film a interstellar teleportation device is found in Egypt and opens a portal between Earth and an alien planet. The film also spawned several spinoff TV shows. It's still not certain whether Russell or Spader will reprise their roles or if this new film will ignore the continuity of the TV shows.

Also announced yesterday was a remake of Cliffhanger, a 1993 Sylvester Stallone film in which he played Gabe Walker, a mountain climber/rescue ranger who, a year later after a personal tragedy, finds himself in the Rocky Mountains, embroiled in a failed heist involving John Lithgow's Eric Qualen. Studio Canal and producer Neil Moritz had been planning a remake for several years and it's now moving forward. The screenwriter is Joe Gazzam, who reportedly impressed studio execs with his ideas for a remake.

News that both the Stargate franchise and Cliffhanger were getting re-launches in the same day brings up the familiar questions and concerns about Hollywood's lack of originality and its obsession with remaking, rebooting or reimagining any property with some kind of name recognition. I'm not vehemently against the idea of remakes. Originality can come from anywhere, even if it stems from an existing property. It can also be exciting to see a new interpretation of a franchise or film. But it's hard not feel burned out on the whole notion of remakes. For every John Carpenter's The Thing or David Cronenberg's The Fly, there's recent remakes like Kimberly Pierce's Carrie and Spike Lee's Oldboy. Though both remakes did have some new wrinkles, they felt mostly visionless despite the talent involved . 

Stargate feels like a more traditional franchise re-launch. The Cliffhanger remake has a bigger question mark looming over it. Some films feel more suited to being remade due to being classics but Cliffhanger isn't a film that has much iconography to it. Among Stallone's filmography it's not Rambo: First Blood or Rocky. It's plot is very basic and it mostly relies on Stallone's star power to carry the story.

Cliffhanger also feels very much like a product of its time. It's a very 90s film and was essentially part of the "Die Hard on a...." subgenre that sprang from Die Hard's success, with Cliffhanger being Die Hard on a mountain. While I'm all for throwbacks to 70s/80s/90s style action films, thematically Cliffhanger doesn't feel like it has much relevance to our time. Though that's what makes the idea of remaking the film intriguing. How do you make a Cliffhanger that means something to the modern world? I'm interested to find out.

Regarding these two revivals, we also have to consider the nostalgia factor. Hollywood is banking on people's fondness for these properties. This makes sense because I don't believe either Stargate or Cliffhanger are regarded as stone-cold classics. I've never seen Stargate or its TV spinoffs so I don't have any personal connection to the franchise. I do remember watching Cliffhanger when I was younger (probably too young to be watching it). It's telling that both Stargate and Cliffhanger are 90s properties. We've no gotten to the point where stuff from 90s carries nostalgic weight for my generation. Relying too much on nostalgia, however, is a risky gamble for both projects, especially with MGM already thinking "trilogy" for Stargate.  Even with Stargate already have been an ongoing franchise there's no guarantee the film will be a hit. Cliffhanger may be a one-off but the studio is likely hoping there's potential for a franchise. But despite having a recognizable title due to Stallone, Cliffhanger isn't one of his classic films and it's not the first in an iconic franchise.

As always there's potential for both these projects. The question is if either will be worth the money and time spent on them. A new Stargate could reignite the franchise like JJ Abrams' Star Trek did with that franchise. And the Cliffhanger remake could be a solid and exciting action picture. The complaints of too many remakes and reboots will remain but ideally these two ventures will be counted among the more successful of its kind.    

 

"Evil Dead" Review

I've been a little behind lately in regards to writing here, so I'm going to try to get back on track. I'm going to make my return on writing out my thoughts on the new The Evil Dead remake, which I saw on opening day. Evil Dead does what a good remake should do, which is take the basic components of the original- in this case a an abandoned cabin, five college students and a book that unleashes demons which possess those around them- and finds a new angle from which to approach it. The original The Evil Dead launched the career of director Sam Raimi, who would go on to direct of the biggest Super hero films of the the last decade with the Spider-Man Trilogy, and part of The Evil Dead's success was the personality that Raimi injected in to the film. While I'm not ready to call this new film's director, Fede Alvarez, the next Sam Raimi, he brings his own sense of style and tone to this film, never falling in to the trap of trying too hard to be Raimi. The new film is raw and brutal- don't go in expecting the slapstick humour of The Evil Dead's two sequels, Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness. It's more in line with the straightforward, go for the throat approach of the original. But even saying that undersells the gruesomeness and near humourlessness of this new film, which makes the gore of the original film seem tame by comparison. This film is definitely not for the faint of heart, but it gets the job done and I think it offers Evil Dead fans what they want in an update of the classic original.

The film focuses on the character of Mia (Jane Levy), whose four friends, Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci), Olivia (Jessica Lucas), Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore), and Mia's brother David (Shiloh Fernandez) take Mia to an abandoned cabin in the woods in order to put her through drug detox. And of course, Eric finds and reads from the a book in the basement, unleashing human possessing demons, one which attaches itself to Mia. All that fun stuff. I liked the drug detox take on the cabin in the woods setup since in other cabin movies, including the original film, the reason the main characters come to the cabin is to have a party. Here, the film establishes a dark reality that's present even before the really horrific stuff begins to happen. Combining the supernatural horror with the real life horror of a drug addict going cold turkey, while it can be argued makes the film one note, for me, raised the tension quite a bit.

I also think it makes Mia's possession a metaphorical representation of her drug withdrawal. This is emphasized verbally when at first the others think Mia is going through a panic attack. She burns herself in the shower (the demons get off on inflicting pain on themseves in this version) and they think it's her way of getting them to take her away from the cabin. Like The Exorcist this is a film where people try to rationalize the horrific things happening, even though the situation reaches a point where no rational explanation can suffice.  

Levy gives a real star making performace in this film. Levy, most known for her work on the sitcom Suburgatory, gives a much darker performance here, convincingly playing a young woman who has reached the point where she can't survive without drugs, an unadulterated evil demon, and finally a woman who becomes a real badass in the face of evil. I was surprised that the film did strive for dramatic weight regarding Mia's situation and her relationship with David.  That's why I wish there was little more development for the characters- the film seems to be leaning towards fleshing these people out but doesn't go all the way. In regards to the other females, Olivia and Natalie, they seem underwritten. I liked Eric but he also felt he needed a little more focus. Mia and David definitely feel like they're the heart of the film. I also admit that despite wanting a little more development for the other characters, I did feel for them during some crucial moments.

I like the look of the cabin in this film. It's not inviting at all, which is apporpriate for the tone the filmmakers are going for. I feel in other cabin based horror films, the cabin isn't dingy enough. Here you really feel the creakiness, dampness and death within the cabin d I also admire Alvarez's staging of the set pieces. He's not afraid to dwell on the grisly details. Some may say Alvarez is overcompensating by making the film so gory but I think that when updating a film like The Evil Dead, you have to go big or go home. I also feel that the extreme use of gore makes the situation all the more nightmarish, as well as making you sympathethic to what these people are going through,

The film ends with an obligatory hint that things aren't over yet. This is to be expected in a film like this but I actually am looking forward to seeing where this new line of films is going, as well as if it's secretly part of the original Evil Dead universe. There's been talk of Raimi and Evil Dead Trilogy star Bruce Campbell doing another Evil Dead film, with Cmpbell's character of Ash makng his way in to the new series of films. I don't know if the Ash persona can fit with the new tone of this series- but hey, if they could find some way of reintroducing Ash, it'd be pretty groovy.  


PS: Here's a link to my audio review of the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_ZWhfj_RA and a retrospective I did on the original trilogy for Scene Creek: http://scenecreek.com/features/retrospective-a-look-back-at-the-evil-dead-trilogy/

Girl, You'll be a Woman, Soon: "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"

Mild Spoilers Ahead

So, I was finally able to catch up with David Fincher's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.  Overall, I enjoyed the film, and thought screenwriter Steven Zaillian did a an excellent job of condensing the first novel in the late Steig Larsson's "Millenium" trilogy. I liked the novel but found it was really dense with exposition and characters. Zaillian doesn't waste too much time setting up Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) as a disgraced journallist and Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) as a, to put it mildy, socially awkward computer hacker. The screenplay also acknowledges how difficult it is to to keep track of the Vanger family tree.

I loved the casting of Rooney Mara as Lisbeth. I think it's very funny that Mara has essentially switched roles with Jesse Eisenberg. In The Social Network, she was Erica Albright, the innocent, well adjusted girlfriend to Eisenberg's Mark Zuckerberg, the socially retarded computer genius. In this film, while she's giving a very different performance than Eisenberg's, it's now her turn to play the socially retarded, emotionally aloof computer genius.  It's a remarkable transformation from the girl next door she played in The Social Network.

In a role that could be regarded as this generation's Scarlett O'Hara, Mara creates a woman both vulnerable yet capable of vicious cruelty, as when she is raped by he new guardian Nils Bjurman (Yorick van Wagenheim). It's a crucial turning point for the character and our impression of her. Even though Bjurman is a vile man, I couldn't help but be frightened by her when she takes her revenge.She never loses our sympathy though....or our interest. Lisbeth is the best kind of cypher, one which we don't know everything about but are given enough to fascinate us.

In a movie like this, you really need a rock, a character who can guide you through the dark, lurid elements of the story. Daniel Craig. In a movie with Lisbeth as a main character and a family with former nazis and a serial killer, you need someone at least moderately well adjusted to cling to. People seem dismiss movie-stardom nowadays but I think Blomkvist may be a role that, in a Hollywood film at least, needs a familar and powerful presence. Craig fits that mold but like Humphrey Bogart, he has a kind of world weariness that makes him believably human. It's these qualities that I think made Craig a great James Bond and make him an asset here.

While Fincher's films are very character driven, the characters' development over the films are usually interwined with some kind of plot device: the grisly murders in Se7en, the "game" in The Game, and the search for the Zodiac killer in Zodiac.  Like Zodiac, which I think is Fincher's masterpiece, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is about the process of investigation and also the obession a unsolved case can have on the human soul. Blomkvist hears from an elderly policeman that every officer has his "Rebekah Case," named after a policeman who never solved a murder of a girl named Rebekah. This story brings to mind the police officers and journalists in Zodiac. But it's Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), still looking for neice Harriet after 40 years, who shows us a life consumed with trying to find an answer.  Unlike Zodiac, this film does have an answer and an eventual emotional catharsis for Vanger- and it's probably the most emotional resonant moment in the whole movie.

I think the big issue in this movie is that the eventual reveal of the serial killer and how it relates to Harriet's disapperance feels like just another story beat. It's an intense sequence, don't get me wrong, but we never get a sense of its implications or how it affects Henrik. I think we also could have gotten a better sense of the backstory of the killer, why he does what he does, and his relationship to Harriet. I think all this came across better in the novel.

Fincher's direction, as always, is precise, controlled, and methodical, well suited to a story all about the details of an investigation- but I'm wondering if Fincher's direction is almost too controlled. Fincher clearly knows how he wants to make this movie but I don't know if he's taking any risks in his direction. I wonder what an up and comer, trying to make his or her mark, would have done with this material. Still, I don't want to undersell how exceptionally well directed this film is- and in Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig, Fincher has found a really exciting screen couple.