Connect with us

News

Remake Double Take: Poltergeist 1982 vs 2015

Published

on

Poltergeist

It seems like every time we turn around, some horror movie is being remade for whatever reason. But are the remakes ever any good? I decided to start Remake Double Take, a series that pits tried and true classics against their remakes. For my first edition, I thought I would review a perfect example of how modern remakes can get it horribly wrong. You may feel differently about the 2015 remake, but personally I think it doesn’t hold a candle to 1982’s Poltergeist.

Poltergeist is one of my favorite movies. I’ll just put that out there. So with the recent and tragic passing of director Tobe Hooper, now seemed like the perfect time to revisit one of his classics. And full disclosure, I hate the remake. I think it’s sloppy, it’s stupid, and frankly it tries way too hard. Now, again, this is all my own opinion, so bear with me here while I explain my arguments.

via Disqus

1982’s Poltergeist opens with a close-up of the TV playing the Star Spangled Banner before cutting to harsh static. The camera follows the family dog to carry us through the quiet house, passing through rooms where everyone is peacefully asleep. It sets up an intimacy with the audience; we feel like we’re an observer in the lives of the family on screen.

Young Carol Anne gets up from bed and creeps downstairs. She is drawn to the TV, having a loud conversation with an unknown entity, which wakes up the family to all come and observe this odd behavior. This is great for two reasons. It shows the family as a unit, presenting a united front, and it allows all characters to see this preliminary interaction so that everyone is an informed participant in the strange events to follow.

via Deep Focus Review

Now, let’s compare with the 2015 remake. We open on a close-up of a violent horror video game, then pan out to see that it’s played by the son while in the car with his family. There’s some banter that’s meant to communicate that they’re a fun, normal family, but it’s just awkward. They arrive at the new house where the kids run off to – I don’t know, be kids I guess – while the parents meet with the real estate agent.

The agent asks the father, Eric (Sam Rockwell, who can do better than this), what he does for a living, he says that he works at (a shameless product placement for) John Deere. The agent praises their tractors (again it’s super awkward) and Eric responds that he “would be very flattered right now if he hadn’t got laid off”.

via Turn The Right Corner

I’m sorry, but what? That’s not how conversations work. You can’t say “I’m dating John, but he dumped me”. See how dumb that sounds? This writer can’t dialogue. The scene is designed to provide the information that this is a move out of necessity due to their economic position, but there’s a much better way to write that.

Anyways, the son, Griffin, wanders through the house and finds the youngest daughter, Madison, talking to her closed closet door. And at 6 minutes and 28 seconds in, we have our first attempted jump scare. Because nothing sets up a scary movie like premature jump scares. Of course, Griffin is the only one who observes this strange exchange, and it’s easily attributed to kids just being weird.

via Minnesota Connected

Which does the film a huge disservice. I understand that they’re trying to slowly sink into the waters of “horror” here, but by wasting so much time with needless exposition and awkward character moments, it completely misses the opportunity to build atmosphere. It just kind of underhand tosses in this “creepy” scene, then does nothing with it until the situation full on explodes several scenes later.

One of the greatest things about the 1982 film is the portrayal of the family. The parents have a wonderful chemistry with each other and with their kids. Steve (Craig T Nelson) and Dianne (JoBeth Williams) end the day be retiring to their bedroom to unwind as a unit, and when shit hits the fan they completely support each other. Total relationship goals.

via LightsCameraVegan

In contrast, 2015’s Poltergeist shows a shallow connection between Eric and Amy (Rosemarie DeWitt), and they don’t actually have any strong bond with their children. Eric tries to buy their affection with lavish gifts – using money they don’t have – and plays a passive role in the actual parenting. When young Madison is taken by the entities, the family gathers and attempts to contact her with help from Dr. Powell (Jane Adams). Once they finally hear her voice, their reaction is… not convincing at all.  I mean, overall the acting in the remake is really, really weak, so it’s very hard to actually give a shit about any of the terrible characters.

The same scene from the original shows true skill from JoBeth Williams. You can feel her relief, mixed with devastating horror. It’s beautiful.

When it comes time to rescue their young daughter from the other side, 1982’s Poltergeist sends Dianne to cross over and save her. It’s a heartwarming statement on the power of a mother’s love; Dianne is a strong, capable character who would do anything for her children. The whole team bands together to physically hold the rope that connects Dianne to the safety of home.

via WordPress

In the remake, the rescue is performed by the son – Griffin – which… is stupid. Now, there’s a whole storyline about how Griffin is afraid of the dark and he’s anxious about life in general, so, sure, let’s empower the kid. But frankly, that whole bit is completely unnecessary, and it undermines the role of the parents in a big way. Also, they trust a wall anchor with the safety of their children, so…

Speaking of the children (won’t somebody please think of the children), there’s the clown doll. The doll in the original Poltergeist is mostly normal, so when he transforms, it’s terrifying. The remake tries way too goddamn hard to make it scary.

On that note, everyone knows that clowns can be pretty damn creepy, so when your already skittish child finds a box full of clown dolls in a crawlspace in their attic/bedroom, maybe – and this is just a thought – get rid of them?

via Forces of Geek

Also, just to note this, when the possessed tree bursts in through the window in Poltergeist, it’s genuinely scary. In the remake, the tree impossibly snakes through the house – through a room and down the hall – to grab young Griffin and drag him out the window. It’s absurd and it just looks silly.

Once the family escapes, the original Poltergeist ends with the iconic implosion of the house. It’s tidy, it’s final, and it shows that they just narrowly avoided the same fate. In the remake, just as the family loads into the van, convinced that their nightmare is over, the house pulls the van in through the wall of the house like a goddamn mechanical Kool-Aid man.

via Giphy

The big reveal that they “left the bodies but only moved the headstones” is dropped casually mid-conversation in the remake. The whole power of that scene is not even on the radar. And there’s CGI skeletons. Lord help me.

Lastly, Zelda fucking Rubinstein is way better than some bullshit romantic subplot. And that stupid #thishouseisclean reality show. Ugh.

via Giphy

Basically, I feel like the writer and director of the remake didn’t know anything about the original Poltergeist. I’m pretty sure they just saw some screenshots and read the plot description. It may have the skeleton of the original film, but it has none of the heart.

While the original has themes about family and the lack of morality from the housing developers, the remake crams in a bunch of cheap jump scares and updated technology (drones are so hip, you guys).

In conclusion, I hate it, and the original is untouchable in my books. Now, I need a drink.

Stay tuned for more ramblings about movies that deserved better, here on Remake Double Take.

'Civil War' Review: Is It Worth Watching?

Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

News

Russell Crowe To Star in Another Exorcism Movie & It’s Not a Sequel

Published

on

Maybe it’s because The Exorcist just celebrated its 50th-anniversary last year, or maybe it’s because aging Academy Award-winning actors aren’t too proud to take on obscure roles, but Russell Crowe is visiting the Devil once again in yet another possession film. And it’s not related to his last one, The Pope’s Exorcist.

According to Collider, the film titled The Exorcism was originally going to be released under the name The Georgetown Project. Rights for its North American release were once in the hands of Miramax but then went to Vertical Entertainment. It will release on June 7 in theaters then head over to Shudder for subscribers.

Crowe will also star in this year’s upcoming Kraven the Hunter which is set to drop in theaters on August 30.

As for The Exorcism, Collider provides us with what it’s about:

“The film centers around actor Anthony Miller (Crowe), whose troubles come to the forefront as he shoots a supernatural horror movie. His estranged daughter (Ryan Simpkins) has to figure out whether he’s lapsing into his past addictions, or if something even more horrific is occurring. “

'Civil War' Review: Is It Worth Watching?

Continue Reading

Movies

New F-Bomb Laden ‘Deadpool & Wolverine’ Trailer: Bloody Buddy Movie

Published

on

Deadpool & Wolverine might be the buddy movie of the decade. The two heterodox superheroes are back in the latest trailer for the summer blockbuster, this time with more f-bombs than a gangster film.

‘Deadpool & Wolverine’ Movie Trailer

This time the focus is on Wolverine played by Hugh Jackman. The adamantium-infused X-Man is having a bit of a pity party when Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) arrives on the scene who then tries to convince him to team up for selfish reasons. The result is a profanity-filled trailer with a Strange surprise at the end.

Deadpool & Wolverine is one of the most anticipated movies of the year. It comes out on July 26. Here is the latest trailer, and we suggest if you are at work and your space isn’t private, you might want to put in headphones.

'Civil War' Review: Is It Worth Watching?

Continue Reading

News

Original Blair Witch Cast Ask Lionsgate for Retroactive Residuals in Light of New Film

Published

on

The Blair Witch Project Cast

Jason Blum is planning to reboot The Blair Witch Project for the second time. That’s a fairly large task considering none of the reboots or sequels have managed to capture the magic of the 1999 film that brought found footage into the mainstream.

This idea has not been lost on the original Blair Witch cast, who has recently reached out to Lionsgate to ask for what they feel is fair compensation for their role in the pivotal film. Lionsgate gained access to The Blair Witch Project in 2003 when they purchased Artisan Entertainment.

Blair witch
The Blair Witch Project Cast

However, Artisan Entertainment was an independent studio before its purchase, meaning the actors were not part of SAG-AFTRA. As a result, the cast are not entitled to the same residuals from the project as actors in other major films. The cast doesn’t feel that the studio should be able to continue to profit off of their hard work and likenesses without fair compensation.

Their most recent request asks for “meaningful consultation on any future ‘Blair Witch’ reboot, sequel, prequel, toy, game, ride, escape room, etc., in which one could reasonably assume that Heather, Michael & Josh’s names and/or likenesses will be associated for promotional purposes in the public sphere.”

The blair witch project

At this time, Lionsgate has not offered any comment about this issue.

The full statement made by the cast can be found below.

OUR ASKS OF LIONSGATE (From Heather, Michael & Josh, stars of “The Blair Witch Project”):

1. Retroactive + future residual payments to Heather, Michael and Josh for acting services rendered in the original BWP, equivalent to the sum that would’ve been allotted through SAG-AFTRA, had we had proper union or legal representation when the film was made.

2. Meaningful consultation on any future Blair Witch reboot, sequel, prequel, toy, game, ride, escape room, etc…, in which one could reasonably assume that Heather, Michael & Josh’s names and/or likenesses will be associated for promotional purposes in the public sphere.

Note: Our film has now been rebooted twice, both times were a disappointment from a fan/box office/critical perspective. Neither of these films were made with significant creative input from the original team. As the insiders who created the Blair Witch and have been listening to what fans love & want for 25 years, we’re your single greatest, yet thus-far un-utilized secret-weapon!

3. “The Blair Witch Grant”: A 60k grant (the budget of our original movie), paid out yearly by Lionsgate, to an unknown/aspiring genre filmmaker to assist in making theirfirst feature film. This is a GRANT, not a development fund, hence Lionsgate will not own any of the underlying rights to the project.

A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM THE DIRECTORS & PRODUCERS OF “THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT”:

As we near the 25th anniversary of The Blair Witch Project, our pride in the storyworld we created and the film we produced is reaffirmed by the recent announcement of a reboot by horror icons Jason Blum and James Wan.

While we, the original filmmakers, respect Lionsgate’s right to monetize the intellectual property as it sees fit, we must highlight the significant contributions of the original cast — Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, and Mike Williams. As the literal faces of what has become a franchise, their likenesses, voices, and real names are inseparably tied to The Blair Witch Project. Their unique contributions not only defined the film’s authenticity but continue to resonate with audiences around the world.

We celebrate our film’s legacy, and equally, we believe the actors deserve to be celebrated for their enduring association with the franchise.

Sincerely, Eduardo Sanchez, Dan Myrick, Gregg Hale, Robin Cowie, and Michael Monello

'Civil War' Review: Is It Worth Watching?

Continue Reading