Movie Review: Night of the Living Dead 3D (2006)

 

How can things go so wrong? I actually had some pretty high hopes for Night of the Living Dead 3D - the original is of course a seminal and wonderful film, and the remake from 1990 is equally great. So I picked up NOTLD3D at my last convention for a pretty cheap price (which I am now very grateful for) thinking that it couldn't be all that bad. I mean, it has Sid Haig in it, right? Welp, while Sid rocks the house like he always does, he's pretty much the only good thing about the movie.

NOTLD3D tells the classic story from the original film, and it has elements of both a reimagining and a meta-type horror film. Barb and her brother Johnny arrive at the Shady Rest Cemetery to attend their aunt's funeral, but are instead attacked by the living dead. Johnny escapes, and Barb is saved by a man named Ben, who takes her to the nearby house of some friends. The group holes up for night as they fight off the group of flesh-eating zombies.

I'm not the biggest fan of 3D in the first place. Sure, it's cool to look at for a while, but the novelty usually wears off pretty quickly once my eyes start to hurt and I can't see things as well. But, the DVD came with the glasses and I figured that if this was how the movie was supposed to be seen, then that's how I should see it. There are a couple of cool shots here and there that tripped me out, but for the most part, the 3D is unnecessary, like it always seems to be for me. I just can't get into it. I've tried and it hasn't worked. So there's that, unfortunately.

When talking about the story, again I have to ask - how could they have gotten things so wrong? The story is a simple one that has worked two times before and really doesn't need all that much tweaking. And for the most part, at least in the beginning, they don't really make any drastic changes for this version. Those come later when the explanation for the dead returning to life is completely different, and completely doesn't make any sense. Still, I really liked the not-subtle-at-all homages to the first film, which begin right off the bat when the original is playing on a television and the title credit turns into the title credit for this movie. If you're expecting to hear Johnny's famous line, it comes in the form of a text. Later on, when Barb gets to the farmhouse and starts talking about the dead coming back to life, she walks in on the family actually watching Night of the Living Dead on television. Of course, there's no acknowledgement about the fact that the characters have the same names as the people in the movie or that they are in the exact same situation, but I really didn't expect that anyway.

What I did expect, though, was at least some decent acting. Everyone in this movie just seems so uninterested and bored in what they are doing. While hearing a bunch of people shrieking and cursing during stressful scenes is admittedly not a lot of fun either, I see now that it is equally bad to have people acting way too calmly. How many times do these stoners just languish around while there is something serious going on? Or have perfectly normal and calm conversations at a time when nobody, least of all the audience, gives a fuck? When Karen goes missing, her father is barely able to puke out enough emotion for us to believe it. One of the greatest characters in horror ever, Ben, has been replaced by a motorcycle-riding loser who isn't nearly as authoritative or brave as Duane Jones or Tony Todd made him. On the flip side, Barb is more of a heroine, but not by much, and there is nothing interesting or endearing about her character. I really couldn't believe how wooden and boring everyone was, and their poor acting completely ruined any scene that had any potential to be exciting or scary.

Sid Haig is the biggest selling point of the movie, and while I enjoyed him like always, he's not a good enough reason to put yourself through this movie. He's the crazy mortician who has a problem with burning up dead bodies in his daddy's crematorium, so he's just been storing them for the past two years. Somehow, that translates into said bodies reanimating themselves. Don't ask me how. The makeup effects are okay, but I really hated the cartoony or comic booky look of the zombies. Tovar's father was the worst, all green and way too fleshy. There are not nearly enough good zombie kills, and I was severely disappointed in the gore factor for this movie. Maybe the best and stupidest part is when Barb lights Tovar's father on fire. Just because fire is cool.

With only ten minutes or so left to go on this movie, my scratched DVD started skipping around a bit so I didn't get to see all of the climax, but I got most of it. It wasn't any better than the rest of the movie. It's almost unwatchable and more than forgettable, not nearly on par with the original or the remake.

Movie Review: Poltergeist (2015)

 

Let me start off by saying that this was by far the least painful theater-going experience that I've had in a while. Normally for me when there are other people in the theater (and sadly that's pretty much always the case considering we're out in public and all) some douchebag has got to ruin it for me by either making noises or just being in my general vicinity. I realize that makes me sound douchey as well, but seriously. People cannot keep quiet in a movie theater sometimes. But thankfully there were no (big) problems this time so I could relax a bit more. And I can't believe I'm saying this, but I really liked the movie.

But, Michele! Isn't Poltergeist your FAVORITE horror movie ever? Yes, it is. Well, that and Child's Play, of course. I've been having a really hard time not calling that one my favorite too lately so I think I'm just going to have two favorites. ANYWAY. I did not want to be judgmental going into the remake of Poltergeist at all. So I haven't even watched the original in a few months, and I only watched one of the trailers once and avoided all others and all TV spots after that. And overall, though I could tell it was Poltergeist and though some things were obviously changed around and different, I truly think that this remake was very successful and is quite possibly one of the better ones out there. I came out of the theater feeling really good, and that is always a good sign.

At first I was weary. One thing I've always liked about the original film is that it was not like almost all other haunted house movies where it starts off with a family moving into a new house. They were already established in the house and the neighborhood before anything started. Also, the family was well established. The Freelings were just normal people that were suddenly hit out of nowhere with all this crazy supernatural stuff. The new movie has a new family, the Bowens - Eric and Amy, and their three children that mirror the children in the original - Kendra, Griffin, and Maddy. Sadly, no E. Buzz, but there was a line about how they should get a dog. It's not enough that they are moving into a new house, but they also had to give the family some problems, like the dad being laid off recently. However, this ends up being completely unnecessary because you don't need that plot point to sympathize with the family.

Which brings me to one of my favorite elements of the remake, and frankly, the thing that I was most worried about before going to see it. I've always loved that Poltergeist was like your family-friendly ghost movie, and that it was funny and that there was a wonderful family dynamic. Would this new family be just as wonderful as the laid-back, funny, pot-smoking Freelings? Indeed they are! There is no pot-smoking, but Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt are perfect as the parents, as they are so light-hearted, relatable, and absolutely lovable. The new Carol Anne is really amazing, and I loved that she had the same hairstyle, just a different color. Griffin is a bit of a dork like Robbie was but is again played by a wonderful little actor. Sassy Kendra is the annoying teen who thinks a new iPhone is the most important thing in the world - however, when things get bad, she shows a genuine love for her younger siblings. The only place where the remake falters on the family element is at the end when they switch around Maddy's rescuer from the Other Side. Though I get what they were trying to do with the Griffin character, I missed the complete motherly devotion and sacrifice of Diane Freeling that the original gave us.

The new paranormal investigative team is headed up by Dr. Brooke Powell, played by the underrated Jane Adams, and her two assistants that I don't think I ever got the names of. Instead of Tangina, we have Carrigan Burke, a sort of Peter Vincent character, if you will. He's played with a wonderful amount of snark and playboyish charm by Jared Harris, whom I freaking love. It was so refreshing and wonderful to see that these side characters were not forgotten in development, and that I was able to love them just as much as the family members they were trying to save. I was so afraid that this remake was going to shortchange the characters in favor of flashy special effects and jump scares. And I was so elated to find out that this was not the case.

Speaking of the special effects, I was really impressed with those as well. There are a few things that don't work out as well - like the comic book stacking and that weird sequence with the drill - but overall, the remake did enough to honor the original film while still throwing in a lot of its own new stuff. Of course the clown sequence probably got the most attention in the marketing (like I said, I didn't watch any of it but that big clown face on one of the posters was a giveaway) and it was handled really well. There was actually more than one clown doll, if you need me to frighten you more. I really liked the toned-down version of the tree sequence, and the addition of one very cool little scene where all the lights come out of the lightbulbs in Maddy's room and go into the closet. Reminded me of the part in the original where they see all the different spirits on the staircase.

Though in this fan's eyes, the remake was a little bit unnecessary, it certainly was not pointless. They treated the classic story with respect, making totally appropriate changes where they felt it was needed and did a good job at it. I still got the same vibe that I love so much about the original Poltergeist from this remake and, honestly, that's all I was really hoping for.

Movie Review: I Spit on Your Grave 2 (2013)

 

I'm a fan of the original I Spit on Your Grave in the sense that I respect it and the filmmaker for what he was trying to do. I respected it enough to be more than a tad disappointed at the 2010 remake, which was fantastically brutal, but I felt it focused too much on inventive revenge rather than the victim's feelings. Though I didn't really have much interest in I Spit on Your Grave 2, I knew I would eventually watch it because my sick mind loves movies like this. And what did this little sequel hold for me but a big surprise.

Katie is an aspiring model who visits a photography studio one day to have some pictures taken. She immediately leaves after refusing to pose nude, but when one of the men follows her home, things only turn more and more horrific as Katie is kidnapped, and brutally raped and tortured by several men. They bury her alive but Katie miraculously survives, and hashes out a plan to get her bloody vengeance on all those responsible for hurting her.

Again, I'm really surprised at how much I liked this. I thought I knew exactly what I would get with a straight-to-DVD sequel to a remake of a controversial 70s exploitation flick - but I ended up being wrong in some aspects. The sequel definitely cashes in on the gritty reputation of the series, as the rape and revenge scenes are very graphic and disturbing, but somehow the feel of the story is different. I think it was the side story with the priest and the police officer that made everything a bit easier to deal with for me. It was actually wonderful to see, for once, in a rape-revenge movie that not all males are evil - that most of them would be appalled to know of the things that happened to this girl.

Jemma Dallender is absolutely wonderful in the lead role of Katie, a role that is incredibly difficult on several levels. She had to go from being a happy, normal woman, to one going through unthinkable pain and suffering, to one made almost crazy and violent by what she has been through. Her voice, especially when she is screaming, is almost child-like but at the same time so raw with emotion that it hurts to listen to her cry and scream. When she has to go into hardcore killing mode for the revenge, she excels. They also gave Dallender the same basic look that Camille Keaton made famous in the original ISPOYG - with the long, long hair parted down the middle - and I really like that as a nice homage or common thread between all the movies. The title also appears on the screen in way similar to the previous entries and that was nice to see as well.

I do question the character of the police officer in Bulgaria a little bit. He really does fuck-all to help Katie when she first escapes, or at least doesn't seem all that experienced in dealing with rape victims. He says her story is implausible and that she seems to be on drugs, which is why she doesn't want to go to the hospital. Okay, a couple things about that. Has he never heard of the international sex slave trade where women are drugged and taken to other countries? Does he not know that a lot of rape victims refuse medical attention because they don't want to be violated again? I'm not saying that he wasn't sympathetic toward what happened to Katie, it's just that his thoughts did not match his actions.

The violence is disturbing to say the least - at one point I even questioned if they had gone too far. The first rape is a long and graphic scene, and things only get worse from there. Katie is pissed on by one of her rapists after asking for water to drink, she is violently beaten about the face for no reason, and endures several shocks to the body and genitals by a cattle prod. Her kidnappers sell her to a disgusting, fat sadist to do whatever he wants to her for a while, and though you never see what he does to her beyond the cattle prod, it is probably most shocking to see her in the aftermath, lying on the dirty mattress in the fetal position with a huge amount of blood on the insides of her thighs.

This is all so messed up that I was somewhat pissed off that cattle prod asshole did not get the worst of Katie's revenge. Again, she does things to the perpetrators that are similar to what they did to her. The guy who pissed on her gets drowned in some more piss and shit, and that was probably my favorite one because for me, the pissing on her was almost worse than anything else that happened. As weird as that sounds, it just seems absolutely disgusting and the ultimate humiliation - a show of the character's complete lack of respect for others. Cattle prod asshole should have gotten what the leader of the rape pack got in the end - a brutal and uncut scene of his balls getting smashed in a vice. Now, how all this was accomplished by a girl living with nothing in the sewers of a foreign country is hard to believe at times, but if you're worried about that stuff by this point, you're watching the wrong movie.

I absolutely love revenge films and I have to say that I Spit on Your Grave 2 is surprisingly a nice entry into the genre. It is ultra-violent and difficult to watch, like these movies should be, but a wonderful lead actress carries the film well, and the shift in location and circumstances bring something new to the series. It is definitely not one for everyone, though, so watch at your own risk.

Movie Review: Night of the Living Dead (1990)

There are lots of movies on my horror movie "must-see" list. The remake of George Romero's Night of the Living Dead was always on that list, moreso just in a completist way rather than something really mandatory. Well, I ended up being immensely surprised at Tom Savini's feature film debut as a director, not only for its respect of the original but also for its respect of the zombie movie in general.

The plot is basically the same and starts out with brother and sister duo Johnny and Barbara arriving at the cemetery to visit their father's grave when they are attacked by a strange, shambling man. Barbara escapes to a nearby farmhouse and there meets up with several other people. Together they all try to fortify the house and survive the night as the hordes of the reanimated dead gather outside.

I'm honestly really impressed with NOTLD90, and for several reasons. Despite the fact that it is almost a shot-for-shot retelling of the story from 1968, the remake feels fresh and new. Savini's directorial eye is different than Romero's - where Romero used lots of interesting angles and took advantage of the shadows created from using black and white photography, Savini's approach is rather simple. He doesn't detract from the action with crazy camera movements or anything, and instead just makes something that looks professional and well thought out with what's on screen. It's simply a good movie telling a good, simple story and the simplest stories are always the best to me.

Another reason for the remake's success is the casting. It was nice that they kept all of the original characters and, for most of them at least, their personality traits and relationships are the same. The only big change is the character of Barbara - the shock stricken mouse of the original is replaced by a woman who removes her emotions from the situation to truly take charge and kick ass. Veteran Tony Todd takes on the iconic role of Ben, a role he seems to have slipped into with real ease and grace. It helps that he does physically resemble Duane Jones but mostly it is Todd's take-charge demeanor coupled with his sympathy and genuine care for the other characters (eh, most of them anyway) that again makes Ben one of the best characters in horror history.

The other thing about the remake that I was pleased with was the tone of the film. Though the dialogue is at times overly crazy when the characters are fighting, it never once goes through your mind that this is a cheesy remake with no redeeming quality. NOTLD90 is serious as a heat attack throughout and it was something that I really enjoyed and appreciated. It would have been too easy to go the route of the zom-com with hysterical female characters and zombie jokes.

Roger Ebert and I don't usually agree on much but it seems in regard to NOTLD90 that we both had something to say about the ridiculous amount of hammering that occurs in the film. That's a nitpick, I know, but seriously, watch it again and really focus on the amount of time that almost all the actors spend hammering wood into the walls to barricade the windows. Move on to something else, please. Other than that, the only thing that slightly disappointed me was the fact that there was far less gore than I was expecting. Just slightly though, because again this lack of excessive bloodshed also helped in keeping the serious tone of the movie.

In a strange way, I did find myself missing the horrible and ironic ending of the original film when lone survivor Ben is mistaken for a zombie and shot. This is replaced by a scene just as poignant - when Barbara returns to the house to find Cooper alive and shoots him immediately, letting the good 'ol boys add him to the fire of other zombies outside. I loved how this was a nod to the beginning of Dawn of the Dead and didn't mind the change in ending one bit because it was the right ending for this version.

All in all, NOTLD90 is a very solid remake, one that makes changes in the right way and for the right reasons, while still keeping all the elements of the original that worked. It's a remake that should be mentioned more often as one of the most successful ones out there.




Also, did anyone else notice how strange it was that Barbara lost her glasses at the beginning of the movie but it never seemed to bother her the rest of the time? And that she was still a pretty good shot?Just food for thought.

Movie Review: We Are What We Are (2013)

Just three years after the original Mexican film We Are What We Are was released, we already have an American remake. I don't mean that in a haughty, OMG-all-remakes-suck way either (because they don't). I'm really just surprised that it was remade at all because as far as I can tell, the 2010 version didn't get all that much buzz in the horror world. Maybe you shouldn't believe me when I say that because I'm not really that in tune with the horror world, truth be told. Anywho, I found the original and reviewed it here. To sum up, I appreciated the movie's aesthetic but overall found it to not be as exciting as the premise promised. This 2013 remake, however, is not that at all. I guess someone else found the same potential in this gruesome tale that I did and decided to work on it.

During a terrible rainstorm in their small town, the matriarch of the quiet Parker family suddenly dies. The grief-stricken family is now forced to deal with just what that means for them as their father forces the two daughters, Iris and Rose, to continue on with the family's traditions in place of their mother. And as the flooding of the town starts to wash up things long though buried, a local doctor gets suspicious of the Parkers, and what they might have to do with several missing people in the area.

To be honest, cannibals are still boring here. The movie is still somewhat tedious, more like a drama than a horror film, and a bit of a slow burn but there are other aspects at play that make it superior to the original. The only thing I will complain about is that I was not particularly fond of the historical reason given for why the members of the family were cannibals. Even after it was explained, it still doesn't really make a whole lot of sense for really why they would have continued the "tradition" for so long, especially considering what we find out it does to the family physically. They always talk about God, but it is really Him they are worshipping or their ancestors and what they created? Still a little confused on this part.

The two things that play in the movie's favor is the acting and the story (other than the confusing part). The story is improved upon mostly because of the addition of the doctor with a personal connection to the Parkers' actions. They only partake in the cannibalism once a year on Lambs Day so while they have obviously managed to elude capture, there are a lot of open missing persons cases around them, including the daughter of Doctor Burrow, played by Michael Parks. That side plot brought a wonderful human element to the story that the original was missingAnother interesting tidbit is just how the doctor found out about the cannibalism - the mother died of some rare disease (that is actually real) that is caused by eating human flesh. The switching of the genders of the family members was also a wonderful idea because it brought up so many other issues like the roles of women in religion, and a father ruling a family with fear and the children looking for a maternal substitute.

The acting is pretty superb especially by the girls playing Iris and Rose, Ambyr Childers and Julia Garner. Both girls are able to carry the look of children with a very serious and heavy weight on their shoulders, almost as if they are war-torn. While watching the film, I was almost begging them to smile just once because that constant shell-shock face they give was really depressing me. Michael Parks was another favorite as the doctor and his scene where he confronts the father was one of the best and the most suspenseful. Bill Sage plays Frank the father, and is equally good at portraying true sorrow and inflicting fear and obedience from his children. It was also very cool to see Kelly McGillis in a smallish role here as the Parkers' neighbor who keeps a constant watchful eye on the family.

There seems to be a little more blood in this remake than I remember from the original, but still not as much as you would expect. And for the most part, I was still a little disappointed in the regard that though We Are What We Are is still a dark and disturbing story, it's not as ballsy as it could be. But then I got to the last scene. Oh my gravy, that last scene. I suddenly felt very bad for all my misgivings and was praising this movie to the highest mountain. I don't want to talk about it specifically because it would be a terrible spoiler, but trust me, it's worth waiting for. Iris and Rose are so apprehensive and fearful of their father and what he makes them do all throughout the movie, yet they never really present themselves as actually being able to stop him and all the cannibal madness. I was wrong. These chicks are fucking hardcore.

Honestly though, what I saw more than anything was a tale about family, and what a family can survive and whether or not it can stay together. There are many examples of the loss of certain family members in We Are What We Are and how it affects the rest of the family. Of course, the mother dying deeply upsets everyone, but Frank is the one seen as the most emotionally affected by it, driven to uncontrollable crying and barely being able to move sometimes. Little daughter Rose, now without a mother, is devastated at the thought of losing her older sister Iris to a boy and being left in the family alone. Burrow lost his daughter years ago yet you can see on his face that it has never been forgotten. The Parkers have a secret and a way of life that keeps them bonded, but how long will that ruse work and how quick can a family be torn apart? We Are What We Are explores all this and more.

Whether you've seen the Mexican version or not, We Are What We Are should be on your watchlist. It has masterful direction and acting, and a story that appeals to both regular film lovers and horror lovers alike. And here's an interesting tidbit - the mother is played by Kassie DePaiva, whom I now know also played Bobbie Jo in Evil Dead II. Nice!

Movie Review: Evil Dead (2013)

No (big) spoilers, I promise.

Evil Dead is here, like it or not, and it brings with it a bloody good time to be had by fans and non-fans alike. It's not right to just ask if this is a good remake or not, but is perhaps better to ask if this is a worthy remake or not. Evil Dead is in a league of its own to horror fans and it is a classic not to be fucked with. And though the remake has its weak points here and there, the bulk of the movie is a lot of fun to watch, with buckets of blood being the icing on the cake.

So instead of just five friends going to a remote cabin in the woods for a weekend, this one tries to be all serious and stuff by having it be about friends who take this one girl to a remote cabin in the woods to dry her out from her drug habit. It sounds like a terrible idea to me even without the demon possession, but whatever. They find the Book of the Dead, they read from it, and they spend the rest of the movie covered in blood. It's a good formula.

Now as for the characters... um, I don't care. Other reviewers have commented on how happy they were about the more developed characterization for our group of five innocents, and the back story for why the kids were at the cabin in the first place. Seriously? Who is really going to give a crap about Mia's drug addiction or her and David's dead mother when the blood starts flowing? This is Evil Dead, and therefore, I don't give a fuck. I will say though that Mia and David are the only ones who are given sufficient background (totally irrelevant to demon possession though it may be); Olivia was very cool; Eric - who is obviously supposed to be the "Scott" character - needs a haircut and a set of balls; and poor Natalie is just fodder for the demons. Seriously, she has one or two lines at the beginning of the movie and then when she shows up again about 20 minutes later, I was like, "Where'd this chick come from?"

If there is one thing that I love and respect from horror films it is the way that some are not afraid to really fuck up the main characters. Not just have them running around the woods screaming and occasionally falling down or getting hit or something, but really, physically fuck them up. Evil Dead comes through for fans beautifully in that regard, and I don't think I'm alone in saying that I wouldn't have stood for anything less. Scalding hot showers, severed limbs, nail gun shootings, crowbar beatings, plus a few disturbing instances of demon-possessed self-mutilation are just some of the gags Evil Dead has in store for audiences and will (hopefully) make the gorehounds happy like it did me.

And gore is really the name of the game for this movie. Again, this is Evil freaking Dead. I want to see some blood a-sprayin' and I want to see it NOW. And believe it or not, I almost got more blood than I asked for, something I never thought I'd say.  The last fifteen or so minutes are by far the best and can only be described as a goregasm. Or bloodgasm. It literally rains blood and there is quite awesome use of a chainsaw that had me smiling ear to ear and clapping my hands (silently, though, because I was in a movie theater). Couldn't have made me happier. However... okay, two different people lose their hands in this movie. Was I the only one to have her dreams crushed when the hands did not suddenly come to life and attack their owners? I guess that wouldn't have been right for this remake because that's of course from Evil Dead 2, but I really think they were just teasing us. Fuckers. Also on that note, I was a bit disappointed that the gore gags were not as light-hearted as ones we've come to know and love from Evil Dead. Everything was really well done with practical effects (THANK YOU, THANK YOU for not using CGI), so well done that even the most insane effects were more disturbing than campy. Your own taste preference will determine whether that is a good thing or bad thing.

Know what my first thought was when the movie started playing? "I hope they do a tree rape scene." I was really looking forward to seeing how they would do that. Instead of a really painful looking tree branch slamming into the girl's... you know... they have this black, worm-like branch thing come out of another girl's mouth and go slithering up Mia's leg, thus starting her possession. It's a good scene but sadly one of the only scenes from the original that they attempt to recreate.

Of course I watched this movie to see what their version of a re-imaging of the original film was but I couldn't help but hope for at least some nods to the classic, even if only real fans would have caught them. The first two were quite easy to pick up on: Mia sitting on Sam Raimi's Delta 88, wearing a Michigan State sweatshirt. There are a few other easter egg goodies spread throughout, but like another blogger said, it's more fun to find them on your own so I'll leave it at that.

Though the poster boasts that Evil Dead is "the most terrifying film you will ever experience," it's really not. I think that was just supposed to be a riff on the original's "ultimate experience in grueling terror" tagline. What the remake does offer, however, is some thinly drawn characters getting themselves all kinds of fucked up in the woods. And lots of blood. And blood vomit. And electric bread knives. See it and enjoy, and then go home and watch all the Evil Dead movies in a row. Trust me, it makes for an awesome day.

Lastly, I will say that staying for the credits is a very good idea.

Remakes of classic horror films

This is going to be my weigh-in on the onslaught of remakes of classic horror films. A Nightmare on Elm Street just came out not too long ago, and it sucked. It sucked really hard. I Spit on Your Grave is coming out soon, and it's probably going to suck. Friday the 13th was probably the biggest suck of all remakes. No, wait, that award goes to One Missed Call... which was actually a remake of an Asian horror movie, which is a category all it's own. Let's stick to remakes of classic American films.

I have seen the remakes and the originals and I have a top three of the best remakes (thus far... 'cause Gosh knows there are going to be more). The best remake is not necessarily my favorite, but we'll get to that later.

The number one best horror remake is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. In terms of sticking to the original storyline but making improvements where need be; characters; actors; and directing, TCM 2003 was a huge success. As much as you may love that classic original first film by Poltergeist-man himself, Tobe Hooper, you have to admit that the film is seriously flawed. It's a low-budget movie from the 70s with actors that are still unknown to this day. Yes, it has some creepy and gross-out moments (Grandpa sucking the blood off of Marilyn Burns finger?????? So wrong.) and the whole concept of this whacked-out cannibal family and a giant 'tard with a chainsaw is incredibly disturbing, but it doesn't really hold up well over time.

The remake improved the TCM legacy in so many ways. First of all, the characters. The most annoying film character I can think of right now is Franklin (the guy in the wheelchair) from the original. So they totally cut him out. Yea! Now add in Jessica Biel, a hippy chick, and three modestly good-looking guys and you've got a pretty good cast. There's no overly blatant stereotypes among the kids, no bitch or slut, or douchebag dude that the girls seem to love even if he is a douchebag... just some normal people in their 20s. They got good actors who took the film and their characters seriously and really turned it out.

The best and most memorable characters, though, are of course the members of the Hewitt family. In the original they were all kind of skanky, dirty, back woods dudes. They gave these new characters some real thought and got great actors, again, to play these roles. R Lee Ermy as the sheriff is the most memorable. An awesome character actor who really gets into his roles (maybe a little too much) and makes them special. Uncle Monty, no legs man in the wheelchair, is perhaps not as well developed, we just see him as a pervert because he keeps grabbing Jessica Biel's ass while she's helping him into his wheelchair. I don't know who the actress is who played the mother but she was absolutely fantastic. An old crone, the HBIC, just as disgusting and depraved as the men in her family. She can hold her own. Leatherface's character didn't really change much, but he didn't need to. Big guy, mind of a child, but knows how to work his power tools. You feel sorry for him, maybe, but not really when he's chasing you around the house with a chainsaw.

The action and chase sequences were awesome (although we didn't get a reboot of the famous dinner table scene until Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning), with great set design and locations. The Hewitt house, its basement, the slaughterhouse, the crazy neighbors' trailer... they all give you a great sense of time and place in the context of the film. Set design was especially helpful in getting the real feel of the film. The whole movie is just DIRTY. Dirty characters, dirty deeds, dirty houses. The people in the movie are sweaty and dirty like they haven't showered in a few weeks. The house and other sets are dirty, cluttered, dripping with water, covered in dried blood - ook! I just wanted to jump into the movie and hose down everybody and everything I could touch.

They totally upped the gore and violence and I loooooove that. The movie can't be called Texas Chainsaw Massacre and not have someone getting their leg cut off or getting split down the crotch with a chainsaw. So thank you, filmmakers, for that. You know what we want.

All in all, great improvement on character, great actions, great gore and violence. Awesome horror film, that is just as good as, if not better than, the original.

The number 2 remake is coming next blog.