If you have not seen “American Horror Story,” or “The Sentinel” but want to with an open mind–or just hate spoilers–read no further.
I have been watching the first season of Ryan Murphy’s and Brad Falchuk’s “American Horror Story” recently, and while I have been enjoying it–despite its tendency to be very emotionally overwrought–I have come to notice how (at least up the the sixth episode, which is all that I have seen so far) AHS is not only unoriginal but in many was a copy of Michael Winner’s superior 1977 film “The Sentinel.”
In “American Horror Story” we have a house that is treated as if it were alive (though other than characters referring to it this way, there has been no manifestation of this, unlike in a film like “Burnt Offerings,” where the house was–literally–alive, and fed on the deaths of its inhabitants) and the people that lived there having a tendency to die in generally unpleasant ways, and eventually made their way back.
“The Sentinel,” uses a similar concept, though the house itself is less important than the fact that it happens to be where the place where the entrance to Hell lies (I hate when that happens).
It’s seems different when it’s spelled out, though if you have seen both it and “American Horror Story,” not so much.
In both AHS and “The Sentinel” the residences in question are filled with the dead (as I mentioned earlier) but with a difference: They are individuals that have committed certain crimes (generally of a violent nature) that puts them on their path to the fiery gates.
When I heard that Joe Carnahan was moving on to a remake of Michael Winner’s “Death Wish,” from the aborted “Daredevil,”I was relieved that another property has made its way back to The House Of Ideas (where he joins the Punisher and Blade). What I wasn’t so crazy was that another film that didn’t require a remake, was being remade.
Especially when there are so many cringe-worthy films out there much more deserving.
Joe Carnahan, via ScreenRant, says that his film is definitely not a reboot, though he admits that it does take certain liberties with the story, though the core–a man’s avenging himself on the people that harmed his family–seems to be intact.
Which brings me to the question of how much can his film differ from the original? Carnahan says that he’s going to change the location, as well as the whole vibe of the film.
That being said, how many can he actually make that preserve the structure and themes of Brian Garfield‘s novel?
If you have been reading here for awhile, you probably noticed that I complained about “John Carter” being a terrible title for a movie that–literally–spanned universes (and wanted desperately to play on an epic scale)?
It was, though there are films where simple is best.
“Charlie Varrick” is one, and Daniel Barber’s “Harry Brown” is another. They work because both eponymously-named films are about men who’ve lives are as ordinary, and mundane, as their names (though that applies more to ‘Brown’ than ‘Varrick’). Michael Caine plays the character with an understated, weary gait. He’s seen more of the world than he lets on, and is not impressed. He’s old, but accepts that and other things which is cannot change.
At this point the only things that he lives for are his wife, who’s in hospital, and a friend that lives in the same complex as he does.
One day his friend comes to him, and tells him that he’s afraid because of some neighborhood toughs, though eventually circumstances force him to take matters into his own hands.
Which he does not enjoy doing–after all, he’s an old man with emphysema,who can barely run without an attack coming on– but Michael Caine plays the character with the right amount of desperation and mortality.
Comparisons to Michael Winner’s “Deathwish” are inevitable, but Caine’s Harry Brown isn’t as calculating as “Deathwish’s” Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson), and he only kills those that either have terrorized his friend, or threaten where he lives.
The change in scale is what makes “Harry Brown” that more realistic and interesting of the two films.
“The only revelation that “Hellraiser: Revelations” offers is that someone either needs to take this franchise seriously, or let it die. “
I was browsing though Netflix, as I often do, looking for a decent horror flick. There’s are some classics, like William Friedkin’s “The Exorcist,” or Michael Winner’s “The Sentinel,” though for every classic, there’s seems more in the way of dreck.
Then I noticed that “Hellraiser: Revelations” was available, so I gave it a try, despite not expecting much.
And it fully met my expectations, which wasn’t a surprise since the series haven’t been much of the way in of entertaining since “Hellraiser: Bloodline.”
Though what bothered me most was less than what was on screen, than the missed opportunities that weren’t. Doug Bradley, who played ‘Pinhead’ in all the other films, wisely bailed this time around and was replaced by Stephan Smith Collins (who, it’s worth noting looks nothing like Bradley).
Which would have worked if they had run with the concept, and replaced not only Bradley, but the entire Cenobite hierarchy. There could have been a set-up with Bradley’s Pinhead being deposed in Leviathan‘s eye with the new guy (or gal).
JD’s Cure For Remakes
The ‘JD’ in the title is for John Dorian, from 2001′s “Scrubs,” a television show that originally aired on NBC for nine years, before it moved to ABC.
I am watching the Democratic Convention, though earlier I was thinking about the trend toward remakes. There’s the upcoming “Red Dawn” remake, that appears to have The Wolverines up against a Chinese bogeyman this time, perhaps because the Russians are so passé.
There’s also “Death Wish,” which according to director Joe Carnahan isn’t a remake.
The reboot of “Total Recall” came out a few weeks ago, to lukewarm reviews.
In reference to “Death Wish,” you can’t tell me that Brian Garfield’s novel, which was the basis of Michael Winner’s film, is the only story ever written about someone falling victim to urban crime. And, since there are other novels that tackle the subject, why not just make a film about one of them, as opposed to the path already taken.
Which is the point of the compilation clip from “Scrubs” (the NBC run in particular). It revolves around JD’s idea for a movie about Dracula called Dr. Acula (Dr. Acula–Dracula, get it?) though the interesting thing is, in the hands of a competent screenwriter–which JD isn’t–the idea is actually pretty clever.
It reminds me of Forever Knight, except that it takes in a hospital.
Share this:
Like this: