As I have said time and again, I am not fond of remakes.
More often than not they don’t add anything to the original–did we really need to know about Michael Myers difficult upbringing in Rob Zombie’s Halloween reboot?–or they add details that seemingly are there just to differentiate them from the original.
The thing is, as far as remarks go, Rupert Wainwright’s remake of The Fog (it doesn’t help that John Carpenter directed the original) isn’t terrible.
It’s not particularly good, but it’s different enough that you don’t at least hate yourself for wasting an hour and a half that you will never get back.
What works is the whole leprosy subplot–in the original I don’t recall the movie going into huge detail about what William Blake was doing with the gold–but in the reboot the point was to get his people to a place where they could live in peace because they were suffering from leprosy.
He was building a leper colony! It’s a pretty clever idea that the movie unfortunately doesn’t take advantage of (there’s a scene where one of the ghosts comes in physical contact with a person, and she’s decays like she’s caught leprosy on steroids).
Unfortunately it’s an angle that they don’t deal with again.
They could have also done more innovative things with the fog itself, especially when you take into account that the bulk of it is CGI, but unfortunately they don’t.
It’s a movie full of wasted opportunities–especially compared to the original–but at least you don’t feel your time slipping away like digital fog.
“Rob Zombie’s remake of John Carpenter’s classic horror film makes some bold choices, but cannot escape the long shadow of the original.”
I get what Rob Zombie is trying to do with his remake of John Carpenter’s groundbreaking 1978 film, Halloween,” but it fails for me primarily because it gives so much information. The first half-hour or so is spent laying the groundwork for the existence of Carpenter’s monstrous creation, something Carpenter himself didn’t do (quite deliberately, in fact). Zombie’s film is admittedly more grounded in a reality (of sorts) than Carpenter’s original.
What’s most interesting is that it’s that same realism that not only separates it from John Carpenter’s original, but by contrast shows you how much more effective it was, as well.
The Shape, the demonic charter created by John Carpenter and Debra Hill, was most interesting BECAUSE you had no idea why he did what he did. The character was essentially a violent force of nature, more akin to a tornado or hurricane than a human being.
Under Zombie’s reinterpretation, he’s a psychotic kid, who grows up to be a psychotic adult.
Let’s be clear: I don’t think Rob Zombie is a very good director. In fact, his movies on one level can be seem to be primarily vehicles for employing his wife, Sherri Moon Zombie; which I have nothing against because such nepotism in Hollywood–or anywhere else for that matter–isn’t exactly unusual.
Judd Apatow gives his significant other roles in his movies consistently (his daughters have also boarded the gravy train), as does Stuart Gordon.
The difference is that both Apatow and Gordon can direct, though the whinefest that is “This Is 40” makes me want to reconsider Apatow.
After Zombie cut his teeth on “The House of 1000 Corpses,” “The Devil’s Rejects,” and two Halloween films he moved on to his latest project, “The Lords of Salem.” (I need to see ‘Rejects.’ That’s supposed to be all sorts of awesome).
The trailer is less any sort of narrative than a bunch of odd, disjointed images linked by the apartment building where the action seems to take place. If that’s what the director was going for, then perhaps I could see it, but for some reason I doubt it.
When you think of Woolite, the detergent for fine washables, you normally don’t think of Rob Zombie, director of the remakes of Halloween 1 & 2, “The Devil’s Rejects,” and “The House of 1000 Corpses,” as well as the lead singer of White Zombie.
But some twisted marketing genius has somehow decided to bring to the two together.