Author Blog

Hello fellow horror fiends!

Two years ago I had the privilege of working on a horror film in Annapolis, MD called The Night Watchmen (coming soon!); it was there that I met the executive producer of the 2003 film The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Jeffrey Allard! (Click here to visit his IMDB page.) The following is an updated version of my previous interview with Jeffrey Allard about the business of remakes!

(Above: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) right, The Night Watchmen (coming soon) left. Below: Interview with executive producer Jeffrey Allard)

ScreamScores (S): Do you prefer when remakes stay true to the original film or when writers/directors take creative liberties?

Jeffrey Allard (J): I’m inclined to have remakes stay relatively true to the original film.  A franchise horror film (or any franchise film for that matter) has much of its success based on a great story/plot, so I’d be hesitant to deviate too far from one of the key components that made the original film successful. With that said, you can have different spins or takes on a story and still remain true to the original plot (swapping roles and genders, settings, genre shifting, time period, etc.). Some of these different takes can help refresh and contemporize the original story.

S: How do remakes, specifically The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), come to fruition? With so many copyright issues do the films have to originate from the original creators/companies or are the rights usually bought across company lines?

J: With The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I was looking for a concept that had a compelling risk/reward proposition…which today in this business, is hard to come by.   I was introduced to the creators/owners of TCM and pitched them the idea of doing a remake of their film and going back to the original horror and terror that made the film a cult classic.  At the time I pitched this project, horror films were going campy, and I believed going back to raw horror was timely.  This proved to be right and several new horror franchises conceived after the TCM remake (Saw, Hostel) followed this trend.

My deal was unique in that I was able to deal with the original concept owners, where currently many horror franchises are owned by studios or production companies.  The studios are constantly mining their libraries (albeit at a slow pace) and soliciting pitches for their properties.

S: Is the general reaction to remakes apprehensive or enthusiastic when they’re announced? Is there a difference between the fans’ reaction and the creators’ reactions?

J: I think for those who are interested in genre, most would aspire for the opportunity to produce/direct a remake.  Although remakes seem to be in theaters all the time, the number of remakes relative to all films made is tiny, so it’s a rarity to come by (especially outside the studio system).  Remakes have a pre-existing fan base which is what makes them so valuable.  People who lean toward art-house type films, probably aren’t very keen on genre remakes.

S: What’s your favorite horror remake?

J: Well, as executive producer of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, need I say more?

They say imitation is the highest form of flattery, and when a film you put your blood, sweat, and tears, the fact that someone else thinks your work is worth bringing back into the public light is the most amazing compliment anyone could ever pay.

Check out my new Instructables page for tips and tricks on homemade filming effects and equipment!

http://www.instructables.com/member/ScreamScores/

What could go wrong, right?

As a huge fan of horror (obviously) I love to see classic franchises and films get the recognition they deserve! However, as a huge fan of horror I also am extremely nervous at the directions these new films will take.

Below are some upcoming remakes and revival films to look forward to!

1) Suspiria

This remake of Dario Argento’s 1977 film of the same name stars actress Chloë Grace Moretz and is directed by Luca Guadagnino. The film is currently in pre-production but fans are already making their concerns known. For more info on my views, check out my earlier post “Remaking Argento?” here.

(Above: Suspiria (1977))

2) Re-Animator: Evolution

Okay, I admit this is not technically a remake; however, considering a Re-Animator film has not been made since 2003 I consider it a revival film and think it’s worth noting. The film has Jonathan Schaech as Dr. Herbert West and is directed by Serge Levin. Admittedly, I have only seen Re-Animator (1985) and Beyond Re-Animator (2003) so I don’t have experience with the whole franchise. However, I do love the films and believe that a modern take on them could prove either very dark or very hokey. Either way, I think it’ll bring some well-earned attention to the Re-Animator franchise!

(Above: Re-Animator (1985))

3) Death House

Directed by Harrison Smith, this film is a remake of Zombie Death House (1987) by John Saxon. The cast lineup for the remake is definitely promising! I personally have no experience with the original, but I haven’t heard many great things, (though who doesn’t love John Saxon?). This is good for the remake, though, since it’ll hopefully bring new life to the idea! Either way, I’ll definitely be watching the original to prepare for the new film’s release!

(Top: Zombie Death House (1987). Bottom: Death House (2017).)

4) It

The upcoming remake of the mini-series It (1990) has gained a lot of hype recently, though not as much as I think it deserves. The remake is directed by Andrés Muschietti and features Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise. I personally have high hopes for the remake, even though no one can replace Tim Curry in my mind.

(Top: It (1990). Bottom: It (2017).)

5) Friday the 13th

When I heard about this one I was honestly pretty surprised. Now, the film is being coined as a semi-reboot, but (let’s be honest) that’s them saying they’ll revisit the themes and questions of the original without remaking the original. The film is directed by Breck Eisner and has no disclosed cast list as of yet. While Friday the 13th (1980) is not my favorite of the “big three” films (the other two being Halloween (1978) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)) I still cherish the original and hope that this “semi-reboot” does the franchise justice.

(Top: Friday the 13th (1980). Bottom: Friday the 13th (2017).)

And last but not least....

6) Halloween

That’s right, Halloween. The iconic 1978 slasher film is getting a remake with John Carpenter’s blessing! Not much is currently known about the remake other than many promises that John Carpenter will be heavily involved with the film. Let’s hope that the vision succeeds in bringing a classic film back into the limelight! (Click here to read some personal comments from Carpenter about the vision of the film)

An Interview with Executive Producer Jeffrey Allard of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

Hello fellow horror fiends!

Tonight I have a special treat for you all as we look at the film industry’s view on horror film remakes: an interview with the executive producer of the 2003 film The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Jeffrey Allard! (Click to visit his IMDB page)

Two years ago I had the privilege of working with Jeffrey on a horror film in Annapolis called The Night Watchmen (coming soon!) and I was able to get in touch with him to give you all some insider’s info on the horror remake industry!

First of all, we all know the main worry when a remake is announced is will it stay true to the original or will the director take creative license? Personally, I prefer when films stay true to the plot but take license with the cinematography. Here’s what our guest expert had to say on the matter:

I’m inclined to have remakes stay relatively true to the original film.  A franchise horror film (or any franchise film for that matter) has much of its success based on a great story/plot, so I’d be hesitant to deviate too far from one of the key components that made the original film successful. With that said, you can have different spins or takes on a story and still remain true to the original plot (swapping roles and genders, settings, genre shifting, time period, etc.). Some of these different takes can help refresh and contemporize the original story.

As someone who is interested in working in the industry, I was also curious on how remakes (especially The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)) were conceived and pitched without infringing on rights. As with many things in the industry, it seems like it just depends on who you know….

With The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I was looking for a concept that had a compelling risk/reward proposition…which today in this business, is hard to come by.   I was introduced to the creators/owners of TCM and pitched them the idea of doing a remake of their film and going back to the original horror and terror that made the film a cult classic.  At the time I pitched this project, horror films were going campy, and I believed going back to raw horror was timely.  This proved to be right and several new horror franchises conceived after the TCM remake (Saw, Hostel) followed this trend.

My deal was unique in that I was able to deal with the original concept owners, where currently many horror franchises are owned by studios or production companies.  The studios are constantly mining their libraries (albeit at a slow pace) and soliciting pitches for their properties.

If you read my previous post about the upcoming Suspiria (1977) remake, you’ll understand why I asked, is the general emotion behind remakes apprehensive or enthusiastic when they’re announced?

I think for those who are interested in genre, most would aspire for the opportunity to produce/direct a remake.   Although remakes seem to be in theaters all the time, the number of remakes relative to all films made is tiny, so it’s a rarity to come by (especially outside the studio system).  Remakes have a preexisting fan base which is what makes them so valuable.   People who lean toward art-house type films, probably aren’t very keen on genre remakes.

Considering the extremely artistic style of Suspiria (above), it’s no wonder the fan base is extremely apprehensive of the remake, considering it would fit in the “art-house” category Jeffrey mentions.

My final question was an easy one, but one we are all dying to know. To Mr. Jeffrey Allard, I asked, what’s your favorite horror remake?

Well, as executive producer of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, need I say more?

Hello horror fiends!

Today I heard some pretty interesting news regarding an upcoming film starring Chloë Grace Moretz: a remake of Dario Argento’s 1977 film Suspiria to be released sometime next year.

Now, in case you’re not familiar with Argento’s work, he is renowned in the film world for basically revolutionizing the horror sub-genre of giallo films (See “The Giallo Files” for more info on the genre). His body of work also includes films such as Inferno (1980), The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970), and Dracula 3D (2012). In general, his works are known for being extremely artistic and visceral.

Suspiria (1977) in particular is one of my favorite Argento films (second only to The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970)) and is one of Argento’s most visually stunning works. It definitely deserves recognition in more than just the existing Argento fan base; however, recognition may be the only good thing to come of this remake.

In general, the discussion in the horror community about the upcoming Suspiria remake has been wary at best and these films are not completely unfounded. While there has never been a remake of an Argento film to date, there is one film that stands out as a homage to his work and it is extremely disappointing.

The film in question is The Editor (2014) by Adam Brooks. While this film certainly has some of the same giallo elements and a similarly striking color scheme as many of Argento films, it simply does not have the same tact. Argento’s films are by no means chaste, but they use sex and sexual scenes in a way that enhances the atmosphere and the visual impact of the films. The Editor, with it’s abundance of nudity and implications, simply seems to super-impose an Argento-based style onto something almost resembling a smut film.

I, like many other die-hard Argento fans, would absolutely love to see Argento get greater recognition in the mainstream horror world! Unfortunately, in today’s world of angst films and simplistic styles, I and many other fans can’t help but fear that the remake of Suspiria (1977) will either lose the vividly artistic approach or will abandon the integrity of the style in a way that has happened too many times before.

Another flashback! This time I’m rewriting my post about Maniac (1980) by William Lustig and Maniac (2012) by Franck Khalfoun to help clarify just why I think modern horror films are losing us.

While I will tell you how I think the remake stacks up, I really want to talk about a trend that I”m noticing: the older the film, the more indulgent it is.

Yes, that may be a weird thing to say, but let me explain. The audience expects to watch a horror film and be scared and/or disturbed. While I do believe Maniac (2012) achieves this through the mostly first person take on the film, it definitely did not “disturb” me in the way the original did. I love the Maniac remake, but it's more of a psychological thriller. It has more action than gore. It's scary, but not grotesque. Granted, it is better many modern horror films as far as the "cringe-factor" goes, but compared to the original film — the film that makes you uncomfortable with how long it lingers on the grossness of the effects — I can't call the remake grotesque and disconcerting in the same way I can the original.

While much of the plot and character backstories are almost identical in the remake to the original, it loses the focus on the truly abhorrent aspects of human nature and, in my opinion, that’s what the whole concept of the Maniac franchise is about.

(Top: Joe Spinell as Frank Maniac (1980). Bottom: Elijah Wood as Frank Maniac (2012).)

I can’t help but find it funny how effects in today's films are getting more and more realistic, but what happened to showing them? In the original Maniac the blood looks like tomato soup, but wow do they show that tomato soup off! It doesn't matter if the effects don't look real, what matters is that you show them! In the past films would linger over wounds and violence and, yeah, it was extremely uncomfortable, but that's the point! Nowadays films are packing in the blood, but the more deaths the less they're shown. Horror films are becoming more like action films. Tons of violence but very little truly disturbing content.

(Top: Frank meets a much more violent and bloody end in Maniac (1980) than [Bottom:] Frank in Maniac (2012).)

Hey horror fiends!

So I’m going to change it up a bit this week; instead of comparing another remake to its 1980s original, I’m going to take a moment and explain a little about my ratings system: the “Scream Score.”

First of all, I do not rate the original films.

I use original films as a starting point. When scoring, I check the variances between the original and its remake and then rate a remake on whether it recreates, fails, or surpasses the original.

Following is a list of specific factors I use in my comparison:

1) How similar are the characters? Now, I don’t really care if they use the same names or jobs, but do they have the same personalities? The same backstories? And if not, which version lends itself best to the plot of the film?

2) Are the plots similar? I honestly wouldn’t want a remake to have an identical plot. It would be like watching the same film twice, but if the film calls itself a remake it should at least capture the main events and (for the majority of the film) have the same story arc (a new twist can either make or ruin a remake).

3) Which uses makeup, effects, and cinematography most effectively? Different directors will always interpret and innovate new ways of doing things, that’s how the industry grows; however, I look at the different approaches and see which is most effective for the goal of the film.

4) Does the remake share the same goal as the original? This one is a bit tricky. Yes, all of these films are horror films, but (as we saw with Evil Dead (2013)) some films use a bit too much fan-service to cash in on the original franchise. If the original’s goal is to scare, but the remake’s goal is to enthuse, then I generally will give the remake a lower score for changing the vision of the franchise.

5) Is it scary? This is a big one. As previously stated, these are all horror films and as such they each are attempting to horrify or disturb us in some way. So, my job is to evaluate not only if the remake is as scary as the original but also if it scares us in the same way. If the original uses suspense and the remake uses gore then I’ll try to decide which approach works best with the plot, characters, and overall goal of the film.

So there you have it, an overall explanation of my Scream Scores! Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or disagree with my ratings — I’m always glad to hear other views of these films (you can contact me on here or feel free to message/follow me on Twitter @ScreamScores)!

Thanks for reading and have a terrifyingly good night!

In case you’re wondering, this is not a case of deja vú! Last week I did a full on comparison of The Evil Dead (1981) and Evil Dead (2013) but it was, like some of the film flops out there, a bit too wordy. So, in case you’d rather not page through words upon words upon words, here’s an updated version to help to vividly capture the soul of the films!

Here are some fun facts about the films: The Evil Dead (1981) was directed by Sam Raimi and became one of the bloodiest cult classics of it’s time with the word “deadite” even being a fan-made term that applies to both the demons and the fans themselves. The remake, Evil Dead (2013) by Fede Alvarez, was well received by fans old and new and even had a similar reputation for the gallons of fake blood used on set.

However, upon close analysis, the differences between the two films are arguably more numerous than the number of times the movies will make you cringe. Let’s start with the characters. The characters of the original film include Ash, his sister Cheryl, his girlfriend Linda, and their friends Scotty and Shelly. Their 2013 counterparts are respectively David, Mia (who ends up taking over the lead role partway through), Natalie, Eric, and Olivia (except in this version Eric and Olivia aren’t obviously dating).

(Cast of The Evil Dead (1981) from left to right: Ash, Linda, Cheryl, Scotty, and Shelly)

(Cast of Evil Dead (2013) from left to right: Eric, David, Mia, Olivia, and Natalie)

These new characters aren’t the “oblivious, good-hearted young adults” that just wanted to “party down” for a weekend. In the remake there is a considerable amount of angst. Modern films LOVE angst. In my opinion, the worst offense against the original film is the lack of an “Ash” character. Yes, in spirit, you could say that David or Mia fit the bill, but that’s an insult to the character! Ash is sincere brave and merciful. He’s not unreliable like David or as problem-ridden as Mia. And come on, who doesn’t love Bruce Campbell?

Anyway, I’m getting off-topic. I want to go back to angst, but first, we have to talk about the white elephant in the room (or branch, as it were). The Evil Dead would not be the strange and taboo film it is without a fairly long rape scene. Now, this is no ordinary rape scene (so don’t worry, no I Spit on Your Grave (1978) flashbacks here), instead the rape in both the 1981 and 2013 films is committed by a tree. While the scenes convey the same thing, the actual assaults are extremely different from film to film. In the original, Cheryl is pulled to the ground, exposed, and penetrated by various branches of the surrounding trees. She then breaks free and escapes. In the remake, however, Mia is held upright by thorn-covered branches, confronted by the vision of a deadite, and is penetrated by a snake-like branch that slithers from the deadite’s mouth and completely into Mia, without apparently ever coming back out. These differences are actually very important. The rape of Cheryl was abrupt and committed completely by the trees themselves. However, with Mia it was more ritualistic and actually showed visions of the deadite before they began their massacre.

This difference basically sets the tone for each film: the curse of modern angst, i.e. the need for a backstory. The appearance of the deadites before they begin to posses the cabin-goers, is a massive difference from the original film. Part of the horror used to be that you never knew what was coming for you. The remake steals this mystery from us in more way than one. It gives the characters more ways to kill the deadites. While that is good for the plot, it’s not nearly as threatening. The remake also shows us the horrible acts of rape, scalding, and self-mutilation that occur through the book instead of just having them be surprising and evil for evils sake.

I also think that the remake destroyed a huge part of the charm of The Evil Dead (1981): the makeup. Yes, most of the effects of the original film can be recreated in your kitchen; deadites vomit milk and dissolve into clay when they die. However, the makeup is unarguably grotesque. You have to admit that a pair of contacts, some fake burns, and a split tongue really just doesn’t scream “evil” like a full-facial makeup appliance, wig, and some gross stop-motion gore.

However, I cannot fault the remake for its various nods to the original. The necklace given to David’s sister instead of his girlfriend (a marked difference between him and Ash), is a nice touch, as is the clock on the wall that signifies the one from the original (though it was featured much more heavily in the 1981 film).

On a bit of a tangent, I swear, this franchise is almost as bad as Star Wars with all the lost limbs! The original film shows Shelly gnawing off her own arm after Scotty began to cut it (after she turned). In the remake, Natalie raises Shelly an arm by cutting off her own before turning (a trick borrowed from Ash in The Evil Dead 2) and losing the other to David’s shotgun after her change. However, none of these are close to Mia’s sacrifice near the end of the film. She forcefully rips off the bottom half of her left arm (which is caught under a Jeep) and uses it to steady a chainsaw and destroy the final demon. This is the ultimate nod to The Evil Dead 2 where Ash basically has a chainsaw for an arm after the first film confronts him with another demon before it cuts to black.

Who doesn’t love a good chainsaw hand? Admittedly, though, Mia’s fight is much more brutal than the struggle Ash goes through in the original, but it doesn’t leave the audience scared at all. The end of Evil Dead (2013) shows that evil can always be beaten back if your will is strong enough. The ending of The Evil Dead (1981) tells us that evil is always present and can always attack, even when everything else is gone.

Overall, I find Evil Dead (2013) to be an admirable remake. It captures the imaginations of what could have been for the fans of the original and gives them the gore-fest they expect of modern special effects. However, I do not believe it is scarier than the original. I believe that The Evil Dead (1981) leaves out the backstory and rules of the deadites for a reason. It tells us that evil is not constrained by the pages of a book and that it will never stop hunting.