Original Vs Remake: Texas Chainsaw Massacre

On By James CastroIn Movies, ReviewsLeave a comment

Grindhouse theater was a big underground movement in the 1970s. Cheaply made, extreme movies of graphic violence or exploitation were all the rage, but rarely was one such film remembered beyond the double feature run time. In 1974, using the grindhouse model, Tobe Hooper took the formula beyond the late show with Texas Chainsaw Massacre a modern horror classic that has had as lasting impact on the genre as a whole as any other film. In 2003 Marcus Nispel released a remake of the classic that was instantly dismissed as unnecessary and far inferior to the original. Was this criticism justified? I’ll give some of the verdict away when I state no, it wasn’t and in many ways the remake expands on the original’s concepts making a quite a good remake.

The Plot: The plot for both of these movies is iconic and simple. A group of teenagers on a desolate Texas highway pick up a hitchhiker who derails their trip, which is further derailed when they make a stop and run into a bunch of crazy locals and a chainsaw wielding madman known as “Leatherface.” The set up in both movies is simple enough to set up the future events and doesn’t really get in the way of the brutality later on. The differences are the hitchhiker picked up in the original is a psycho who later turns out to be one of the groups harassers and in the remake she is a victim of the crazed townsfolk who commits suicide in front of them, foreshadowing the despair the group will soon feel.   Both set ups work in their environments and time periods without dragging the story down too much.

The Characters:

The Original – The original movie features the lead teens, Jerry his girlfriend Pam, Kirk, Sally, and Sally’s brother Franklin. The maniacs are the hitchhiker, the Old Man, the Grandfather, and Leatherface. The villains in this movie turn out to be cannibals, kidnapping people to cook and eat them. Their house is disturbing and just their interactions are unsettling, even before you know the depths of their depravity. The problem is, with the possible exception of the Old Man and Leatherface when he’s in kill-mode, I have a hard time thinking of a group of more annoying characters to appear in a single film. This is especially true for the hitchhiker, whose “unsettling” appearance really just grated endlessly on my nerves and Franklin. Franklin is the most unpleasant character this side of Joey the chocolate bar kid in Friday 13th: A New Beginning with the difference being how much Franklin appears in the film. His petulant attitude and aggravating persona is one of my biggest problems in the film. His brutal chainsaw death makes it almost worth dealing with.

The Remake – The characters aren’t altogether outstanding or memorable, but they aren’t nearly as overwhelmingly annoying as in the first film. They also feel slightly less like cartoon caricatures but certainly fit all the clichés. We have the troublemaker guy Morgan, the good guy who’s a bit of a renegade Kemper, the tough guy Andy, and panicky girl pepper, and the straight-laced (aka “final”) girl Erin. They have some nice, if unnecessary backstories among them, like the engagement between Erin and Kemper and the “getting pot” plot line (which the same director appears to be obsessed with as it also makes an even more central appearance in his Friday 13th remake) but they add to a bit of world building and depth. The villains are where this film really shines. The creepy towns folk aren’t anything as extreme as the cannibals in the first film, they’ve been brought a bit more “reality” by making them just cruel, disgusting, evil people. And it is in the remake villains we find the greatest character in both films, and no not Leatherface . We’re talking R. Lee Ermey as Sheriff Hoyt. His character is easily one of the best in modern horror history. Certainly since the new millennium. He’s cruel but funny, you hate him but can’t wait for him to get more screen time, and he’s quotable as hell.   Ermey easily steals the show from everyone, including Leatherface. This is no mean feat considering this film features the extremely lovely Jessica Biel running around in the world’s greatest costume through a lot of water.

R Lee Ermey Steals the show in the remake.

What Works and What Doesn’t:

The Original – What works best in the original is what they didn’t show. For a movie with such a terrifically gruesome title there is very little gore. The sites are desolate and the kills all implied. This is something modern horror would do well to get back to. Watching a massive man in a skin mask appear from nowhere, crack someone on their head and watch them spasm as he drags them off screen and slams a metal door is extremely effective. Even the chainsaw massacring isn’t graphic, showing things in silhouette, or slightly out of frame. What doesn’t work to me is stylistic taste… There is a ton of repetition in this film. For example: “Hit her Grandpa!”-Sally Screaming;-Grandpa drops the hammer. “Hit her Grandpa!”-Sally Screaming;-Grandpa drops the hammer. “Hit her Grandpa!”-Sally Screaming;-Grandpa drops the hammer. Scenes of people laughing or acting weird cut to close ups of victims screaming or gasping go on and on. Also there are several times the movie has somewhat of an “art house” feel where we slowly just look at sets or scenes. And it has the same problem I had with Dawn of the Dead where stalling is used to increase tension, as someone staggers around or reacts painfully slowly, which has the effect on me of frustration rather than tension building.

The Remake – The tone and environment of the remake are well done. It actually feels just as desolate but like a more “real” place. My mother, who was stationed in Texas, actually said driving around back country Texas roads you see all kinds of places like that and people who could fit in here.   The characters also seem more real and the situation, where a hitchhiker commits suicide in their van after they pick her up, immediately heightens tension and gives the kids a reason to be stranded. Leatherface is actually much more intimidating this this film and the chase in the final quarter of the film is one of the best. Erin is also a much more resourceful and likable character than Sally, as she fights hard, tries to save friends, and makes sacrifices to get away while trying to stop the evil of her pursuers. The flaws are so cliché the fact that I’m pointing them out is cliché… Characters are dumb, and do lots of stupid things. Cars don’t start or fall apart. There are a number of cheap jump scares, including the classic possum-in-the-locker trick, and the kills aren’t as creative and a little more “torturey” than the effective implied violence of the original. I will say they do seem to “fit” the world so there doesn’t seem to be as much Saw-style exploitation.

The Verdict: I’m prepared for this and steeled myself for the backlash… I prefer the remake. The original reminds me of Star Wars. It’s a progenitor of things to come that people have a nostalgic attachment to pushing its value beyond its actual quality. Horror fans think they are supposed to like it, and it has a number of merits. But like I said in my Dawn of the Dead review “liking” a film is visceral. I find the original unpleasant to watch, not because of the content but because of its execution. Many filmmakers have praised its style for being “raw” but to me it feels “sloppy,” and while I understand this was a stylistic choice popular in the early to mid-70s it isn’t one I personally am a fan of. With the repetition, painfully unlikable characters, shrill sound design, slow pace, and dirty execution I find the original a better film to “study” than enjoy. It’s interesting to see a genesis of ideas and what came out of them but not one I’d sit and watch more than once. The remake took the great ideas of the original and made a fun modern horror movie. It’s tense, well-shot, well-acted, and adds new elements while staying true, never trying to one up the original and honoring it where it can. For those who hate the remake I say give it a watch with new eyes and enjoy it without prejudice. It’s a great horror movie and well-deserving of the Texas Chainsaw name.

Halloween: Original vs. Remake

On By R. PettyIn MoviesLeave a comment

We hope everyone had a happy and safe Halloween! Another holiday has come and gone, however we had so much fun and great conversations about this topic that we’ve decide to extend it another week. We also want to thank everyone for reading and discussing horror movies with us all month. It is my pleasure to review this one, and heads up, I could talk forever about this one!

Michael Myers 1978
Photo: http://halloweenmovie.wikia.com

Halloween – The Original

Possibly my favorite movie from this era and definitely in my top five in the genre, John Carpenter’s Halloween is a classic. This was one of the first – maybe even the first – slasher movie I saw as a kid. I don’t want to gush and seem like a fan girl because I do poke fun at a few things too. So, here are a few of my favorite things about the original Halloween.

False Sense of Security: From the opening scenes, the audience sees this is a quite little suburban town. The teenagers are decent kids who party, but most teenagers do. The younger kids are excited about Halloween, and there are lots of shots of trick-or-treaters, trees, streets and houses. As the movie unravels, you feel sympathy for these townspeople. They have encountered a tragedy and evil that may defeat them and destroy their little town. You wouldn’t expect an evil force, and the original takes you from all those wonderful Halloween memories you have to fearing Michael Myers. It takes you on a roller coaster of emotion and disrupts what should be a fun-filled holiday.

Pure Evil: Myers is pure evil. It’s that simple. Some people are just born with an evil that consumes them. Whether you believe in this theory or not, the original Halloween did. There was no backstory. You do not know why Myers was a killer, and I never cared to know. I just accepted the “pure evil” within him because it was believable. He never says a word. He just punishes and kills, and that’s what makes him more threatening to me. Evil motivates him, and if you aren’t scared of evil, then what does scare you? The evil serves as a supernatural force, which is much harder to control than a person. It’s unpredictable, reckless, and illogical. The idea that you can’t control it is more effective from a horror standpoint and leaves you uneasy throughout the movie.

Jaime Lee Curtis: My pick for the top final girl. Curtis set the bar for final girls. She’s played several strong female characters over the years, and Halloween helped her establish that career role. In Halloween, her character is smart, responsible, fun, and studious, however she also smokes pot and hangs out with her friends. She is a normal teenager who becomes tormented by Myers. Her character was developed very well, and you follow her through her ups and downs. She was strong and weak; she fought and cried. She was a woman survivor. Curtis is and always will be Laurie Strode.

Michael Myers 2007
Photo: filmedge.net

Halloween – The Remake

I don’t think I saw Rob Zombie’s Halloween in theaters, and if I did, I apologize to who I saw it with! We’ve talked a little about re-imagining movies – such as A Nightmare of Elm Street – and that’s what Zombie’s version is. He took the original and built on it. It wasn’t a true remake because he added and changed a lot, and Zombiefied it as only he can do.

I have a few issues with this version, but as a stand-alone horror movie, it’s pretty intense.

No security: As an audience, you never feel safe watching this movie. Zombie takes you from a highly dysfunctional lower-class family, to an asylum, then back to the dysfunctional family. There is nothing pretty in or about this movie. As an audience, it’s difficult to feel shocked about anything that happens because you almost expect it. It’s predictable. Whereas in the original, the murders are a tragedy because terror invades a small quiet town. You get to know the town as a whole, instead of Myers. I don’t agree with Zombie’s choice because Myers and his life are terrifying enough. He strips all innocence from the beginning. And if you take away the town’s innocence from the beginning, you take it away forever and leave no hope.

The backstory: I appreciate a little backstory, but I feel the first half of this movie is way too long. Zombie refuses the idea of “pure evil,” and make Myers a product of his environment. Coming from a dysfunctional and abusive household, Myers snaps. Then he is so consumed by loss and hatred, it turns into evil. Comparing the two, I prefer the original idea, however I accept that modern audiences need this backstory. They want to know why, and they have to see progression. If Zombie had shortened it 20 more minutes, I think most people would not complain about the length. Reviewers seem split down the middle about this – you either love or dislike the backstory – I side with the latter.

Laurie Strode: Once Myers escapes, Halloween 2007 turns into a respectful remake. Scout Taylor-Compton portrays Strode’s character well, and she stays true to the innocent good-girl type. Her character is modernized, and for the purposes of the remake, that’s okay. However, audiences don’t really know her. The emphasis on Myers is so heavy, Halloween 2007 lacks teen character development, which should be as important as Myers’ story. In the remake, Strode doesn’t stand out above her friends, and she is not the only final girl. It’s a disservice to the character, and I wonder if Annie (Danielle Harris) survives because the first franchise kind of screwed her over.

Final Thoughts

Zombie does keep a lot of the original details, which shows he wasn’t trying to outdo the original Halloween. Myers dresses up as a ghost with the glasses, Zombie uses the original score, the masks are the same, the girls resemble the original girls, etc. It is gruesome and bloody, which I can take or leave. I also expect that from Rob Zombie. I enjoy the movie much more once Myers escapes, but the violence and kill scenes feel too long. For that reason, I can’t watch this movie often because it borders torture instead of quick-slasher fashion.

The verdict: The original. I watch it every Halloween night, and it is perhaps a perfect slasher movie.

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments!

Story of the Month: Nightmare on Elm Street and the Cure to Horror

On By James CastroIn Story of the MonthLeave a comment

StoryoftheMonth

I grew up as an air force kid, moving where my father was stationed.  In 1987, he was stationed at Nellis Air Force Base, outside of Las Vegas and every few weeks took the windowless plane to Groom Lake (yep Area 51) to participate in classified activities.  What this meant for me was that I lived in the little base housing community at the end of the Nellis flight line.  We were there until he retired that winter, and it was here that I had a formative Halloween experience.

I rarely rained while we were in Vegas, but when it did it was torrential, often resulting in low flash floods.  My sister and I (My sister was nine and I was six at the time) were always fans of Halloween and being scared (my mom once chased us around the house in a weird theatrical art mask) and we adored Ghostbusters so we were eager for Halloween.  I think this was the year of our glow-in-the-dark skeleton costumes and masks…though I may be wrong.

Unfortunately for us there would be no trick-or-treating in the small base housing neighborhood.  That Halloween night we had one of the worst rain storms we experienced while in Nevada and it curtailed all door-to-door candy hunting.  My mom, also a Halloween nut decided we wouldn’t go quietly into the Halloween night, however, and we took a trip to our local video rental store to get some good horror movies and treats since to prevent the weather from dampening our Halloween spirit.

My mom rented A Nightmare on Elm Street 1-3.  We went home settled in and started the movies.

I honestly can’t say I remember much about that first viewing.  Other than abject terror.  My mom fell in love with Freddy, I thought, “Now I’m not even safe in my dreams!”  At that age I was kind of scared of everything.  It didn’t help having an older sibling who liked to frighten you, but Freddy was a whole new level.  I distinctly remember the creepy way Freddy’s arms extended in the alley while chasing Tina.  He brutal death.  How eerie her appearance in the body bag was.  I remember Kristen in 3 running down the hallway with a child’s skeleton that yelled at her “Put me down you’re hurting me!” a phrase my sister and I tortured each other with for years.  And I remember being more scared than I ever was before.  My six-year-old brain couldn’t handle all it was seeing.

The fear actually lasted for days.  My mom actually got annoyed and told me I couldn’t even watch Ghostbusters again until I got over it.  At one point I carried my Ray Stantz action figure proton pack down the halls with me for protection.  And even though she was annoyed, my mom tormented us a bit with the line, “Freddy’s gonna get you if you don’t watch out!”

My intrinsic fear of all things and everything lasted for a long time.  Even after moving from Las Vegas to Nashville I can remember being afraid walking down the long dark hallway of my parents’ house to my room.  Not wanting to look from my room to the living room into the shadows.  Keeping Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles action figures, dinosaur toys, and stuffed animals around my room as active guards while I slept…  It seemed I’d be one of those people who was afraid of anything even kind of scary.

Then one day…I just got over it.  The fear of the dark and of fictional monsters started to fade and horror movies lost their effect.  I loved slasher movies and can remember sometime between the ages of 10-12 watching a Friday 13th movie marathon with my sister at my grandparents’ house on some Thanksgiving or Christmas.

These days I have a hard time being afraid of anything “scary.”  Yeah movies can creep me the eff out (The Grudge and Paranormal Activity 3 both achieved this) but nothing has made me afraid to that level again.  I started thinking of it as an adult and I told my mom I think she gave me a horror movie inoculation.  I received the most terrifying dose of something as a kid and later in life I might get some mild cases but nothing too devastating.  Even to the point where I volunteer to walk with ghosts and jump at the chance to see if the latest “most scary movie evvarr!” is actually scary at all (usually those are just dumb).

I had the chance to see Robert Englund in Nashville a few years ago and considered telling him that he and Wes Craven scared me so much as a kid that I was scared of everything for 3 years afterward but then never scared again.  I know Robert must hear “you scared me so much” a lot, playing one of the world’s iconic horror personality.  But I wonder if he’s ever been told his brand of horror actually cured people of fear?  If not I’ll be the first to tell the world: A Nightmare on Elm Street scared the fear right out of me.  My hope for the genre is that maybe someday someone will make a movie that can actually put the fear of horror back into me…but until then at least my last real Hollywood scare was by one of the best.

Guest Post: A Nightmare on Elm Street – Original vs. Remake

On By R. PettyIn Movies1 Comment

Happy Halloween week, everyone! Our good friend Blake Best, author of Seeing Red and Green, joined in the remake conversation this month to discuss this horror classic. Please show some love, and feel free to learn more about him in our Artist Spotlight: Blake Best.

A Nightmare on Elm Street

A Nightmare on Elm Street: Original vs. Remake

When the original “A Nightmare on Elm Street” was released in 1984, it became a surprise hit. The late Wes Craven (1939-2015) created the perfect horror film: great story, believable characters, and the cinematography was spot on for the dark nature of the film. Craven expanded on the “rubber reality” concept and in doing so created an iconic boogeyman in “Freddy Krueger” (Robert Englund), the fire-scarred, razor-fingered maniac that launched one of the most successful horror franchises in modern cinema.

The remake of the film was released in 2010 to DEFINITE mixed reviews. Most purists balked because Robert Englund did not return as “Freddy,” the role that essentially made him a household name among horror fans. Jackie Earle Haley was cast instead, fresh off his turn as “Rorschach” in the hit film “Watchmen.” Another reason for the criticism was the presence of Michael Bay as a producer on the film. Bay is known for his attachment to action blockbusters like the “Transformers” films. I was initially biased because of my unabashed love of the first “Nightmare” film. My new book “Seeing Red & Green” examines the popularity of the films and discusses why “Freddy Krueger” has become such a pop-culture icon. I concluded there would be no better time than now to share my comparison of the original to the remake.

Similarities:

There are a few similarities between the films. The basic premise is the same, with a group of teenagers sharing collective nightmares about this dark and ominous man. Several of the teens are killed off by Freddy one by one in unique ways and the ending of the film is ambiguous, leaving room for a possible sequel. Freddy’s general appearance is very similar to the original film (tattered red and green striped sweater, hat, and razor fingered glove), though in the remake his sleeves are striped and the makeup has been altered to resemble a more realistic burn victim.

Differences:

The differences are the defining characteristics in comparing the films. The characters are altogether different (including Nancy, who is less the girl next door and more an introverted artistic type) and Freddy himself underwent changes to his backstory.

The original allows you to get to known the characters on a more personal level, allowing you to feel a certain way about them (sympathize, clamor for their death, etc.) The remake doesn’t give you enough time to know them. With the exception of a couple of characters, the majority of the teens are introduced and promptly killed off, allowing you no time to feel ANYTHING about them.

Freddy’s backstory in the original was that of a child killer who escaped conviction due to a technicality. Vengeful parents cornered him in his boiler room hideout and set him ablaze. The remake’s backstory is markedly different, with the revelation that he was a pedophile. Originally Craven intended for this to be included in the original film, but it was scrapped due to a very public scandal in California involving children at the time of the film’s production. In this film the child killing facet of his backstory is completely removed from his “pre-burning” history. The film goes one step further and toys with the audience, leaving them unsure of Freddy’s guilt (until closer to the ending of the film).

The original featured all practical special effects, as computer generated imagery (CGI) was over a decade away from being introduced. Freddy’s makeup/prosthetics and all of the other effects (including the “face through the wall” gag) were all physical effects made with latex, wires, ingenuity and a ton of fake blood, around 500 gallons. The remake featured an overabundance of CGI effects, including a portion of the “Freddy” makeup. The iconic “face through the wall” effect was entirely CGI. It feels like the CGI was used to distract audiences from issues with the plot and character development.

The original “A Nightmare on Elm Street” was an entirely original concept and used very few tropes typical to the ‘slasher’ genre at the time. The remake actually re-used several one liners from the previous “Nightmare” films. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which ones!

How do I rank them?

The original surpasses the remake in nearly every way, save for budget ($1.8 million for the original, around $35 million for the remake). The 2010 film is far less gory than the original, which is surprising, since the films are part of the ‘slasher’ genre. “A Nightmare on Elm Street” (2010) is less of a “remake” and more of a “re-imagining,” geared towards catching the attention of younger generations

— Blake Best, author of “Seeing Red & Green”

Friday the 13th: Original vs. Remake

On By R. PettyIn MoviesLeave a comment

As we draw closer to the end of the month, you knew we’d save some of the best slasher movies for last. Friday the 13th is one of my favorite horror movies, and I have been watching it since I was a little girl. I think I was 8 the first time I saw it. When I was 10, I went to camp and was cautious of my surroundings because of this movie. Few movies can do that nowadays.

Friday the 13th
Photo: dailyutahchronicle.com

There are several differences between Friday the 13th (1980) and Friday the 13th (2009), but I must point out something important. The 2009 movie is not a remake of the original. From the opening scene, Jason’s story has already happened. His legend lives and haunts campsites everywhere. His story is told around the campfire as if it’s happened several times. It’s also not a sequel because it cannot and does not fit into the series. And in the 2009 version, Jason is the killer. Horror fans know that doesn’t happen until Friday the 13th Part II.

Friday the 13th – The Original

The original Friday the 13th is well done and follows suit with many horror movies from this time period that try to prevent teens from having sex and partying. If you don’t behave, you’ll die. This message is classic of the genre, and there is a final girl.

One of my favorite things about it is the sound; it is a very quiet movie. You hear rain, crickets and frogs outside, and the music only comes in when the killer does. I miss that. Nowadays, either everything is filled with music for soundtracks or talking. We don’t need constant conversation, especially if people are telling you what they see. One reason this movie is so effective as a creepy camp movie is because there is natural sound. You hear the natural environment, which puts you into the movie. There are also incredible shots of the lake and surrounding area. You want to feel relaxed, but there’s a psycho killer disrupting it. The score pays tribute to Hitchcock’s Psycho, and audiences clearly see the people who made this movie are old-school horror fans.

Mrs. Voorhees Friday the 13th
Photo: fridaythe13th.wikia.com

The Women

Spoiler alert: Jason’s mom, Mrs. Voorhees is the killer. I really love this. In the slasher cannon, a woman is seldom the killer, and even though she’s tiny, her rage and disdain for teenagers is pretty awesome. She harbors her son’s spirit and uses that to fuel her motivation. More importantly, she has clear motivation, which is something the 2009 version lacks. The final fight scene between Mrs. Voorhees and Alice feels real. They roll around, pull hair, scream and squeal, hit each other, and Alice decapitates her in the end. The final fight is entertaining, fun, and the end of the movie serves as a perfect set up to a sequel or conclusion.

Friday the 13th – The Homage

I have to say I don’t love Friday the 13th 2009. I have so many issues with the movie-making decisions, and I can’t compare the original with the 2009 version because they’re completely different. By today’s standards, the 2009 version is OK, not great. I think it was so popular because Jared Padalecki stars in it. Supernatural fans probably saved this movie from bombing.

However, his character is completely useless. The first time I watched Friday the 13th 2009, I was furious that his costar Danielle Panabaker – at a whopping 5’6” – saves him several times. Spoiler alert: She dies. This is where the 2009 version screwed up most. They had the opportunity to do something few slashers have done: Have two final girls. This could have put the movie at the forefront of the girl-power movement before girl-power was a movie trend. Her death was unnecessary and leaves you wondering why they invested so much into her character.

The main characters are probably my biggest problem with this movie. They are idiots and make terrible decisions, and they have no development. The two minor guys Chewie and Lawrence are the best characters in the movie. These guys add comedic relief and have likable qualities, and you actually care when they die. Most everyone else you want to see die.

I also find this movie painfully boring. There’s a difference between build-up and boring. The conversations are boring; the shots are boring and way too dark; and aside from pretty people, there’s not much to invest in. There’s way too much music and talking. These people never shut up, which slows down the action. Movie tip: Slasher movies should not be dialogue heavy. Lack of sound and the killer’s music help make these a stand-out genre.

I can tell the cast and crew did try to pay homage to the series though. They did not try to outdo the series or remake the original, which I appreciate. Kills are similar to others in the series, and they made Jason scarier. He’s quick, smarter, and powerful. The 2009 made Jason 2.0 in a tasteful way, not a stupid cyborg way. They have both a campsite and cabin settings, paying tribute to the early movies and updating accommodations to fit 21st-century times. Let’s face it, present-day college kids would stay at a cabin, not in tents.

The verdict: The original. As fair as I try to be and as much as I love Sam (Padalecki), I vote for the original. I appreciate the 2009 version for not butchering the Friday the 13th series, but in the end, Mrs. Voorhees wins in my book.

P.S. If you want to see a perfect tribute to the series, watch Psych’s Tuesday the 17th. It’s horror/comedy gold.

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments, and happy horror watching!

Thirteen Ghosts: Original vs. Remake

On By James CastroIn Movies, ReviewsLeave a comment

I saw the 2001 version of Thir13en Ghosts when it came on my college’s free movie channel (it showed second run theater films). When first watching it I really enjoyed it for its genre-spanning qualities, it was a bit funny, a bit creepy, a bit gory, and a bit action-y. It came to my utter surprise a few years later when I found out it was a remake. I saw 1960’s 13 Ghosts on basic cable and at the time I thought it was actually a goofy comedy, not a horror movie. I’ve since re-watched them both and have to say they are both great fun and a fine example of how to do a modern remake.

The Plot:

The basic plot for both films is essentially the same: A family having money problems receives notice that a wealthy Uncle has died and left them his house. The catch is that the house is haunted by twelve ghosts (the thirteenth being a mystery) and the spirits seem angry and threatening.  The ghosts interact with the characters but can only be seen using special glasses, something that surprised me was in the original.

In the original the family is told up front, the house is haunted, and it displays the classic “can you spend the night in a haunted house for a lot of money” trope. The ghosts threaten the characters via Ouija Board and the whole thing plays like a really great episode of Scooby-Doo, with a lot of misdirection and a good combination of real-world villains and supernatural spooks. The family doesn’t know it but there is treasure in the house and the son, Bucky, finds some money and the Lawyer, Ben, asks him to keep it a secret. We find the uncle, Plato Zorba, communed with ghosts with his housekeeper, Elaine Zacharides (played wonderfully by Margaret Hamilton of Wicked Witch of the West fame and even called “a witch” several times in the film) and twelve of the unfortunate spirits they channeled are trapped in the house awaiting a thirteenth to free them.

The remake is very much in the spirit of the original. A father, Arthur Kriticos (played by the terrific Tony Shaloub) loses his wife and now cares for his two kids (one of whom is Shannon Elizabeth) along with his live-in housekeeper. His Uncle, Cyrus (F. Murray Abraham!) leaves him his house and the family moves in. Unbeknownst to them but “knownst” to us (to quote Mel Brooks) Cyrus used to hunt ghosts and trapped twelve of them in the house for nefarious purposes. The lawyer, Ben, is still there and plays a similar if minimized role. Hamilton’s character is split between Matthew Lillard’s Dennis Rafkin and Embeth Davidtz’s Kalina Oretzia who hunted ghosts with Cyrus. Here the ghosts are part of a grand evil scheme of Cyrus’, but are still prisoners in the house waiting to be freed by a thirteenth ghost. It’s a clever way to update the story and stay true to the original.

The Ghosts

Margaret Hamilton, the Wicked Witch of the West herself, as Elaine in 13 Ghosts.

The ghosts in the original aren’t all as well defined but the effects on them work well to make them eerie, especially for the time. We know of a hanging ghost, an executioner, a lion and his tamer, a skeleton, an Italian chef, and eventually Zorba himself. The film effects used by theater-experience pioneer William Castle made for pretty good ghosts, even if the effects were rudimentary even for their time (yes at one point you can even see the strings on a fly!) The ghost footage is used and reused but it’s so interesting it catches the eye every time. Character reactions range from fear (the older sibling Medea is threatened and the father is afraid) to indifferent fun (Bucky actually enjoys their antics sometimes) but at their scariest you can see how well even low-budget effects can work when used correctly. In this film the thirteenth ghost is created by Ben, when the ghost of Zorba attains his vengeance on the lawyer for murdering him and prevents him from killing Bucky to claim the treasure for himself, thus freeing the ghosts but Elaine later reveals they will be back…but not in an ominous manner.

In the remake the ghosts have a defined purpose in the “Black Zodiac” and the house is a machine “designed by the devil and powered by the dead” from plans by an astrologer name Basileus used to open a portal to hell granting the machine’s master powers. What’s interesting about these ghosts is their design, each is appropriately gruesome with great names, “The First Born Son, the Torso, The Bound Woman, The Withered Lover, The Torn Prince, The Angry Princess, The Pilgrimess, The Great Child & Dire Mother, The Hammer, The Jackal (who is GREAT), and the Juggernaut,” with Arthur representing the thirteenth ghost created out of an act of pure love. Instead, the machine is thwarted and the ghosts captured by Cyrus (who is revealed to be alive!) turn on him and are freed from captivity. The design of the house is a little more out-of-reality but is still very creative and the use of glass and sealing spells adds even more to the looks unique look. The entire mythology created around these ghosts is terrific and it builds up to a fantastic conclusion.

What Makes them Work?

Both movies mix horror, humor, and mystery together in perfect doses. The 1960 version is a goofier film, both in some of its characters and its production values, but it is still very enjoyable. It’s not perfect but highly entertaining and like the original Dark Shadows TV show is charming and loveable for its William Castle cheesiness and skinflint budget. The story is still pretty solid and it even has a moderately positive ending. The remake is less “goofy” but is still silly and has some downright laugh-out-loud portions and a winking style that makes the audience know they aren’t taking it seriously while still playing it straight. It also holds its story together well with excellent characters and also a positive ending, rare in modern horror.

The Verdict:

Is surprisingly a TIE. I enjoyed both equally but differently, the original appealing to the simplistic ghost story lover in me, the remake to my modern, slick horror cravings. Neither strive to be cinematic classics or masterpieces but both are highly entertaining and make for terrific, ghostly viewing.