Pyscho (1998)

Okay guys, out with the good and in with the bad, though, you probably seen this coming from my last review.
Gus Van Sant, who was riding high off his Oscar success from Good Will Hunting, came upon remaking Alfred Hitchcock classic thriller. Now this came out around the Scream Generation and everyone expected this to be a slasher bloodfest. But what everybody didn't know that this was going to be directed by GUS VAN SANT, known for films such as Drugstore Cowboy and My Private Idaho. I think he was going for an artistic approach with this version, but to me, there will always be red flags when a director, who's not particularly known for horrors or thrillers for that matter, would remake something like this.
Once it hit theaters, audiences(mostly teenagers) were very, very, VERY disappointed. What everybody didn't expect was that Gus Van Sant was doing a shot for shot redo. A shot for shot remake of a 1960 movie along with the same dialogue and camera techniques......ugh.
I was surprised to find out that this was a franchise:

I guess Psycho 2 did okay, at least it kept the mystery element and brought back the characters from the original.

Psycho 3, although it had the same critical praise........doesn't really hold up that well, turning into a generic standard slasher film.

Though Psycho 4 was a good character study of Norman Bates and how he became what he was. Not a great movie by any means, but at least it gave the original justice.
And now we have the remake to look forward to. Of course, certain people thought there was going to be a new spin to the Hitchcock classic but sadly that's not what we got here. Though there is an interesting contrast to the two movies, so there's that at least.
The story: You guys pretty much know the story by now, but for those of you who haven't, here's how it goes: Woman steals money from boss for her lover, Woman attempts to flee, Woman stops at a hotel, Hotel Manager creeps her out, Woman gets murdered in the shower, the Woman's lover and her sister investigate. There you go.

The cast in the movie are good actors, they just seem to be horribly micasted, especially Vince Vaughn, who I will get to later. The only good actors in this is Julianne Moore and Viggo Mortensen. They seem really in tune and try their best with what they're given.

Marion Crane played by Anne Heche is a bit mixed. Now this is a shot for shot, so there's nothing much to dwell on. The casting of Anne Heche was just questionable. Sure, she has a similar look to Janet Leigh but I felt Janet Leigh brought more to the character, made her much more human. Anne Heche just seems to be going by the motions. She does an okay performance I guess, But she just so forgettable that I have nothing say about this at this point. Moving On....

Here comes one of the worst casting decisions that the filmmakers could think on....Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates. What made Anthony Perkins memorable in the role was that he had this Boy Next Door charm but was a deeply disturbed person. He came off so innocent and non-threatening, in fact, that Marion puts her trust in him, though that's what ultimately kills her at the end. Alfred Hitchcock wanted a much more attractive actor in the role of Norman since the book the movie was adapted from described him as a balding, overweight, middle-aged man. He thought the audience wouldn't be able to relate to him. So the casting of Anthony Perkins was actually a good idea, which made the audience sympathize with him and it was a great success.

Vince Vaughn, on the other hand, comes off incredibly creepy in this version and not at all sympathetic or even innocent. Right off the bat, you would know this guy is a killer. Hell, I wouldn't run into this guy in a dark alleyway. It's like Gus Van Sant or who ever the hell wrote the script completely missed the point of the original and therefore adds no mystery to him at all.

They also turn him into this sex-starved pervert by having porn magazines in his room and even showing this one of out place masturbation scene. I mean really? do we have to HEAR that?

Vince Vaughn with his intensive nervous gestures and overall awkwardness doesn't do the role any good. And let me point this out: In the original, once Norman finds the butchered body of Marion, he panics. So he wraps up the body, put it in the car and dump it in the lake. The suspense level in this sequence is extremely high because at this point we're on Norman's side, just by the way he nervously chews his candy. In this version, he just has smug look on his face like "Yeah I did it, so what?" This shows that Norman is the killer and there is just nothing to go from there.

Oh my god, wait till you see this nightmare. I do not ever want to see Vince Vaughn in drag again. By far one of the scariest things in the movie. lol. So Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates? one of the worst performances ever.

Lila Crane played by Julianne Moore was actually good. She's a lot more angrier in this version, more direct. Where as with the original, she's only deeply concerned about her sister's disappearance.  This is the post-feminist era, so it would make sense to have Lila to be more aggressive and take charge. But being a shot for shot remake, We never see Lila kick any ass, only a kick to the face once Sam Loomis grabs a hold of Norman.

There's not much to say about the character but at least Julianne Moore brought more to the role than the script does.

Sam Loomis played by Viggo Mortensen also did a good job, bringing this good o'l boy quality about him, and stretching out the character having  this laid back personality other than your standard hero in a horror film as he was portrayed in the original. Again, not much to say(whoever wrote this script was really lazy) but Viggo Mortensen did a good performance overall.

William H. Macy as the detective( don't remember his name) was kind of phoning it in. Good actor. Waste of character.

Did I mention that Flea from Red Hot Chill Peppers made a cameo? I think they're trying rile up an all star cast with this version.

Okay, now for a little retrospective. You see this poster right here. If you were a person in 1960 and haven't seen the trailer or the marketing for this, you would think this would be some type of romantic drama about a woman stuck in a love triangle, even though the movie is titled Psycho. And once you watch the movie you would think it would be a crime drama about a woman on the run since Hitchcock is also known for North By Northwest. But half into the movie it turns into the horror/thriller mystery that we know today. It's unexpectations like that the reason why the movie is such a classic.

The hype for the 1998 movie was insane, especially at a time where 90's slashers were at their prime. Now you see this poster here? the way it's marketed and advertised is telling you that you're in for a thrill ride, which is far from what the film actually is, let me tell you.

The kills is what you would've expect, since there's only two in the original after all.

But what Gus Van Sant tries to do different is by adding random images like these to make it more artsy or whatever. I really didn't know what he was thinking.
And if  you want to talk about the shower scene.....there's really nothing to talk about, except of how poorly shot it was:

First of all there's way too much light and it looks like someone is wearing black mask with a stringy wig.

What made the shower scene so memorable is the build up, the shadowy darkness of the figure approaching and when it hits, it hits hard, along with the screeching of the violins. The impact of it is almost poetic and it was quite shocking at the time. But with this version, the build up and suspense falls flat and the random shots doesn't make it poetic. Just pointless.

I would say one good thing though. The scene where Lila discovers the skeletal corpse of Norman's mother is quite creepy. The adding of birds and trees makes the setting more atmospheric.
I just....have nothing else to say. There was nothing new brought to the table, except that it's set in the 90's. You can tell because in the scene where Marion is at the car dealership  you can hear "Living Dead Girl" by Rob Zombie playing in the background. Even though the filmmakers set in the 90's, we still have the cheesy dialogue and even a green screen effect in one scene. Really? Yeah I got nothing more to say. This is just a waste of your time.
The Verdict? Stick with the original. Don't watch this because it's the same movie. Like literally.
My Last Word: The original is an all time classic. This movie, however......No Comment.

 

Diabolique (1996)

In 1955, A hitchcockian thriller called Les Diaboliques scared up French audiences with high tense suspense and a shocking surprise ending that had everybody talking. 41 years later, writers Herni-Georges Clouzot and Dan Ross and Director Jeremiah S. Chechik, whose best known for National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation and Benny and Joon, decided to remake the movie starring Sharon Stone, Isabelle Adjani, Chazz Palminteri, and Kathy Bates. Now I wouldn't call the original a "horror movie", It was just psychological thriller with horror movie elements. So I really don't see how a director, who's not particularly known for thrillers, would remake this.
Looking at this movie was like watching an overly long, over-the-top soap opera to the point where it becomes campy and unintentionally funny. Even Sharon Stone thought this was a black comedy, which the movie could've worked better that way. Most of the film drags on too long to the point where you just want to get it over with and it has no suspense what so ever. A Lifetime Movie Of The Week would have  better payoffs and suspense than this movie. Actually there was a Lifetime TV version of this that was much better in my opinion. In the end, it could've went well with what it was given but besides the great cast, it's wavered down by a bad script and bad choice for a director.
The Story: The wife of an abusive headmaster and his mistress decides to get rid of him once and for all by drowning his body and leaving it for dead in the pool. After that, strange events occur and panic and paranoia starts to creep on the two women. Which brings the question is the husband is dead or.....alive.

Again, you have really good actors for the cast, however, it still doesn't save the movie and you're kind of left disappointed.

Sharon Stone is playing her usual ice queen roles, a role that she plays best. Her character in the movie is sort of like the scary stern teacher trapped in a body of a glamorous movie star.

Speaking of which, it shows that the Nicole character lives in this rinky dink apartment in Pittsburgh. I know Teacher's salaries are pretty low these days but how the hell could she afford those expensive clothes?

Anywho, the movie tries to play up the ambiguity of the character whether she is with or against Mia, which works in a way I guess. Sharon Stone was actually the highlight of the movie. I thought her catty remarks and saucy spitfire attitude was just a treat to watch. It shows that she didn't take the movie seriously as much as the audience did.

Isabella Adjani was perfectly casted for a role like this since she's known for playing broken-down fragile characters. Though there were times where she's a little stiff but it was all about the emotion she put into the performance. Isabella Adjani is a very expressive actress and it was good that she was able to convey a put-upon character like Mia is.

But it all comes down of how the character is written. There were times where Mia comes off like a bumbling idiot and you just wanted to slap her. She couldn't just keep it together for one second after her and Nicole "murdered" Guy. I know the character is supposed to be paranoid and nervous, which is the catalyst for her weak heart, but the choices she makes make her less than smart. But I would say that Isabella Adjani gave an okay performance.

Chazz Palmentiri is pretty much known for playing menacing villains, especially in mobster films but I can't help to say he was kind of phoning it in. The same goes for Sharon Stone because she's good at what she does though Palmenitri was expected to play a role like this. So I'm not going to dwell too much on his performance, he was good either way.

As for the Guy character, one of the more abusive things he does to his wife is say how much she's lousy in bed and in one scene forces her to eat cafeteria in which all the teachers and students refer to as 'dog shit'(even though it doesn't look that bad) and is also implied to be something of a gold digger, marrying Mia so he can have full control of the school. So the Guy character is pretty much comes off like the generic villain and there's not much more to that really.

The one drastic change the movie did was by changing the detective character into a woman to have some sort of feminist underling to survey the plot of the story. Played by Kathy Bates, the detective seems a little bitter about men. It's one thing to have a strong female character, I would give the movie points for that, but to have her be this ball-busting crusader against men is a little contradicting and you sort of know where the film is going at the point. It's best to show not tell is what I'm saying. Even Sharon Stone's character bitches about her and says, "I hate that in-your-face survivor crap." You see comments like that makes me wonder why wasn't this movie turned into a comedy or a parody of some sorts.
There is absolutely no suspense or tension in this movie. I barely wouldn't even call this a horror movie even though the 1955 movie is called a horror movie in it's own right. However, this fails to capture any of the scarier moments the original had.

I would say the lesbian subtext that was in the original was just subtext. In this version, they try to play that up. Since Sharon Stone and Isabella Adjani are two attractive women, the movie tries to have sexual tension between the two characters just so it could be a ploy to have male butts in the theater. It's implied that Nicole is secretly in love with Mia and is jealous of Guy, even though she's in a sexual relationship with him but it doesn't go anywhere.  You're left wondering what if but it's all sexual tension and nothing else.
The original's ending after the shocking twist, really didn't dwell on me. The movie just abruptly ended and that's that. But this version changed that all right. So this is the moment you've been waiting for the twist ending that pretty much had everybody talking....though not in a good way:
So Mia, in full sense of panic and paranoia, is wondering whether she is hallucinating if Guy is alive or not, finally sees him in the bathtub, seemingly dead. Then all of a sudden, he rises, staring at her with dead white eyes. Mia in full shock, has a heart attack and dies. Okay just to add this here: what made the twist of the original great was how unexpected it was while the suspense and tension was on full high. Unfortunately in this version, it fails to capture any of that and also felt rushed.

So Nicole comes in and Guy is all happy that their 'plan' worked, then once Nicole looks down at Mia, turns out Mia is still alive and once Guy catches wind of this, the two women play a cat and mouse game until all three of them duke it out in the swimming pool until Mia and Nicole are able to drown Guy, again, leaving him dead once and for all.

Then Detective Voguel comes along and out of nowhere punches Mia in the face, claiming that will be evidence for self defense. And so as the two women leave off and move on with their lives, Voguel triumphantly smokes a cigarette while looking down at Guy's drowned body.
Wow. Just wow. I have never seen an ending so stupid. It had no excitement what so ever and it just left me blank the entire time. I wasn't really bothered that the movie kept Mia alive, I will give more points to that, but again like the original's ending, there's just no impact.
There's nothing more for me to say except this was marketed it as a sexy Sharon Stone thriller but it's neither sexy nor thrilling and the audience was therefore left unsatisfied as this was box office bomb upon it's release.
The Verdict? Watch the original or better yet the 1993 Lifetime version. Yeah, it's kind of cheesy but at least there's more to it. But for your amusement, you could probably give the 1996 a watch as well.
My Last Word: it's up to you, though this could be a chore to sit through.

 

Night Of The Living Dead (1990)

In  1968, a young special effects master by the name of Tom Savini had his first gig working on the George A. Romero Classic, The Night Of The Living Dead, though that never came to be since he was called on duty during Vietnam. Now 22 years, at the top of his prime, he recaptures the same intelligence and masterful effects in his 1990 remake, which is incredibly awesome.
What was so great about the original was it's strong political message hidden in the film. It was a rarity to have a black male hero in a horror movie and have him to be the rational, resourceful, quick-witted thinker, among the irrational and not so smart white cast. By the end of the movie, nobody lives and it has an all around bleak ending. At the time, it's one of those horror movies that will make you think and think till this day.
So It was probably a challenge to have that same political message in a 1990 setting and in Technicolor. But the political message still works in this movie as we see it through Barbra's eyes, shifting much more towards a feminist perspective, which is great because it adds a fresh new take on the story while putting much more action and conflict between the characters and the situation.
The Story: Unbeknownst to a plague turning people into walking corpses, Barbra and her brother Johnny are on their way to visit their mother's grave. Suddenly, a zombie appears out of nowhere and attacks them both. Unfortunately, Barbra's brother doesn't make it. Almost barely escaping from yet another zombie attack, Barbra hides out in an abandon house where she meets Ben, one of the survivors from the zombie outbreak. With five other survivors joining along the way, the group of strangers must find a way to prevent the zombie from killing them and from killing each other.

The cast is fantastic, along with horror veterans Tony Todd and Tom Towles. The biggest change in the new Night Of The Living Dead remake is the characters. They're still the same, just updated in a modern way.

Ben played by Tony Todd is still a competent leader but rather flawed. he's just as scared and irrational as everybody else and not taking the time to listen to anybody's ideas, especially Barbra and Cooper's, knowing in the spur of things they could be right. He realizes this tragic mistake in the end and eventually seals his fate.

Tony Todd is just awesome in this and there's even an iconic shot in the movie when he first appears. Just to let you guys know this came out BEFORE Candyman. Anywho, Tony Todd gave a head-on performance and knows how to do karate well.

Then we have the true star of it all.....Barbara! She is just all kinds of kickass! I like how they make her a strong capable heroine who holds her own this time and that's probably the best change that the filmmakers did with the movie. Looking at Barbra from the 1968 original, she was kind of meek and useless, just sitting around being in a dazed, confused state. To be honest, Women in films back then weren't as progressive as they are now.

So It was really refreshing for Barbra in this version to get angry, aggressive and take charge with a firey haircut, giving off a Ripley vibe. Hell Yes! it's about time.

She does, of course, starts off kind of meek and scared but it makes since because it's real human emotion and she doesn't understand what's really going on.

Though once she takes wind of things she gets a lot tougher and stronger and is pretty good with ammo, too. By this time, she is just as much of a capable leader as Ben is and a lot much smarter than the 1968 Barbra who was kind of....well....idiotic in some places. Okay guys, I'm going to spoil it for you a little bit but for those of you who haven't seen it, go watch it now!.....
Barbara is the sole survivor which is very fitting in my opinion. Since the 1968 movie had a strong political message with racism, Vietnam, and social class issues. This version has a sort of feminist message as it focuses on Barbra and how she grows as a character through the crisis that she's experiencing but it still has the important new world issues that it had in the 1968 film. Once Barbra escapes with a new group of survivors, she looks at the people, as they torture the zombies like toys in playful glee, and says, "We're them and They're us." Which is something to think about when watching this movie. Patricia Tallman is the strongest actress in this. She can be vulnerable and tough at the same time and it takes a good actress to handle that emotional range. Overall, Barbra is an awesome character with an even more awesome actress.

Tom and Judy are a lot more active in this as opposed to them being typical lovelorn teenagers in the original. Tom is now a local good o'l boy who knows his way with guns and Judy is taking Barbra's old role, but even though she's usually whiny and screaming most of the time, that doesn't mean she's totally useless. After all, she IS a teenager in this situation.

And I would like to say that William Butler was at his prime as a Scream King. He starred in a Friday The 13th sequel, starred on a Freddy's Nightmares episode, starred in a Texas Chainsaw Massacre sequel, and now is being attacked by zombies. He actually gave a good performance and quite the looker, too.

Harry Cooper in this version is way much worse. He berates his wife whenever she desperately tries to find a way to help her sick daughter, even slapping her, fights constantly with the other strangers, especially Ben, and selfishly goes up the attic for Ben and Barbra to fend for themselves. In the original, his jerkassery came from how scared he was in the situation, scared for his family. But in this, he's just a plain o'l asshole. He doesn't get off easy though once Barbra finds him, she says 'fuck it' and shoots him in the head. Tom Towles does a good job and was able to add more layers to the character which is why he's honored as a veteran in the genre.

The suspense is at a high and so is the action. It makes the experience of watching this movie much more enjoyable.

And since this was directed by Tom Savini, His special effects is great on display, making the zombies very nasty and menacing-looking.
The movie was met with negative reviews at the time, which I don't understand. I feel it should have the same praise as the original. Though years later it has received a cult following and the horror community greatly appreciated it.
The verdict? Yes, watch this! Both movies should be watched and analyzed. They both have a strong political message yet the 1990 version is much actionized, having it's own spin to it. Both movies are definitely worth-seeing.
My Last Word: Like I said go watch this and the original. Definitely a good time.