Hellraiser 2022 - Review

Over the last 35 years, Hellraiser has become a household name and a behemoth in the horror genre. Even if someone doesn't recognize the title of the film, all you have to say is, “the guy with all the nails in his head”, and they immediately know what you are talking about. 

It began as a novella by Clive Barker, an absolutely legendary horror author whose work combines the grotesque and the horrific with beautiful sensuality, woven seamlessly together. The novella was called The Hellbound Heart, and it was published in 1986. A year later Clive Barker, himself, directed the film adaptation of the story into the iconic picture we have all come to know as Hellraiser. It became a classic in no time, with the instantly recognizable villain of the film, Pinhead (aptly named for the nails that jut in all directions from his pasty white skull), donning the cover of 9 additional sequels (although Clive Barker only directed the original film) and now, a remake. 

The film begins establishing some loose exposition to introduce the Lament Configuration, which is the name for the puzzle box featured in all the Hellraiser movies–sort of a main character, in itself. 

This puzzle box (think of it as a demonic rubix cube) is sought out by those who have attained every natural high–be it by drugs, sex, or money–and are seeking a new dimension of pleasure.

 In the 2022 Hellraiser, the puzzle box is acquired by Roland Voight: some ultra-wealthy, mansion-owning, orgy-hosting… guy. We really don't get to know anything about him in the short pre-title exposition, other than he's super wealthy, he owns a mansion, hosts orgies, and he has acquired the puzzle box through some mysterious connection. And he has no problem giving the Lament Configuration exactly what it wants–blood sacrifice. 

With that, we now switch to what will become the main characters for the rest of the film: recovering addict twenty-something Riley, her protective brother and roommate Matt and his boyfriend Colin, and Riley's sketchy “boyfriend” (this is a loose term), Trevor, who her brother strongly disapproves of. Mostly because Trevor is an active addict and obvious low-life. 

When Riley complains of being “sick of being broke”, Trevor casually suggests they rob a warehouse, to which Riley has zero questions or concerns, so off they go. After breaking into a teeny tiny safe that is the sole item in a walk-in shipping container, they find, within, a wooden box. And you know what’s in the box, right? Another box! The puzzle box… 

Now to the review. Comparisons between the new and original film may be made. How can they not be? It is a remake, after all, of a classic and near-perfect film. I won’t say I’m wholly against remakes, but in cases such as these I can’t help but wonder “why”? Is it just a cash grab to profit off a popular film? Is it a way to gain a new generational audience by “updating” the film to a current day setting with current vernacular, music, fashion, etc? And if the latter is the case, then why? Why do films need to be updated? Do we think that the cycles of generations won’t have an interest or appreciation in older films? And on top of that, by making it so obviously “modern”, you are just going to age the film down the line. By commercially stylizing it, you are just putting a timestamp on precisely when the film was made; and with no deeper creative choices driving that, most likely in a decade from now the film will just look tacky.

 The runtime is just over two hours. I’m more partial to a cool 90 minute feature, especially since this film felt extremely drawn out. I actually watched the first hour of the movie sometime in November and didn’t finish it until nearly 3 months later. 

One of my complaints was that it took WAY too long to get a decent look at the cenobites (the demons that dole out the punishments and “rewards” of those who solve the puzzle box). Personally, I’m of the feeling that if I am watching a film with monsters, I don’t want to play the game of hide and seek, building up with a glimpse here and there. I want to see the fucking monsters.

 I was most excited to see the designs they chose for the cenobites, but most scenes of them are overly dark and it’s nearly impossible to make them out. Apparently the film chose to use mostly practical effects over CGI, which is my personal preference when, well, practical–but I felt it wasn’t really properly showcased due to low lighting and heavy use of filters. The only one we do get a decent eyeful of is the main cenobite, leader of the pack, she who would be Pinhead. 

Pinhead (who is still clearly donning pins in the head) is now credited as “the Priest”. Up until this point Pinhead has been played by a man (Doug Bradley in the first 7 films). In 2022 Hellraiser, “the Priest” is now played by Jamie Clayton and appears more feminized, but still androgynous. I was a little underwhelmed by the portrayal of the priest, I found the character to be a bit dull and lifeless, and I would have liked to appreciate the full costume she is donning which required roughly 4 hours of make-up. I don’t place blame on actress Jamie Clayton, though. She doesn’t run the set lighting and she didn’t write the script, and after watching and reading several interviews with her she expressed being genuinely excited and honored to have been given this role and even has the blessing of original Pinhead, Doug Bradley, himself. 

I know that the nature of media in this day and age—in this case, movies—is to remake, reboot, and reimagine; but in my opinion it’d be a lot more interesting to use the time, energy, and resources to craft an entirely new film, and instead allow people to seek out or revisit the original film.

~~Marie 

OCTOBER 14: FOURTEEN WRETCHED REMAKES

 Remakes really aren't our thing. Both Marie and I (and no doubt most of the horror-viewing world) want to see original ideas come to light (and theaters!).  Is it really necessary to keep dredging out these less-than-inspired re-imaginings that make us throw up in our mouths just a little bit more each time it happens?  There have certainly been a whole tractor-trailer's worth of crap come our way in recent years. Some is passable, even mediocre - but most of it....dreck of the highest degree. 
How many would you agree with??

THE WOLFMAN (2010)

It is amazing that this film came out two years ago and I have already nearly forgotten about it. The 1941 is charming and a classic, held close to the hearts of all horror buffs. Director Joe Johnston has done a lot of big name movies, such as Captain America, Jurassic Park, and Jumanji; I'm not going to lie, I wanted his remake to be good. I am a HUGE Benecio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins fan (not so much of an Emily Blunt fan). You see those names and you think, "How could this go wrong?" Oh, but it did. I was expecting it to be cheesy and fun, maybe even a little bad-ass, but it was hardly even laughable. Can we just pretend this never happened?~MR

WHEN A STRANGER CALLS (2006)
With the original boasting some of the scariest first twenty minutes in film, it would be hard to capture the gritty feel of the 1979 version that frightened the hell out of anyone who dared think about babysitting.  This remake was just a poor excuse for horror, barely scaring up enough frights to keep it above board.  Seeing as how 2006 was one of the worst years for the genre, it's utterly shocking that this film made enough money to open at #1.  It feels more like a Lifetime movie of the week, which is fine for a rainy Saturday afternoon, but it stinks if you've just blown twenty bucks on a ticket and snacks. Gah! ~CH

THE THING (2011)

This Thing, directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. and starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead (I hate her face, I don't know why) is supposedly a prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 Thing. All I know is that it sucks. Lacking character development and any sense of dread or terror, the only compliment I can give this film is that it's "thing" looks pretty cool, thanks to modern day technology.~MR

THE FOG (2005)
John Carpenter's 1980 classic is rife with atmosphere and creepy moments.  The 2005 version is a load of hooey with horrible acting (I'm talking to you, Maggie Grace!) and even worse effects.  As so many horrendous remakes of this time period, it was bogged down with a lame PG-13 rating, rendering it a sad wannabe that never quite induces the chills and thrills of its far-superior predecessor. Hard to believe Carpenter and Debra Hill even got behind this monstrosity to produce it. ~CH

THE SHINING (1997)

You know what I have to say to this made-for-TV piece of crap? No. Just no. Directed by Mick Garris, most famous for the Masters of Horror series, and also the director of The Fly 2 and Critters 2, this guy isn't exactly the greatest. Okay, he did also do Hocus Pocus, which I LOVE, but still! That is no excuse. What was he THINKING? Remaking The Shining? There is no way he was aiming for greatness because that would be silly. He must have known there was no way he could compare to Kubrick's 1980 masterpiece. I am confused on the motive to make this film. One time I turned on the TV and saw The Shining was on and got all pumped, and then when I realized it was this crap... I was pissed.~MR

BLACK CHRISTMAS (2006)
More proof that 2006 was an abomination, this pointless remakes has some lovelies in scanty clothing and plenty of gratuitous gore. But what it lack is the heart of the 1974 slasher. Just because there are girls willing to get naked and run around screaming doesn't mean they should be. Bob Clark took his time building plot in the original but in the remake we barely got to know anyone before they were offed in some spectacular fashion.  It has the dubious distinction of making the least amount of money of all the sequels within that 2-3 year time period, and with good reason.  It's a real dud. ~CH

THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (2005)

Good god, I hate this movie. First of all, I hate Ryan Reynolds--I'm sorry, he is just dreadful. This film was all creep-outs and cheap scares, none of the real fear or suspense given by the 1979 original. Director Andrew Douglas is one of those who has done literally nothing else, which is probably for good reason (sorry, bro). They play this movie like every other weekend on Oxygen for reasons I will never understand--I guess to see Ryan Reynolds shirtless? Not worth it, if you ask me.~MR

THE OMEN (2006)

I saw this movie when I was 14 when it came out on 6/6/06, the day many people believed the world would end even though the date 6/6/06 has happened many-a-time before. The earth kept spinning but the release of this movie certainly made it a horrible day. Being a proud young horror fan already and having seen the 1976 original, I knew this was going to suck but I saw it out of curiosity and novelty purposes. The director, John Moore, must have remembered that 6/6/06 was coming up and thrown this movie together, because that is certainly what it seemed like watching it. Let's all be honest with ourselves, new Damien could never be as creepy as old Damien.~MR

THE HAUNTING (1999)
Aww, Liam. You let me down. Big time. This film is such an embarrassment. I don't like Owen Wilson much in the first place, so casting him didn't exactly make my day. But Liam Neeson?  I like the dude in practically everything, and he is really the only good thing about this bomb.  Sure, CZJ is nice to look at, and Lily Taylor tries to bring all her indie film finesse to it, but in the end it's just a mess of CGI and a lot of screaming. A real dud considering the classic status of the original.  Potential, unrealized. ~CH

THE WICKERMAN (2006)

This is director Neil LaBute's most famous and successful film--way to go. Starring the always crazy Nic Cage, this movie was inevitabley going to suck as the 1973 original is a masterpiece (if you haven't seen it, Christine's Vital Viewing article will convince you why you NEED to)! Even if there was no original Wicker Man, and this movie wasn't a remake at all, it would still be god-awful. There is a wonderful Youtube video showcasing the "best" scenes from this film, most of them are of Nic Cage punching out women. Please view it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6i2WRreARo) and please never view this movie.~MR

APRIL FOOL'S DAY (2008)
The original April Fool's Day was a campy good time, and remains to this day one of my favorite 80's flicks. This remake totally changed the original plot points and tried to be a clever, modern day version of the '86 movie. Unfortunately, they didn't get one bit of it right.  It was described as Mean Girls crossed with horror, but it is just a flop with characters who have trite names such as Desiree, Barbie, Milan, Blaine, and Torrance. Seriously, Torrance?  I can think of absolutely NO idea to ever struggle through watching this shoddy and inferior lemon. ~CH

PROM NIGHT (2008)
I wasn't really expecting much, truth be told. And I didn't get much, that's for sure. They called this one a re-imagining.  Well, I imagine there was no real reason to make it over.  Yet another piece of dreck that opened at #1 at the theater (what has this world become?), every ounce of the original plot was basically exchanged for pretty actors and a glossy set. And let's face it, without Jamie Lee, there's no real hope of a groovin' dance scene! ~CH

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010)
People. Did you really think this was destined to be a new classic?  Really?  How many times has that ever really happened?  Despite the inspired casting of Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy, the film morphed into a CGI-heavy disaster that served notice to future remakes: just because it seems like a good idea doesn't mean it is.  It did have the sense to make Freddy more evil than humorous, because let's face it, no one does Freddy like Robert Englund.  Perhaps what this film was missing all along.....? ~CH

PSYCHO (1998)
Naturally I saved the very worst for last.  I have NO idea what on earth Gus Van Sant was thinking.  To try to think about remaking one of the most iconic films in horror history would take balls the size of watermelons.
Seeing as how I have no idea of the size of Van Sant's privates, let me just say:  why?  A remake should bring something new to the table.  This film just brought....color.
Psycho (1960) is my second favorite horror film of all time.  The fact that someone felt it necessary to make a shot-for-shot remake of it made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. Like the Beatles said: Let it be. ~CH

*A final thought:  The day that someone decides to remake Jaws is the day I become a vigilante for the integrity of the horror classics. This is your final warning...

OCTOBER 13: THIRTEEN REMAKES WE CAN GET BEHIND

THE THING (1982) dir. JOHN CARPENTER- This remake of 1951's The Thing From Another World  is arguably the best remake to be found in the horror realm. The casting is stellar, with Kurt Russell leading the pack of scientific researchers working in Antarctica who discover something less than friendly has survived in the frigid ice.  The special effects were effectively practical and gory yet with not even a pinch of CGI to ruin it. Best of all, the film is just outright scary. It towers over the original by leaps and bounds - and not just because it has thirty years on it, but because it is all but a perfect specimen of a "remake" to which all other regenerated and renovated films should aspire. ~CH

DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004) dir. ZACH SNYDER ~ Ok, I just have to say it: I LOVE this remake. I went to see it at the theater, and was pleasantly surprised at the character development as well as the zombies hustling ass. The first fifteen minutes shocked me and had me on the edge of my seat - it is so tense and exciting!  The rabid undead here seemed to start a trend of fast-movers in the zombie world, and truth be told, they were pretty damn menacing.  The blood and gore here are so well done, and the acting is fairly impressive for horror, too.  Sarah Polley in particular, and Ty Burrell has the best lines in the film ("It's nice to see that you've all bonded through this disaster.") I'm sure there are purists out there who can't accept the speedy zombies, but seriously I think there is room in this world for both of them. "And when there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth" ~CH

(BRAM STOKER'S) DRACULA (1992) dir. FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA  ~Coppola added Bram Stoker's name to the title of his film because it is claims to stay closest to the original text than any other, and I'm pretty positive that's right. The only huge difference is that Coppola made the Count a sympathetic character and turned it into a love story. It's hard to really compare this film with the 1931 classic because they are so different. I would never say "better" because I would just feel wrong doing that, but I think "different" is appropriate. I love Gary Oldman's Count Dracula, in all his forms, and if I haven't told you before, this IS my favorite film. ~MR

LET ME IN (2010) dir. MATT REEVES- When it was announced that Americans were remaking one of the finest vampire movies (and books, if I'm being honest) in years (Let the Right One In), I died a little bit inside. Thankfully this film turned out to be a bright spot  - with excellent acting led by Chloë Grace Moretz as Abby, Kodi Smit-McPhee as Owen, and Richard Jenkins as Thomas. The heart of the story stayed nearly the same (with perhaps a bit more violence), with the bullying aspect being just as painful and Owen & Abby's relationship being just as poignant.  Though the location was changed to the US southwest and the characters names were altered it is still at its core, a coming of age tale about friendship and love - with a generous helping of vampire lore. ~CH

THE FLY  (1986) dir. DAVID CRONENBERG - How awesome was this movie? So amazing!  Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis are great as the leads, with Goldblum being his erratic, bizarre self and eventually vomiting and leaking body fluids and parts all over the screen. The ultimate "man vs science" mind-fuck, The Fly boasts outstanding special effects and this update makes the original look as lame as it would be - if it didn't star Vincent Price, that is.  Cronenberg is at the top of his game here, with one of the best sci-fi/horror flicks on his resume. ~CH

THE BLOB (1988)  dir. CHUCK RUSSELL - Made in 1988, this one still has a real 80's feel to it, with Shawnee Smith doing her best to scream through something other than Saw.  Whereas the original was really campy and screwball, this one tries - and succeeds pretty well - to be a horror film.  There's lots of nasty victims meeting their end in gelatinous goo, as well as a whole lot of trying to figure out what happened and what on earth they will do to get rid of the giant Jello from hell.  You wouldn't think this concept could prove to be scary, but there are several moments of sheer terror here, with an abundant amount of gore leeching through the goop.  I've only seen the original one time - and it just seems silly now that I know this one is available. ~CH

HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL (1999) dir.WILLIAM MALONE ~I hold the original "House on Haunted Hill" very dear to my heart as it stars my beloved Vincent Price (whom Geoffrey Rush makes a lovely homage to) and is also a phenomenal movie but I actually really like the remake. I picked it up at the video store when I was a kid and watched it alone--needless to say it scared the crap out of me. I then HAD to show it to all my friends and scare the crap out of them! The newer version has much more terror and a definite psychotic feel to it. It will never replace the original, but I never felt that it was trying to; it took a classic and made a fun and scary companion to it. Oh yeah, I almost forgot to tell you t hat I have a huge crush on Taye Diggs. ~MR

MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D (2009) dir. PATRICK LUSSIER- I am a huge fan of the 1981 MBV, and was quite hesitant about them re-doing it. But they filmed it about ten miles from my home, so I had to go to see all the landmarks I've grown up with.  Surprise! It was a good remake with effective special effects (even the 3D!) and an updated plot that was actually decent - and so much better than the scores of remakes that came out at the same time. ~CH

CAT PEOPLE (1982) dir. PAUL SCHRADER -Though it's pretty hard to compare to a Val Lewton film, this remake of the 1942 still maintains its erotic flavor (slightly amped up of course) and sense of dread.  Most of this is due to its enigmatic star, Nastassja Kinski, and the film has more nudity than gore. But what it did keep from the Lewton original is suspense and atmosphere. And you really can't beat a good cat fight, even if it is more violent than sensual.  But hey, there's enough sex in this film to hold you over, I'm telling you. ~CH

INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1978) dir. PHILIP KAUFMAN ~ Based on a 1956 film of the same name (which was based on a book, originally), this creepy version stars The Donald (Sutherland) in the role of Matther, a health inspector who, along with co-worker Elizabeth (Brooke Adams) discover that extraterrestrial pod-people are taking over San Francisco. While the first version is certainly nothing to balk at and is considered a major force of science-fiction history, this take on the story is much more unsettling and horrifying. I'm sure many a person is nervous about going to sleep after sitting through this eerie and ominous film.  ~CH

THE RING (2002) dir. GORE VERBINSKI ~  We film addicts automatically groan when we hear of an American film remaking a foreign one because most of the time it is because American directors can't think of their own ideas or because Americans are too lazy to read subtitles (believe me, I know people like this). Every once in a while an American remake of a foreign original will go over well, or even terrifically in this case. When this came out here in the West it was the movie you dared each other to see because everyone was talking about just how fucking scary it was--and it really WAS, at least when I was ten it was. Although  Americans could never terrify in the same way the Japanese can, but if done right we can still give you a few nightmares. ~MR

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1990) dir. TOM SAVINI ~ How could an iconic film like the original 1968 NOTLD ever be duplicated?  Hmm. It can't.  But this version - in color, to keep with the times - did a pretty good job in updating the zombie masterpiece.  Instead of the near-catatonic Barbra, we get a re-vamped Barbara who not only gains another "a" in her name, but a backbone to fight off zombies that were a tad more vicious than the lumbering dolts from the first film.  Tom Savini probably took some heat upon his decision to re-do this classic, and it's said that he had to cut some of the violence to avoid an X-rating, but I have to say I'm completely on board. And my favorite part?  Tony Todd, of course! ~CH

CAPE FEAR (1991)  dir. MARTIN SCORSESE ~ I'm sure people familiar with the original picture from 1962 that starred the late greats Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck probably could never imagine a new take on Cape Fear even coming close to their beloved film - but there's absolutely NO denying that Robert De Niro rocked the role of Max Cady.  He delivered one of the most chilling performances in film (and De Niro has an amazing body of work), and I think we've all heard of a guy named Scorsese. Pretty much every cast member here gives a stellar performance, and we get treated to cameos from Peck, Mitchum, as well as Martin Balsam - all from the '62 version. I still get chills when I think of De Niro snarling: "Come out, come out, wherever you are...." This is one frightening movie, hands down.  ~CH

The Heresy of Remakes

Sorry folks, but I feel another rant coming on.
After enjoying another viewing of Dawn of the Dead ('04) last evening,


(Getting down with the sickness)

-it occurred to me how many horror remakes I have actually truly enjoyed. VERY FEW.
I mean, I can no doubt count them on one hand. Some are passable, such as The Hills Have Eyes ('06) and this year's My Bloody Valentine (though I detest 3D) - and some are absolutely reprehensible, like the shot-on-shot remake of Psycho. That just about makes me want to hurl thinking about it. And speaking of hurling, how about Nic Cage in The Wicker Man remake? It hurts my head to relive that again, so if you'll excuse me I'll move on.

In my humble opinion, the best remake ever was the 1982 re-do of The Thing.


(a very hairy Kurt assessing the damages)

That movie was poetry in motion. I live for the day movie makers get the stick out of their narrow-minded asses and give us something that worthy again. Could there be a better example of taking a relic of a film from the early 50's:


(The Thing From Another World, 1951)

-and turning it into an updated masterpiece of cinema? Okay, you get that I like it, right? [ The bad news? Another Thing remake. Help me.]

But on that same page, what were they thinking with that horrific remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still last year? Eeeek!
The original of that sci-fi flick was made in 1951.


(gotta love it)

Surely with all today's technology and CGI effects that film could have been far superior to the dreck they turned out. Of course, we may need to take into consideration that they cast Keanu Reeves. Never a good sign...


(Keanu looking all scary and stuff!)

Anyway, I got to checking around the web to see what other sickening treats are in store for us. Remakes galore are on the horizon and I can't say I'm too excited. Doesn't anyone have any orginal ideas anymore?
Alas...apparently not.

I'm sure you've all heard of the new Nightmare On Elm Street movie coming out next year. Well, I was a bit jazzed for it, cause the trailer (see it here) does seem fairly interesting. Yeah, but so did the trailers for the remakes of Halloween (sacrilege!), Friday the 13th (irreverence!), The Haunting (blasphemy!), The Omen (heresy!), House of Wax (profanity!), The Fog (mockery!)...need I say more? Now I'm rather skeptical because I haven't heard too many good things about the new Elm.

However, I am psyched about the new Wolfman movie (trailer here for those of you living under a rock) - and until I see it for myself and can pass judgment, no one will deter me from my high hopes. It really seems like a Bram Stoker's Dracula kind of remake (though again.....Keanu Reeves, really?).

Also on the remake horizon:

Poltergeist. (2011)
Say it ain't so. What could they possibly hope to add or delete from this one? Though to be honest I dislike both JoBeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson. Guess it'd be too much to hope for Bruce Campbell in the lead. And they better make the clown equally as frightening or it just isn't gonna cut it, okay?


(I can't tell who's over-acting more...)

Besides, with all the bad luck the original film had, if I were an actor you'd be hard pressed to find me acting in that one, sorry.

Clash of the Titans. (3/26/10)
You can see this teaser trailer here on my site. Not exactly horror, but you can't stop my heart pounding with glee at the thought of seeing this one, so don't even try. I love the ancients. They just don't make enough movies about classical mythology, and there's so much to work with.
The original Harryhausen production is a fantasy classic, albeit using the (come on, admit it) silly-looking stop motion animation.


(The Kraken. Not exactly what I'd imagined...)

But the new one looks like happily like a Gladiator-type film, with Liam Neeson playing Zeus and Sam Worthington as Perseus.



I can get on board with that, but I hope the Kraken is a little more foreboding.

The Birds. (release date unknown)
Okay, the first one was fairly hokey, but effective nonetheless. The sight of all those damn birds on the monkey bars? Creepy. But it is a movie about animals gone wild, and honestly, those movies are so hard to make convincing. Rogue was entirely satisfying, but Night of the Lepus...not so much.


(is that little girl's eyes crossed or is it just me?)

Thankfully, I have heard George Clooney and Naomi Watts are attached to star and will be directed by Casino Royale's Martin Campbell. Sounds better than expected... so far.

Scanners 3D. (release date unknown)
The only way this one could actually be better is if, since it's in 3D, the exploding head would send pieces of skull and brains flying into the audience. I mean, the effects in the original were stellar for that day and age.


(Michael Ironside just isn't thinking clearly anymore.)

The Orphanage. (release date unknown)



Just because a movie is in a foreign language does not mean it needs to be remade for us 'English-folk' to understand it. If you can't read subtitles then you're just a dork. Do I make myself clear? Next thing you know they'll be remaking Pan's Labyrinth. (And no, I don't want to hear it if they are.)

Hellraiser. (release date unknown)
Now this one has had my panties in a wad since I heard they were re-doing it. Ugh, ugh, and ugh again. Is there something that the first one was lacking? Oh my. Supposedly Clive Barker is at the head of the project, but recent news has been scarce, so who knows. And please, nobody does Pinhead like Doug Bradley, 'kay?




Season of the Witch. (3/19/10)
There is some confusion regarding this one. Word has it that Rob Zombie is set to remake the third movie in the Halloween franchise (the one without Michael Myers) but that he is going to add Mikey in this one (!!!). But there is already a movie in production with the same title starring none other than the awkwardly prolific, tax-avoiding, debt-ensuing, one-trick pony Nicholas Cage. It is about knights and witches and the Black Plague. Seriously.
God help us.


(Looks like the dog can smell shit a mile away...)

Of course then there is the rumor that George Romero wants to redo his 1971 Season of the Witch because it is the only one of his films that he didn't care for. So that title has alot of possibilities but garners little enthusiam from me on any them.

Night of the Demons. (2/2010)
With the original hailing from the late 80's, I figure this one to simply be another hack 'em-up-teenagers-are-gonna-have-sex-then-die kind of remake.


(The only still from the film I could find without breasts.)

Not like we haven't seen enough of that already. Did you know there were two sequels made (in '94 & '97) to that pretty much deplorable flick? Neither did I till I googled it. I'll pass on all counts. The original was really really bad, with more boobs than a mammography department. Not that I'm adverse to some nudity, it's a prerequisite to horror I guess...but in this quantity it may as well been a plot-less porno. It was as bad, that's for sure.

Piranha 3D. (4/16/10)
With the resurgence of 3D movies, I suppose a movie about flesh eating fish would be a given. No? Yeah, I wasn't quite getting it either.


(inner tubes and rows of sharp teeth don't mix.)

But there may be a glimmer of hope in the fact that it is directed by Alexandre Aja, who in my opinion has had a couple good flicks (Haute Tension and The Hills Have Eyes) and a couple mediocre ones (Mirrors, and producing credit on P2)... so I guess we'll have to wait and see. I'd have been more impressed if say, Quentin Tarentino was directing.
Oh, and Richard Dreyfuss is one of the stars. It's back to man-eating fish for the meandering star.

Mother's Day. (5/9/10)
Let me guess? They'll release it on said holiday. {heavy sigh...}
I'm just not getting the draw to holiday movies. Wasn't Halloween the I-Ching? Do we really need to go there? Aren't most holidays scary enough without capitalizing on them? Darren Lynn Bousman is directing, and if it's anything like his previous efforts on three of the six Saw movies, I guess you can tell what direction this film is heading. You want a good scary movie with mothers in the central plot just watch Mommie Dearest. Now that shit's bloodcurdling.


(NO WIRE HANGERS!!!!!!!!!!!)


Straw Dogs. (2/25/11)
I'm hoping this one will be worthy of later praise.


(Dustin Hoffman in the original)

The original (1971) was quite controversial due to a nasty rape scene, but considering it was an excellent if perhaps slightly overlooked film, I am thinking the remake could truly work. And I may be utterly biased when I say I'm psyched to see Alexander Skarsgard (Eric on True Blood - swoon!) playing the bad guy. Yum.

Dorian Gray. (9/9/09, UK)
Already released in the UK, this adaptation stars Ben Barnes (Prince Caspian) in the title role:



The original novel (A Picture Of Dorian Gray, 1891) was written by Oliver Wilde and is a classic in the gothic horror genre and one of my favorites. The previous incantation of the movie was made in 1970 and I have never seen it and cannot pass judgment. I don't know the release date for here in the USA.

And finally, in the category of 'well we can't make the name exactly the same', comes:
Let Me In. (2010)
I'd truly hoped it was an indecent joke when I heard they were remaking the fantastic Let The Right One In (Sweden, 2008).



Alas...not so.
I suppose it should be expected that when a movie gets a lot of hype and praise within the industry that someone would immediately latch on to the prospect of those American dollars ka-chinging in their pockets. The director of Let The Right One In, Tomas Alfredson, quoted the following: "Remakes should be made of movies that aren't very good, that gives you the chance to fix whatever has gone wrong". However, the writer of the source novel (and screenwriter for the original film), John Ajvide Lindqvist, is apparently excited that "the director will be adapting the novel from scratch rather than copying the original film."
For now, all I can get behind is the casting of the sensational Richard Jenkins as Håkan.

But frankly, I could spew large quantities of vomit at the thoughts of American filmakers getting their greedy paws on this foreign gem. Truly the best film in the vampire genre in the last few decades, Let The Right One In is a study in subtle terror. At times brutal, but always exceptional, LTROI was an instant classic, wickedly satisfying and not to be fucked (PMF) around with.
It's like remaking The Exorcist.
And please tell me that's not happening, or I'll poke my eyes out with the first sharp object I can get my hands on.