31 Days of Horror 4: Originals vs. Remakes

 Welcome to 31 Days of Horror 4. This year I am pitting originals against remakes to see which ones come out on top.

The Amityville Horror (1979) vs. The Amityville Horror (2005)

Original

The movie is based on the true events that happened to the Lutz family back in the year 1975.
The movie begins with George (James Brolin) and Kathleen Lutz (Margot Kidder) and their children moving into the Dutch Colonial at 112 Ocean Ave. in Amityville, N.Y.
Yet, 13 months before the Lutz moved in Ronald DeFeo Jr. had shot and killed all six of his family members in the house.
The real story goes that after 28 days of living in the house, the Lutz family fled in fear. They claimed they were being terrorized by paranormal activity.
The movie covers those 28 days and we slowly see George Lutz turning on his family and being tormented by the entity that drove Ronald DeFeo Jr. to kill.

Even though that the actually story, which this is based, doesn’t add up, the movie is a great haunted house film.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think this a masterpiece but for what it is it’s effective. The pacing and overall tone of the original film was more menacing than the 2005 remake. This was because the original explored the story without getting into too much depth and allowed our minds create the horrors that live in the house.

Remake

The 2005 remake follows the same story, but gets into more of the history of the house. This ultimately weighs down the film.

What made the original more effective was not seeing the ghosts and knowing less about the history of the home. In this film the ghosts are popping up left and right and then we get the story why the ghosts look like the way they do.

I appreciate the fact that the writer and director attempted to do something new with the material. I also appreciate the performances in this movie, but it’s really nothing new.

In the end the movie is mediocre at best.

So, which is better?

I find things I like about both films but in the end the win goes to the original. The 1979 film had that creepy main theme, Lois Lane (Margot Kidder), and much more of an atmosphere than the remake.

Original Wins

Hoping 'American Horror Story' season 3 is better

“American Horror Story” will return for a third season on FX in October but my hopes are low after a disappointing second year.
This year the popular television show will focus on witches, with themes of race, oppression and family. It sounds interesting enough but will it fall into the same traps the second season did?
In it’s first season the show had an engaging story with interesting characters and kept a clear direction throughout its run. That all changed when it came to Season 2, which went off the deep end.
In the second year there were too many ideas. It felt as if the writers wanted to include everything they thought of — and they did. There was a Dr. Frankenstein character, aliens, a serial killer, even the Angel of Death. If you can’t understand how these things fit together, don’t worry, because no one could. It was a jumbled mess with no clear direction. For me, season two was a huge disappointment.
Now, with season three right around the corner, we have to hope the writers have learned from their missteps and bring back the style of season one.
I want a story with characters I can identify with. I want to see them focus on one thing and make that one thing work. In season one they focused on ghosts, so why can’t they just focus on the witches and leave it that. Less is more.
I also would like them tone down the violence. “American Horror Story” doesn’t need the over-the-top gore, its stories should be strong and scary on their own. The crew and writers need to have more faith in their work.
Season three of “American Horror Story” will premiere October 9 on FX.

‘Star Wars: Episode VII’ going back to the basics

“Star Wars: Episode VII” producer, Kathleen Kennedy, indicates that the next chapter will resurrect some former story lines, characters and practical effects.
This news is exciting as those film-making elements were missing from the “Star Wars” prequels. Those movies overused CGI, had underdeveloped characters and wooden performances that ultimately destroyed two of the three films.
What George Lucas failed to realize with the prequels was that special effects were not what made the “Star Wars” brand. That is something that the team behind “Star Wars: Episode VII” seems to grasp.
The original “Star Wars” trilogy was great because it took advantage of filming on location and only used special effects to enhance the brand.
“Looking at all the Star Wars movies and getting a feel for what even some of the early films did, combining real locations and special effects, that’s something we’re looking very seriously at,” Kennedy says
The films also took risks with the storylines. There were character and plot twists in the original films that were noticably absent in the prequels.
“And if you don’t spend the time you need on developing characters, and finding stories — complicated stories — the audience gets tired because they think they’re seeing the same thing again and again,” Kennedy empasizes.
It seems like Kennedy has her head on straight and can return this franchise to the basics.
Now, the next news I would like to hear, like everyone else, is what story are they doing? Will they do a something from the expanded universe or are they creating an original story?
I hope that with anything they do, they remain true to the spirit of the original trilogy.

Christian Bale Confirms No More Batman

Christian Bale has confirmed that he will not be playing Batman in a "Justice League" movie or another "Batman" film.
This news came out during an interview with Entertainment Weekly.
"We were incredibly fortunate to get to make three [Batman films]. That's enough. Let's not get greedy," he says. "Chris [Nolan] always said he wanted to make it one film at a time. And we ended up sitting there looking at each other, saying 'We're about to make the third.' We never really knew if we were going to get to be there, but if that was how it was going to be, this was where it should end as well." 

Bale also revealed that he is looking forward to see what another actor does with the role.

"Man of Steel" Review

“Man of Steel” might not have been the biggest success with critics but that didn’t stop me from

The newest Superman movie premiered under the weight of mediocre reviews. Many felt that it was all action and no substance, causing the characters to be underdeveloped. I agree that some characters could have used more development, but I felt that “Man of Steel” worked.

The film retells the story of the last son of Krypton and how he discovers who he is and where he comes from. It does this with very little camp, which separates it from earlier Superman films. The camp is replaced by some very intense emotion.

The other thing that makes the film work is its clear focus on the science fiction elements of Superman. Embracing the sci-fi allows the movie to immerse itself into the Superman lore. It also opens the possibility to include more of the unusual villains in future films.

Now, the things that didn’t work for me center around one character — Lois Lane.

Lane is underdeveloped and her relationship with Superman and Clark suffers because of that. Amy Adams did a fine job with the material she had to work with, but she never seems that important. She’s just there to be there and the relationship between Clark and Lois seems forced.

I’m glad Lois Lane was included and happy that they’ve started somewhat of a relationship. Yet, I wish it could’ve been a little deeper and more interesting.

Other than that, I didn’t have huge problems with the movie, just smaller ones.

Let’s start with the films CGI (computer-generated imagery), it was rough in some places but two scenes stood out the most.

The first scene was the one where Superman fights giant tentacles when trying to destroy one of Zod’s ships. The scene just looked like a cartoon and the action didn’t really add anything to the overall scene.

The next one is the final showdown between Superman and Zod. There were certain shots during this fight scene where I was very aware that I was looking at a CGI image.

The final problem I had with the film was the script. Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed the story, but I thought it could’ve been tighten up in some places and some scenes could have benefited from a couple more rewrites.

Summing it all up, I will say that “Man of Steel” is a good time. The problems with the film are there but it didn’t distract me from enjoying it.

B+

Is Jurassic Park 3D worth it?

Recently I revisited Isla Nublar when I saw “Jurassic Park 3D”!

“Jurassic Park” is the film that really changed the way movies are made. It introduced us to CGI and brought back dinosaurs after their 65 million year extinction.

Now, this being the films 20^th anniversary year, Universal has re-released the film in 3D.

I’m usually against the use of 3D, but “Jurassic Park” pulls it off. For post-conversion the 3D looked amazing.

There are some parts where the effects are starting to show their age. The brachiosaurs scene, where it sneezes, the animatronic looks great but the CGI looks a little rough. The next scene where the CGI looked a little rough was the kitchen scene. The CGI is starting to show its age but then again the film is going to be 20 years old.

Everything else looked great. The clean up they did for 3D makes the film look even better than its Blu-ray release.

After 20 years the film still holds up and seeing it on the big screen again just gives you a warm feeling inside. There is nothing like seeing “Jurassic Park” on the big screen.

I highly encourage everyone to go out and see “Jurassic Park 3D”. The movie is a classic and the 3D is worth it this time around.

A+

Check out Nit-Picking: Jurassic Park at http://jamesentertainmentedge.blogspot.com/2012/08/nit-picking-jurassic-park.html

LucasArts closes and 'Star Wars 1313' goes with it

Disney shut the doors to game studio, LucasArts last week and with it has left an interesting “Star Wars” video game with an uncertain future.
“Star Wars 1313” was a game that was announced last year at E3 (electronic entertainment expo) and since then it has been only gaining our interest. What we saw of the game, we could tell that it was going to be a third-person action-adventure and also be a grittier take on the “Star Wars” universe. It had “Star Wars” fans intrigued.
Now, after waiting for this game to come out we’ve learned that it is most likely completely dead, due to Disney closing down LucasArts. Also, to make it worse, it has now been reported that Bounty Hunter Boba Fett was going to be the main protagonist.
For those of you who aren’t acquainted with Fett, let me fill you in. Fett is a bounty hunter who most people were introduced to in 1980s “Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.” In that movie he ruthlessly hunted down the Millennium Falcon to capture its captain, Han Solo.

It is hard to pinpoint why Fett is so popular. It could be the armor he wears. It could be the jet pack on his back. It could be that he shows no fear when talking to Darth Vader or it could be all these things put together. Bottom line, Fett is a mysterious and intriguing character in the “Star Wars” universe.
“Star Wars 1313” sounded like it was finally going to put us into the role of this bounty hunter, something that fans wanted for a longt ime, but it seems like we’ll still be waiting for that day.
There is always hope that someone will buy the game from Disney and finish it, but let’s not hold our breaths.
With all that said, I’m disappointed that Disney closed down LucasArts. The studio has been around as long as I can remember and I hope that Disney knows what they are doing. Yet, if we don’t get a Boba Fett video game maybe we’ll see a Boba Fett movie.