Original vs. Remake: Poltergeist (2015) vs. Poltergeist (1982)

So it’s time for another episode of Original vs. Remake, because Hollywood is obsessed with retelling successful stories from the past in a bland, less intense fashion. I’m beginning to notice a trend on my ‘Original vs. Remake’ articles, the old ones always win! I’m not biased, I always give remakes a chance, because there’s always the odd chance we might get a good one. Unfortunately, 99.9% of the time remakes are shit, or as is the case with this new Poltergeist remake, a lesser version of the original. The original Poltergeist trilogy started with one fantastic film: Poltergeist (1982), a Tobe Hooper film. Tobe Hooper as some of you may know is one of the masters of horror. He was the guy behind the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and Salem’s Lot (1979) amongst a slew of other horror films. Hooper’s Poltergeist was a film that captured the imagination and frightened audiences back in 1982, why? Because it was a spectacle, it was made to wow us and frighten us. It wanted to make us squirm in our seats. The filmmakers didn’t just want to tell a spooky story, something they did splendidly well anyways, no, the idea behind the original Poltergeist was to razzle dazzle us as well, give us a magic show. And that they did, the supernatural shenanigans were an awesome spectacle to behold. When ghosts appeared, you knew you were in for something special. That’s one of the elements I loved the most about Poltergeist (1982), the effects. The guys at Industrial Lights and Magic really went the extra mile to do something awesome.

 I mean, back then they’d actually have to build the ghosts from the ground up, which of course gave the visuals a tangibility that is sourly lacking in the new version. Those slimy tentacles that caught little Carol Anne looked freaking real, not so with the computer generated ghosts on this new version. I will admit that the visual effects on the new one are slick looking, but they are simply put not better than the original. Those days of cool effects seem to be gone forever, replaced by computer animation and it’s really sad. That artistry that the Industrial Lights and Magic guys pulled off, it was pure magic and illusion. I long for movies that mix both things, the practical with the computer generated. When a filmmaker uses computer generated images to enhance, not to take over the visual effects…then it’s magic. A recent example of this would be the awesomeness that is Mad Max: Fury Road (2015). Sadly, everything is computer generated today, and it takes away from that feeling old movies had of being a magic show. I sincerely miss that.

Craig T. Nelson fights some ghosts in Poltergeist (1982)

Why is the modern horror film so toned down these days? It’s all about one of the worst inventions ever made, the dreaded PG-13 rating. It’s sad, it truly is. I mean on the first one, the tree that comes alive and tries to eat poor Robbie Freeling looked like some sort of monster, trying to gulp down the little kid, on the remake they toned that whole scene down. The tree tried to eat the kid on the original film! Not so in the remake. Here the tree grabs the kid, that’s it. I guess anything that was too crazy was eliminated; it’s the Modus Operandi of modern Hollywood. The producer, Sam Raimi, knows what horror fans want in a horror film, he’s given us some of the best horror films ever; the Evil Dead films. Yet he is playing ball with Hollywood, producing the kind of films they are asking of him, not the kind of horror films he would make. Hollywood doesn’t seem to care that people like cheesy, people like crazy ideas and concepts, that’s why we go to the movies! We don’t go to the movies to see “reality”, we go to see escapism, at least in these kinds of movies we do. So when a tree is going to come alive and eat a kid, we want exactly that. Not a toned down version of that.  

Honestly it’s starting to feel a whole lot like George Orwell’s 1984 around here. In that novel the government doesn’t allow people to feel intense emotions, everyone’s supposed to be emotionless all the time, all this because intense emotions supposedly lead to war and all that. In reality, it was a technique to control the masses, keep them from revolting against the oppressive government, to keep them from expressing themselves, saying what they want and feel. I think a similar technique is being used in Hollywood films of today. Why is Hollywood so afraid to be intense? Is there something wrong with feeling intensely? I want that spine tingling feeling, I want that jolt, that’s why I go to see horror films; afterwards I go home to reality. But for two hours, I want to escape man! There was a time when the occasional good remake would slip in, but nowadays, wow, all the remakes are just bland renditions of the original. Total Recall (2012)? Bland. Robocop (2014)? Beyond bland and back again. Poltergeist (2015)? Bland again. It’s just sad. Let’s count the ways in which this new Poltergeist film is bland when compared to Tobe Hooper’s original special effects extravaganza.

The Freaky Bowens

First, as is to be expected, there were a few changes, for example, the family in this new film isn’t “The Freaky Freelings! The family whose house disappeared!” Nope, these are the Bowen’s the family who goes through everything the Freelings did; only they aren’t the Freelings. Why the change? Why is the little girl not Carol Anne? Isn’t yelling out “Carol Anne!” a million times one of the most iconic things about the old Poltergeist movies? I mean, seriously, you could have a drinking game every time they say Carol Anne in the old movies! Trust me; you’ll be passed out half way through the movie! But no, on this one we get a little girl called Madison, and she isn’t even blonde. But whatever, those are minor changes right? What really pissed me off where the major changes, like the whole softening up of the horror elements, which I didn’t get because from inception, Poltergeist was always a straight forward horror film, it meant to horrify you. These films weren’t afraid to push the limits; they wanted to scare your pants off. In contrast, this new Poltergeist film feels like its holding back, like it doesn’t want to scare you too much for fear of losing its coveted PG-13 rating. And that’s really what it’s all about these days, retaining the PG-13 rating so you can reach a wider audience and make more millions. Because if it’s rated ‘R’, then the kiddies cant pony up their allowance to see the movie, because theaters won’t sell tickets to an ‘R’ rated film to a minor, right? Stop me if I’m wrong, but this never happened to me, ever. Maybe where I live things are done differently, but I was never stopped from seeing an ‘R’ film by the theater! Does this really matter? It’s so sad that the quality of our horror films is decided by this factor.

So what else did they change? Well, let’s see, anything that was too edgy or horrifying; two elements that any horror movie should have in spades. For example, remember how Steve and Diane Freeling smoked weed in their room and were being all sexy with each other? For this new one, they switched the weed for alcohol, which immediately takes off that imperfect, free spirited feeling that the Freeling family had in the original. They weren’t a perfect family and because of this they felt real. Mom and pop were struggling to survive, but they still knew how to have a little fun, smoking a dooby in their private chambers after the kids were tucked in. There’s a scene in which their eldest daughter flipped the finger on the men who were working on their pool when they started saying nasty things at her. So anyhow, say goodbye to that edginess the Freelings had, this new family is pretty much the picture perfect American family. The father, portrayed by a “gimme my paycheck” Sam Rockwell doesn’t have a job, but you’d never know he’s worried about this because his portrayal of the father figure without a job is very unrealistic. He doesn’t seem to be worried that he’s got no money to feed the kids. Is he supposed to live on his credits cards forever? These problems are presented, but never dealt with in a realistic manner. I know I’d be freaking ripping my hairs out of my head if I had three kids and no job. And how about the chemistry between the parents? It’s nothing like the magic that Jobeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson had in the original film. That relationship I bought. The one in this new one is Non-existent. Sam Rockwell, I’m sorry to say, was not truly invested in this film. In the original, both Jobeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson displayed emotion, I bought them crying out to Carol Anne, here, it’s like they are ashamed to be talking about ghosts and “the other side”. I guess we can chalk that up to modern cynicism.

Then we have the ghosts, which are decidedly a whole lot less horrifying. On the old film, the ghosts showed their ugly faces all the time, I remember that spider like creature that came out of the closet, which sadly doesn’t make an appearance on this one. There’s no slimy, sinewy tunnel to the other side. On this one the ghosts are relegated to being shadowy creatures that we hardly ever get a look at. The old film reveled in showing us the ghosts. When the ghosts showed up, you were going to be wowed. Not so here. The spectacle is gone. They don’t want to scare you too much. The best example I can think to explain the dampening of the horror elements in this film is the pool scene. On the original, the Freelings are building a pool, so they got this muddy hole next to the house. And of course, as anyone who has seen the original knows, the house was built on top of the cemetery, so when it starts to rain and the earth loosens up, we get that awesome scene in which all the corpses start popping out of their caskets, apparently trying to grab Diane Freeling as she screams in horror. On the remake, it was almost funny….we only get one little cgi skeleton that pops out of the ground, for 5 milliseconds. On the original, that scene just went on and on, horrifying us with its real, tangible skeletons. On this one, it’s a freaking joke. That was one of my favorite scenes from the original! Want another example? They even took out that scene where the guys face melts as he looks at himself in front of the mirror! How could they! The bastards!

So anyhow, I’m sorely disappointed with this remake. It’s another fine example of how violence and horror is being toned down on purpose by the powers that be. Hey, Hollywood, check this out. I want horror movies to be scary. When I go see a movie about ghosts, that’s what I want, I want to see the ghosts, I want to see something that’s intense and scary. Bottom line my friends: the original Poltergeist is still the superior of the two films. It has the spectacle element, it had the horror element turned up to the max and it had a family I could believe in, with some real heart and chemistry.  At the end of the day, that’s really what the Poltergeist movies are truly about, family. As for this remake, I wouldn’t say it’s a horrible film. Its well shot, looks pretty and in a surprising twist, actually take us to “the other side” without being overtly cheesy like Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986). It introduces a couple of innovative concepts, like sending a drone with a camera into the other side to check it out, gotta hand it to them,  that was a cool idea. I went into this one wanting to hate it, but it kind of warmed up on me, but there's no denying it was missing that edge. Sorry. 

It’s also a perfectly good movie to get your 10 year old kid started with horror films. Why? Because it’s an extremely light horror film which probably has something to do with the fact that it was directed by Gil Kenan, the director behind the children’s horror film Monster House (2006). Sadly, I don’t think he was the right guy to direct this film; we needed somebody with more of a horror loving heart, a true horror connoisseur. I mean, we went from Tobe Hooper to Gil Kenan? Something’s not right there. Why not give today’s horror masters a chance? Sadly, what Kenan did was take away what I loved about the original, a film that wasn’t afraid to scare us at the while still being a family film, which is an odd mix. Kenan treated this one like it was another kid’s film, which I think was a huge mistake because audiences are expecting something along the lines of the horrifying spectacle that Tobe Hooper and Stephen Spielberg gave us back in ’82. And it’s a bad thing to play with audiences expectations, especially when it comes to a remake. Yes my friends, the original Poltergeist was a strange bird. It was the first family oriented horror film that didn’t forget it was a horror movie and that it was there to scare us. Worst part of this whole ordeal? The original Poltergeist was rated PG, a whole rating beneath PG-13 and as it turns out, it was far scarier. Go figure!

Poltergeist (1982) Rating: 5 out of 5

Poltergeist (2015) Rating: 3 out of 5     

The Others (2001)

Title: The Others (2001)

Writer/Director: Alejandro Amenabar

Cast: Nicole Kidman

Review:

Famed movie reviewer Roger Ebert said that with The Others, director Alejandro Amenabar was “a little too confident that style can substitute for substance”. This is a comment that I completely disagree with because The Others is a film that is all about substance. It’s not just a great ghost story (which it is) it is a whole lot more than that. It has a depth, and a bravura that shines through in only the best of horror movies. Yes it is an extremely stylish and atmospheric film, but the film also has something more in mind than spooking you. And that’s exactly what I love about it, how it manages to both be relevant with its themes, and be a great ghost story at the same time.

Ebert’s take on the film is that it was boring. That it took its damn good time in building up suspense, but eventually took too long to deliver the thrills. Again, a comment I disagree with entirely. Not all haunted house movies have to be as flashy and special effects driven as say, the Poltergeist Trilogy. Some of the most effective ghost films are those that are subtle slow burners, taking their good time to crawl under your skin. Films like The Changeling (1980) and Ghost Story (1981) are this way. Their emphasis is on atmosphere, convincing performances and telling a spooky story. Not wowing you with visual effects.

And that is exactly the kind of film that The Others is. Alejandro Amenabar, the Spanish director behind such excellent films as Thesis (1996), The Sea Inside (2004) and Open Your Eyes (1997) orchestrates a film that is purposely quiet and filled with whispers. A film filled with darkness and shadows, a potent combination for a horror film. As Nichole Kidman’s character says at one point “we cherish our silence in this household” and to be honest I think that suits this film perfectly well. In a horror film, silence and shadows are an essential tool with which to spook your audience with because the imagination can fill the gap with something usually more terrible then what we actually see or hear. In its most tense moments, silence is king on this film, until an otherworldly thud or boom squeezes in, then you are scared and the movie has you by the throat! Characters speak in whispers, almost as if telling us a secret. This was Amenabar’s way of setting the dark fairytale mood the film has to it. The Others feels as if someone was reading us a ghost story in the middle of the night. The characters talk in low whispers, as if purposely begging us to pay closer attention to what they are saying. I love that about this movie. From its very first moments the film sets its mood by asking us in a whisper: “Are you sitting comfortably? Good, then I’ll begin…”

Atmosphere reigns supreme on The Others!

But apart from these stylish choices, the film has a depth to it. And if you haven’t seen the movie, then maybe you wont want to read the following paragraphs, because I’m going to go in depth as to what the movie was about. What works great for The Others is the fact that the films themes fit perfectly within the context of a ghost story. You see, at its core, the film is is about beliefs. What do we believe will happen after we die? Do we turn into ghosts? Do we go to heaven or to hell? Or do we simply die and rot away? What exactly are we taught about these things when we are children? And are any of these teachings true? Should we believe what ever belief system is shoved down our throats when we are still children? The movie presents us with Grace (Nichole Kidman) a lonely mother who lives in this huge dark mansion with her two children who suffer from a skin decease called Xeroderma Pigmentosum, a decease that makes them sensitive to sunlight. The children need to live in darkness all the time, all the doors in the household must remain close and the curtains have to be close, to prevent the children from being harmed by the sunlight. While in that darkness and in the midst of the candlelight the mother teaches the kids about the bible, about faith, and about what they should believe in.

"So then this guy put all the animals in the world in one boat..."

That was a key sequence for me. The mother and her children, in the darkness, reading from the bible. I’ll get to the symbolisms on that one later. In one scene, The Mother who’s name is ‘Grace’ asks her children to imagine what she is teaching them, to imagine there is a big bearded guy up there in heaven watching over their every move. This is one of the many tools that religion requires of its parishioners: imagination. Since you cant visually confirm anything that they are telling you, they ask you to imagine all these fantastical things and make them true in your mind. Yet interestingly enough, the children in this film don’t believe everything they are taught. At one point they say “I don’t believe the holy ghost is a dove. Doves are anything but holy, they poo on the windows” They also say they don’t believe that Noah put all the animals in the world in one boat. Smart kids! I like how the film presents us with the idea of these two children using their reasoning skills to realize that some of these stories in the bible are simply too far fetched to be believed, too fantastic to be real. These kids represents the new generation, questioning the old beliefs, the old myths, the old beliefs. It’s almost as if they were saying “do you actually expect us to believe these things?”

The film compares Christian beliefs with darkness and ignorance. The children are being over protected by her religious mother, who is afraid to let them go out into the world, afraid that they might be exposed to the light. The light in this film represens illumination, enlightenment, exposure to the truth. In the film, Grace keeps her children deliberately in the dark because she believes that “the light will kill them!” The film presents us with the idea that some people believe exposing the real truth about belief systems on society can be a dangerous thing. The idea that if you were to suddenly tell Christians that Christianity is just one big giant fairy tale, that humanity wont be able to take it. That this might generate one big gigantic chaos in society. That the light might kill them, as the movie puts it.

The ultimate truth in the film is accepting that we die. The ghosts in the film don’t want to accept that they are dead. In one awesome scene the ghosts shout “we are not dead! We are not dead!” The ultimate illumination in our lives, the light that can be too harsh to look at, is accepting our own mortality. Maybe we don’t turn to ghosts when we die. Maybe there is no heaven and no hell, when we die, who knows what happens. Is the idea that we simply die too horrible to accept that we have to make up fairy tales to make us feel better? Can we not simply accept that we have to make the best of this life because this life is probably the only one we are going to get? Shall we live in the darkness of ignorance and misinformation, or shall we live in the light and illumination of truth, however harshly that light might shine at first? Won’t our consciousness adjust to the light of truth?

In the film, finally, the light shines, and the kids don’t die. Their bodies had recuperated from their decease and they took in the light and accepted the fact that they were dead. Mrs. Mills, the cleaning lady that moves in to assist Grace and her children, says to the children “your mother only believes in what she was taught. But don’t worry…sooner or later, she will see them (the humans). And everything will be alright”. On this scene the film is telling us how Grace is stuck in an old fashion way of thinking that doesn’t subscribe to the truth. A very symbolic visual queue is that Grace is living in a constant fog not knowing where she is or where she is going. In one scene she walks out of her house and gets lost in the myst. The myst symbolizing her confusion and her shortness of vision. She only sees things her way, and doesn’t see further then that, beyond the fog and into the light. Mrs. Mills tells the children: “You’ll see. There are going to be some big surprises. There are going to be…changes” I loved that line of dialog because I personally, I truly hope that societies dependency on religion will one day disappear. That one day we will live our lives knowing that we are the makers of our own destiny, that its up to us to make things right. That we have to make the most of this life, because when we die, that’s probably as far as we will go. Ultimately, I see why some people choose to believe in the bible and its ideas of the afterlife. After all, the idea of an afterlife is a comforting one. But is it the truth? How can we know it is?

Grace's light shines a little too dimly

The Others is the kind of horror film that speaks up against religion and uses the context of a ghost story to do it. It wants to tell its audience, open those curtains and let the light in! Illuminate your way of seeing things. Don’t be afraid to confront the truth! And I applaud it for that. It seems that director Alejandro Amenabar’s mission in life is to scream this to the world, his latest film Agora (2010) plays once again with the themes of religion vs. science. It presents us with a world where the new religion (Christianity) is rising up and going up against the old Greek Myths. A nation in clash over beliefs. This world is filled with many unanswerable questions. My take on it is that life is one gigantic mystery, and we have to accept that that’s what makes the whole thing interesting. Like one big mystery film, where we never really know the answer until the very end.

Amenabar discusses a scene with actress Fionnula Flanagan who pays Mrs. Mills 

So as you can see, Mr. Ebert was freaking wrong! The Others not only offers up an excellent ghost story with palpable atmosphere and mood, drenched in darkness and whispers, with things that go bump in the night, it also has something important to say. The way I see it, we all end up believing what makes us happy, and if believing in Jesus and heaven works for you, great! More power to you my friends. Just don’t judge ‘The Others’ that think differently. As long as we don’t hate or kill each other for thinking differently, there is room in this world for diversity of thought and evolution.

Rating: 5 out of 5