The Attic: Five Superior Horror Remakes

Welcome to the Attic, the remake!

Some remakes are awful, I’ll admit it. But some, dare I say, improve on their predecessors. I believe some people took the original films, saw where they went wrong, and fixed those issues. I’m going to catch Hell for this, and that’s ok. I’m all about the scare factor, and if something makes a movie scarier, I’m all for it being remade. Here are the five horror remakes, in my humble opinion, that were better than their originals.

Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) vs. Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

I can hear you all screaming in rage and grabbing pitchforks. Take a breath. Yes, this one is a classic. It’s amazing, and I won’t deny that. But it also had a bizarre undertone of humor that to me made it more….silly, and disturbing, than downright scary. The 2003 remake was also amazing, in a SERIOUSLY heavy, scare-the-shit-outta-you way. In the original, Leatherface was a Goonie’s-esque Sloth of sorts.. He felt more mentally challenged than a menacing killer. In the New Line version, he was the unstoppable beast that causes you to cringe in fear when you watch him.

A great comparison is the hitchhiker scene. In the original it’s almost comical. The guy they pick up is…silly. Looney. A member of the family who leads them to that legendary house in Texas. But it’s not remotely creepy. In the remake they took a seriously traumatized girl with a pistol packed in her crotch. She stares and mumbles and is so messed up she can’t even explain what happened to her. Once she realizes they’re headed in the direction of where she was tortured she begins to panic, and proceeds to blow her brains out, along with the back windshield. This scene is very early on in the films, and each truly set the scene for the tone. The movies follow that pattern in most ways. The original is more comical and looney where the remake is dark, menacing, and ruthless.

Prom Night (1980) vs. Prom Night (2008)

I’ll admit I’ve only seen this original one time. I own it, but after watching it once I didn’t exactly run back for more. When a group of kids are playing together, one dies accidentally. Years later, an unknown killer stalks the survivors at their High School Prom. The only real high point is Jamie Lee Curtis. It’s just your average 1980 slasher film, with a silly backstory.

In the 2008 version, starring the amazing Brittany Snow (who I LOVED on American Dreams, NBC) is a much better story. When Donna is younger her teacher, Richard (played VERY well by Johnathon Schaech) becomes infatuated with her. One night she comes home after being out with her girlfriend to find him in her house. He kills her entire family. She manages to hide, while she watches her mother being killed before her very eyes. She survives the ordeal and then moves in with her aunt and uncle and tries to get back to a normal life. But he may not be done with her yet. I really liked this one a lot. It’s not perfect, or unique, but it’s certainty better and scarier than the first.

When A Stranger Calls (1979) vs. When A Stranger Calls (2006)

The original, which starred Carol Kane, is an interesting situation. I always tell people it’s an AMAZING 20-minute movie and the rest is an awful, made-for-TV sequel. Everyone knows the classic urban legend that this is based on. The story of a babysitter getting prank phone calls, that increase with frequency and intensity until she breaks and calls the cops. The cops put a trace on the phone line, and the stalker calls again. The babysitter keeps him on the phone just long enough for the cops to track down where the calls are coming from… Although I’m sure we all know what happens next, I still won’t spoil it.

Now in the original, this only lasts about 20 minutes. And then it turns into this drama of a detective tracking down a killer. It is incredibly boring. I can’t be more blunt. It’s a yawn-fest. I can’t say enough about how brilliant Carol Kane was, and because of her, those 20 minutes get you unnerved VERY quickly. It’s worth the cost of the DVD simply to watch it. But the remake took that problem and remedied it, making the entire movie focused on that night. Camilla Belle is no Carol, but she is good enough. The cinematography and set design are what makes this movie creepy as hell, with the time it deserves for the tension to build up to that classic line in horror cinema.

My Bloody Valentine (1981) vs. My Bloody Valentine (2009)

This movie came out during the height of the slasher craze, sparked by Carpenter’s Halloween in 1978. It is your typical early 80s, masked-killer horror film. It’s not bad, but it’s not great. It’s a bit dull to be honest. The movie follows the story of a miner that is killed in an accident, and is out to get revenge on those that couldn’t prevent his death due their attendance of a Valentine’s Day party. The townspeople have long since not celebrated the holiday. This year, some kids defy that, and end up dying one by one.

The remake changes the story around a bit. A mining accident occurs, where the sole survivor is a man that is believed to have killed the others to save the oxygen for himself. He awakens from a long coma, and escapes the hospital. A group of teenagers are caught partying in the abandoned mines, where all but two couples are killed by the returning miner. After the tragedy, one of the young boys leaves town. Ten years later, his father has died and he decides to sell the old mine so he returns to the small town. He finds that his ex-girlfriend is now married to a sheriff, and the drama and fear escalate from there. I definitely recommend this remake for a good slasher movie night. It has a lot more layers to it than the original, and it’s a lot scarier. For added kitchyness, get the DVD with the 3D version on there as well. It is by far the greatest DVD 3D experience I have ever had.

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

 

This is the most glaring example of a horror remake being way better than the original. It is also one I will catch a lot of shit for. I realize how classic the original is, but it’s boring. It’s extremely boring. Everyone knows this story. The DeFeo family is killed by the eldest son, who claims that he was told to by voices in his head. Years later, the Lutz family is just starting out and they buy a house for what they think is a steal. Although they are told of the murders in the past, they agree to shake it off, and are excited to start this chapter together. The father, George, is a new step-father to three and he seems to be taking it well. That is, until the spirits in the house begin to seep into his head like they did to Ronald DeFeo Jr.

The differences in the two movies is the scare-factor. The first one has never even kept my attention, even when I tried to focus. I found myself scrolling through Facebook and browsing web pages because I was bored. In the remake, they added a HEAVY darkness. Quite a few scenes made me jump out of my skin. I feel like the level of fear in this movie matches what the true story was. I will never understand how some find the original scary. This is the prime example of how some remakes can only make the original story even better. They didn’t change it too much, not did they carbon copy it (I’m looking at you, Psycho remake). They simply took the story and made it scarier.

And isn’t that what it’s all about? Being scared? There is one other aspect that many don’t realize when they vehemently rage against any and all remakes. Believe it or not, they actually shed MORE light on some of these classics. I’ll be honest, I hadn’t seen Prom Night until I heard it was being remade. I hadn’t seen When A Stranger Calls until I knew the new one was coming out. Sometimes a name being rebooted can really get horror fans to go back and check out their originals, and maybe discover a gem that isn’t quite so remembered by a large audience. Now I highly recommend watching originals before their remakes, but regardless, give them BOTH a shot.

Feel free to disagree with me on the above, and throw in your two cents in the comment section below. Or just throw shit at me like a howler monkey. At the end of the day, it’s all about being as frightened as possible.

Stay scared,
Dark Princess

4 Responses to The Attic: Five Superior Horror Remakes

  1. […] we just need to scare people so new ideas aren’t needed.” Now as I’ve said before, some horror remakes have improved on its predecessor by making them scarier and smarter, but […]

  2. Fred says:

    I imagine, from your article, that you are quite young. Those films you cite as being good remakes are perhaps the worst I’ve ever seen (although Black Xmas & Sorority Row surely have a place on THAT rapidly growing list). My feeling is that you just prefer modern settings and conventions, that resemble the lingo and sensibility of today.

    • Vernon Tuitt says:

      Would age be any more relevent if the author mentioned The Atomic Brain or Night of the Blood Beast? Are you suggesting that, based on the selections, that age is tied to an appreciation of movies? Or that you don’t agree with the movies listed because you have different tastes? I’m not sure I understand your comment.

      • Dark Princess says:

        First of all I would like to thank you for taking the time to read this post, and comment on it. Yes, I am on the younger side. But I was also raised on many classic movies, both horror and otherwise. I welcome you to read my post about worst remakes. I love some, I hate others. And some of the ones I hate are also remakes of very classic, and older, movies. It’s all a matter of opinion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *