Wow, a bit touchy on both sides of this discussion. Who'd a thunk it? I do have a couple things to say about this issue though:
I'm against this rash of remakes. All the remakes discussed here were exploiting the original rather than adding anything to them. That said, I enjoyed the remake of Dawn of the Dead. It was a good little action movie. I thought it had a decent sense of humanity and fair writing. It's still not a butt hair compared to the original Dawn of the Dead, but it wasn't bad. Texas Chainsaw Massacre on the other hand, was trash. Pure garbage. Leatherface has a skin condition? Gimme a break. They're coming back from Mexico with some weed on their way to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert. Pardon me........
(gratuitous barfing noises)
..............ah, much better. The thing that was so killer about the Original Texas Chainsaw Massacre was that it was PLAUSIBLE. The Hardestys were there to check if their grandpa's grave had been vandalized in the rash of grave robberies in the area. They went up to the TCM family's house because Franklin remembered an old swimming hole up that way. Then there's the semi-documentary style which makes it so much more intense. Name for me one other film that makes you cringe so much when you see so little. I can't think of many.
What did the Texas Chainsaw remake offer to the original? Oh, let's see......there was the preachy antidrug message, there was Jennifer Beal's one note performance, there was a silly attempt to 'Hollywoodize' the story with all the blue lighting and generic pretty boy (and girl) actors, and of course there was the completely pointless riff on the hitchhiker. You could almost hear the film makers congratulating themselves for not just repeating the menacing hitchhiker, instead choosing a completely meaningless attempt at 'creepy' with some suicidal bim blowing her brains out in the back seat. Michael "oh gosh, there's too much violence in films these days" and pretty much anything he touches is an affront to good moviemaking. Just watch the original and all the creepy things that are thrown in (like the old drunk guy laying around saying "I sees things, there's those that laughs saying it's just a drunk old man. There's those that laughs that knows better." There's an entire atmosphere to the original that makes it special. There is absolutely nothing about the remake that makes it special, nothing at all.
I do have a bit to say about Evil Dead and the thought of remaking it: I don't see how anyone could hold a candle to the original, but it's not like it's hallowed ground. Don't get me wrong, it's a classic that I've been watching and loving for 20 years, but I'm not going to picket if they decide to remake it. I might even see it........rented.
I have some more things to say in response to certain statements made in this discussion: 1.) Bruce Campbell was more than just 'cast' in the role of Ash by Sam Raimi, he was a partner in the production, as is clear from Campbell's autobiography and numerous interviews. Also, "Raimi created that world"!?!??!?!, for crying out loud Chrononaut. A book called Necronomicon ex Mortis which contains passages that can bring ancient evils back into the living world? Raimi added ex Mortis to the name and placed the origin as Sumeria, otherwise, that "world" was created in the 1920's and 30's by H.P. Lovecraft. This is not a new revelation and Raimi, nor Campbell have ever tried to deny it.
For every one of these unnecessary remakes, there are 50 really talented writers and directors out there with new ideas that aren't having a chance to do their thing. Read some Michael Marshall Smith or Christa Faust, then realize these guys are ekeing it out with a group of other supremely talented writers who aren't millionaires by a longshot. It kind of makes you mad at the formulaic sonsabitches that are raking in the dough by doing crappy, derivative work. It makes me mad at least, the same way seeing another great horror film stripped for parts by jackasses who don't have an idea of their own makes me mad.
