Editorials

‘Slither’ Is NOT A Remake Of ‘Night Of The Creeps’!!

Published

11 years ago

October 23, 2013

Over the weekend I got into a debate with Lonmonster and Mr. Disgusting on Twitter. It all started when Lonnie asserted that Slither was a remake of Night Of The Creeps and pretty soon we got into discussing which one of them might be the better film. A lot of folks I respect have mentioned the Creeps vs. Slither thing to me over the years, so I figured I’d finally weigh in with my thoughts here.

First of all (and with all due respect to my colleagues), I’d like to say that Slither is in no way a remake of Night Of The Creeps. Yes, I will concede the point that the biology of the slug creatures is quite similar (especially when you consider the fact that they “possess” people). Aside from that though, I don’t see a whole lot of similarity. The slugs in James Gunn’s film are part of a host of creatures that all tie into the consciousness of the creature that has taken hold of Michael Rooker’s Grant Grant. While the slug induced infections in both films threaten world domination, the psychology of the creatures is wildly different. The creature inside Grant Grant is a world conqueror, we see through its memories that it has effortlessly toppled more feral planets. But the stumbling block on Earth is that it has to confront one of the elements that makes us well… human. Love.

Grant Grant is feeling love for the first time, which is ultimately his undoing. When he makes love with Starla (Elizabeth Banks), he cries tears of joy at this utterly unfamiliar feeling. Of course he’s still going to be the world conquering creature that he is (and he kills plenty of people in the film) but his affection for Starla is palpable enough to be his downfall. In a way he’s a malevolent, viral, version of King Kong. And the blonde is his weakness.

After that the differences between the two films become even more vast. Night Of The Creeps is more of a collegiate romp, whereas Slither remarkably makes a vast canvas out of a small town. By shifting protagonists in each act, we’re allowed to spend considerable time with the residents of Wheelsy. From cops to farm families, adults to children, rich to poor, politicians to trailer trash. In fact, it seems as though we don’t see any college age characters, a demographic that populates the vast majority of the Creeps cast (Tom Atkins deservedly legendary performance aside).

And, while I love Night Of The Creeps, I’d have to argue that Slither is overall the better film. Both of them are underrated horror comedies, but Slither really sticks the landing. It’s my feeling that Creeps sort of loses momentum at the end. Around the time J.C. tragically checks out (an admirably bold move that unfortunately serves to undercut the fun vibe of the film) I begin to feel my interest waning somewhat. The image of Chris and Cindy armed with a shotgun and flamethrower outside the sorority house is a great one, but the actual payoff of the sequence is sort of slight.

Slither, on the other hand is able to keep us invested all the way until the end credits. Starla offering herself to the monstrous Grant Grant in the name of saving their marriage emotionally reinvests us before the final, violent showdown. The image of the encroaching “zombies” dropping suddenly when their link to Grant’s consciousness is terminated is fantastic. And the final shot of Starla, Bill and Tania limping away is incredibly satisfying.

Both films are great horror comedies, and I wouldn’t fault anyone for disagreeing with me, but Slither sticks to my ribs more. And it’s most certainly not a remake. Disagree? Have a preference? Vote in the poll below!

EvanDickson

22 Comments

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

2 days ago

April 22, 2024

Luiz H. C.

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.

SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?

AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega…

There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.