Quantcast
Connect with us

Editorials

What Is Your Favorite Horror Remake?

Published

on

Texas Chainsaw Massacre Remake

I know that will start some arguments in the comments and some of you may be waiting outside my house with torches and pitchforks after you read this, but that’s precisely the reason I wanted to write about this today. Horror remakes (or any remakes, for that matter) rarely improve upon their predecessor (and rarely are they any good at all). That being said, there are a few that I think are great films. The obvious answer to my question would be John Carpenter’s The Thing or David Cronenberg’s The Fly, which actually do improve upon their source material. We’ve even has some amazing remakes in the past ten years (The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes come to mind), and while I really like those films, I would be lying if I said that one of them was my favorite remake. No, my favorite remake is 2003’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

This is where the pitchforks are going to come out I think. By pitchforks I obviously mean incredibly mean/offensive remarks in the comments section below, but I digress. I love this movie and please bear in mind that I love the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre and in no way and I claiming that this remake is a better film. I am judging the remake on its own merits and not comparing it to the original in any shape, way or form (though I do believe it shows a tremendous amount of respect for the original). I am a bit biased in my affection for the remake though, as it was the first R-rated horror movie I got to see in a theater with my dad (I’m only 25…sue me), so there are probably a lot of emotional reasons that make me like it more. Enough about me, let’s start with the trailer:

I fully realize that a trailer doesn’t make a movie, but that is a fantastic trailer and I used to re-watch it a lot when I was younger. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The marketing for the film was great and it certainly got butts into seats. It pretty much started the remake craze of the 2000s (so I suppose we can fault it for that one). The remake wasn’t a watered down version of the original (although some may argue otherwise). It was an intense, creepy and brutal film and if I recall, this site gave it 4/5 skulls at the time of its release.

I think the reason I enjoy this remake is because it’s just because it’s clear that everyone involved tried really hard to make this a good movie, and I believe they succeeded. The acting is great, especially from R. Lee Ermey and (dare I say it?) Jessica Biel. Please note that I actually think Biel is a great actress. Just watch The Tall Man or The Truth About Emanuel to see.. She definitely gets an (unwarranted) bad rap. My only real complaint about the film is the deaths. With the exception of Eric Balfour’s face-mask and Mike Vogel’s salting of the wound, non of the deaths are that memorable or creative (looking at you Erica Leerhsen). That is a minor gripe, but it’s a gripe nonetheless.

What always puzzled me about the remake’s critical reception is that, like the original, people seem to remember it as being this incredibly gory film. Roger Ebert’s review of the film just felt like he really had it out for it before he even watched it, in my opinion  It is gorier than its predecessor, but it’s hardly explicitly violent (thought I may be a bit desensitized, as I’m sure many of you are), but this movie came out before Hostel did and I think if it had, people would have thought the remake tame in comparison. Don’t get me wrong, it is brutal, like I mentioned above. But it’s not that gory. In terms of us “normal” people who aren’t professional critics, this movie still seems to get a lot of hate. I get why, since the original is a classic. But  I still think it’s a great movie on its own terms. It’s become one of those movies I can just put on and watch when I’m bored.

At the risk of turning this into another “In Defense Of” article (although it kind of already has), I’ll leave it at that. I love, love love the remake of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. We spend so much time harping about how useless and terrible remakes are, so let’s play Devil’s Advocate and talk about remakes we like. If you had to pick a favorite, what would it be? But if you say A Nightmare on Elm Street or When a Stranger Calls, I don’t think I’ll be able to help you with the verbal beating you will probably receive.

tumblr_mdwv5fZKhs1rvuwb0o1_500

A journalist for Bloody Disgusting since 2015, Trace writes film reviews and editorials, as well as co-hosts Bloody Disgusting's Horror Queers podcast, which looks at horror films through a queer lens. He has since become dedicated to amplifying queer voices in the horror community, while also injecting his own personal flair into film discourse. Trace lives in Denver, CO with his husband and their two dogs. Find him on Twitter @TracedThurman

242 Comments

Editorials

André Øvredal’s ‘Troll Hunter’ Remains One of the Best Found Footage Movies

Published

on

André Øvredal's Troll Hunter

In this day and age, the wordtrollis often used to describe various online nuisances. Yet as abundant and irksome as the modern troll can be, they aren’t usually as fearsome as their mythological counterparts. I’m not talking about the small and gentler versions that have become more common to see in media. No, there are much bigger and scarier trolls out there—and André Øvredal’s movie Troll Hunter is one of the best places to find them.

It doesn’t take long for Troll Hunter (or Trolljegeren) to dump the Blair Witch Project-esque setup and aim for something a lot fresher. The trajectory of the story is augmented by Otto Jespersen’s character Hans, the titular Troll Hunter. The second he comes barreling out of the deep, dark woods and shoutstrollat the camera, this movie takes a turn into what feels like uncharted territory. Not only subject-wise, but also conceptually.

For fantastical and made-up subject matter in cinema, found footage is a fast way to add a guise of believability. After all, what we accept to be the most crucial aspect of documentaries—the truth—rubs off on pseudo-documentaries, despite our understanding of the pretense involved. That is what Øvredal delivered with Troll Hunter: a movie so convincing that some viewers wondered if trolls really do exist. So, had this been straightforwardly made, it likely wouldn’t have been as effective. Conventional narratives would be more inclined to treat something like trolls as flat out unreal, and never try to convince the audience to think otherwise.

troll hunter

Hans petrifies the three-headed Tusseladd troll.

The viewers, like the characters trailing Hans, are quickly thrown into the deeper end of that extraordinary story. They have to process all this new information while staying on the go. So, although there is no significant amount of meandering, narratively or physically, there is still a good amount of atmosphere, not to mention tension building. It’s never anything frightful, but then again, Troll Hunter isn’t your standard offering of horror; it’s more on the low end of the dark fantasy spectrum. We aren’t ever spirited away to a faraway world—we stay in rather familiar surroundings, as well as dip into those less so. The outcome is a movie where you’re constantly more in awe than in terror.

As fantasy fiction might do, Troll Hunter prefers not to deal with incredulity. There is no time to waste on doubt, as interviewer Thomas (Glenn Erland Tosterud), soundperson Johanna (Johanna Mørck), and cameraman Kalle (Tomas Alf Larsen) all follow Hans around, recording whatever this character is willing to reveal about his bizarre job. Of course, the Troll Hunter himself is not an open book; in that respect, the diegetic documentary fails to fully capture and unpack the more interesting of its two subjects. Yes, all those giant, monstrous trolls are indeed incredible, but understandably, your mind wanders to their pursuer. What kind of person signs up for this gig and then chooses to stick with it for so long?

Reviews have called out Troll Hunter for its lack of character development. In regard to Thomas and his fellow documentarians, that criticism is valid, but bear in mind, they aren’t the focus of the story, either. Meanwhile, Hans is a well-crafted character. At least better than first realized. Before he was introduced, Hans had already grown tired of the troll grind. Fed up with that low compensation for his services, resentful of the bureaucracy, and wanting to expose his employer on a large scale, Hans’ discontent is glaring.

Then there are those finer details about the Troll Hunter, such as that indifference to both the natural splendor of his everyday surroundings and the affections of an obviously smitten colleague, that also suggest some level of despondency. So it is fair to say this movie doesn’t feature any sizable growth for its characters; however, the namesake isn’t underwritten. No doubt, putting a real-life character like Otto Jespersen in that role is partly why Hans is so fascinating—maybe even relatable.

Troll Hunter

Otto Jespersen as Hans the Troll Hunter.

There is always a small risk whenever using the termmockumentaryto describe a found-footage movie, as the word could imply humor where there is none. In the case of Troll Hunter, the term’s usage is appropriate. Some folks have claimed the English-dubbed version has the more comedic tone, however, the Norwegian cut isn’t exactly humorless. Apart from the trolls’ absurd appearances, this is a movie where the characters nearly choke on the monsters’ farts, and Christians are like walking targets. Hans’ complete apathy towards everything is another cause of laughter. Overall, the comedy is intentionally dry and inconsistent. Unfunny, though? Absolutely not.

In a movie where endemic creatures are maltreated, as well as disavowed from living freely and peacefully, it’s hard not to notice the ecological message buried beneath the story. In addition to that is the unmistakable political satire. There is this whole business about intrusive and unsightly power lines—like trolls, they’re big blemishes on the land—that leads to what is perhaps the movie’s funniest moment. The scene in question is that one where certain electric lines, the ones secretly being used to keep the trolls at bay, go in a loop and don’t actually send power to any residents. Yet the monitors of said lines don’t find this at all weird. So it stands to reason that Øvredal was having a go at those who accept the government’s doings without question.

Looking past the fact that trolls aren’t actually real, this movie is an enlightening source of information. And not just for international audiences; Norwegians, too, get schooled about their homeland’s own mythology. It’s also evident from everything on screen that Øvredal and his crew were enthusiastic about the topic. The creature designs are the most indicative of that zeal; those imaginative yet myth-accurate manifestations are equally amusing and grotesque. One second you’re laughing at their phallic noses, the next you’re white-knuckling during a hairy sequence. Most surprisingly is how well the trolls’ visual effects hold up after fifteen years. It’s not all spotless, but on the whole, they remain impressive.

Vouching for a mockumentary about trolls isn’t easy, but those who do come around and give it a shot will more than likely be grateful for the recommendation. For Troll Hunter is a real find in that vast and varied genre we callfound footage.

troll hunter

A bridge troll reaches up for food and finds Hans decked out in armor.

Continue Reading