Editorials
What Is Your Favorite Horror 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.

Editorials
Neon-Soaked Cult Classic ‘Vamp’ Starring Grace Jones Still Has Bite 40 Years Later
College kids, strippers and vampires—those were Donald P. Borchers’ only requirements when he approached Richard Wenk about writing and directing a movie for New World Pictures. As requested, Wenk cooked up Vamp (1986), a tailor-made blend of the decade’s teen movie craze as well as its horror boom.
Grim and earnest stories were still very much a part of the ’80s horror landscape, yet Vamp is something of a comedy. One difference between it and, say, Saturday the 14th, though, is the former avoids using schtick. Wenk’s movie proves that horror comedies also don’t have to subtract thrills from their recipes. Of course, it takes a minute before reaching that point; college antics and culture shocks preface this one macabre misadventure.
Vamp‘s initial setup is apt for a typical college-set, sex-driven comedy; to bribe their way into a fraternity house, two pledges (Chris Makepeace, Robert Rusler) go looking for some adult entertainment. Without wasting time on any further exposition, the characters embark on an all-in-one-night trip that quickly detours into terror.
To procure their elusive MacGuffin—a stripper willing to gyrate for some frat boys—Keith (Makepeace) and AJ (Rusler), plus a third wheel named Duncan (Gedee Watanabe), trade the safety of their remote college campus for the seediness of some unnamed city. The setting is recognizably L.A. by day, but as soon as night falls, downtown, along with the characters, slips into a kind of surreal universe. Director of photography Elliot Davis gave this early entry on his prolific résumé an unusual yet distinctive look; that Mario Bava-esque, magenta-green lighting is omnipresent, so much so that it’s almost its own character.

Chris Makepeace and Robert Rusler in Vamp
The faint comparisons to Martin Scorsese’s After Hours are merited, although not just because of Vamp’s distinguishing nighttime aesthetic. Save for the primary characters, the supporting roles in Wenk’s movie are also quite colorful and transactional in their behavior. The difference here, though, is the additional urge to ruin Keith and his friends at every turn. Some of that harm is humorous and tolerable enough, whereas the moment Vamp dishes out its first fatality, it’s abundantly clear how this movie qualifies as horror.
Vamp falls into that category of horror movie that reveals its genre with a scream rather than a series of whispers. The opening scene can function as a hint of what lies ahead—things are not at all what they appear to be—but otherwise, Wenk is more than happy to hold off on the horror. When that time does come, though, it catches the viewer off guard. In addition to the pure shock value is that sudden decision to upend the movie’s foremost feature. Or so it would seem.
If afraid of major spoilage, those new to Vamp would be wise to stop reading here. There’s just no skirting around the fact that the central fellowship in this buddy movie hits a serious snag when AJ is killed. That development causes the story to become more of a “long, bad night” journey for Keith and his romantic interest. So while Wenk scores points for subverting expectations, there is also a touch of sadness in his decision. Because if Vamp does anything well, it’s making the characters likable.
Something that comes easily to Vamp—and other teen horror movies from this same era—is its ability to invent young characters worth caring about, or at the very least, are interesting and not so immediately off-putting. More impressive is how Wenk did all this without actually fleshing out those characters. Still and all, Keith and his kind are a grade above cookie-cutter, and in some cases, aren’t completely devoid of growth.

Grace Jones in Vamp
Vamp appeals with an assorted cast of characters. No two are the same, nor are they operating on the same wavelength. The cinematically extroverted AJ, whose actor conveyed charm and vulnerability in near equal amounts, comes alive when he’s at his most undead. Makepeace then makes the chronically cautious Keith a sympathetic fellow, even as he’s more and more affected by the night’s bizarre events. Meanwhile, Duncan is indeed the designated loser of the whole bunch, but Watanabe still manages to humanize him. As a bonus, the role didn’t require him to pull a Long Duk Dong.
As for Dedee Pfeiffer, she is plain adorable as the mysterious After Dark server nicknamed “Amaretto”. She spends all night fixing her dress strap while at the same time trying to get Keith to remember how he knows her. As their offbeat romance grows, it becomes another highlight of this movie. Whether or not Pfeiffer’s character is really a vampire also creates some welcome tension in the story.
Like a lot of its contemporaries, Vamp went on to become a bit of a cult classic. That current status is determined by several factors, but without a doubt, the casting of Grace Jones is the most considerable. The image of her writhing on that unique-looking chair, a Keith Haring original, springs to mind whenever this movie is brought up.

Chris Makepeace, Billy Drago and Paunita Nichols in Vamp
Prior to that first display of unequivocal horror, local vampire queen Katrina (Jones) took to the stage and delivered a strip show like no other. One would expect nothing less from that renowned model and performance artist. By now reports of Jones’ tardiness on set are no secret, yet it’s also hard to deny her commitment to the part of Katrina. It was, in fact, Jones who took charge of her character’s appearance—on top of Haring painting her body and that now-iconic chair, she had Andy Warhol handle her costuming. And not too many actors could seize a room’s attention without saying a single line of dialogue.
In 2022, Vamp received a retrospective novelization from Encyclopocalypse. This literary union of preexisting source material—Wenk’s original screenplay—and new ideas from author Christian Francis amounts to a more comprehensive visit to the After Dark Club. The basic story there is no different than what’s shown on screen; however, Francis gets creative with the characters’ origins and designs, and he enhances a number of key scenes.
The novelization expands on the urban and social decay of the main setting, and supplies a background for the After Dark Club. Sandy Baron’s character, Katrina’s emcee and familiar, is given ample motivation for sticking around; up until the fiery end, he is loyal to his friend and former business partner “Squeak”, who looks like he was “fed through a combine harvester, and left as nothing more than a heap of mangled remains”. Then there is Billy Drago’s character Snow, the leader of a street gang called The Dragons. His reason for menacing Keith and AJ is more altruistic than in the movie; he and his peers act tough to scare off any potential food for the vampires.

Lisa Lyon in Vamp
If not for all the backstories, Francis’ Vamp would be a hell of a lot shorter. Instead, this tie-in read dives into how AJ met Keith—the orphaned Anthony Joseph hailed from a broken home back in Brooklyn—and how their friendship flourished over the years. Keith’s archership is no longer just an assumed part of his entire being; it’s a confidence-building extracurricular for a boy who got picked on before coming into the protection of the new kid in town. These supplemental, in-depth looks at the protagonists, plus their close connection, are maybe unnecessary. The movie already did a fair and concise job of addressing their platonic intimacy without the need for flashbacks and insights, specifically in that scene where AJ lays it all out as he sacrifices himself.
Where the novelization gets off course is its approach to the minor characters. Intermittently backstorying the likes of Katrina’s indentured servants, Seko (Leila Hee Olsen) and Vlad (Brad Logan), ends up disturbing the flow of the writing. Was it absolutely essential that readers know Vlad was the Grand Duke of the House of Romanov, or how Snow’s accomplice Maven (Paunita Nichols) became so dentally challenged? No, not really. However, one’s mileage with these random biographies may vary.
The novelization is a more substantial experience, but for a movie like Vamp, less is more. And as plentiful as they are, it never simply coasts on its campy charms, either. The character work sits comfortably in that realm between cursory and meticulous, the script is sharper than first realized, and Greg Cannom’s vampire makeup is straightforward yet effective. Most of all, the movie didn’t squander its out-of-the-box concept. Richard Wenk made his vision of a “comic nightmare in which just about anything that can go wrong does” come true, and it is very enjoyable.

You must be logged in to post a comment.