Please stop torturing me

How did you feel when you first heard that, in order to bring them to a new audience, Dan Brown was planning to rewrite Treasure Island, Jack Vettriano has been commissioned to bring us his take on the Mona Lisa, and James Blunt's next album is to be a track-by-track re-recording of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band?

Yes, of course, I'm kidding. None of the above events are true in any way (not that I know of at least), and I just made them up. They all sound a bit silly, don't they?

So can somebody please explain to me why films, as works of art, are not afforded the same respect? What the hell is wrong with the movie world that we must remake every film that anyone has ever seen? I can understand the thinking behind remaking a bad film - if a good idea has been wasted, why not try again and get it right? - but it beggars belief that so many people seem to be in favour of making films that don't actually have anything wrong with them to start with.

I accept that some remakes end up being superior to the originals or at least, if not, they turn out to be decent films. OCEAN'S ELEVEN was a decent remake of a flawed but highly enjoyable film for example.

One of the giants of movie history, BEN HUR, was itself a remake - but since it was a widescreen remake in sound and colour of a film story that was originally shot in silence and black and white, at least it was bringing something new to the table.

Sergio Leone's classic FISTFUL OF DOLLARS was in essence a remake of Kurosawa's YOJIMBO, but by updating it to the west and turning into something new at least the original's name would not have been soiled had Leone's film ended up being a turkey.

So, no, my rant is not merely aimed at the general habit of remaking. It's partly to do with remaking films that really don't require it but it's more personal than that; it's mainly relating to the depressing fact that almost all of my favourite films have been, or are being, remade. I'm not talking about films I just happen to like; I mean films that I really would class as being among my very favourite movies, ever.

If you've been reading here long enough, for example, you've no doubt heard my thoughts on how Steven Spielberg managed to ruin WAR OF THE WORLDS or you'll have read about my favourite film ever, PLANET OF THE APES, and Tim Burton's decision to take a celluloid dump on Rod Serling's grave.

Well, one of my other favourite classic sci-fi movies is THE TIME MACHINE. Look what happened there - yet another remake and yet another disappointment. I actually thought the first half of the movie was pretty good, but sadly the second half was very Hollywood and very silly.

Along with those two, I've also always enjoyed LOGAN'S RUN. Well, a while back there was some work done on remaking this one. I actually concede that there is room for another version of this one, a more adult version that sticks more to the original novel and I even got my hopes up when Bryan Singer began work on it. He of course now has his hands full with SUPERMAN RETURNS and its inevitable sequel so I'm sure the LOGAN'S RUN project will be handed over to someone far less competent in his place.

SOYLENT GREEN is being remade too - another favourite sci-fi movie of mine, which I really love - and this time, the creatives behind it have decided that the famous twist in the tail of the movie is merely going to be the starting point for something larger. I don't know what's worse, the idea of remaking this film at all, or the revelation that the people remaking it don't seem to understand it.

Then there's THE OMEGA MAN. This 70s classic was itself a remake, a second attempt at filming Richard Matheson's novel "I Am Legend" (the European-made Vincent Price vehicle THE LAST MAN ON EARTH being the first). I like both of these films and THE OMEGA MAN in particular is one of my favourites.

Nevertheless, I admit that there is still room for another version if someone wants to make one that is faithful to the novel. Plans to film a new version have been on and off repeatedly for a long, long time with numerous actors and directors attached. The latest was that the film was to star Will Smith. I can't begin to tell you how much this upset me.

The story (about the sole survivor of the human race who lives in a decimated world ruled over by a vampire-like race) is grim, gritty, bleak, depressing, miserable, dark... in short, if this film is made it should be dominated by a sense of loneliness and despair. There should not be a single joke in this movie. Not one single smart-ass one-liner. None. Can anybody picture Will Smith appearing in a film like that? Does anyone remember I, ROBOT? As with the proposed SOYLENT GREEN remake, this convinces me of nothing except that these people do not understand what they are doing at all.

I did allow myself to get my hopes up when I thought about how many times in the past this film has had names attached to it only for it to fall through. Sadly, this is no longer the case. I recently saw a photo of Will Smith on the set, which brought it home that yes; this movie really is going ahead. If I'm honest, the despair I felt at seeing that picture was my main motivation for this blog entry.

Talking of horror, I'm also a bit of a zombie fan, so I love the movies of George Romero. His films, however, must have set some kind of record for remakes - his original film, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, has been remade; its sequel, DAWN OF THE DEAD has been remade; the third in the series, DAY OF THE DEAD, is also to be the subject of a remake; the remake of DAWN is getting another sequel of its own. What the hell is going on? Does anyone even still follow it anymore? A sequel to a remake of a sequel to a classic? Eh?

It seems also that people aren't content to merely remake all of George's zombie films either - his other classic work of the 70s, THE CRAZIES (a wonderful film about a biological weapon let loose in small-town America) is also to be remade. It was the perfect Vietnam allegory in its day. What will it be this time? To be honest I don't care as I fully expect it to stink, but I'll give the director, Brad Anderson, a chance since he also made THE MACHINIST, which I loved.

Staying with horror, the other main inspiration behind this blog entry came in the form of a double-whammy of pointless remakes. If I had to pick my favourite horror film of all time, I'd struggle to pick just one - however, two of the main contenders would be THE WICKER MAN and BLACK CHRISTMAS. Both have been remade; both remakes remain unseen by me; press and reviews for both remakes convince me that the people responsible have so little grasp of what made the originals special that not only do the people responsible not have a clue, they should probably be banned from working on movies for the rest of their lives.

I can't really tell you what's so special about BLACK CHRISTMAS without ruining half the enjoyment of the film but suffice to say it is the blueprint for all the famous slashers that followed (HALLOWEEN, FRIDAY THE 13TH, etc.) and the new film really doesn't sound like it realises what was special about the original at all.

Talking of HALLOWEEN, it wouldn't be too far behind the above two films on my list of favourite horror movies. It'll not be a surprise then to discover that it's being remade too. (Are you feeling sick yet?)

As if the thought of remaking it wasn't bad enough, it's being remade by Rob Zombie. I have no doubt that he loves his 70s horror movies (I've only watched HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES but I can tell) but that's all the more reason why remaking such a bonafide classic is unforgivable. I don't expect this one to be anything other than terrible.

Talking of John Carpenter movies, he seems to be turning into a one-man remake industry. Remaking HALLOWEEN was bad enough; we've also seen remakes of ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 and THE FOG (neither of which I could bring myself to watch). On top of that, there are now plans to remake what might well be his best film - THE THING.

THE THING was itself a remake (of Howard Hawks' classic monster movie THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD) but, for much the same reasons as listed for remaking BEN HUR above (plus some huge advancements in special effects) it ended up being a very different film that could quite easily coexist with its original counterpart.

This begs the question though. If the original was great and the remake was also great, what is the point of another remake? And, statistically speaking, what are the chances of it even being any good? The original KING KONG was good, but the remake was poor - and yet Peter Jackson still managed to mess it up again with his attempt to remake it yet again. Does the world really need another version of THE THING?

And with the current popularity of horror films and remaking old ones (I've not even mentioned TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE or THE HILLS HAVE EYES) it might come as no surprise that Wes Craven's debut chiller THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is also being remade.

This decision is as stupid as they come. For one thing, the original movie has been ripped off so many times (mostly by Italians in the 70s and 80s) it's practically been remade to death already (ironic since it was, like THE THING, a remake of an earlier movie - Bergman's THE VIRGIN SPRING). Not only that, the BBFC still refuse to pass Craven's original in its uncut form.

Since the original is so notorious and since the current craze in horror is to try and disgust the audience as much as possible (see HOSTEL and the SAW movies for examples) then it makes sense that a remake of THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is going to follow the same route. It does, after all, have the reputation of the original to live up to. But if the original is still so controversial even to this day, how exactly are they going to top the shock value? And why even try?

Another recent remake of a horror classic, which I once again ignored, was THE OMEN. Perhaps the most cynical of all the remakes here since its sole reason for existence seemed to be that a release date of 6 June 2006 was too good a marketing ploy not to use, this release apparently opens with footage of various horrible things happening, including the attack on the World Trade Center.

The reasoning behind this is apparently to show us how much the world is going to hell and why this is the perfect time for an imaginary story about the devil returning to Earth. After all, with so much suffering and war happening, isn't it possible that the world is approaching its end?

After everything mentioned above, the movie world certainly seems to back up that theory.

"The name's Bond... James [insert advert] Bond"

Apologies for once again failing miserably to write anything for the last few weeks. This time it wasn't just down to laziness - it was laziness combined with illness. Mostly laziness though. I say this as if any of you care. Did you even notice I was gone? I'd guess not. Anyway, moving on...

If today's blog entry seems like an incoherent, rambling piece of drivel please forgive me - I'm recovering from some kind of virus or food poisoning or something and feeling a bit stuffed up and spaced out. I'm not entirely sure it's making sense even as I type it but hey, worst case scenario is that I write something unintentionally hilarious that makes me look like I'm on drugs. Which I'm not.

Avoiding the easy choice of writing about Christmas movies, or indeed attempting to justify what the hell I'm doing typing this on Christmas day (it beats watching the crap that's on TV), what can I write about? Casting my mind back to my last trip to the cinema, it was... CASINO ROYALE. Yep, you'd have thought I'd have had my say by now on the new Bond movie but no, so here it is.

First of all, I'm not going to dwell on the big talking point, which is the new man himself. I never had a problem with Daniel Craig being announced since he's an actor rather than a face - not something that could be said for several other candidates that were mentioned. And guess what? He's very good. So that's that taken care of.

Of course, there's more to it than that. Just as other larger-than-life heroes have been given reboots and clean slates of late (Batman and Superman spring to mind), this film has been touted as the one that goes back to basics, back to his roots, back to the novels, etc. In other words, forget what you know, this is Bond from the beginning.

In terms of how it relates to Fleming's novels, I can't say. I've never read any of them. I did read some of the newspaper strips based on the novels though, does that count? If it does, then it seems like a faithful portrayal of the character.

So anyway, the Bond franchise has been refreshed, rebooted, whatever. A lot of what you'd associate with Bond has been wiped clean, so what has it been replaced with?

Not that much different to be honest. Moneypenny's gone (alluded to in one of the film's more laboured jokes), but hasn't really been replaced by anyone; M is still around and being played by Judi Dench, who already played the role anyway; a lot of the OTT humour is gone, but there are still plenty of corny one-liners.

Maybe it's because they decided to pick a director who'd already worked with Bond, or maybe (as would seem to be the case from the reviews I've read) it's just me but I don't see a whole world of difference between this and the previous bonds with the exception that they've decided to go a little more down to Earth. But since we're talking about James Bond, who the hell wants down to Earth?

One other grumble - while I've read that the opening action sequence involving a lot of running about and stunt work is very exciting (which it is, I'll give you), I couldn't help noticing that it relies very heavily on this "free running" fad that seems so popular right now. With this brand of extreme sport already forming the basis for film (DISTRICT 13) and adverts (such as the recent Xbox effort) this year, it already seemed "of its time" even as I watched it. It seems to me therefore that it's going to age just as much as the blaxploitation-style afro goodness of LIVE AND LET DIE, if not even quicker.

One change that works - Vesper Lynd is not just a mightily attractive Bond girl, she's an actual character for a change and is used to bring a bit of depth to 007's story. That isn't entirely new either, mind you - it's already been done with unfairly-maligned ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, which remains the best Bond film to date.

One of the key changes is the lack of Q and his wacky gadgets - there are no dart-firing pens or X-ray Mars Bars or whatever the hell it was that Bond used to be issued with but alas this aspect of the series has been replaced with one aspect that is even more likely to take you out of the movie... product placement.

I understand it's big business these days, but there were times when I felt like I was watching an advert rather than a movie. Every time Bond acquires a car or a gadget, we have to have at least one shot establishing the brand name.

Great, so I know what type of laptop Bond uses. I know what type of phone he uses. I know the car he drives. Well here's the thing - I don't give a monkey's scrotum what type of bloody phone he uses. I want him to beat up bad guys, make smart-ass jokes, bed some women in a wholly un-PC way and then disappear beneath the waves on a skateboard that turns into a submarine or something.

But no, we can't have silly gadgets ruining the film - if we do that, how will the audience concentrate on what type of laptop they should be buying? It got to the point where every time some gadget appeared I immediately found myself looking out for the brand name. I'm sure that's great news for the guys in charge of product placement, but it's pish if you're trying to watch a film. I look forward to the next Daniel Craig outing as Bond, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN I-POD.

The joke's on them anyway, as I have no intention of buying a laptop or a new phone. Haha.

If it seems like I'm saying the new Bond is a bad film, please don't take it that way. In fact, it's the best in a while, and a very good thriller (albeit one that goes on a bit too long) and you should see it if you haven't already. And if it's still on at your local cinema. Which it might not be, given how long it's taken me to write about it.

Anyway, I recommend it - it's very good. It's just not as different as it seems to think it is.

Nuns, Dubliners and the apocalypse

As promised, here's a brief summary of the films I took in at the National Film Theatre while I was on my Morricone-related trip to London.

I arrived on Thursday, just in time to catch a screening of madcap Japanese classic SCHOOL OF THE HOLY BEAST. While the Italians probably dominated the so-called "nunsploitation" genre, this effort is one of the finest. For those of you wondering what the hell these films are, they're trashy movies that are best summed up as nuns behaving badly. Imagine women-in-prison films, but more blasphemous. What do you mean you've never seen a women-in-prison film?

Anyway, SCHOOL OF THE HOLY BEAST is basically a string of set pieces involving nuns doing various things that you really, really don't expect to see nuns doing - if that makes it sound sleazy, trashy, blasphemous or just plain wrong then, well, you're right, it's guilty on all counts.

However, in this particular case it's so beautifully shot and so completely over the top in its barking mad craziness you just can't help loving it. Well, when I say "you", I probably mean "I", really. It's on again at the Filmhouse in Edinburgh this weekend, just in case I've sold it to you.

On Friday, I took in THE DEAD, John Huston's last film as director and part of the lengthy retrospective dedicated to the great man that is currently playing at the NFT.

Adapted from a story taken from DUBLINERS by James Joyce (an appropriate choice given that Ireland was Huston's adopted home), the tale begins just before an annual dinner thrown for family and friends by three ladies in turn of the century Dublin, and ends a short while later in the bedroom of one of the couples attending.

It's not fast moving or eventful, but then Joyce was never a conventional writer so a conventional film probably wouldn't be appropriate. Regardless of whether you are reeled in by the evocation of old Dublin created by Huston or if you just think it's a dull series of scenes of people talking to each other, when we approach the finale and Angelica Huston tells her husband of the young Irishman who fell in love with her a long time ago, you'll be needing a couple of hankies at the ready.

On Saturday morning I attended the first session (there were four in all) of the United Nations film festival, a gathering of documentaries of varying lengths on serious subjects - after my recent write-up of the human rights film festival I attended you'd think I'd learn my lesson but no, I ended up just as depressed by this group of films.

While a lot of them were short films (some were just a minute long or less, clearly intended to used as TV spots) the main documentary in the session I attended concerned the sex traffic trade and followed one man's attempt to find his wife, who has been sold into slavery in Europe.

I could tell you that he finds her, alive, in the end and brings her home - but true as that may be, it gives the impression that the documentary has a happy ending. Unfortunately the return of his wife is just one small part of the bigger picture and every other part of the conclusion will make you angry, depressed or both.

The final event I attended was one of the annual MISSING BELIEVED WIPED events held by the BFI to showcase some of the lost television material that they have managed to locate and restore over the past year. While there was some comedy on offer, I opted for the thread entitled NUCLEAR THREATS, which consisted of an episode of sixties show OUT OF THE UNKNOWN (think TWILIGHT ZONE, but by the BBC) and THE CRUNCH, an episode of STUDIO 64 written by the legendary Nigel Kneale (of QUATERMASS fame), who died recently.

LEVEL 7, the episode of OUT OF THE UNKNOWN, was about a group of soldiers recruited to man an underground base in the UK in the event of a nuclear war, which of course soon breaks out. The usual pitfalls of old TV were in evidence (some stiff acting, a bit of woolly science and some outmoded views on certain issues) but all of these are overcome firstly by the tension created and secondly by the bleak and pessimistic view of an apocalyptic future, which is so filled with misery and hopelessness that any minor quibbles about dated TV productions are crushed in a tidal wave of despair. In other words, it's great!

Kneale's THE CRUNCH does what TV has always done best - take a limited number of characters in a very small location and then stir things up. In this story, a foreign dignitary from a (fictional) former British colony is holding the UK to ransom with a thermonuclear device in the heart of London, determined to retrieve what Britain has stolen from them (in terms of both assets and true independence).

Again there are some dated elements but they're minor, and with the exception of bit of mysticism towards the end that seems at odds with the rest of the piece, it's a remarkable drama that holds up surprisingly well, demonstrating exactly why Kneale was one of the fathers of intelligent television drama. Oh and it also featured British TV mainstay Peter Bowles as a young soldier and, in a very brief role, an extremely young Olivia Hussey. Just so you know.

Right, must dash - I'm off to see SWORD OF DOOM, a rather splendid old samurai movie. Bye for now.

Ennio Morricone @ Hammersmith Apollo, London

Friday night, and I arrived at the Hammersmith Apollo in London to discover that despite the tickets stating that Ennio Morricone's show was a 7:30 start with doors opening at 7pm, actually they'd decided it was going to start at 8:15pm.

After wandering around for a few minutes, swearing at a disfunctional cash machine and being stared at by a mad person in Tesco I decided to just go in and check out the venue (I'd held off on accound of their "no readmission" policy but finally gave up waiting).

I figured that if nothing else I could go in and get a drink. Except of course that the switch of arrangements meant that everyone else was there early as well, and they were all thinking the same thing. I'm not surprised either since, with most of the crowd already there, we were packed in so tightly that sardines could mock me without fear of recourse and the foyer of the Apollo had turned into a smoke-filled sweatpit.

It's strange that despite the concert starting forty-five minutes later than planned there were still plenty of people for whom it seemed troublesome to actually get to their seat on time. Equally strange was the high number of people who had to leave for the toilet within a few minutes of the concert beginning. If it was to get a drink, it seems strange that they couldn't have done it earlier or waited for a break; if it was to genuinely get to the toilet then I'm equally mystified as the venue was so hot I'd already sweated so much out of me that I was close to turning into dust.

I know what you're thinking - this is just turning into a massive grumble. Well, not quite, but I've a few more to get off my chest (without even mentioning the £4.50 booking fee - can anyone explain that to me?). Nice as the venue is, it's not as suited to a full orchestra and choir as something like the Albert Hall, or the Royal Concert Hall (Glasgow), or the Usher Hall (Edinburgh), or the National Concert Hall (Dublin), or, well, an awful lot of places really. And it must hold a record for the most toilet stalls with broken locks, ever.

But okay, I'll quit moaning and get on with the show.

Jonathan Ross (he of television fame) popped up on stage rather unexpectedly at the start to talk gushingly of Mr Morricone's achievements before the maestro himself took to the stage to much applause and cheering from the audience.

The concert opened with three pieces from NOVECENTO which, I confess, I know sod all about, except that the music's nice. For the most part, the next suite was also comprised of music from films I'd never heard of or at least never seen (nice though, and some of it familiar) with the exception of the fantastic "Deborah's Theme" from ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA. It's a great film, but Morricone's contribution lifts it to another level and it's great to hear that music performed live by a great orchestra (the Roma Sinfonietta if you're interested).

The next suite was much the same in as much as I don't know most of the films they came from, but again the music was terrific and highlights (I'm familiar with the music if not the sources) were the startlingly impressive renditions of "The Sicilian Clan" and "Come Madalena". You'd recognise the music even if you've not seen the films and the latter marked the evening's first appearance (not literally - she was hidden off stage for this part) of the cracking soprano Susanna Rigacci.

I was of course more than familiar with the next suite, given that it was a medley of pieces from Morricone's work on Sergio Leone's spaghetti westerns. Actually, I say "of course" as if you should be aware of how much I love spaghetti westerns, but actually I think I've only written one blog entry on spaghetti westerns - Blindman to be precise - and two if you include my very brief comments on the Spaghetti Western Orchestra at this year's Edinburgh Fringe. I must rectify that some time.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. For this suite, Rigacci was brought out onto centre stage (presumably she was held back in the name of showmanship) to a rapturous welcome, although she remained silent for the opener. The audience didn't, however, as everyone in the auditorium instantly recognised the theme from THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY (rearranged for concert performance but still remarkably faithful). There's just something about watching a 100-member chorus (the marvellous Crouch End Festival Choir) get ready for this theme tune that just makes your hair stand on end.

Rigacci got her chance to shine though as this gave way to the theme from ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, quite possibly the most beautiful piece of music ever written, which in turn segued into the theme from FISTFUL OF DYNAMITE, quite possible the second most beautiful piece of music ever written. And before the talented soprano left the stage (once more to incredible enthusiasm from the audience), we were treated to "The Ecstasy of Gold" from THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY. In case you don't know, that's the bit at the end where Eli Wallach bolts it round a graveyard in search of the gold. It's also the tune that everyone left the Apollo singing.

We were then treated to themes from CASUALTIES OF WAR (don't know that one, but it's good) and SACCO AND VANZETTI (not seen the film but was familiar with the music - again, nice).

The final suite was a collection of themes from THE MISSION - starting with "Gabriel's Oboe", which really showcased the talents of Carlo Romano of the Sinfonietta, and ended with "In Earth as in Heaven", which is another one that you are guaranteed to know even if you've never seen the film.

By way of an encore (or rather three encores) we were treated to a reprise of "The Ecstasy of Gold" and CASUALTIES OF WAR, and a theme from QUIEMADA, which again I'm not familiar with but it's a stunning piece of music.

That was it - everyone loved it and everyone left with "The Ecstasy of Gold" stuck in their head. I've never heard quite so many bad soprano impressions in one place as I did while standing in Hammersmith tube station on Friday night.

And to give you an indication of just how enthusiastic I am about Mr Morricone's music, I had also booked a ticket for the only other date, on Saturday night.

So I got to the Apollo on Saturday night (a bit later - I'd learned my lesson) for more of the same. The only real differences were that firstly we didn't get Jonathan Ross and secondly that I had a drunken man approach me beforehand outside the entrance, who tried to explain to me that Morricone actually played for Manchester United. I didn't get it, but he thought it was funny.

He did actually have a long dark coat and an unshaven look but rather than deliberately looking like he'd walked out of a spaghetti western, I think it was just because he was a wino. Imagine Django as an unemployed Londoner and you've got the picture. I was as amazed as anyone when he turned up inside the gig later on - and then, on the way out, decided to tell everyone he was a cowboy. I must give him credit though, he did do a really good American accent.

Incidentally, there were actually a few people dressed as cowboys and Mexicans at the Saturday night gig, so I salute their efforts. The same can't be said for the would-be singers though, as once again I found myself making my way home quickly to avoid not just scary tramps but also really bad soprano impressions. Still, you have to love the enthusiasm - that's Morricone's music for you.

In case you're wondering, I did actually make it to some films while I was in London - which you expected, I'm sure - but as this as gone on long enough I'll save those thoughts for another day. Right now I'm off to practice my soprano singing.