Something's rotten in the state of Texas

Recently - well, okay, quite some time ago now that I think I about it - I picked up a German DVD of the spaghetti western QUELLA SPORCA STORIA NEL WEST. I've no idea why the Germans love their spaghetti westerns so much, but they must do because they release a hell of a lot more there than they do here in the UK.

I've mentioned before that spaghetti western storylines only ever fall into one of three categories - they're about greed, revenge or both. This one concerns both. There's something a little more interesting than usual about this particular storyline though.

The hero of the film (Andrea Giordana) returns home one day after a lengthy period of absence to discover that his dad is dead and his mother has married his uncle. If that sounds a little familiar, you should also know that the hero's name is Hamilton; his girlfriend ends up dead in a river; he lives on a ranch named Ellsinore; and yes, at one point, he does end up having a chat with a gravedigger. And did I mention that the film was released under the title JOHNNY HAMLET?

Yes, that's right, in case you'd forgotten when I mentioned it previously; it's the story of old Bill Shakespeare's Hamlet, but as a spaghetti western. Admit it, you're sold already.

The idea for the movie came from Sergio Corbucci, possibly the only director to rival Leone for the impact he had on Italian westerns, having directed the classics DJANGO, THE GREAT SILENCE, COMPANEROS and THE HELLBENDERS (among others). However, while there are some Corbucci-style touches (a nasty injury at the end of the film reflects the mean-spirited flavour of most of Corbucci's efforts), the film was directed by another legend of cult Italian cinema, Enzo Castellari.

While there were a lot of hacks specialising in genre cinema in Italy in the 60s and 70s, Castellari was not one of them. Despite often working with limited budgets, his passion and talent for visuals always elevated his efforts, whether he was working in westerns, crime thrillers or even my beloved post-apocalyptic MAD MAX rip-offs. JOHNNY HAMLET is no different, and serves Castellari with plenty of opportunity to make his mark on the story.

The film's lighting, sets, location work and cinematography are all first rate, and one of Castellari's most striking scenes sees a swirling camera twist its way around our hero as he delivers a Shakespeare-style soliloquy in an underground graveyard. Touches like this, combined with Castellari's brilliance at squeezing impressive action set pieces out of minimal budgets make JOHNNY HAMLET a film to remember.

The idea of remaking classic works as spaghetti westerns wasn't exclusive to this production - Leone's A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS was a shameless rip-off of Kurosawa's YOJIMBO, the story of Carmen supplied the inspiration for MAN, PRIDE AND VENGEANCE and, in one of the oddest ideas, the assassination of JFK was retold as a western in THE PRICE OF POWER. JOHNNY HAMLET remains one of the finest examples though, and one of the most faithful to its source. And, just in case you missed it, there's a "subtle" nod to the source material when a travelling band of actors turn up in town performing Hamlet.

The only aspect of the story where this film steers slightly away from the original play is with the finale. The whole "the play is the thing" idea is brushed aside, at least literally, and instead the bad guy is dispatched in a more traditional way - the good old-fashioned shoot-out.

On closer inspection however, it's possibly not as far from Shakespeare's vision as it might appear. As Johnny lures his uncle to his fate using a trail of gold dust, the villain is undone by greed in much the same way as Hamlet's uncle was undone by his own guilt. I hope I've not spoiled the ending for you - I'm assuming most of you were probably forced to read the play at school anyway. But heck, I bet you never surfed into the Freakpit today expecting me to be talking about Shakespeare though, did you?

Sure, the purists might argue that this isn't faithful to Hamlet or that it's a bastardisation of the great bard's work, or something like that. Nonsense. The only reason Hamlet didn't play out like this is because William Shakespeare (overrated by the way) was unfortunately born too early to have seen a spaghetti western.

If he had seen them, I'm sure Bill would admit that having a couple of sweaty men staring at each other sternly then shooting it out to the death is a far better ending than some nonsense about poisoning each other. JOHNNY HAMLET is Shakespeare as I'm sure the bard intended it to be seen!

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.

Superman and the Axis of Evil

Not so long ago in the history of world politics, you might recall a certain war-mongering halfwit voicing his concerns over what he had labelled the "axis of evil". I have my own cinematic equivalent, my own celluloid axis of evil. I speak of an unholy trinity, detested by me in the way that only someone who likes films too much for his own good can possibly hate something; three acts of utter folly so worthy of contempt that if you gave me the choice of wiping them from existence or banishing world hunger I'd probably need a couple of days to think about it.

What are the ingredients of this trio of motion picture pariahs? Well, there's the worst film ever made - BATMAN AND ROBIN - the Clooney-starring disaster of a Batman film that not only put the final nail in the coffin of the franchise but took a dump on the corpse and danced naked over its grave; INDEPENDENCE DAY, the alien invasion movie that took the premise of WAR OF THE WORLDS, stripped out all the good bits and replaced them with jingoistic flag-waving and garnished it with scenes that a 12-year-old would have been embarrassed to have written; and SUPERMAN III, the film where someone decided we needed an ensemble of cringeworthy characters topped off by an appearance by Richard Pryor as comic relief - a film so bad that the utter guff that followed (SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE) is watchable in comparison.

Last year Christopher Nolan managed to rescue the Dark Knight again with the wonderful BATMAN BEGINS, which finally saw someone take the bold step of making a movie which was about Batman rather than featuring him as a support act for the villains. I'm still waiting for something to eradicate the unpleasantness of INDEPENDENCE DAY though (or the ridiculous abbreviated form "ID4", if you prefer - either way it still made me want to eat my own face off) - Steven Spielberg came close with WAR OF THE WORLDS but blew it out his arse with the final scene.

And then there's the big red and blue guy. Unless you've been living on the planet Krypton, which would be pretty difficult since it's (a) fictional and (b) exploded, you'll have noticed that there's a new film out, Bryan Singer's SUPERMAN RETURNS. Naturally I couldn't wait to see if it could get rid of the lingering taste of SUPERMAN III, and the fact that I'm a total comic geek probably had something to do with it too (hence the self indulgence of using an old comic cover rather than a picture of the film above). I know, it seems incredible that someone who spends far too much time removed from people and surfing the internet could possible be a comic geek, but what the hell, I'm all about shattering stereotypes. Er, yes, I am single now you mention it.

In recent years, successful comic-to-movie adaptations (or at least the superhero ones) have been the domain of Marvel Comics. X-MEN, THE HULK, SPIDER-MAN, DAREDEVIL, THE PUNISHER - well, okay, maybe the last couple are stretching it, and I'm not going to talk about ELEKTRA - they're all Marvel properties. Only last year's BATMAN BEGINS saw their main rivals DC Comics claw their way back into the game, but now the attack is in full force with the big blue boy scout making his comeback (and Wonder Woman is to follow sometime soon, bringing the final member of DC's big three to feature films for the first time).

I'm pleased to report the film is a success. Ignoring the painful memories of numbers 3 and 4, SUPERMAN RETURNS is essentially a sequel to the first couple of movies and begins with Superman returning to Earth from a mission to outer space where he has been looking for survivors of his home planet. But five years have passed since he left, and a lot has changed - Lex Luthor is out of jail and the love of his life, Lois Lane, has moved on with her life and is now a mother and engaged to be married.

We've waited a long time for this icon to return to the screen (and unlike KING KONG, this is one that we actually wanted to see back on the big screen) and Singer carries it off with aplomb.

One of the key strengths is his concentration on story over special effects - the effects are used sparingly (for a big blockbuster anyway - unlike KING KONG) and in some places I'd even say they're a little undercooked. The story takes a few liberties with the characters, in particular the central relationship between Superman, Lois, her husband-to-be and her kid but I won't spoil it by going into detail, and given what Singer achieves here (and already achieved with X-MEN) you really have to cut him a little slack.

Any other grumbles are minor (given the pasting Lois repeatedly takes without picking up a single bruise, I can't help wondering if Superman is the only one with superpowers) and for a film of this length (about two and a half hours) the time really flies by. Unlike KING KONG. Sorry, that'll be the end of the KONG bashing for now, honest.

The casting of the main roles is another strong point. The previously unknown Brandon Routh has no trouble at all in taking up the cape, though it will be some time before he fully escapes Christopher Reeve's shadow; as Lois Lane, Kate Bosworth doesn't quite have the same dominant, smartass presence as Margot Kidder but still captures the essence of the character (headstrong and always in trouble, essentially) and if you'll allow me to be totally superficial she's quite a bit easier on the eye too; and Kevin Spacey, with the exception of a couple of OTT moments, is superb as Lex Luthor. He strikes the perfect balance of arrogance, intellect, evil and baldness, falling halfway between comic book mad scientist and an Enron boss.

In one of his most inspired decisions, Singer has also retained the legendary theme music composed by John Williams - if that doesn't make your hair stand on end in the cinema again after all these years, you're beyond saving.

And yes, there are even a few moments for the comic geeks too. Perry White gets to utter his catchphrase; there's a fleeting reference to Batman's stomping ground; the updated "S" symbol, while different to the more famous one used in the original movie, is closer to the one that was used back in the early years of the comics; and best of all, there is a lifting-up-a-car scene that perfectly recreates the image from Superman's first appearance on the cover of Action Comics #1 way back in 1938. If you like that sort of thing.

All in all, the film's a triumph. Superman does indeed return as the title promises, but it's not just about his literal return to Earth; he's returning to the cinema; returning to the public consciousness; returning to the status of American icon rather than laughing stock.

You'll believe a man can fly... again!

In a rare moment of seriousness, I encourage you to pop along to www.ChristopherReeve.org and do your bit for paralysis research.

Some ape movies are more equal than others

Tim Burton's 2001 remake of PLANET OF THE APES was aired on TV again at the weekend. If you watched it, I probably owe you an apology.

First of all, the fact that there are so many people out there like me who love the original movie (aka THE GREATEST FILM EVER MADE) and the franchise it spawned probably convinced Twentieth Century Fox that there was some kind of demand for a remake, while forgetting everything that made the original special. I can just about buy into an argument for remaking rubbish films but it's a mystery to me why anyone thinks that undisputed classics need to be "reimagined" for a new generation.

Secondly, I knew in advance that it was going to be screening and yet I didn't warn you off it, so again I apologise. There is very little I can say to comfort you or to erode the feelings of disappointment and anger that you are probably still feeling if you wasted a couple of valuable hours of your life on this steaming puddle of rancid pish.

There are so many things wrong with this picture it's difficult to know where to begin. Let's start at the conception. Even assuming there was a legitimate reason to remake it (there wasn't, but let's just go with it), Fox went about it all wrong from the start. After several scripts were penned and rejected over many, many years what eventually got the greenlight doesn't appear to have been any better. It's difficult to tell though, since it apparently went through a hefty rewrite on its way to the screen.

While I've admired several of Tim Burton's films, there is no escaping the fact that he is more at home with visuals than a decent script. He was hampered further by various inspired choices by the studio, not least of which was adhering to the ever more popular policy of fixing a release date and working towards it rather than making a good film and then releasing it. Fox even retained Dick Zanuck as producer (one of the many links to the original film) but as the documentary BEHIND THE PLANET OF THE APES revealed, he was just about the only person involved who didn't realise what the original film was about.

Small wonder then that we ended up with such an embarrassing mess. Burton's film couldn't be considered good by any means, but when compared to the original film that inspired it its shortfalls become painfully obvious.

The original film's lead was Charlton Heston, a respected actor who had already appeared in the likes of BEN-HUR, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, EL CID and numerous other classics. The remake gave us the two-dimensional Mark Wahlberg, who was famous for fronting a tripe 80s pop group and sporting a prosthetic knob in BOOGIE NIGHTS.

The original had specially-devised make-up effects that earned John Chambers an honorary Oscar. Despite the assumed leaps forward in technology, the remake gave us appliances that hindered the actors' abilities to speak properly or to express themselves. They even managed to make Helena Bonham-Carter's chimp look like Michael Jackson.

The original had support from the likes of Roddy McDowall, Maurice Evans and Kim Hunter. The remake gave us Paul Giamatti clowning around as some kind of comic relief slave trader, Tim Roth trying his best not to look like he was in a pantomime and a cringeworthy cameo by Heston.

The original made full use of the desert locations and the Fox ranch to create an alien world and an exotic looking ape city. The ape city in the remake never resembled anything other than a soundstage, and a cramped one at that.

The humour in the original was, for the most part, perfectly judged. The attempts at humour in the remake were embarrassing to a whole new degree.

The original had an incredibly innovative score by Jerry Goldsmith that used things like mixing bowls and brass instruments with inverted mouthpieces in order to create an alien world. For the remake, Danny Elfman managed a half decent main title followed by a lot of by-the-numbers music that he himself has frequently done better than.

The original had a superb script by Rod Serling (creator of THE TWILIGHT ZONE) and Michael Wilson, which actually brought some social commentary to the table (try watching the trial scene in the original movie knowing that Wilson had run afoul of McCarthy's witchhunts in the 1950s). The remake gave us Marky Mark fighting monkeys and, er, I can't actually remember him doing much else.

The original benefited from expert pacing by director Franklin Schaeffner, with the slow build up used to introduce us to the strange new world and establish the character of Taylor. Burton's effort has an idiotic astronaut chase a monkey (sorry, ape) into space and within a few minutes is fighting with apes. And after that opening act of folly on the part of whatever Wahlberg's character was called I really wanted the apes to win.

The original gave us numerous quotes that have lived on long after the film disappeared from theatres. The remake was so barren of anything memorable that the things one remembers most are the numerous occasions it references the original movie - unfortunately, rather than demonstrating a smug but fond feeling for the original, it only serves to remind you how much better the original was.

The original gave us the single greatest ending in the history of movies. For the remake, Burton decided to film an ending that was far closer to Pierre Boulle's original novel - alas, he failed to realise that it actually had sod all to do with the film that had preceded it, leaving everyone walking out the cinema wondering what the hell happened. Imagine if you were watching CITIZEN KANE and were just about to discover what "Rosebud" meant... and then suddenly someone switches the film and you get the last five minutes of BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. That's the feeling you get watching the conclusion to Burton's nadir.

I imagine this must be what die hard STAR WARS fans felt like when George Lucas finally unveiled his second trilogy, in particular the first two parts. Thrilled to finally see the films you love continuing on the big screen after so long, you approach the cinema in an optimistic mood and leave with a smile on your face, kidding yourself on that what you just witnessed actually delivered the goods. It's only once the smell of popcorn has left your nostrils and you've grown accustomed to daylight once more that you begin to get a nagging feeling at the back of your mind. That feeling grows until sometime later - maybe hours, maybe days, maybe even a couple of weeks - you begin to be honest with yourself and admit that what you saw was really not very good at all. All the wishing in the world will not make an awful film suddenly turn good.

I could go on forever talking about the ways in which the original movie far outshines its modern usurper, but I won't. I'll just finish by apologising again and offering you one piece of advice to get over it.

Nowadays whenever I tell anyone that my favourite film is PLANET OF THE APES, there's an uncomfortable few seconds where I have to explain that I'm talking about the original and, if necessary, instruct them to watch it, just in case they're basing their opinion on the more recent turkey.

So that's the advice I offer you. Go and watch the original again. Even better, maybe you're lucky enough to have never seen the original, in which case don't let the "reimagining" monstrosity put you off - you're in for a treat. Just as wishing won't make an awful film turn good, even Burton's cinematic equivalent of electrodes to the testicles can't change the fact that the original is THE GREATEST FILM EVER MADE. EVER.