Showing posts with label remakes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label remakes. Show all posts

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Remakes Galore: "Being Human" - the UK original vs. the US remake

"Being Human," at its core, is a show about a vampire, a werewolf, and a ghost trying to live normal lives despite their supernatural conditions. For any people uninitiated with one of or both of the versions, I'd like to outline the basic premise of each as of their first episodes.

First, we have the UK version. A pilot episode with different actors in most of the roles aired, but after the series was officially picked up, they recast basically everyone except the werewolf. I never saw that original pilot, so I can't comment on it. However, the new cast gels very nicely and two seasons have aired with a third in production. As of the beginning of the series, our cast of characters includes:Mitchell the vampire, as portrayed by Aidan Turner. Talents include being Irish and incredibly sexy as well as a vampire who gets to eat and go out in sunlight. In UK's version of the series, blood-drinking is treated more like an addiction than a nutritional necessity. Mitchell was turned sometime while serving in World War I. He has to deal with old alliances he wishes to rid himself of. Mainly, the vampires who turned him who also lead a secret, underground vampire community. He works as a hospital porter, which is British for 'orderly.'George the werewolf, as portrayed by Russell Tovey. Talents include being adorable, quirky, awkward, and having one hell of a "time of the month." Werewolf lore is pretty standard here. George has cut off ties with his previous life, afraid of hurting his loved ones. He works alongside Mitchell as a porter at the hospital as well, allowing them both flexibility in flying under the radar.Annie the ghost, as portrayed by Lenora Crichlow. Talents include a bubbly personality, being able to physically touch things and even move them telekinetically when upset enough. She is still mourning over the loss of her fiance, who also happens to be the landlord. She can be seen by other supernatural creatures at all times and occasionally can be seen by normal people if she's calm and collected. While she can cross the threshold and go short distances, she doesn't venture far from the house.

Next, we have the US remake. Despite what is plastered all over their advertising, Syfy's "Being Human" is absolutely, definitively, in no way an 'original series.' Like a lot of scifi shows, it's also Canadian by nature of where it's shot. Also, the lead actress is Canadian. So, really, it's a North American remake. Our cast with American accents includes:Aidan the vampire, as played by Sam Witwer. So far, our info about the new characters is limited, but Aidan seems to be much older than Mitchell. According to Wikipedia, he was turned during the Revolutionary War. 'Aidan' seemed like a very modern name to me, but Wikipedia also tells me that his full name is Ian Daniel McCollin. He can also go out in daylight, but blood is sustenance for him and therefore he can't abstain completely without dying. He works as a nurse in a hospital, which seems an odd profession for someone who apparently can't resist temptation when getting frisky with a girl but can hold it together helping with bleeding patients every day.Josh the werewolf, as played by Sam Huntington. He also left his family after getting 'the curse,' but has an unfortunate (and as-yet unresolved) run-in with his sister in the pilot. Also nerdy and awkward, he isn't getting along nicely with the ghostly roommate. He, too, works as a nurse in the hospital.Sally the ghost, as played by Meaghan Rath. She was in the pilot very little, but she seems to be a playful sort. I'm not sure how many people in this country ages 20-30 are named 'Sally' these days, but once again, I'm not going to split hairs over names. She can't physically touch anything, and even has problems staying visible sometimes. As of the pilot, she can't leave the house.

We also have two leaders in the vampire community, Herrick and Seth, in the UK original. In the US version, it's Bishop and some other guy. Bishop is played by cult fave Mark Pellegrino (Jacob on "Lost"). In the US version, there's also a nurse with an incredibly annoying voice. Like nails on a chalkboard, I swear.

Now, onto the editorial portion of this post. Instead of writing a review of just the US version, I'm going to compare and contrast the two shows, so spoiler alert! In preparation for writing this, I (of course) watched the American pilot that premiered this week, and I also rewatched the first episode of the UK series (what I consider the official first episode, not the rough pilot with the different cast). While having the same basic premise, they each start in different places. In the UK version, George, Annie, and Mitchell already know each other and live together. In the US version, Aidan and Josh know each other but the premiere episode follows them getting the house and meeting Sally. The US vampire also kills a girl in the beginning of the episode, but we don't see the girl's conversion into a vampire like we do in the UK version. The US pilot veers wildly into a different direction towards the end where Josh and his sister are trapped in a room together as he's about to transform. It's an intriguing cliffhanger, albeit a bit rushed. We barely know these characters and now they're placed in a very intense situation.

I am biased in favor of the UK version, just by nature of the fact that I watched it first and love it. I did my best to be objective with the new cast, but so far, I'm not very impressed. I felt like Aidan and Josh barely knew each other. In the UK version, you can tell Mitchell and George are friends. There's a visible camaraderie and rapport. Josh was my favorite of the new characters, but he can't quite pull off the lovable awkwardness that George can. So far, he comes across as whiny and he's kind of an ass with Sally ("you were supposed to marry whats-his-face, weren't you?"). I have to admit, I was a little perplexed at first when his sister was introduced, since I assumed that was his ex-fiance, like referenced in the UK version's first episode. Once I knew she was the sister, it made the lesbian thing a lot less confusing. I didn't mind the sister character, but I think she was shoehorned into the pilot when they could have held off on that for a few episodes. This is the US version, meaning we have more than 6 episodes to tell the story. No need to rush things. I don't want to make up my mind too early about Sally, since she was barely in the episode, but I didn't really like her. So far, she cannot pull off bubbly and endearing like Annie can. The perkiness was quite forced. Still, with barely any Sally and the tepid relationship between Aidan and Josh, the new cast doesn't have much chemistry that we can see yet. I really hope that changes.

I'm having big issues with Aidan as the vampire. Like other people have pointed out, he needs to smile more. He didn't get any fun lines like Mitchell's "I can actually talk to women without weeping or setting fire to myself." The UK series has a great sense of humor and the cast has excellent comedic timing. Humor was sorely lacking in the US remake. There was minimal friendly bickering and more irritating complaining that came entirely from Josh, which made it less fun. Watching the UK version again after the US one just cemented this for me. As I watched them both, I wrote down lines that stuck out to me. I ended up with more lines from the UK original. Look no further than the scene in each show where they meet the landlord/the ghost's fiance. The UK version of that scene is hilarious as well as touching. The US version is saddled with some awkward exposition and not much else.

But back to the actual character of Aidan, I didn't find him likable at all. That could come partially from the fact that Sam Witwer looks like the kind of guy I wouldn't want to find myself alone with in a dark alley. He's got the scary part down, but Mitchell had a dorky down-to-earthness despite being really hot. He didn't need to impress his date with being a know-it-all, quoting history or poetry or whatnot. And there's the ethical dilemma. Mitchell kills a girl, then we find out he turned her. He realizes again what monsters vampires are and, at the end of the episode, can't bring himself to turn another girl to save her from death. He learns the hard way that there are horrendous consequences for losing control. Aidan kills a girl, very briefly tries to abstain from blood, then quickly succumbs once Bishop leads him astray. He didn't get a grand moment like Mitchell's revelation with Lauren, where he realizes where his true allegiances lie. He didn't get a sympathetic moment like Mitchell's sad moment mourning the girl he got killed. His struggle to stay on the straight and narrow is painfully clear ("I'm not like [George], I don't have days off!") We learn Mitchell allowed himself to be turned to save other soldiers during the war. You know he has an innate good conscience. It's unclear what Aidan's motivations are for wanting to 'be human' without those moments.

The exposition with Sally the ghost also served to unintentionally distance Aidan from humans. He instantly knows all about ghost lore and it's kind of awkward. In the UK version, they gloss over how they find out about Annie's condition between worlds. Maybe Mitchell knew about it, maybe he didn't, but you don't hear him say "oh, yeah, you're not the first ghost I've run into." Another small moment I liked in the original is when George changes in their house. Mitchell, and eventually Annie, sit on the step outside, visibly uncomfortable and concerned. In that small moment, you can see how much they all genuinely care for each other. Aidan follows the American tradition of the stoic, calm and in control, aloof, authoritative vampire. Mitchell is vulnerable. We also get a glimpse into the reality of werewolves - not threatening the rest of the month while human, but they're damn terrifying when they change, even to vampires.

This brings me to the biggest problem of the US pilot: too much clunky exposition. The true test of the series will most likely be in the second episode where we leave that kind of dialogue that interrupts the pace and we're left with the characters and their troubles. The US remake was also a little too angst-heavy, as I mentioned regarding the lack of humor. The characters don't need to hash out all their deepest emotional problems in the first episode. Lastly, as I brought up, I'm afraid the US version is rushing things. While riveting, we didn't need that cliffhanger the first episode had. Let us get to know the characters first. Establish them as people we should care about first, then send them into tricky situations.

The special effects were fine, nothing spectacular, but slightly better than the original. Another thing I missed in the US version was any music. The first UK episode had some great music. It wasn't anything big, but I missed it (I also miss it on the DVD. If any Americans don't know what I'm talking about, the US release of the DVD doesn't have the songs that originally aired in the first episode. They didn't bother clearing the rights to the music, they just took it out. I'm a little bitter about it). There are times when I wish the US didn't feel the need to cast every part with someone super attractive. UK shows don't shy away from casting less than stunning, yet talented performers. Herrick looks like an average guy, which makes him that much more sinister. George is cute in a nerdy way, but still an average guy. UK casting helps increase a sense of realism. Also, it helps the hot vampire stand out even more when the rest of the cast doesn't look like models as well.

Overall, if you stuck it out till the end of this post, you can tell that I wasn't very impressed with the US remake. I kept an open mind and was willing to accept another version of the show. Why not have more of a good thing? But I have a feeling this is going to be just like the "Life on Mars" remake - trying to fix what isn't broken. The original is already so good, it's a small chance they're going to get it right again. But since this remake is on Syfy instead of a big network like ABC, it's probably going to survive much, much longer than the sad "Life on Mars" remake did. I'll tune in for a few more episodes and, if it gets better, I'll re-review it. Or, if it's still bad I'll do a season-in-review like I did with "The Walking Dead." Either way, I don't have high hopes. It looks like it could turn out to be a decent enough show, but I still recommend the UK original above this American one.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

In Theaters: "True Grit"

The trailers: I saw three movies in one day and I wasn't exactly taking notes, so I am not even going to attempt to list the upcoming releases I heard about. They were mostly forgettable though. Not surprising, since we're headed into the post-Holiday Death Valley that is the movie climate in the early new year.

The film: Several people I know saw "True Grit" recently and highly recommended it. Westerns aren't really my favorite type of movie, but I'll enjoy any type of movie if it's done well. The "3:10 to Yuma" remake is a fantastic movie and I would recommend it to most people, even those who don't care for Westerns. But in the case of "True Grit," I really do think there is a disconnect to some degree between the quality of the film versus my personal enjoyment of the film. For some movies, quality and personal entertainment don't match up. A movie's quality is very objective and can be analyzed the same way by everyone. But a movie's entertainment ability is very subjective and can differ from person to person. For example, I think "Blade Runner" is an excellent movie. However, I don't like it much and find it rather boring and morose. On the other side of things, I openly admit that I enjoy watching "Ace Ventura" movies. They aren't good movies by any stretch of the imagination, but through nostalgia and a (sometimes) juvenile sense of humor, I like them. Through this preface, you can probably infer by now that I didn't love "True Grit." The best word I can use is "underwhelming."

It was a good enough adaptation of a novel that was already adapted into what I hear is a good film. The cast, including Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon, is capable, although the only one who truly shines is the young Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross. She handles her role very well for her age and holds her own among bigger name stars. Josh Brolin, as much I love him, is in the movie for what felt like five minutes. Bridges and Damon are good, but really, do you expect anything less than that from them?

My biggest issue with the movie revolves around its pacing. It spends a great deal of time in town, establishing Mattie Ross as a headstrong, intelligent young woman. While I enjoyed the verbal wit and crisp writing, in retrospect I wish they had focused more on the journey than the build-up to the journey. She then manages to get the team together, lots of manly pissing matches ensue, they follow one or two leads to find Brolin's character before the trail goes cold, miraculously stumble upon him, and kill him in a very abrupt climax. I felt like the movie wanted to have a big emotional ending that it just didn't quite earn. Considering the subject matter, two big things that were missing were any sense of urgency and a sense of danger. But maybe this is supposed to be all about the characters, not their man-hunt. The characters all come to respect each other by the end, but I just didn't buy it. For a movie that is almost two hours long, it felt incredibly short to me. Also, aside from the snippets of humor, there wasn't much about it that was very Coen brothers-esque. Sure, the film is beautifully made as well, but once again, do you expect any less from the Coen brothers? Perhaps without the big name cast and the Coen brothers behind the scenes, this movie wouldn't have gotten nearly as much as buzz. Personally, I feel like you could have put entirely unknown actors in the roles and gotten the same exact movie.

A lot of this boils down to personal opinion, I suppose, since the majority of people out there loved "True Grit." I'm no professional, this is all just my humble opinion. And in my humble opinion, there's nothing special about this respectful and well-done yet dull adaptation.

My grade: C-

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Remakes Galore: No "Torchwood" US (and there was much rejoicing)

Today I read the best news I've seen in a while: FOX is not going ahead with their American version of "Torchwood." (The idea could potentially go to another network, but let's celebrate the momentary victory at hand.) I still have no idea why they pursued this idea in the first place, considering these few points:
  1. FOX's track record with SciFi shows ("Firefly," anyone?). Well, shows in general. They have a quick trigger finger over there.

  2. Either trying to create an audience, which would be difficult for a US version of a UK show/franchise that few Americans outside the cult TV world even know or care about, or

  3. Trying to bring in the American "Torchwood" fans. Which is very divisive. US fans already love the original, so why would they be clamoring for a US version rather than another season of the original? Especially after the spectacular "Children of Earth" miniseries that had pretty great ratings, if I'm not mistaken.

  4. The inevitable character changes. I didn't buy for a second that FOX wouldn't change the Captain Jack Harkness character. The network of "24" and he-man Jack Bauer is going to have omnisexual Captain Jack saving the day? Hell, an American network like FOX is going to have all those gay storylines? Yes, US TV is getting better with this, but I cannot see a show like "Torchwood" in primetime becoming vastly popular anytime soon (The Parents Television Council would have a collective heart attack if they saw Captain Jack in primetime).

  5. An American version would lack those ties to "Doctor Who." Granted, they don't reference "Who" that much on the original, but when they do, it's really significant. Like bringing in Martha Jones for a few episodes, or crossing over with "Who" for the fourth season finale. What fun is a spin-off show of a famous franchise if you can't even keep it in the same universe? Between the de-gaying of Captain Jack and the de-Who-ing of the show history, you might as well make an entirely new show as all the charm and appeal of the original would be lost.

  6. It's totally pointless. That's my humble opinion here. Much like the US version of "Life on Mars," you'd be remaking a show that's already pretty good. (In the case of "Mars," insanely good.) "Torchwood" has never had the quality level of "Doctor Who," but it was fun and satisfying enough for fans. Leave well enough alone. Contrary to popular belief among TV execs, remaking a British show word-for-word but with an American accent will not equal the same ratings success it had in the UK.

Personally, I would love to see more "Torchwood." As long as they fix some things, like hiring some new team members, developing them, and NOT killing them off as soon as they get really interesting. And I've always wanted to know more about Captain Jack's past; they could do so much more with that. I know the 21st century is when it all changes, but I was hoping it wasn't an American "Torchwood" that I'd have to be ready for.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Remakes Galore: "Death at a Funeral"


There are probably very few people who knew that the new 2010 movie "Death at a Funeral" is actually a remake of the 2007 British movie "Death at a Funeral." I certainly didn't. A few months ago while at a theater to see "Up in the Air," the preview for the remake came up and I'll be completely honest: I thought it looked funny. It definitely had a ton of famous names in it and I'm game for any movie where James Marsden runs around crazy and nude (No offense to Alan Tudyk, who played the original role, but you are no James Marsden). When I came home later that night, I looked up the film on Wikipedia for some reason and noticed that it already existed. Then I noticed that it starred Matthew Macfayden, Keeley Hawes, and Alan Tudyk. The former two are pretty famous English actors who starred in one of my favorite shows, "MI-5" ("Spooks" to any Brits following along). Macfayden also starred as Mr. Darcy in the most recent big screen adaptation of "Pride & Prejudice." Alan Tudyk is an American actor (who does a great English accent) who is probably most famous for being Wash on "Firefly" and the movie "Serenity." So, with a decent premise and cast in mind, I decided to rent the original. I have to say, I really loved it. Tudyk is fantastic as a character who is high out of his mind most of the movie. The rest of the cast impressed me as well and they all worked together quite nicely.

But once again, I'm hesitant about a remake (Go figure, huh?). As one reviewer pointed out about the original, one of the things that makes the movie so hilarious is its essential Britishness. Tudyk even points this out during the excellent commentary. It's fun to watch such wildly inappropriate occurences at a funeral with people who are supposed to be on their very best behavior. The humor in the original movie is very British, in my opinion. They take their time to set up a lot of jokes and it really pays off in the end. So I'm very curious as to how that translates into an American film. Like I said, I laughed at the trailer for the remake, and I'd still like to see it, in all honesty. I really do think they could remake that movie for American tastes and still make a good film, if they handle it smartly. Or, they could have copied the original scene-for-scene, added some race jokes and gay jokes and made it loud and stupid.
Ultimate verdict? See the remake if you don't mind spending the cash, but I can recommend the original movie wholeheartedly.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Remakes Galore: "A Nightmare on Elm Street"

A week ago, we had a lovely spring storm where I live. It was the perfect thunderstorm, so I did what any sane person does in stormy weather: turn out all the lights and watch a horror movie. I decided on 1984's "A Nightmare on Elm Street." It was my first time and I was eager to see a classic slasher flick that included the debut of one Johnny Depp (My best friend loves Johnny Depp the same way I love TV, so I know way too much about him). Well, the film was basically what I expected: horny teens, funny 80s technology, the famous Freddy Krueger. The only previous exposure I'd had to the villain was an afternoon viewing of "Freddy vs. Jason" on the SciFi channel about a year ago (oh, excuse me, the SyFy channel). While that was a camp classic that I thoroughly enjoyed, I felt like I wasn't getting the true Freddy Krueger experience.
So now I've seen the original, and I have to say I'm undecided on whether or not they should have remade it. The original isn't a cinematic masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but it had its dated charm. I particularly enjoy pre-CGI era special effects because the filmmakers were forced to be more creative and often used models and puppetry that give older movie effects a more tangible feeling. I kind of hated the ending, because I was just so very confused by what was real and what wasn't. But I figure that was the point all along. There were plenty of moments that made me laugh that probably weren't supposed to. Like, was it a rule in lots of 80s movies that parents/the dad had to be assholes? My favorite funny moment was when poor Nancy was screaming from her window to her father across the street that Krueger was in the house but the dad doesn't bother to check it out until much later. Meanwhile, Nancy's pulling a "Home Alone" with her booby traps while her father disregards all the hysterics of his terrified daughter.

Anyway, will the new remake be just like every other horror movie remake? They butcher an already-not-that-great movie by casting late-20s actors fresh off of MTV to be killed off in a gory, spectacular manner? Most of what horror movies lack is a sense of realism, that the threat is, well, threatening. That's apparently what made people rave about "Paranormal Activity." (A movie where all I could think about the entire time was how could these two beautiful young people, one of whom is a student, afford a giant California home. And if anyone actually pronounces Micah as Meekah). But they cast Katie Cassidy, Thomas Dekker, and Kyle Gallner, who are actual names with resumes. I particularly enjoyed Katie Cassidy on "Supernatural" before they replaced her with the subpar Genevieve Cortese. Also, Jackie Earle Haley is cast as Freddy himself. Which actually gives me pause. Freddy is so iconic, can Haley embody the villain without taking us out of the movie? Besides, Robert Englund, the original Krueger, also starred in about a thousand sequels. So I'm ultimately torn, to see or not to see? It doesn't look like absolute trash, but it doesn't look like it's putting a new, fresh spin on the idea either.