Author Archives: The Phage

The Expendables 2 (2012)

by

5

Everyone likes to have a go at fan-fiction: where you pit two or more icons against one another to see who’d win. It’s like an elaborate, imaginary form of Top Trumps. Who’d win in a fight between a polar bear and a great white shark? Who’d win in a battle between Batman and Iron Man? Who’d win if my dad fought your dad? It’s true that most of these revolve around the “fight” premise, and many of them will never come to realisation; unless you have a particularly violent dad who just likes fighting. But 2012 is thus far shaping up to be the year that fan-fiction comes to realisation. We’ve had The Avengers, and seen Thor, Captain America and Iron Man fight one another on-screen, and now we bring in the Last Action Heroes, The Demolition Men, The Universal Soldiers… The Expendables.

If you’ve been living under a rock, or if you’ve spent the past few years trying to wrestle a polar bear towards Cape Town for the epic bear vs. shark fight, then The Expendables united some of the 1980’s and 1990’s biggest action heroes into one big gunfight back in 2010. You had Stallone and Lundgren combined with some of the genre’s biggest modern stars like Jet Li, Jason Statham and… erm… Randy Couture? The first outing for The Expendables was fun, but about as deep as a puddle. It had its moments but you sensed it was missing something. It had its big names, and its cameos from Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, but it was lacking.

The Expandables 2 adds new names to the roster, such as Chuck Norris and Jean-Claude Van Damme, as well as expanding on the roles for Willis and Schwarzenegger, to almost provide the quintessential who’s who of action heroes. But does it deliver where its predecessor tripped over itself? Most certainly.

Some of the who’s who of action movies are in The Expendables 2… as well as some just plain “who?” too.

Make no mistakes, this film is never going to be nominated for an Oscar, nor is it going to receive any awards from any magazine, but it’s a lot of fun. I’ll lay it down here that I was never an avid watcher of the 1980’s action classics; I know of them and their premise, but I in no way attest to having watched all of them. Therefore I’m in no way, shape or form a “fan-boy” of the 80’s. I was more a fan of every-man John McClane than the one man army that is John Rambo and his ilk. But I still really enjoyed this.

The premise of the film essentially revolves around Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) and his motley crew of mercenaries being tasked with recovering some data for US Government bod Mr. Church (Bruce Willis). Clearly, things don’t go as planned and the data falls into the hands of the villain with the inspired name Vilain (Jean-Claude Van Damme), then boots are put to asses. The plot is nothing special, but I don’t think it’s intending to be that either. It’s a straight up action film – true popcorn fodder, and at this it excels. However, I take umbrage with critics saying that this is “excusable” because “it’s only an action movie”. Why can’t a film like this have a riveting plot that keeps you on the edge of your seat? Die Hard: With A Vengeance for instance had a great plot that played out as a thriller as much as an action movie. I don’t accept that cop-out excuse.

Pure fan service: The Terminator, Rambo and John McClane, united at last.

What you do have is a fun, self-referential, action-heavy movie sure to please fans of the genre. There are so many nods to the stars’ previous films, from Van Damme‘s roundhouse kicks to Chuck Norris‘ accompanying intro music that plays every time he appears. Hell, there’s even a reference to the played out Chuck Norris jokes we’re all familiar with. It’s all very tongue-in-cheek and genuinely fun to behold. Much like The Avengers I’d actually argue that some of the most entertaining parts are when the guns aren’t firing – it’s the back-and-forth and banter between the guys that is most engaging. It really looks like they’re all having fun with the script and relishing those wisecracks. Well, except for Statham who is given a number of “one liners”, but none of them hit the mark. Better luck next time Jason.

Although on paper the cast list appears to be too full, it’s good to see that not everyone is on the screen at all times, as this’d make for a horribly messy film. Some of the big names are reduced to cameos: Jet Li especially, who has about two minutes on-screen overall. However, I still don’t see the need for Randy Couture in the team. He’s a brilliant MMA fighter, but an actor he is not. And despite being part of the “core” group, he probably has five lines in the whole runtime. He’s probably the most expendable of The Expendables.

Can Stallone pull off the treble? Film Phage wants to see some of these guys in The Expendables 3…

If you’re unaware of the rumblings in Hollywood, then know that The Expendables 3 is a very real proposition and I’d anticipate it landing amidst explosions and gunfire sometime in 2014. Here’s hoping that Stallone can bring in some of the last remaining action players, such as Wesley Snipes and Steven Seagal, as well as other less obvious choices like Liam Neeson, Nic Cage and even Mel Gibson… Now that’s a film I’d love to see.

The Expendables 2 fires into cinemas with the expected combination of testosterone and guns. What was less expected was the self-referential humour and light-hearted quips that really made the film feel much more fluid and complete than its predecessor. Its only weakness is that the franchise is still lacking something in the way of cohesive story. I’m not looking for Memento with action heroes… just something a little different to spice things up. I know the franchise is capable of ratcheting it up that last notch.

Thankfully the film turns out more like Time Cop than Kindergarten Cop and I’m already baying for the announcement of the role-call for the inevitable third entry in the series.Then the fan-boys will get some more of their all time most wanted duels up on screen, which may not solve any of the “versus” arguments, but will no doubt entertain once again. And for the record Iron Man would hammer Batman… and my dad would also kick your dad’s ass. Fact.

Phage Factor:

3.5 Star

The Imposter (2012)

by

0

We’ve all lost a pet at some point in our lives: whether it was little Hammy the hamster, Goldy the goldfish, or Floppy the rabbit. Usually, this is due to them being ushered to the big playground in the sky. Your parents may have played this out in several ways; for instance they may say your pet had run away (probably due to those god awful, unoriginal names you used), or they may explain the cold hard truth – your pet is dead – get over it. More likely they’ll have tried to replace your cherished pet with a replica, so that you (the naive little kid) have no idea about the horrible fate that your little buddy succumbed to. But you know something’s wrong. That little creature just isn’t quite right… there’s something a bit different. Little “Hammy” is in fact an imposter.

Now imagine that this pet isn’t a pet… imagine it’s a brother, a son, or nephew; lost in their early teen years. No-one knows where they went, or where they are. They remain lost for over three years. Then suddenly you get a call – the boy has been found half way across the world. But this “little boy” isn’t your lost little boy. He’s someone else – an imposter. This is the premise behind The Imposter, a part-documentary, part-thriller, but very much true story in the vein of Catfish or Talhotblond. And boy do I recommend you watch it.

As per usual, I’m not going to explicitly reveal the plot here, but if you’re interested in the “true story’s” authenticity (and more on the plot), then read these articles in Time Magazine and The Guardian newspaper. I can reveal that the film tells how the Barclay family deals with reuniting with “Nicholas” in 1997: three years and four months after his disappearance from a small Texan community, in which time he seemingly had travelled to Spain and developed a French accent. Do they accept him? Do they figure it out? You’ll have to watch to find those details. This is Film Phage – we don’t spoil!

This isn’t Nicholas Barclay, nor does he look like a blonde haired, blue eyed Texan… but he’ll say he is…

If you’re familiar with Talhotblond (and if you’re not, I urge you to check it out), then you’ll recognise the format of the film. It primarily plays out as a documentary, with all of the key players talking in a frank and open manner about the events that occurred in the late 1990’s – these are not actors, these are the real people, each with their own view on events. This is interspersed with “flashbacks” that does use actors. After all, a film needs some action here and there. And I’m a sucker for genuine true stories, not this rubbish that’s so often cooked up by Hollywood as being a “true story”, when all that’s “true” are names and locations. Nothing more. This is the real deal, with real world implications.

If you’re going to watch The Imposter, you’re not going to see great acting, because there isn’t much on show – it has re-enactments in the same way that Crimewatch or America’s Most Wanted does, but this isn’t why I enjoyed the film. It’s the story. I don’t recall the original events from 1997-1998, and was unfamiliar with the tale. If this is true for you too, then do not read up on it, as the film plays out much better if you have no clue about what’s coming next – it really adds to the suspense. I’m a sucker for a twisting plot, and this had it in spades. And the genius thing? It’s not the imagination of a writer – these are real events. This single fact makes you question the rationale and intelligence of some people, as well as their moral compasses.

Some of the real people involved in the case: from sister to FBI agent, all angles are covered.

That being said, the film is not an edge of your seat thriller from beginning to end. It does slow down considerably at the end of the first act, where the film loses its momentum somewhat and attention begins to wane. I even found myself becoming slightly sleepy due to the fact that the film is slim on music and noise in general – it’s primarily a vocal delivery. But luckily this drought was short-lived and the intrigue and suspense kicks back in again with a vengeance.

By the time the epilogue and credits roll you’ll be wondering how on Earth this is a true story. Some of it is so far fetched that you’d be forgiven for doubting its authenticity. You’ll be left with just as many questions as answers… and that’s the joy of it. I love a cerebral film and one that provokes discussion and introspection. Although the film will not be to everyone’s tastes, nor is it a flawless piece of cinema, it is one that I have no qualms in recommending thoroughly. There are never just two sides to a story…

You’ll be shocked, you’ll be intrigued and you’ll be stupified. I’ll guarantee these three things of The Imposter if you’re unfamiliar with the tale of Nicholas Barclay – the lost little Texan boy. And in a summer that’s also seen the release of Killer Joe, I doubt you’ll be wanting to visit Texas any time soon either…

Imagine you had that sense of loss and longing for that absent love – little Hammy. Then he’s swapped. Unknowingly. Would you know something was awry? And if you did, would you still accept him, and why? Does this desperation make you rash, or is there something being covered up? Something sinister? Would you rather just not know why Hammy changed after mum had done the vacuuming so thoroughly? The truth sometimes really is far stranger and more frightening than fiction.

Phage Factor:

The Reboot Ruling

by

0

The Reboot Ruling

Most of the best sagas come in threes: Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings… erm… Rush Hour? Now we’re not tooting our own horn here at Film Phage and comparing our trail-blazing Reboot Zone saga with these epics but you can’t argue with the rule of three. It’s unquestionably true. Let’s just not mention film franchises that break this trend OK? Perfect. So welcome to our final instalment in the ongoing debate regarding the fate of D.A. Reboot.

Proceedings were opened in Part I: The Reboot Rebuke where the prosecution (The Phage) launched into a tirade against reboots, with references galore to Rob Schneider. This was followed in Part II: The Reboot Redemption by the defence counsel (erm… The Phage aka me, again) where we learnt that reboots probably aren’t created for fans of the originals and that we should be more forgiving. And now we come to Part III: The Reboot Ruling, where our honourable judge (you guessed who – I’m so schizophrenic we’ve got three personalities) will pass verdict on whether reboots are a legitimate form of cinema… Please be upstanding for Judge Phage.

I would like to thank myself for providing compelling arguments both for and against the defendant over the past fortnight. Although I do not normally condone so many frankly bizarre analogies to first dates or Rob Schneider, you have both made valuable contributions to the ongoing case. As I am The Judge, I forgo the need for a jury and make the decisions myself. Hell, you don’t get such a bad-ass helmet through asking for other people’s opinions. I am the law, despite what Robo-Phage would claim.

I will address each of the accusations individually and deliver my verdicts accordingly:

1) Reboots are always awful.

On this count, we find the defendant not guilty. Although we note that many rebooted films have been as painful as a claw hammer to the temples, there are notable exceptions that disprove this. Batman Begins, The Amazing Spider-Man and Star Trek are all shining examples of how to successfully reboot a franchise.

2) Reboots have stifled Hollywood’s original film output.

Although the court does not have access to the in’s and out’s of Hollywood, we have assessed the lay evidence. On this count, we find the defendant not guilty. I point to the fact that The Avengers / Avengers Assemble has become the third highest grossing movie of all time, and it is an original franchise. Similarly, Avatar and Titanic: the top two grossing films of all time, are also original motion pictures. Although the court acknowledges how derivative Avatar is in the grand scheme of things.

3) Reboots destroy the magic of the original film.

The court finds this to be the hardest area to judge. Although we acknowledge that remaking a film does nothing to impinge on the already-existing original, we know that some people feel like the film’s been “ruined” by the remake. On balance, we find the defendant not guilty owing to the fact that you can still enjoy the original, and that the reboot is probably not made for you. As the defence pointed out, these remakes are for a new generation who would otherwise not invest themselves in an older, “dated” movie.

4) Is Rob Schneider responsible for any of these reboots?

No. Sorry Rob… though you really do take some god awful roles.

Not guilty of reboots… but probably guilt of something…

So although we note that reboots nearly always falter, there are gleaming exceptions to the rule: those that stand out as fantastic movies in their own right. However, we must note that our opinions are perhaps coloured by the fact that none of The Phage’s favourite movies have been rebooted as of yet. They’re all still out there in their original version. Maybe if this changed, we’d be a little less lenient on the reboot. But for now, D.A. Reboot is acquitted of all charges.

If you agree, or disagree, then please feel free to make your voice known in the comments section below.

The Wedding Video (2012)

by

0

A failed marriage

Ah, the tradition of making videos to capture those special moments in life; whether they be first birthdays, family holidays, or indeed weddings. Everyone’s been in one, and some of you may have filmed them… but how many of you have actually sat and watched those videos again? Honestly? I’m willing to bank on “not many”. I remember when I was younger being filmed on camcorder when in Disney World… have I ever seen that tape again? Have I hell! Even if my VHS player wasn’t in the attic, I still wouldn’t feel the desire to dig out those old recordings. So is The Wedding Video an exception to the rule, or should it still be gathering dust next to those old mangled GI Joe toys that will definitely be worth something one day?

Robert Webb, Lucy Punch

The Wedding Video: happily ever after, or a drunken mistake?

Before I bestow my opinion on this, let’s just fill you in on what this film is about. Firstly, it’s a British film, filled with British actors. This probably means a US remake is about 3 years away (hello Death At A Funeral – I’m looking at you). The film revolves around Raif (Rufus Hound), who decides to record the lead up to the wedding of his brother (Robert Webb) and his fiancée Saskia (Lucy Punch) as his wedding gift. It all operates in a very “found footage”-esque way, with the film recorded in a style to mimic the handy-cams made famous by The Blair Witch Project. It’s a nice take on the rom-com genre, as handy-cams have been used to record poltergeists, witches, and even ghosts on the moon… but not yet for the terrors of a wedding.

But that’s where the novelty and for me, enjoyment, wears off. I’m a great fan and advocate of British comedy. Recent series such as The Inbetweeners and Peep Show clearly showcase how fantastic the Brits are at making hilarious shows. The Inbetweeners in particular has been extremely successful, transitioning to the silver screen last year with unexpected success both financially and critically (US folks – it hits your cinemas on 7th September… and you have a horrible MTV remake of the series airing now I believe). On paper, The Wedding Video has the right ingredients to succeed, owing to the fact it has Peep Show‘s Robert Webb and comedian Rufus Hound, in addition to various other British comedy alumni. It should succeed… but I can honestly say I didn’t laugh once.

Do you think we should even be filming this?

A comedy film is only as successful as the laughs it can produce, and by my judgement one smile in a 94 minute run time isn’t good. The writing fails to connect on so many levels, with most of the attempts at humour falling very short of the mark. And this comes from the writer and director combination of Tim Firth and Nigel Cole, who brought the enormously successful Calender Girls to screens in 2003. These guys aren’t rookies. They should really have nailed this, but didn’t. You may be thinking I’m an elitist or comedy snob. Yes, I have high expectations of my comedy, but I’m not alone in this. Of the 40-50 others in my screening, I heard one or two bouts of laughter in the entire film. This is in comparison to Ted, where some people wouldn’t stop laughing, regardless of whether I judged a joke to be a hit or miss (damn Cleveland Show fans).

I feel sorry for the lead actors having to work with such a poor script. Neither are really given the opportunity to flex their comedic muscles. The female lead, Lucy Punch, fares just as well owing to that script. She also exudes an aura of Jennifer Saunders in her acting. I’m not sure if this is a compliment or not, but take it as you will. Two actors are worthy of praise though: the always reliable Miriam Margoyles (Romeo & Juliet, Harry Potter) delivers in every scene she’s in – a real highlight, as does Harriet Walter (Sense & Sensibility, Atonement), playing grandmother and mother of the bride respectively. Walter‘s wedding reception speech was particularly moving; it caught me off-guard and instantly alleviated my boredom. However, not even these great performances could rescue this film. Don’t even get me started on the farcical ending either. I’d normally advocate seeing a British comedy until my face turned blue. But not this one… not in the slightest. Hell, if you had to choose between this and the weak The Lorax, I’d choose the latter. Says it all really.

The Wedding Video acts as an example of how not to write a British comedy film; ultimately coming off as something that should have been restrained to an hour-long TV episode, and not a feature length film. Recently, British comedy has seen something of a resurgence on the big screen, with such hits as Shaun of the Dead, Four Lions and The Inbetweeners Movie. Luckily these films outweigh the Beans, Lesbian Vampire Killers and The Wedding Videos of this world.

In a way The Wedding Video is pretty true to its title. Wedding videos are created to be viewed to bring back memories of a moment you can love and cherish for the rest of your life. Sometimes though they just provide bitter memories of the time you married that utter tool who treated you like something they scraped off their shoe for the next 12 months before you caught them cheating on you with that douche / slut from the next street. They’re relationships and memories you’d rather forget. This is that video.

Phage Factor:

Brave (2012)

by

5

Pixar's Brave

Teenage issues eh? Ungrateful parents who’ve never done anything for you in their entire lives, issues with your body getting more bumpy and bulbous (hopefully in the right areas), and invoking magic to get your own way to prevent an arranged marriage. Wait… what?! I’m sure we can all attest to two out of those three issues. If you can say “yes” to all three then kudos to your for being brought up in mediaeval Britain with wizards and warlocks. And if you’re reading this, then I guess Paganism really pays off considering you’d be about 8-900 years old by now. AND you managed to find Film Phage. You sir, or madam, deserve a medal. Or an eye of newt, whichever you want.

So why am I bothering to invoke references to teenage life and mediaeval times? Well, you can thank Brave for that. Pixar’s latest animated endeavour focusing on the story of Merida (Kelly Macdonald): first born to King Fergus (Billy Connelly) and Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson) of Scotland. Her tale isn’t a new one: a young girl feels controlled by her overbearing mother, wants to rebel, rebels, deals with the repercussions of doing so and learns a lesson. You could take any Disney / Pixar / Dreamworks story and put the same framework over it, which is why I went into Brave not exactly expecting much; especially since I feel jaded after my last foray into the animated world with The Lorax. But you have to give credit to Pixar… they sure do know how to show and tell a story!

Whilst regular readers will know I get especially hung up on predictable plot lines, I guess you have to forgo these irritations in any U / PG-rated movie aimed primarily at kids, so I will. For now. Beyond this, my reasons for my initial frostiness towards the film stem from the trailers not engaging me in the slightest. They were devoid of humour and quickly became stale. Couple this with the hoo-ha surrounding the “first female protagonist of a Pixar film” and I was turned off. Making a fuss of gender – for me – means there’s nothing much else to brag about in the film. If you felt the same, then I urge you to put this aside, as the film is definitely worth your pounds and pennies, dollars and cents, or pieces of eight… whatever.

Ginger children: no matter how many buns they eat, they’ll never gain a soul.

Firstly, it looks truly stunning. Pixar really are leaps and bounds ahead of their competition in this regard. Much fuss was made of 2010’s Tangled being the most aesthetically pleasing animated film of all time (Walt Disney played the “female lead” card with that film too because she wasn’t a damsel in distress. We get it, women and men are equals. This isn’t the 1950’s. It’s a given now isn’t it? Let me know when you make a bloody Labrador the lead ok?!), but this blows it out of the water. You also cannot talk about the quality of an animated film without also discussing the voice work. And whilst Brave doesn’t boast A-list Hollywood royalty, it does a fantastic job. I’m very glad of this actually, considering the film’s Scottish setting. There’s nothing worse than a US actor having a ham-fisted attempt at a Scottish accent. You can’t pull it off. Don’t try.

I particularly enjoyed Billy Connelly‘s turn as King Fergus: a rough-and-tumble leader who’s indebted to his loving wife, but also encourages his daughter’s tendencies to wield weapons and act more like a warrior, much to his wife’s disdain. Credit also has to be given to Kelly Macdonald for taking the lead and running with it. Although Macdonald is far older than her on-screen character, she pulls it off. She’s come a long way since 1996 where she starred in Danny Boyle‘s Transpotting. From a tale of heroin-addicts in Glasgow to a tale of a fiery princess… also based in Scotland.

“There Can Only Be One!” Oh wait, wrong Scottish-themed movie.

Sure, it all comes to a head in that saccharine way you expect of animated movies, with no emotionally devastating curveballs (ala Up!), but the story does opt for a charming take on reconciliation between mother and daughter: one that you wouldn’t expect. Although you will wonder why the witch in the movie is still in employment considering her panacea cure-all approach to spell-weaving. Why’d they all have the same outcome? It was also very refreshing to see a movie that doesn’t rely on the cliché guy-meets-girl love story. And no, that’s not a spoiler, as that’s not what the film’s about so reel your anger back in if you thought that was spoiling anything about the movie.

The film’s scope also merits discussion. Pixar and Dreamworks both have a tendency to tackle epics. Not quite Avengers Assemble style epic, but epic nevertheless. How To Train Your Dragon, another Scotland-based romp, is apt here. In that our young protagonist strives for independence and earns his father’s respect. The film also culminates in a whopping great battle – a feast for the eyes. Brave is nothing like this; it’s very pared back and the story never leaves the Scottish glens. Yes, it would be odd to see Merida fly off into space or battle massive super-villains, but there was a lack of “final conflict” between her and anyone. Here the hero wins with love and words, as opposed to steel and bravery, which is ironic considering the title of the film. Some will mourn the loss of such a climax, whilst others will be happy to see a more focused story. The only way to find out is to judge for yourself.

Brave is another shot on target for Pixar, even if not squarely in the bullseye. Whilst it’s not in the same leagues as Toy Story, Monsters Inc. or Wall-E, it’s certainly no Cars 2. Mind you, considering how high Pixar’s standards have been, this is nothing to be ashamed about. Whether the film has the lasting appeal of its contemporaries however remains to be seen. You can’t judge whether a film is a classic without the passage of time.

That is unless you’re the 800 year old Pagan witch that’s still reading this review. For you, it’ll take no time – just mix 56 Bavarian herbs and spices, the blood of a deer and liquid of the scarlet bull and there you go: a potion to see the future. Either that, or it’s how I ended up in ER last weekend. Can’t remember which… I’ll try again and let you know.

Phage Factor:

4 Star

The Reboot Redemption

by

0

The Reboot Redemption

Reboots: much maligned and much deplored by many a movie-goer. Here at Film Phage, we’re continuing to act as both the prosecution and defence on behalf of D.A. Reboot, who is accused of besmirching Hollywood’s good name. We now follow on from our first entry in The Reboot Zone saga: The Reboot Rebuke, and re-join proceedings, where I believe the council for the defence is about to make its gambit. Will we see more surprise guest appearances, or any more mention of Rob Schneider? Read on to find out.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am here today to show you why I respectfully disagree with myself with regards to the innocence of my client, D.A. Reboot. I am here to show you that retelling and re-adapting a concept is not a new premise; indeed without such practice one would not have stories passed from generation to generation. To borrow from the London 2012 Olympics, these new interpretations are needed to “inspire a generation” – maybe not your generation, but those after you. I will present evidence that is our own selfish desires to oppose change that makes us so vehemently opposed to the mere concept of a reboot and that reboots are not necessarily bad. If you agree with me, I urge you to vote to acquit D.A. Reboot of all charges.

We all have our favourite memories, and some of those will undoubtedly tie themselves to films. My honourable friend likened a reboot to a first date: one where you don’t get that first kiss and end up being brandished a pervert, somehow. To use the same analogy: do you remember those dates that didn’t work so well? Ones filled with regrets? Perhaps you moved too soon, or didn’t move at all. An opportunity wasted. An opportunity squandered. An opportunity to never be had again. What if you could go back and alter things; tinkering with the very basis of the experience. Would you? I’m willing to bet you would. A bit like 50 First Dates, but with less Rob Schneider.

This is a lot like the entire concept of a reboot. It goes back and undoes and alters what went before. Let’s take an example: Batman. The Batman movies have been commonplace since the 1980’s, but have been picked up and played with by numerous directors. The character’s origin story was explored in 1989’s Batman. Several questionable sequels followed. As I’m sure you’re all well aware, the character was reborn, or rebooted, in 2005 courtesy of Chris Nolan. I think you’ll agree that this reboot was regarded as something of a success. It takes nothing away from the 1989 original; that too is still a great movie in its own right. Some would argue the original isn’t even dated, and I would agree, yet I’m sure some decried some upstart director (Nolan) retelling the origin story of Batman again. If you preferred the original, then great. If you preferred Nolan’s take, then also: great.

“There can only be one.” Not always.

Another example of such “rebooting” with beloved franchise involves a group almost as vocal as comic book fans: Star Trek fans. Everyone’s aware of Captain Kirk’s Star Trek from 1966. This was rebooted in 2009, with new Kirk’s, Spock’s and Scotty’s. People were at first a little hesitant, but the film was a hit; with a sequel currently in the works that may itself be a remake of Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan. Reboots clearly can work.

To summarise my first point: reboots aren’t always a failure, and if you don’t like the remake, so what? You still have the original. It’s not like the reboot has erased the originals from existence is it? Some will like the new, some will like the old.

Still scary by today’s horror standards? Probably not. Is it therefore “dated”?

This leads me to my final point on the matter: who these reboots are aimed at. You’d be naive if you thought that a remake of something like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was for the same audience that saw it back in 1974. Of course it isn’t. It’s for a new generation: new youngsters to the genre. By anyone’s admission, the horror movies of the 1960’s-1980’s are tame by today’s standards. The Exorcist was once banned and deemed too terrifying for public consumption. Nowadays? Well… we have The Human Centipede. Whether you like it or not, a film’s appearance holds a lot of sway in whether a newcomer will watch the movie.

Not the bleeding edge of cool.

Let’s put it in the context of technology. I grew up playing video game consoles: the Sega Mega Drive and original brick-like Game Boy. These were cutting edge in the early 1990’s. Can you imagine giving Tetris to your average 12 year old nowadays? They’d be disgusted at how “retro”, “boring” and dated it is. Technology isn’t like the fashion industry: it’s not cyclical. It will not come back. Movies are the same. If something was filmed in analogue and just looks dated, then regardless of plot, it will be rejected by many. Stick a teenager in front of Teen Wolf, and they’ll just scoff. Hell – look at adult entertainment. Do you still like the chica-chica-wow-wow wah-pedal driven, moustachioed, all around “dodgy” take of the 1970’s, where all the male “actors” look like Super Mario? Well, some of you might – but you’re unique. In general, people aren’t always interested in “classics”. You want something relatable and immersive? You need to re-do it. Shallow? Maybe. But does it make business sense? Totally.

To outline my case, reboots can falter, but it’s not always pre-determined. Some are fantastic re-inventions, and if it is bad then you still have the original. What have you lost? If you’re that desperate to not sully a film’s memory, then don’t see the new version, as it’s probably not even for you. Do you think the new Total Recall is for you if you saw the original? How about the in-the-works new The Running Man? Both Arnie juggernauts back in the day, but many teens and 20-somethings will find it hard to relate to these movies. That’s just the culture we live in.

Although my tone is more solemn than that of me, I hope I have convinced you that reboots are not the Antichrist reincarnate. Nor are they Rob Schneider. I urge you to forgive and exonerate the outcast of the movie industry, the leper of films, the blight of Hollywood. We are here to redeem the reboot.