THE KARATE KID (1984) vs. THE KARATE KID (2010)

Taking another original from 1984 and the remake from 2010, albeit not as frightening as the Krueger films, comes an action-drama centered around a young man who desires to learn karate to take revenge on a group of bullies who has made his integration into the new neighborhood a living hell.  He will face more internal struggles than he's willing to admit as well as the external battles he must face against his opponents.  All under the tutelage and guidance of a wise, old sensei, who teaches him to understand the importance of using karate for making peace, not for war.

SYNOPSIS (1984): A handyman/martial arts master agrees to teach a bullied boy karate and shows him that there is more to the martial art than fighting.
SYNOPSIS (2010): Work causes a single mother to move to China with her young son; in his new home, the boy embraces kung fu, taught to him by a master.

DIRECTOR: John G. Avildsen vs. Harald Zwart

One look at the filmography of both directors and it's hard to compare one who directed an earlier critically-acclaimed film in Rocky to one who's known for movies like the forgettable Agent Cody Banks and the even more forgettable sequel to the modern remake of The Pink Panther.  But, try as we may, let's take a look at each director's take on The Karate Kid.

Both directors shot their films well, from establishing wide shots to get a feel for the setting in which each film was placed, to the needed close-ups for the more private emotional moments between the characters.  The editing and choreography of the fight scenes were well done and shot in a way that made me feel a part of the action.

It's difficult to pinpoint any one thing that either director did extremely well or very poorly.  That being said, I think I'd have to give the edge to Avildsen simply for directing in another beloved film series in Rocky.

WINNER: Original, John G. Avildsen

SCREENPLAY: Robert Mark Kamen vs. Christopher Murphey

I hate to criticize the remake for anything, but this one point is hard to overlook.  Taking the original story and screenplay and centering it around a 12-year-old in the remake was hard to swallow.  I didn't much care for following the struggles of a prepubescent boy nor did I feel any sympathy for him at all.

Another detail to the remake that was different than the original was that in the 2010 film, it was set in China rather than the United States.  Not a big oversight in and of itself.  But because the original master of karate was Japanese and the remake was filmed in China, they had to use a Chinese master.  Which, again, doesn't make any difference to the overall success or failure of either film.

However, if you know anything about martial arts, karate is a Japanese artform, meaning "empty hand."  So they had to change the style of martial arts completely in the remake to the Chinese style of kung fu, literally translated "merit master."  The average moviegoer might not care about that little detail; but I can almost guarantee that any avid martial artist would care to go see a movie entitled The Karate Kid and actually see karate.

I'm a fan of any style of martial art myself.  And actually prefer the faster-paced, more articulate style of kung fu over karate.  But for the purposes of critiquing these films, I have to take note.  I do think, though, that for the showcase of martial arts in the films, the remake did a better job of giving us more of a sample of the style in the various kicks, punches, grabs & holds, and locks & throws than the original did.

Maybe I'm just such a sucker for martial arts that I tend to gravitate toward the faster-paced styles.  That crane kick at the end of the original though.  Iconic, to say the least.

WINNER: Original, Robert Mark Kamen

CAST/ACTING: Ralph Macchio, Pat Morita, Elizabeth Shue vs. Jaden Smith, Jackie Chan, Taraji P. Henson

This may be the first time that the cast of characters are as closely well-known than any other film we've looked at up to this point.

In the original, you have Ralph Macchio playing Daniel (famous for his role as in The Outsiders), Pat Morita as Mr. Miyagi (one of the most titular characters in cinema), and Elizabeth Shue (who has made numerous supporting appearances in many films as an adult).  Macchio and Morita are most famous for their respective roles in all three of The Karate Kid films; Morita doing most of his acting work on the small screen for TV episodes as well as TV movies.

In the remake, you have Jaden Smith (his supporting roles in films like The Pursuit of Happyness alongside his father Will Smith, and The Day the Earth Stood Still not withstanding, he's probably most well-known for his inability to act in the M. Night Shyamalan disaster After Earth--even Will Smith couldn't save that piece of crap), Jackie Chan taking the role of Mr. Han (Chan is the most famous Hong Kong international movie star ever, and is famous for countless films for doing all of his own stunt work), and Taraji P. Henson (recently most well-known for her small screen roles in series like Person of Interest and Empire).

And the acting is actually pretty close too.  Morita and Chan perfect their roles as master very well.  Chan, however, I think had a slight advantage due to the surprising dramatic performance that's not typical of his career.  He's usually carefree and energetic as he choreographs all of his fight scenes, quick to include humor in his craft.

But to play Mr. Han was a challenge, I'm sure.  Mr. Han was a emotionally troubled man.  Mr. Miyagi was troubled in his own right; but the story of Mr. Han takes it one step further in being the sole responsible factor in the tragedy that befell him.  And that backstory takes center stage in one particular scene when Dre (Jaden Smith) walks in on a drunk Mr. Han taking a sledgehammer to his car that he keeps in his living room.  My vote for the best scene in the whole movie!

As I stated earlier in the previous section of the screenplay, to center the remake around a 12-year-old rather than a high school senior really took my attention away from the story.  It's not really Smith's fault for that, and he did as well as he could have.  But Smith didn't have to play him as whiny and as arrogant as he did.

WINNER: Tie....too close to call

MUSIC/SCORE: Bill Conti vs. James Horner

Wow, I can't believe it was James Horner!  What a shock!

While I can't, in all fairness, pick the remake in this category just for Horner's name alone, it's hard to choose the original just because...well, it's early 80s music.  Each had it's own use for the music; the original had a more personal touch with classic Japanese instruments in a couple of the pieces whereas the remake used modern hip hop, techno, and rap selections to emphasize the upbeat nature of kung fu.  They even did a Chinese remix of the Gorillaz 'Dirty Harry.'

It's sad that Horner's return to composing the score for this film was foreshadowed by the heavy hip hop soundtrack that was the backdrop for a lot of movie.  I would have enjoyed more of the score myself; certainly with a name like Horner you can make better use of him than put him in the background.

I might have voted for the remake had it not been for that.

WINNER: Original, Bill Conti

The Karate Kid (1984): 

• Rotten Tomatoes: 90% or 6.9/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 7.2/10 from 115,968 users
• Metacritic: none

The Karate Kid (2010):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 66% or 6.2/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 6.2/10 from 111,888 users
• Metacritic: 61/100

OVERALL WINNER: Original 1984 The Karate Kid

I have to admit, I didn't expect the critics or viewers to like the remake as much as they did.  I can't really say what I attribute the decent ratings too, although I'm sure it has something to do with the legend Jackie Chan acting in a legendary role in an outstanding way.



But, Chan couldn't carry the whole movie...which he almost did, in my opinion.

Nothing can top the beloved character of Mr. Miyagi and, no matter how difficult his struggles, he never failed to teach young Daniel-san the true meaning of the way of karate.  He did it with such seamless effort and movement, you couldn't help but almost be hypnotized by him every time he was on screen.

Well done, Miyagi.  Be at peace.

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (1984) vs. A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010)

Good evening, and Happy Friday the 13th everybody!!

And while we're not talking about Jason Voorhees, the titular killer from that particular horror series, I wanted to pay homage to another horror film great:  Freddy Krueger.  Not only because he's a much more interesting and intriguing character, but for the purposes of this blog, the Friday the 13th movies aren't really remakes....they just keep making more of them as a rebooted series.

So stay awake, readers.  You won't want to die before finishing this one!!

SYNOPSIS (1984): Several people are hunted by a cruel serial killer who kills his victims in their dreams. When the survivors are trying to find the reason for being chosen, the murderer won't lose any chance to kill them as soon as they fall asleep. Source: IMDb.com

DIRECTOR: Wes Craven vs. Samuel Bayer

One quick search on each director's filmography on IMDb.com would tell you in about 5 seconds which one is going to be the winner here.  Chances are, you've heard Wes Craven's name circulating around college dorms and parties as being one of very few kings of the horror movie genre, if not THE king.  While Stephen King is notoriously famous for his writing, so in the same way is Craven for is directing.

So, who's this Samuel Bayer guy?   A nobody....more or less.

2010's Nightmare.... is the only movie that Bayer has directed.  He's mostly done music videos or music DVD documentary specials for several famous artists.  His attempt at directing a movie fell way short though.  He might have done better going with an original screenplay instead of trying to improve--but failing miserably--on an already iconic and beloved horror franchise.  As you will see, his remake got slashed--pun intended--by both critics and audiences.

Perhaps that's why he hasn't attempted another film to this day.  Coincidence?

WINNER: Original, Wes Craven

SCREENPLAY: Wes Craven vs. Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer

Something pretty noticeable that the remake attempted to do was to flesh out--pun again intended (I could do this all night!)--the plot a bit.  The audience watching the original film is wondering how Freddy is choosing is victims; and while it's explained that the parents of the high school kids killed him, it didn't really explain why then Krueger didn't go after the parents rather than their kids.

The remake explained that better.  However, while it's better for the audience to understand the backstory of the relationship between Krueger and the victims he's killing in the remake, it doesn't necessarily mean that knowledge is better for the character.  You see, in the remake, it's explained that while Krueger was alive, he was the gardener at the preschool where these kids attended.  He would lure the kids down into the basement where he would play with them in a hidden room behind the maintenance room, calling it a "secret cave."  The kids would then tell the parents, and just like in the original movie, the parents killed Freddy by burning him alive in a utility shed.

I like my horror movie antagonists to kill because they're psycho killers who enjoy the act of killing for the sake of killing.  Understanding the backstory of Krueger in the remake just made his pursuits of the victims a bit......creepy.  And creepy in the not-so-scary good way he should be creepy.

Something else the remake failed to do.  I never got the real sense that Freddy was a supernatural being.  He's supposed to be dead; but the way Bayer directed it and the way the screenplay was written, they failed to show him as anything more than just a normal serial killer.

Another thing worth noting is the tension and the build-up that the original movie used.  The imagery was truly terrifying.  Craven and his team and his directorial skill created the illusion of terror in the imagery alone, whereas the remake relied much too heavily on the "jump scare" to get audiences to jump out of their seats.  When you know a jump scare is coming, it kinda makes it difficult to immerse yourself in the film and truly be terrified.

WINNER: Original, Wes Craven

CAST/ACTING: Robert Englund, Heather Langenkamp, Johnny Depp, and Ronee Blakley vs. Jackie Earle Haley, Rooney Mara, and Kyle Gallner

The original had one of the most recognizable names in Hollywood today in Depp; but by the time Nightmare.... was made, he was just getting his start.  In fact, his role as Glen Lantz was his very first gig.  And Langenkamp had only been in one other movie before; and her role made her famous and recognizable as she was in several of the sequels.

And let's not forget Englund, who played the prankster serial killer.  A large majority of his work in acting is on the small screen; but his large performance as Freddy Krueger dominates.  Englund IS Krueger.

So it took some guts for Jackie Earle Haley to try and fill his shoes.  You might recognize his name, or his face, but you'll definitely recognize his voice as being the man behind the mask as the Watchman anti-hero, Rorschach.  And Rooney Mara and Kyle Gallner had some lead acting roles in some minor films, and Mara would go on to be most well-known for her work in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

So as far as casting, I think the remake edges out the original because of the early starts of the young cast's careers.  The acting is definitely better in the remake, mainly because of the young actor's previous acting ability.

CAST/ACTING WINNER: Remake

MUSIC/SCORE: Charles Bernstein vs. Steve Jablonsky

As in previous films that we've discussed, if the music doesn't really help in creating the mood that the movie is supposed to convey with its imagery, then the music isn't doing its job.  It's not supposed to distract from the film; but if it's done properly, the audience will feel that much more connected with the film to heighten their experience.

That being said, the original wins in this category.  Not only does the remake fail to create the same kind of tension in its imagery where the original excelled, the music didn't make up for the lack of tension due to its direction by creating such heart-wrenching sounds and music.  The remake, overall, was very forgettable and lack-luster at best.

MUSIC/SCORE WINNER: Original, Charles Bernstein

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984):

• Rotten Tomatoes:  94% or 7.7/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 7.5/10 from 138,468 users
• Metacritic: 78/100

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 15% or 3.7/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 5.2/10 from 71,491 users
• Metacritic: 35/100

OVERALL WINNER:  Original 1984 A Nightmare on Elm Street

No contest on this, folks.  If you listened to my podcast interview with Israel Sanchez in the post prior to this one, you might agree with both of us that it really takes an intriguing story and in-depth character development to really carry a film and make it great.  This movie is prime example.

While you may opt to watch the remake anyway if you're in the camp that think that because modern movies have better technology that it will makesa film like this seem more realistic.  But you'd be wrong.  While there are a couple scenes in the original where the effects are campy and completely fake, the rest of the movie makes up for it in regards to its realism.

Now, if you're still awake, go watch the four sequels to the original.

I plan to.

After I attempt to get some shut-eye.

Podcast Interview with Israel Sanchez

Take a listen to my first podcast with author and blogger Israel Sanchez, giving us insight to what he considers to be the cornerstones of great film making. We discuss favorite films, favorite directors, and touch on the nuances between original and remade movies that distinguish them from the rest of the pack.

Audacity Podcast Test

With the recent Guy Fawkes Day last week, I continued my annual tradition of watching 'V for Vendetta,' based on the comic book of a vigilante anti-hero (codenamed 'V') who exposes the British government and frees the oppressed society from the fear that their government, through a series of tragic events, has used to control them.  Another very memorable quote from the movie is "People shouldn't be afraid of their government.  The government should be afraid of its people!"

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (1951) vs. THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (2008)

Apocalyptic movies are a specific genre that are tremendously exciting due to human's curiosity with the end times.  As much as we try to extend life as long as possible, we are fascinated by the end of it and how and when it will occur.  Some apocalyptic films, as in this case, focus on the science fiction possibilities of how people think the world will end while others see the world succumbing to a more natural cause.  Whatever the disaster, you can be sure that these movies will captivate audiences until the end of time.

SYNOPSIS (2008): A remake of the 1951 classic sci-fi film about an alien visitor and his giant robot counterpart who visit Earth. Source: IMDb.com

DIRECTOR: Robert Wise vs. Scott Derrickson

When just comparing the directors to each other, it's pretty clear who the winner is.  In addition, when you compare the director's style in each of the movies, it's a clear winner also (to me at least) who is more deserving of the accolades.

Wise had numerous films under his direction by the time Earth... was released.  Derrickson, on the other hand, had only one, The Exorcism of Emily Rose.  By another stark contrast, Wise went on to direct two of the most well known musicals: The Sound of Music and West Side Story whereas Derrickson stayed in the horror genre with films like Sinister and Deliver Us From Evil, which received slightly better ratings from IMDb.com than his sci-fi film we're featuring here.

Wise's directorial style in the original was also superior to the remake's.  In one particular scene when the main protagonist, the alien Klaatu, is introduced to the rest of the main characters, he is found standing in the shadows watching them view the unfolding newscast of the spaceship landing on the television.  It offers a heightened sense of tension as the audience doesn't quite understand Klaatu's intentions and is subsequently riveted to what's about to happen.

The remake was over-saturated with special effects that didn't help hold the flimsy story line together.  I think Derrickson could have utilized more fear-inducing filming techniques to draw the audience further into the picture instead of basically saying "just sit there bored in your chair waiting for the next big effect to try to make it all worth it, but it'll ultimately fail anyway."

The decision to film the original in black-and-white also helped the nuance of the film, even though technology existed to make it color if the director so chose that route, and made it appear more "alien."

WINNER: Original, Robert Wise

SCREENPLAY: Edmund H. North vs. David Scarpa

Often, movies often reflect the moral, political, or social issues of the time, and this film is no different.  The greatest different between the original Earth... and the remake is the shift from world peace to environmental awareness.

In the 1951 original, Klaatu's warning was the effect of human's nature to develop weapons to destroy each other, and therefore putting all other planets at risk of war.  This threat of destruction to other planets is what Klaatu, acting as a representative guardian for the other species, says needs to change or else Earth and its inhabitants will be exterminated.

In the remake, however, it dumbs down the idea of inter-galaxy peace and turns it into a save the planet because humans are destroying it.  The idea in the remake being that the humans will be exterminated for the sake of 'Mother Earth' as opposed to humans in the original being given an ultimatum to live in peace or be destroyed for the sake of the survival of other species in the universe.

Also something I found troublesome in the remake was, toward the end of the film, Klaatu is emotionally changed in his quest to eliminate the human race based on the tears of a small child.  After seeing the child's breakdown, he suddenly switches his course of action and says "You have shown me that you can change" and sets out to help reverse the events set in motion to destroy the planet.

WHAT?!

After most of the movie trying to show Klaatu as an unsympathetic alien representing the planet earth, you want me to believe that he suddenly cares about the human race because of one child?!  Not only that, but why would a member of the alien race care so much about Earth (as opposed to, say, his own planet) that he would be sent to warn them to change or die?

As I said, a flimsy story line, at best.

WINNER: Original, Edmund H. North

CAST/ACTING: Michael Rennie, Patricia Neal, Hugh Marlowe vs. Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly, Kathy Bates

This may be the first time that, while the remake did have a better cast than the original, it actually hurt the film rather than made it better.  The main actors, and even several of the supporting cast (like Jon Hamm from Mad Men, John Cleese from the British Monty Python troupe, and Jaden Smith, son of famous actor Will Smith), were so recognizable that it deterred from the story being plausible.  Reeves, most famous for his role as Neo in The Matrix trilogy, is not known as a great actor by any stretch and didn't contribute

Because the original didn't have a lot of well-known actors, it helped the actors to make the characters their own and not detract from telling its own story without the audience having preconceived notions of who they thought the actors were trying to portray.  Not to mention that Rennie's interpretation of Klaatu was ten times more believable and sincere than Reeves more robotic and seemingly forced portrayal.  He appeared very stiff and

CAST/ACTING WINNER: Original

MUSIC/SCORE: Bernard Herrmann vs. Tyler Bates

The music in neither film really struck me as outstanding and essential to the telling of the story and eliciting emotion in the audience.  So if I had to choose, I would go with the remake just because modern films typically utilize more music than older films do.

WINNER: Remake, Tyler Bates

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 94% or 8.1/10 average rating 
• IMDb.com: 7.8/10 from 61,661 users
• Metacritic: none

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 21% or 4.1/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 5.5/10 from 133,886 users
• Metacritic: 40/100

OVERALL WINNER: Original 1951 The Day the Earth Stood Still

While one could argue that these films weren't technically of the apocalyptic nature, the end of the world is implied by Klaatu's warning to the inhabitants of Earth.  By the end of the original, you're left with the cliffhanger of wondering whether or not the human race will choose to heed the warnings.  By the end of the remake, it's pretty clear that the planet is spared with absolutely no real basis for such a decision other than the alien witnessing the tears of a child and the compassion from his step-mother.

Weak.  Very weak.