(Back 2 Back) OLDBOY: Park Chan-wook VS. Spike Lee

Back 2 Back is my comparison review of an original film and its remake/s. 

In this post, I will be reviewing Park Chan-wook's Oldboy (2003), and Spike Lee's 2013 version.

 Loosely based on the Japanese manga, Old Boy, written by Nobuaki Minegishi & Garon Tsuchiya

      (2003) Directed by:  Park Chan-wook                                     (2013)  Directed by:  Spike Lee
       Starring: Choi Min-Sik, Yoo Ji-tae, Kang Hye-jung                         Starring: Josh Brolin, Sharlto Copley, Elizabeth Olsen
       Running Time:  120 mins                                                           Running Time:  104 mins                                                                      Budget:  $3 million                                                                      Budget:  $30 million
       Box Office:  almost $15 million                                                Box Office:  almost $5 million

Let me just say this first: NO I don't care that a remake of Oldboy has been done. I have stopped hating on remakes for awhile now. To those who keep on saying that it's a disgrace to the original blah blah (and I'm speaking generally here), that the original should never ever ever have been re-made etc. etc., all I can say is this: remakes, however unnecessary, are inevitable & to be expected. There will always be other attempts to re-create or surpass what we deem as an already great work of art. Why? Because humans are perfectionists.. or we just love to rip off stuff (and by we, I mean Hollywood). And while the remakes are usually sub-par & disappointing, to me, that's part of the fun. It only makes the original shine brighter, and those who haven't even heard of it in the first place might be curious enough to want to watch it - and isn't that a good thing? Lastly, a bad remake would never be a disgrace to the original because they are two separate films, made by different directors, with different casts - the only one disgraced or put in a bad light is the one who made the remake. So guys, chill!

Now let's talk about the movies.

I'll go straight to the point. There's no contest here, the 2003 version is a masterpiece, and obviously the superior film between the two. I'm pretty sure anyone who have seen both movies will agree and won't need any convincing. 

But just humor me, here are the reasons why the South Korean film is great, while the Hollywood remake is just average at best.

(Back 2 Back) THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO: Oplev's or Fincher's?

Journalist Mikael Blomkvist is aided in his search for a woman who has been missing for forty years by Lisbeth Salander, a young computer hacker.

          (2009) Directed by:  Niels Arden Oplev                              (2011) Directed by:  David Fincher
        Starring:  Michael Nyqvist, Noomi Rapace                        Starring:  Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara
                  Running Time: 152 mins.                                                         Running Time:  158 mins.

It's rare to find a movie adaptation that is as good as the book, or better. What's even rarer? A Hollywood remake that is as good as the original film, or better. I'm actually already partial to the film adaptations even before seeing them since I was mildly disappointed with Larsson's novel (or the translated one). While its plot was intriguing and the context & themes explored provocative, somehow the manner it was written was at times off-putting. Here's my book review, if anyone's interested.

Now let's talk about the movies! 


Michael Nyqvist vs. Daniel Craig:  Who's the real Millenium's Don Juan?  

Evil Dead (2013): Why this remake is so DEAD but not EVIL

In the much anticipated remake of the 1981 cult-hit horror film, five twenty-something friends become holed up in a remote cabin. When they discover a Book of the Dead, they unwittingly summon up dormant demons living in the nearby woods, which possess the youngsters in succession until only one is left intact to fight for survival.

Directed by:  Fede Alvarez (his first feature film)

Screenplay by:  Fede Alvarez, Rodo Sayagues, Diablo Cody (for polishing)

Starring:  Jane Levy (Mia), Shiloh Fernandez (David), Lou Taylor Pucci (Eric), Jessica Lucas (Olivia), Elizabeth Blackmore (Natalie)

Running Time:  92 mins

"The most terrifying film you will ever experience."

That's actually the most deceitful movie tagline of all time -- and I'm not amused. Using a gazillion gallons of fake blood is not terrifying. A deadite basically knocked-off from The Exorcist isn't terrifying. A series of quick "scary inserts" and loud sound effects supposedly meant to make the viewers jump off their seats isn't terrifying. Lots of severed limbs and vomiting isn't terrifying. NO. NO. NO! Not one bit in this movie is terrifying! 

Okay, I'm not at all a biased reviewer. So let me start with the good points. First of all, the cinematography/photography & lighting is really good. It definitely has that eerie atmosphere fit for a horror movie, and there are great shots that add to the visual quality of the film. But then again, there's a shot somewhere which greatly reminded me of The Walking Dead, is that a good or bad thing? I don't really know, but it makes it less special.  Secondly, it's really nice to see a movie which utilizes practical effects rather than an overload of CGI (that to me is the bane of today's film industry), which is also a nostalgic nod to the Raimi original. Third, is the smart decision not to do a FULL REMAKE of the original. Alvarez did a slightly different take on the story and mood, and that to me is his advantage - because seriously, who could ever replace Bruce Campbell or remake the original Evil Dead? 

So now, please let me compare just a little bit & tell you what makes the original ED (1 & 2) 10x better than this hugely disappointing 2013 remake.