People like to compare things. It’s something that’s always been true. Books, TV shows, games, movies, food, and a plethora of other things. If something can be compared to another thing somebody will do so. This comes especially true for anything in the entertainment industry. So starting with this post I’ll be starting a series in which we give in to this basic instinct of the human mind. While the focus will mostly be on movies I won’t say that this will never branch out to a TV version or a music version. With all of that said though this is simply a debate type of article and, as with the reviews, simply all opinion based. Now that the legalities are out of the way let’s get started with a topic that always brings about discussion: an original versus a remake.
Nothing will get fans of a film jumping and a screaming more than a movie getting a remake. Whether it’s based on a book and getting a new treatment, or being redone in a new direction, any movie that is announced to be getting remade or redone will get it’s fanbase in a wild bunch. This was the case again when the 1980s flick Maniac received a remake in 2012. Aside from the usual bitching at it being a remake, people seemed especially bitchy because of the way the product looked. While the original was a dark gritty looking piece of celluloid the remake looked like your average modern day film, meaning that it looked pretty, though a little dull on the colors. The other major complaint came because the lead role went to Elijah Wood, an actor who is rather attractive. Why is this bad thing? Because our original killer looked grimy, like a stereotypical serial killer. So it’s safe to say that it had a bit of a struggle with the fans.
But surprise surprise, when the movie came out people actually liked it after giving it a chance. It stayed true to the original while changing things to make it its own thing, and even make things better. The film has since been regarded as one of the better horror remakes and even won a few awards. This has now posed the question of which film is better, the original or the remake? In most cases a fan would say that the original is the superior flick. But what we have here is a case of both movies being genuinely good and loved by the fanbase. So the debate is actually more warranted than ever on which film is better.
Well we’ll find out, or simply I’ll state my thoughts on the two and decide from there which is in fact the better movie. Which one handled its story, characters, feel, and all of that other fun stuff better? We’ll divide everything up into a few categories: story, characters, technical, and tone/atmosphere. Keep in mind this is all opinion and I’m sure some of you will disagree. It’s bound to happen, just don’t rip my head off over it. Also, major spoilers ahead, so you may want to stop reading now if you don’t want anything ruined for you. Anyways let’s stop the chatting and get to the main event. Let’s throw these two into the ring and rumble.
STORY
Both movies follow the same plot for the most part. Frank Zito is a disturbed man. He stalks the night looking for women to kill, and once he kills them, he scalps them and places the severed scalps on mannequins. Frank eventually strikes up a relationship with a girl and the tension builds, Frank having to control his instincts to kill. The films both follow this simple story, however they each take different routes with them.
1980
While both films are focused on Frank William Lustig’s original is simply focused on Frank himself. When Frank’s love interest Anna shows up we do spend time with her, however the focus is still on Frank. This is true in the remake, but here the movie is only interested in telling the story of Frank, the other characters are simply there. Because of this the movie becomes a bit of a character study, though not a great one. We learn and come to know how Frank’s mind works, but it never gets too deep. We’re hinted that Frank is the way he is because of possibly having relationship issues with his mother, but nothing is ever concrete. No reason is ever given as to what makes Frank the killer he is. Now this isn’t totally a bad thing, as sometimes what you don’t know is scarier, and a killer who does what he does without any real reason is arguably much scarier than the one you know everything about. But because of the film’s focus on Frank and study of him it would be better to know more about him. Take Silent Night, Deadly Night for example. What makes Billy such an interesting and terrifying killer is because we as the audience come to know what the reasoning is behind is actions. We sympathize with him and grow attached to him, making all of his murders more horrifying. With Maniac however while we’re scared and horrified at Frank’s actions, they just come off as the actions of any other serial killer we’ve seen in a movie.
However Frank and his murdering spree isn’t the only plot point, as once Anna is introduced the film takes a bit of a romantic turn. But it’s not executed well. The two simply come across each other in a park, Frank turns up at her doorstep and suddenly they’re dating. The relationship is never explained or developed; it just comes out of nowhere. Because of this we never are told what made Anna want to forge a relationship with Frank, or see anything that would suggest so. Part of this is because of the main focus being on Frank and his killing, but that doesn’t excuse the lack of depth for a plot point which is rather major.
The finale of the movie is also another striking point. Frank does eventually try to kill Anna after visiting the grave of his mother. But it happens out of nowhere. They’re lovey dovey and out of nowhere Frank attempts to murder her. Throw this in with a mindfuck of a final scene and, well, the ending comes off as sudden and illogical.
Is the overall story of the film bad? I’d say no, as it does work in certain aspect. However it never lives up to the potential it has.
2012
With what I just said about the original, one would think that the remake would fair the same. Well that one would be wrong. The story in the remake takes what the original presented and both builds and improves upon it.
The story is still the same, but now it has more meat to it. We’re still focusing on Frank but come to know him more and in one way, connect with him (more on that later). The audience becomes intimate with how Frank functions due to how much we’re told about him. Instead of implying that something with his mother messed him up we actually see this. As it turns out Frank’s mother was a bit of a whore, Frank actually watching his mother sleep with different men. We only see him doing so once, but you could safely assume it happened multiple times. Revealing this knowledge gives the audience a bit more sympathy for Frank. True we’re never told if 100% if something else made Frank the way he is, but it’s better than leaving it vague. One extra plus to all of this is that while Frank does remain the central characters, the other ones are actually developed some, making all of his victims more than just another corpse. You actually feel your heartstrings being tugged when some of them are murdered.
A very nice and welcomed improvement comes with the relationship between Frank and Anna. Whereas in the original they simply meet and instantly form a relationship, we see the relationship develop here. They grow from acquainted, to friends, to close friends. We also see Frank’s feelings for her develop too, something we’re not privy to in the original. Because of this the relationship has more depth to it, and when things slowly turn sour it tugs at you more. This also makes the struggle within Frank’s head more intense and interesting watch, we seeing how his love for Anna is at odds with the killer inside of him. I’ll admit that Wood doesn’t come off as suave as Spinell, but it’s made up in the fact that, as I said, we actually see the two develop together and thus learn we Frank likes Anna and why Anna likes Frank.
One final improvement comes here as well: the ending. The original ends with Frank randomly turning on Anna and some mindfuckery. Here however it’s a lot better. You see Frank accidentally says something that pretty much tips Anna off that he is the one responsible for the murder of her friend and the other women. What proceeds is an intense finale that is golden. Sure there is some mindfuckery here too, but given the circumstances of how it’s prevented it makes sense.
The story in the original while good never fulfilled its potential. The remake however takes the original story, builds from it and improves it, it living up to its own potential, as well as that of the originals.
Verdict
After watching both versions of the film, it should become obvious that the intention of Maniac is to present the viewer a slasher film with some depth to it, the depth coming in the form of a character study. Both films represent both of these themes well, each giving a study of Frank while pleasing you (or disgusting you) with brutal acts of violence. However it is blatantly clear that the remake is the superior film in terms of story. It balances both being a body flick and a character study well, it providing succulent kills with a legitimate study of the main character. The original provided a study and the kills as well, but the study aspect was not done well with a lot of the focus being on Frank murdering people than both that and why Frank does so. The 1980 original while a fun little flick with a nice story simply can’t beat out its depth filled and developed remake.
WINNER – 2012
CHARACTERS
Maniac is one of those films whose characters are few, and in some cases lacking. But not all are like that. So which film accels at having few characters who are good?
1980
As I stated in the story section, both films focus mainly on the character of Frank, and this is very clear with the original. He’s the meat around the bones of the film. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing in theory, as the idea of the movie is to follow and study a serial killer. But because Frank isn’t developed all too well we never really learn much about him. Not to mention that there’s so little focus on anybody besides him.
You can call Anna the secondary character, and that is rather true. However she’s just there. The movie never develops her outside of telling the audience that she’s a photographer and nothing else. She doesn’t really have a personality and as I said, is just there as somebody for Frank to interact with. Along with this we never see their relationship develop and thus can’t find it believable that Anna would fall for Frank and want to date him. Yes he is suave in scenes, but being suave alone isn’t a reason to date somebody. The rest of the characters share the same fate as well, except while Anna is given more of a role, the others are simply there to provide corpses and gore. They’re disposable and could be splashed into any slasher movie; they’re that generic and lifeless.
I would say that the characters of the film had potential, as much as the story. But in reality only Frank had the potential to be developed and thus fulfill potential. Is Frank a bad character? No because what development is there isn’t bad, and Joe Spinell gives an amazing performance. However the lack of anything other than “He’s a psycho killer with apparent mother issues and issues with women in general” leaves him a little dry. Not to mention the fact that the development given is all that great. Combined with a secondary main character he offers virtually nothing and side characters that, aside from one, don’t even have names and the film’s characters come off as lacking.
2012
Like with the story, the 2012 version takes what the original offered and built on to it. Starting with Frank again he’s actually developed and developed well. As I said in the story section we learn that he’s seen his mother having sex with multiple men, this causing him to have issues with other women, he even having a split personality that is his mother. The victims he seeks out for the most part come off as either whores or just bad examples of women, we seeing that Frank targets women that he finds to be almost like his mother. Frank also has migraine issues, arguably not helping his mental state when combined with the mental scaring from what he saw of his mother. We also see him obsessed with keeping his home clean, he getting angered when a fly or two buzzes about, they obviously attracted by the rotting flesh of the scalps he collects. Wilfred. So acting wise, this Frank doesn’t leave much of an impression. But this is made up for with his strong development. He may not be as rememberable, but considering you at least understand him, I’d say you can let it pass.
Not only is Frank developed, and developed well, but the rest of the cast is as well. Anna actually has a personality here, she a bit of a no-nonsense girl with a love of the classics. She comes off as strong but soft, and while not much is learned about her aside from a few tidbits here and there, she comes off as an actual character compared to the original. Plus we actually see their relationship grow. We see why Anna would come to like Frank and want to be his friend and even care for him. And low and behold, the side characters are actual characters too. Yes they aren’t anything great, but given them personalities is a welcomed addition, making it a bit more wrenching at times to see them offed. This isn’t a feeling present with all of them, and I’d say in one case you’re happy to see the character die. But hey, it’s better than just cardboard stand ins.
The praise here is rather obvious. The remake has good to great characters that you can connect to, and in a few cases feel a tug when bad things happen to them. I’ll admit some of them still aren’t all that great, and in two cases they do come off as being cardboard. But those are only a few instances compared to the rest of the cast of characters who have meat to them.
Verdict
Once again I don’t think this verdict should come as a surprise. The remake simply takes the original’s ideas, does them better as they were, and then throws more clay on to the mold to make them even better. Again, the original’s aren’t too bad or aggravating to watch, but the remake simply has the more developed and depth filled characters.
WINNER - 2012
Technical
We’ve talked about story and characters, two important things that go into a movie and can help determine if it’s good or bad. However those for the most part won’t do you any good if your film looks and sounds like a turd. So how well are the technical aspects of the films?
1980
Being that the original was made in 1980 as a dark gritty film, one can expect it to be as much. And it is. Boy is it is. What do I mean by that? I mean that the film is gritty looking, through and through. The entire film has a graininess to it that has stood since the time it was released. Even when restoring and doing all of that magic stuff to make the film look good for blu-ray didn’t help, as it still has that grain to it. Now to be fair I can look past this, it’s an old film shot on old low quality film. Still it is worth nothing. The actual cinematography is rather nice as well. Nothing too dynamic or great but nonetheless it’s good.
So what of the music? There isn’t much of it. But what little there music present is very nice. The soundtrack has a dark synthy sound to it, perfect for helping raise the tension and mood to scenes when Frank is stalking the city. The music as I said isn’t present often, but its few appearances are great.
The quality of the movie on the technical side isn’t that bad. True the actual film has that graininess to it, which is a detractor to some. Really it’s more of a personal thing as far as if it bothers you or not. As somebody who watches a lot of old films, it doesn’t bother me. In terms of music, there’s very little but it is very nice. Not much else to say there.
2012
The 1980s original’s technical aspect showcases the time it was made in and the feel the flick is going for. The later is especially true in regards to the 2012 version. What do I mean by this? When you look at the remake it looks like pretty much every other horror movie released in the modern day. It’s slick looking, has some muted colors to it, and comes off as being digital esque (which is probably true because of how the film was made). It isn’t the most appealing film to the eyes. The original isn’t either, and somebody could argue that it looks like any other film from that time. But the 2012 version simply looks like most of the other products released nowadays. Is this a bad thing? I’d say no considering the film does look nice, and its cinematography is good for the way they went. It just looks generic.
What of the music? It falls into the same category as the original. There isn’t a lot of music but what we’re given is rather nice. It shares the synth like sound of the original, but in a bit more modern way. By this I mean that it has more of a soft poppy feel instead of the darker wave like sound of the original. I’ll admit that it doesn’t help suit the mood a lot, but the more louder and heavier scoring does so some, but not as much as the original. However that’s more of a personal choice.
In total, the technical aspects of the 2012 movie are pretty darn good. It’s definitely a modern film and comes off as very slick. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is up to the viewer to distinguish.
Verdict
So which film is better? Well, it’s a tough pick. Both movies are rather solid in the technical fields, each reflecting the time they were made. There are some aspects that are clear cut good and clear cut bad. But at the same time a lot of it comes down to personal preference, such as the music and grit VS slickness of the movies. It makes it hard to pick a clear cut winner out of the two without dipping into personal reasons. Honestly if I had to pick a winner, and I mean was forced via gun to do so, I think I would have to go with the original. The remake is more technically sound and does trump the original. But I think that because of how gritty and grainy the original is the film comes off a bit more dangerous and scary and helps add to the tone. To put it somewhat simply, the original isn’t that sound technically, but it’s the lacking of quality that helps give it some character, whereas the remake just looks like any other horror film of the time. It’s an odd call, but I’m sticking to it.
WINNER – 1980
Tone
The story, characters, and the technical side of a film play a big part in how good it is, it’s something true for any genre of movies. But let’s be honest, when most people evaluate a salsher film they tend to rate it on what I just mentioned but also on how violent it is. We’re all guilty of doing it. So when talking about movies about a serial killer called Maniac you may as well bring it up. With that said I’ll end the evaluation with a look at each film’s tone, which translates to creepiness and violence.
1980
The original Maniac was made in 1980 right when horror was starting to ooze with the red stuff. And it was conceived as being a gritty film that pretty much threw bloodshed at your face. How well did it accomplish that goal? It did very well.
Nobody will ever deny that Maniac is one gruesome film. The level of violence is pretty much its calling card. However it didn’t just achieve the goal of being an ultraviolent movie, it achieved the goal of setting a chilling and dreadful tone and atmosphere. This isn’t too shocking though as the film is set in the seedy world of New York, primarily at night. Because of this setting the film easily finds the right atmosphere, it helped with how gritty the entire film looks due to how it was shot. You can totally get suckered in to feeling as if you’re walking the dark streets, the dreadful tension inside of you building as your ears pick up the sound of somebody walking behind you. It works magnificently. This feel could easily work for any city, but when placed within the underground world of New York, which in actuality can be pretty damn sleazy, it just becomes hypnotizing and even more dreadful when watching the scenes of Frank stalking his victims.
And once he gets those victims trapped you best turn your eyes away if you’re squeamish, this film doesn’t hold back. That shouldn’t come as too big a shock though once you learn that Tom Savini provided all of the special effects (and one acting job). In typical Savini fashion the kills are extravagantly gory and realistic. Some come off tame, such as strangulation and a tame stabbing of someone on a bed. But then you get scenes where Frank uses a short sword and slowly pierces through a woman’s body with it, and of course, the now iconic scene of Savini himself having his head and face blown open from a shotgun. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why this is considered a very brutal film, as well as controversial, at least back in the time it came out. Combined with the haunting score and gritty feel and setting the violence becomes even more horrifying, not to mention that while not developed well, we’ve spent all of our time with the killer. It’s just bloody good.
It’s almost sad in a way that the film’s greatest achievement is the bloodshed in it. Make no mistake about it; Maniac is a good film with a good, if unfulfilled, story. However it only gets mentions as being a character study as a brief point and when discussing some of the more “sophisticated” slashers of the era. And it is. But to be honest the main reason this film has a cult audience and reputation is due to all of the gore, and you can’t blame it. Ultraviolent movies always attract an audience, even if the film is shit. Just look at the Guinea Pig movies, almost all of them are utterly shit movies, yet they’re so beloved because of the level of violence. But I’m just rambling at this point. The violence is the calling card, and it’s for good reason.
2012
I’d be willing to bet that people going into the remake for the first time were curious to see if the film would be able to live up to or out do the original in the tone department. And I have to say, the tone is pretty good.
Like the Lustig film, this movie’s tone does reflect a seedy underground world, this time of L.A. instead of New York. However the underground isn’t as presence. A lot of the film is set in nicer looking areas. It goes into that underground world, but the main setting is set in the more pretty looking part of Los Angeles. Some people have argued that, along with Frank being played by Elijah Wood, the film is an allegory for how looks can be deceiving. And I’d agree with that. Whereas the original threw it in your face that it’s a film about seedy people and a dark dangerous world, the remake lulls you in with how pretty everything and everybody is before it tears you to pieces. It’s an effect move and helps add to the mood of the picture and presents pretty true statements on the age old saying of don’t judge a book by its cover.
Another thing that really helps add to the tone of is how it’s shot. 99% of the movie is shot from Frank’s perspective, meaning that in a sense, we the audience are Frank committing these horrible acts. It’s definitely an effective way to get and scare the audience and adds to the tone.
Of course it’s time to talk about the violence now. How brutal is it? Does it live up to the original or outdo it? I say…kind of but not really. It’s definitely brutal. The violence isn’t in your face like the original was, yet it still proves to be brutal. Most of the murders follow the pattern of the original, with some new additions, unfortunately there is no shotgun, but I digress. A lot of the kills have the tension build up and happen very quickly once Frank catches up to the poor souls he haunts. In a way this makes it just as brutal as the original, as it comes off as very realistic with a great sense of dread built up to it. The scalping scenes are just as grisly as the original, and while there is no Savini, it’s definitely pretty grisly. In the sense of the tone of being brutal, the murders live up to their original counterparts. But in the actual level of gore and violence, not as much. It doesn’t take away from the tone of the movie, but to some people it may lessen the tone a bit.
So is the tone of the movie any good? Yes, yes it is. It has a completely different feel to it that lets it become its own product while staying in the realm of the original. The whole allegory of looks can be deceiving is a nice touch and makes the film more thought provoking. And while it isn’t up there with the ultraviolence of the original, it still leaves an impact. Overall the movie has a great tone to it.
Verdict
Well then, which film has the better tone? This is another case of personal taste, as everybody will be affected by the films in different ways. Does this mean I won’t declare a winner? Nope, because I will. So which film do I think is better? Well for me it comes down to what I think suits the material of being a dark serial killer movie. And in that regard I would say that the original is the superior movie. I love the tone the remake has and how thought provoking it makes the movie. But I think in a way that because of the subject material the tone needs to be a bit darker, grittier, and in this case violent. Both are realistic, but I feel as if the original does a better job at setting the tone for a dark and brutal serial killer movie.
WINNER – 1980
FINAL VERDICT
We’ve looked at the four major categories, analyzed everything and decided which comes out in the end as the better movie. So as a total package which version of Maniac is better; 1980 or 2012? It’s a tough call, especially considering the score is tied. This means I have to really dig deep into the movies and decide which one just inches out the other.
On a personal level I prefer the original. I love how dark and grimy it is. It’s how I think a serial killer film should be. I’m not against them being polished and pretty, I just think it works better when it looks gritty. But this isn’t being judged on a personal level. I’m deciding a winner simply based on a critical analysis. And with that said the 2012 version of Maniac is the superior movie. Its story is better and when coupled with its great cast of characters truly makes for a fairly meaty character study. On a technical level it’s much better and the way it was shot really helps draw you into the events unfolding on the screen. I’ll still stand by that the tone isn’t as great as the original, but it’s still solid stuff.
Simply put, Maniac 2012 is just the overall better package. This is one of the rare cases of the remake being better.
WINNER – 2012
That wraps it up for this rumble. This is simply opinion based, so I highly suggest checking both films out and decide for yourself, as both of them are great watches. In terms of a next rumble, I’m not sure when it’ll be. Will it be another fight between an original and a remake? Will it be films that are similar in nature? Only time will tell. But I can’t wait, and hopefully you can’t wait, to throw to more movies into the ring and see who comes out on top.
Comments
Post a Comment