Red Dawn (2012) – Wolverines!

It’s time again for Catie Rhodes and me to break down another cinematic original and its remake.  Sticking with our usual ways, Catie reviews the original and I take on the remake.  This month we tackle the coming-of-age action film, Red Dawn.

Usually, I include Catie’s summary that applies to both films.  But this time, I tweaked it just a bit:

With North Korea and Russia invading the United States, a group of Washington State high school students turned refugees slowly organize themselves into an effective guerilla force. 

It may be hard to believe, but I didn’t actually request to cover the remake this month.  Since I had already seen both films, I let Catie choose which one she wanted to review before turning in any requests.  And with her decision to cover the original, I returned to Redbox for a copy of the remake.

Before I dive into the 2012 film, let’s talk about the 1984 version.  I can remember my older brother LOVING this film in the ‘80s.  I watched it on occasion with him, but being that I was quite a bit younger at the time, the movie didn’t resonate as much with me as it did him.  However, now as an adult, I believe the original Red Dawn will forever be a classic.

Heck, just look at the cast: Patrick Swayze, Charlie Sheen, C. Thomas Howell, Lea Thompson, Jennifer Grey, Powers Boothe, and Harry Dean Stanton (to just name a few).  Every single one of these actors and actresses are still known today, something that can’t be said for most ‘80s Hollywood stars.  But casting aside, the film stands firm on its own merits… and my fifteen year old, soon to be sixteen year old, nephew has watched this “old” flick a few times himself and enjoys it just as much as his dad did back in the day.  This alone speaks to the power of Red Dawn.

So is it even possible for the remake to hold up?

Like many others out there, I was appalled by the news that Hollywood was remaking Red Dawn.  I mean, seriously… are there any original thoughts left as far as films are concerned today?

Regardless of how I felt, I knew at the time that I would have to at least check it out.  And then I heard who was cast (THOR, people!) and saw the trailer, both of which piqued my interest.

THOR! I mean, Jed…

Granted, besides Chris Hemsworth (that’s Thor for those who don’t already know), not many of the actors and actresses were “big” stars.  But I did find it interesting that Connor Cruise (Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman’s son) was making his acting debut in this film… plus, we had just recently seen Adrianne Palicki in G.I. Joe: Retaliation, so it’s not like we didn’t “know” any of the other cast members.  And once we started watching the remake, we recognized others: Josh Hutcherson (Peeta, The Hunger Games), Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Sam and Dean Winchester’s dad from Supernatural), Isabel Lucas (Alice, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen), Edwin Hodge (Kai, from the hopeful NCIS: Red Team), and a few others.

But what about the story?

The 2012 remake kept the general idea behind Red Dawn’s storyline; I mean, didn’t they have to?    However, they did change enough of the individual facets to help it stand on its own… different location, different character details (i.e. Jed is a Marine in the remake instead of “just a regular guy”), different bad guys, and a few different twists with the plotline that you won’t expect—sorry for being so cryptic, but I don’t want to give away any spoilers.

But most importantly, the 2012 film will more than likely affect today’s generation like its predecessor did…  even if the children of the ‘80s disagree… and I feel this is important.

Bottom line, the 2012 remake did not disappoint this Red Dawn (1984) fan at all and I think everyone should at least give it a chance.

Wolverines!!

What do you think?  Have you seen either the original or the remake of Red Dawn?  If you’ve seen both, which do you prefer and why?  If you haven’t, do you want to?  I’d love to hear from you! 

Remember to stop by Catie’s blog discussing the original if you haven’t already.

Deadly Pranks – April Fool’s Day (2008)

It’s time again for Catie Rhodes and me to break down another cinematic original and its remake.  Sticking with our usual ways, Catie reviews the original and I take on the remake.  This month we tackle the holiday horror film, April Fool’s Day.

Usually, I include Catie’s summary that applies to both films.  But this time, I tweaked it just a bit:

One year after an April Fool’s prank goes horribly wrong, a group of friends realize the joke is on them when they start to die one by one…

For once, I didn’t actually request to cover the remake.  I know;  I know.  No one believes me… but it’s true.  Since I had already seen both films, I let Catie choose which one she wanted to review before turning in any requests.  And with her decision to cover the original, I ran out and found a cheap copy of the remake… considering I couldn’t find it on cable, On Demand, or Amazon streaming.  I had only watched the 2008 film once, and while I sort of remembered it, I couldn’t recall enough of the movie for the sake of this post.  And that, my friends, should have been my first clue as to just how good this version was/is.  Can anyone hear my sarcasm through my writing?

Anyway…

While the young cast in the 1986 film was rather popular at the time, April Fool’s Day (2008) cast primarily unknown actors at the time (at least to the general viewing audience) with only a few familiar faces.  However, today, quite a few of these folks are very recognizable…

Taylor Cole (CSI: Miami and The Event)
Josh Henderson (the incredibly sexy John Ross Ewing from TNT’s new Dallas)
Scout Taylor-Compton (The Rob Zombie remakes of Halloween)
Joe Egender (Alcatraz and American Horror Story: Asylum)

Yes, that’s Josh Henderson in the middle sans shirt.

It’s not surprising that the others in the film haven’t skyrocketed to success just yet, but that’s not to say we won’t see any of them in successful projects in the future—right?  I’m not trying to hate on any of the actors in this movie, I’m just implying that this job probably didn’t do them any favors.

The 2008 film isn’t so much a remake, just another telling of April Fool’s pranks between friends and foes with the slasher/horror element.  The original is so much more suspenseful than this flick, and the fact that the viewers really can’t connect with or care for any of these characters doesn’t help.  At least not for me.

April Fool’s Day (2008) might just be one of the more recent films that fall into the campy category—and I usually only use this word to describe older films in the horror genre.  Not only that, but Catie mentioned the scary music as one of the clichéd elements in the original… well, the music in the “remake,” and I say that loosely… that’s why it’s in quotes, is almost goofy at certain points in the film.  There aren’t any “grisly, cringeworthy murders” like in the 1986 version, and there are no “cheap scares that make you jump.”  Really, the only horror clichés that exist in both films are the partying teenagers, and in the 2008 flick, I’m not sure they’re technically teens… let’s go with young adults.

At least the film has pretty people…

I normally love slashers, especially when centered around a particular holiday; and while I have now seen this twice and actually own the DVD, I can’t find much to say about it that’s positive.  Well, other than the eye candy… and the fact that I’m quite certain the role of Blaine Cartier was great on the resume for Josh Henderson when he auditioned for the part of John Ross Ewing.  The Cartiers are “The Kennedys of the Carolinas” and being wealthy, privileged, and entitled doesn’t even begin to describe these kids… just like Mr. Ewing.

So, in closing, I’d like to quote the character of Wilford (the butler): “Oh, my.”

I’m not getting those ninety minutes back.  If you want to watch a movie called April Fool’s Day, go for the original.  Hands down.

What do you think?  Have you seen either the original or the remake of April Fool’s Day?  If you’ve seen both, which do you prefer and why?  If you haven’t, do you want to?  I’d love to hear from you! 

Remember to stop by Catie’s blog discussing the original if you haven’t already.

When Fantasies Become Reality And Vice Versa – Total Recall (2012)

It’s time again for Catie Rhodes and me to break down another cinematic original and its remake.  Sticking with our usual ways, Catie reviews the original and I take on the remake.  This month we tackle the classic dystopian action film, Total Recall.

Usually, I include Catie’s summary that applies to both films.  But this time, I tweaked it just a bit:

Set in a dystopian future (end of the 21st century), a factory worker named Douglas Quaid is haunted by dreams he can’t explain—he’s trapped, being chased, and he can’t get away. Ignoring his good friend’s warnings, he decides to check out Rekall.  Promising him any memories he wants, he chooses to be implanted with memories of being a secret agent.  There’s only one problem—none of the implanted fake memories can be true… and during his psycho polygraphic panel, the administrator discovers Quaid is not who he says he is.     

Before I begin, let me just say why I requested the remake.  Regardless of how ashamed I am to admit it, I usually choose the newer versions because I have not seen the originals.  However, this is not the case this time.  I’ve actually seen the 1990 film at least once.  So why did I request the remake?  Two words—Colin Farrell.

Yes, Colin Farrell is the exact same reason why I chose the remake last month when we covered Fright Night.  Clearly, I have a Colin Farrell addiction here…

But let’s get back to the movie…

If watching the remake of Total Recall taught me anything, I learned that I needed to rewatch the original.  My guy kept insisting that the two films, while somewhat similar, were still quite different.  Clearly, I don’t remember enough about the Schwarzenegger version; however, I do know this: if action is what you like, the 2012 release doesn’t disappoint.

Loosely based on the short story “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale” by Philip K. Dick, Total Recall (2012) takes place at the end of the 21st century.  Global chemical warfare destroyed the planet as we know it and only two territories remain:  The United Federation of Britain and The Colony.  The only transport between the two territories is a train that actually travels through the planet, known as “The Fall.”  Everything is peaceful between the two territories, except someone keeps bombing trains in the UFB, and “The Resistance” (a group of domestic terrorists from The Colony) is being blamed.

Workers travel every day from The Colony to UFB, the more developed of the two territories.  Doug Quaid (Colin Farrell) is not any different.  But one day after waking from the same nightmare (Quaid is trapped, being chased, and can’t get away… however he manages to help the mystery woman he is with—played by Jessica Biel—escape), he realizes he is a creature of habit… and he’s ready to shake things up a bit.

Against the advice of his best friend, Quaid decides to check out Rekall; after all, they promise to “remember it for you.”  All one has to do is tell Rekall his or her fantasy and they’ll make it a memory.  There’s only one catch—none of the desired fantasies can actually be true in one’s real life.   If the fantasized memories are indeed true, it can cause irreparable conflict and confusion.

Quaid agrees to Rekall’s policies, chooses to be a secret agent, sits down in the chair, and the administrator begins the psycho polygraphic panel.  There’s only one problem—Quaid is not who he says he is.  He’s not who he thinks he is.  The machine wouldn’t lie…  Soldiers storm the room and one by one Quaid fights them off.  He is definitely in a state of confusion; he has no idea what is going on or how he has the ability to kill these trained men.

In a state of panic, Quaid rushes home to find his beautiful wife (Lori, played by Kate Beckinsale) watching the local news—a terrorist has attacked and killed multiple soldiers at one of The Colony’s Rekall locations.  Quaid confides to her that it wasn’t a terrorist… it was him.

Lori can’t believe what she’s hearing and tries her best to console her husband.  She pulls him in for a loving hug, and holds on tight… too tight, squeezing tighter and tighter.  Turns out, she’s an officer of the UFB who was sent in undercover to play his wife.  One thing leads to another and the action of the film kicks into high gear.

The dystopian future is very interesting in the film.  Technology is obviously more advanced, indicated by the fact cell phones are implanted into the palms of one’s hands, giving “talk to the hand” new meaning.  And as one would expect, the world’s currency has evolved and now includes “Obama Bucks.”

And while the 2012 version is quite different story-wise from the 1990 flick, one thing’s the same—the three breasted woman.  I mean, how could they leave that out?

So how does the remake hold up?

One thing’s certain—Colin Farrell is much sexier as Quaid than Arnold Schwarznegger.  Two other hotties (Tom Hardy and Michael Fassbender) were reportedly considered for the role, but I personally think the casting directors went with the right man for the job.

And let’s talk about the ladies for a minute… the two female leads in Total Recall (2012) are to today what Sharon Stone was to 1990.  Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel are not only gorgeous and have a list of successful films on their resumes, but they are also well suited for action/adventure movies.

However, if anyone is looking for a remake of the story with an updated version of a trip to Mars, this may not be the movie for you.  But if non-stop action is what you like, this remake won’t disappoint.  As Catie suggested, the up-to-date special effects definitely make this film a better choice today… in my opinion.

What do you think?  Have you seen either the original or the remake of Total Recall?  If you’ve seen both, which do you prefer and why?  If you haven’t, do you want to?  I’d love to hear from you! 

Remember to stop by Catie’s blog discussing the original if you haven’t already.

Spooky and Seductive Vampires – Fright Night (2011)

It’s time again for Catie Rhodes and me to break down another cinematic original and its remake.  Sticking with our usual ways, Catie reviews the original and I take on the remake.  This month we tackle the classic horror film, Fright Night.

Usually, I include Catie’s summary that applies to both films.  But this time, I tweaked it just a bit:

A teenager realizes his next door neighbor is a vampire and enlists a supposed vampire hunter to help him make his neighborhood safe again.

Before I begin, let me just say why I requested the remake.  Regardless of how ashamed I am to admit it, I usually choose the newer versions because I have not seen the originals.  However, this is not the case this time.  I’ve actually seen the 1985 film so many times, I decided to blog about it last week.

So why did I request the remake?  Two words—Colin Farrell.  Who doesn’t think this is the best casting for the sexy, dark role of Vampire Jerry?

But let’s get back to the movie…

The storyline for the remake is quite similar to the original, although the screenplay added a few needed updates to make it its own: a teenage boy (Charley Brewster, played by Anton Yelchin) begins to believe his next door neighbor is actually a vampire.  But instead of him watching his neighbor (Jerry Dandrige, played by Colin Farrell) move in with coffin-like boxes like in the 1985 flick, it takes warnings from his best friend (“Evil” Ed Lee, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and numerous classmates missing from school before he realizes his neighbor might actually be a blood sucker.  One thing leads to another, just like it always does, and Charley seeks assistance from a Las Vegas magician (Peter Vincent, played by David Tennant), who also has a reputation for allegedly being a vampire hunter, for help.

When Charley confides why he’s been acting so strangely to his mother (Jane, played by Toni Collette) and girlfriend (Amy, played by Imogen Poots), they both think he has lost his mind.  Vampires aren’t real!  Right?  Oh, but they soon change their minds…

There’s more to the remake and to Vampire Jerry than in the original… he’s not just feeding off sexy women and whomever he pleases to survive, he’s building… something… I don’t want to give too much away, but I honestly liked this new tweak to the story.

In addition to the famous and familiar actors and actresses names mentioned above, a few other notable roles include: James Franco’s (Freaks and Geeks, Spider-Man, 127 Hours) little brother, Dave Franco, playing Mark; Sofia Vergara’s (Modern Family) little sister, Sandra Vergara, playing Ginger; and Lisa Loeb (1994 hit song, “Stay”), playing Evil Ed’s mom.

Clearly, the cast is great.  And despite Mr. Farrell’s sexy and dark performance as Vampire Jerry, I think David Tennant’s portrayal of Peter Vincent might just be my favorite.  Most of the humor in this film surrounds Peter, and Mr. Tennant’s comedic timing is fantastic.  He most definitely should be applauded for making such an iconic role his own.  Because let’s face it, many watched the original Fright Night for Roddy McDowall.

And speaking of the original’s cast… some might consider me a dork, but I love when actors and actresses from an older, or original, work are incorporated into the remake.  This tells me that not only do they want the work, but in a way it says they have given the reboot their blessing.  Regardless, it’s a small detail that I appreciate.  The Fright Night franchise would not be the same without Chris Sarandon, and even though his screen time is lightning fast in the 2011 film, I noticed and I thank all those involved in making this happen.

And like its 1985 predecessor, Fright Night (2011) is not a feel-good vampire movie.  It’s mysterious, dark, and at times spooky.  Even the music was eerie, particularly the instrumental “Welcome to Fight Night” by Ramin Djawadis.  When I heard this song in the opening credits, I knew I was in for a treat!

So how does the remake hold up?  Is it possible for someone who loved the original and watched it countless times as a little girl to enjoy it just as much?  The answer is an unequivocal yes!

The original was great, even if a bit campy when watched today as Catie mentioned, but this film, from a story-telling aspect, is better; it was more developed, allowing it to stand on its own in today’s market… especially for those who aren’t familiar with the franchise… and let’s hope that demographic is very small!

Without fail, the 2011 film did not disappoint this Fright Night fan (not at all like the 1988 sequel).

Before we go, Catie always lists some sort of fun trivia in her reviews, so I thought I’d throw one out there:

It is rumored that Heath Ledger was in consideration for the role of Jerry, but he passed away before the project kicked into high gear.  After watching his portrayal of the Joker in The Dark Knight, I have no doubt that Mr. Ledger would have been fantastic as Vampire Jerry.  May he rest in peace.

However, don’t worry;  Mr. Farrell nails it as far as I’m concerned!

What do you think?  Have you seen either the original or the remake of Fright Night?  If you’ve seen both, which do you prefer and why?  If you haven’t, do you want to?  I’d love to hear from you! 

Remember to stop by Catie’s blog discussing the original if you haven’t already.

Spooky and Seductive Vampires – Fright Night (1985)

Every second week of the month, Catie Rhodes and I review a classic film and its reboot in our Original versus Remake series.  For the month of February, we’ve gone back to the horror genre and selected Fright Night.  While Catie will be reviewing the original on Wednesday, and I will be covering the more recent adaptation next Friday, today I thought I’d share my take on the ‘80s classic I watched countless times as a little girl.

Yes, that’s right; my parents let me watch whatever I wanted when I was younger.  The horror genre really took off in the ‘80s, and I can’t express my thanks enough to my parents for not sheltering me from these movies.  Watching these frightening flicks didn’t scare me away either; I absolutely love slashers and all kinds of horror today.

But most vampire movies today want the audience to fall in love with the vampire.  Take the Twilight series for example – none of the Cullens actually feed on humans (not that we see, anyway).  No, the bad vampires (like Victoria) are the evil vamps killing innocents; and the good vampires, like the Cullen family, fight these bad seeds to protect Bella and the other humans.

The same can’t be said about Tom Holland’s 1985 classic, Fright Night.

That’s not to say the viewers don’t secretly love Fright Night’s vampire lead.  Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) possesses all the qualities we love in a vampire; he’s sexy, seductive, brooding, and he’s not afraid to sink his teeth into a nightly feed.

But Jerry is not the character the audience is supposed to cheer on during the big showdown at the end of the movie.

Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) lives a normal teenage life with his single mother, Judy (Dorothy Fielding), quirky best friend, Edward, aka “Evil Ed” (Stephen Geoffreys), and girlfriend, Amy (Amanda Bearse), until one night he notices the new neighbor moving in with what resembles coffin-like boxes.

Being a horror fan, Charley immediately questions whether or not a vampire has just moved in next door and he begins investigating.  He reaches out to a television vampire hunter, Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall), for ways to prove, or disprove, that his new neighbor is indeed a blood-sucker.

Watching women disappear after joining the mysterious man next door, Charley decides to sneak over and put some of Peter’s ideas to the test.  His suspicions are confirmed when he notices Jerry’s image does not reflect in a mirror.  But unfortunately for the teenager, Jerry learns that his young neighbor has been sneaking around when Charley leaves behind a piece of his mirror.

Jerry stalks Charley, terrorizes him, and makes his life a living hell.  He lures those closest to Charley by turning them and compelling them to do as he wishes.

Charley’s only hope is to trust Peter.  Armed with holy water, crosses, and wooden stakes, Charley and Peter enter the vampire’s house with one goal—kill.

Fright Night is not a feel-good vampire movie.  It’s mysterious, dark, and at times spooky.  Even the music was eerie and seductive, particularly the instrumental “Dream Window (Come to Me)” by Brad Fiedel.

The movie won awards, spawned a novelization, a sequel, a comic book series, and a computer game.

And in 2011, a remake.

DreamWorks (Steven Spielberg) has remade the classic film, and cast Colin Farrell as Jerry.  Colin Farrell!  Who doesn’t think this is the best casting for the sexy, dark role of Jerry?

The casting all around is FaBOOolous: Anton Yelchin (Terminator Salvation, Star Trek) plays Charley Brewster; Toni Collette (The Sixth Sense, United States of Tara) plays Jane Brewster; David Tennant (Doctor Who, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) plays Peter Vincent; and Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Role Models, Kick-Ass) plays Evil Ed.

A few other notable roles include: James Franco’s (Freaks and Geeks, Spiderman, 127 Hours) little brother, Dave Franco, playing Mark; Sofia Vergara’s (Modern Family) little sister, Sandra Vergara, playing Ginger; and Lisa Loeb (1994 hit song, “Stay”), playing Evil Ed’s mom.

So how does the remake hold up?  You’ll have to come back next week to find out!

Be sure to tune into Catie’s blog on Wednesday to see what she thinks about the original, and I’ll be back next Friday with my take on the 2011 film.

Until then…

What do you think?  Were/are you a fan of the 1985 Fright Night?   I’d love to hear from you!


Catching the 3:10 to Yuma

It’s time again for Catie Rhodes and me to break down another cinematic original and its remake.  Sticking with our usual ways, Catie reviews the original and I take on the remake.  This month we tackle the classic western, 3:10 to Yuma.

First, let’s check in with Catie’s Homemade Summary that applies to both the 1957 and 2007 versions:

A timid rancher who is down on his luck finds himself responsible for making sure a smooth-tongued outlaw does not escape justice.

Catie and I both stepped out of our comfort zones for these reviews.  But since our readers actually suggested 3:10, we decided to give it a shot.

Before I begin, let me just say why I requested the remake.  Regardless of how ashamed I am to admit it, I usually choose the newer versions because I have not seen the originals.  And while I indeed haven’t seen this 1957 movie, that is not why I picked the 2007 film this time.

Honestly, I have no idea why, but I don’t watch westerns.  For this reason, I had never seen either version of 3:10 to Yuma nor did I ever plan to.  Despite my mother’s insistence that I would enjoy this film, my attitude about westerns didn’t change and I put off watching this movie until the very last minute.

When I finally did watch, the fact that 3:10 was a western didn’t even seem to matter much anymore, much like Wyatt Earp and Tombstone—two westerns that I’ve actually seen from the beginning to the end AND enjoyed.  And trust me, I’m not kidding when I say the list of cowboy-type movies I’ve watched pretty much ends there.

Back to the question at hand—why did I request the remake?  Two words—Ben Foster.

My review of the 2011 remake of The Mechanic is actually what prompted us to review 3:10 in the first place.  Back in October, I raved about the performance of a relatively unknown actor cast opposite Jason Statham in the action film—Mr. Ben Foster.  A reader and fellow author, Steven Montano, then suggested we cover 3:10 to Yuma.  Not only did he want to see how we’d break down the western classic and its remake, but he also wanted me to watch Ben Foster’s performance in another movie.

Ben Foster’s performance of Charlie is pure perfection.

And after watching, I’ll say one thing—I really like this guy.  Much like in The Mechanic, Mr. Foster almost steals the show.  His role is small, but his delivery is perfection and his eyes are captivating—he pulls the viewer in.

But let’s get back to the movie…

Based on the Elmore Leonard short story Three-Ten to Yuma, the movie follows the story of Dan Evans, the hero, and Ben Wade, the villain.  Now, if I’ve learned anything about Elmore Leonard’s writing  by watching Justified (the hit television series  based on his work), it’s that he knows how to develop characters—and not just the heroes.  Like his antagonist Boyd Crowder in the FX TV series, I couldn’t keep myself from liking Wade (played by Russell Crowe) AND Charlie (played by Ben Foster).

Clearly, Wade is the villain; he is the antagonist.  But his character has so many layers that he’s hard to despise while watching the 2007 remake.   To quote Alice Evans, played by Gretchen Mol, “He’s not what I expected.”

Wade’s pistol in the movie is known as “The Hand of God.”

Wade is a business man who burns barns to collect when not paid back in cash; he’ll “borrow” livestock to set up a blockade to complete a heist, but he returns them to their rightful owner  once they’ve served their purpose;  he’ll steal a man’s horses so he can’t follow him and his crew out of the mountains, but he’ll tie them up down the way so the owner can retain possession; he’s a patient man who loves to sketch God’s precious creations; and he’ll quote the Bible, even when using the said quote to justify his most recent killing—a man in his own crew.

“Proverbs 13:3.  He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life.  He that opens his lips too wide shall bring on his own destruction.”  ~ Wade to his crew, proving anyone is disposable when they put the rest of the group at risk.

Up until this point in the movie, Wade sits back and watches his men, led by Charlie Prince, do all of his dirty work.  It’s at this moment that the viewers see that Wade means business and he will not hesitate to remove anything or anyone standing in his way.

Everyone seems to fear Wade, but one down on his luck rancher—Dan Evans (played by Christian Bale)—who will do anything to raise enough money to save his family’s home and livestock.

Dan Evans, a hero who will do whatever it takes to be seen as such to his family.

Dan, the hero, is another character who pulls us in immediately…  He’s a war veteran, a husband and father, a man fighting to save everything.

“I’m tired of the way that they look at me.  I’m tired of the way that you don’t.  I’ve been standing on one leg for three damn years, waiting for God to do me a favor.  And He ain’t listening.” ~ Dan to his wife Alice.

As for the film itself, and like Catie stated in her review, the conflict is obvious.  Dan Evans will do anything to save his ranch and protect his family.  He steps up when no one else will and he vows to place Wade on the 3:10 train to Yuma.  On the flip side, Wade will do everything in his power to avoid the train because he knows upon reaching his destination he will surely hang.

Leading up to the big showdown and expected gunfight at the end, Dan’s son William (played by Logan Lerman) and Wade share a moment that defines the complexity of Wade’s character:

William: “Call ‘em off.”
Wade: “Why should I?”
William: “Because you’re not all bad.”
Wade: “Yes, I am.”
William: “You saved us from those Indians.”
Wade: “I saved myself.”
William: You got us through the tunnels.  You helped us get away.”
Wade: “If I had a gun in them tunnels, I would have used it on you.”
William: “I don’t believe you.”
Wade: “Kid, I wouldn’t last five minutes leading an outfit like that if I wasn’t as rotten as hell.”

But is he?  Is Wade all that rotten?  Well… watch the ending to see.

Now, I haven’t seen the original, so I have nothing to compare the remake to.  However, I do know that Russell Crowe and Christian Bale are absolutely fantastic in this movie.  It’s hard to imagine Tom Cruise playing Wade and Eric Bana playing Dan, but they almost did.  Thank the movie gods that this didn’t happen.  I have a hard time believing 3:10 to Yuma would have been nearly as enjoyable without Crowe’s and Bale’s intense performances.

Elmore Leonard knows characters, and Crowe and Bale master their portrayals of hero and villain.

Catie always lists some sort of fun trivia in her reviews, so I thought I’d throw one out there: from the time the city’s clock strikes three times for three o’clock, and the time the train arrives, exactly ten minutes pass in the movie.  That’s ten minutes of intense gun fighting AND ten minutes where I personally found myself rooting for the hero… and the villain.

I said it once before and I’ll say it again: I don’t watch westerns.  But, I am glad I watched this one.

What do you think?  Have you seen either the original or the remake of 3:10 to Yuma?  If you’ve seen both, which do you prefer and why?  If you haven’t, do you want to?  I’d love to hear from you! 

Remember to stop by Catie’s blog discussing the original if you haven’t already.

Friday FabOoolousness – Sabrina Fairchild Circa 1995

It’s time again for Catie Rhodes and I to break down another cinematic original and its remake.  Sticking with our usual ways, Catie reviews the original and I take on the remake.  This month we tackle the classic romantic comedy, Sabrina.

Usually, I include Catie’s Homemade Summary that applies to both films.  But this time, I tweaked it just a bit:

The super-rich Larrabee brothers of New York couldn’t be more different.  David Larrabee is a playboy and a womanizer.  Linus Larrabee is a workaholic.  They both find themselves under the spell of Sabrina, daughter of the family’s chauffeur, who has recently returned from a fashion internship in Paris sexy and sophisticated.

Before I begin, let me just say why I chose the remake.  Regardless of how ashamed I am to admit it, I usually choose the newer versions because I have not seen the originals.  But, that is not the case today.  Everyone, hold on to your hats, but I’ve actually seen the 1954 classic Sabrina starring Audrey Hepburn, Humphrey Bogart, and William Holden.  I know, shocker.  In all honesty, if the film’s role of Sabrina Fairchild wasn’t played by the iconic Audrey Hepburn, I probably wouldn’t have watched it.   But it did, and I did, and I loved it.

For years, seventeen years to be exact, I avoided the 1995 remake of Sabrina… not because I wasn’t interested in the story, but because I enjoyed the original so much.  So, when Catie proposed we add these films to our Original versus Remake series, for once I had actually hoped I could review the original.  But, considering Catie and I have a nice flow with her covering the originals and me taking on the remakes, we stuck to our established game plan.

So, here we are, December 2012, and I have finally watched the 1995 remake of the classic.  The stories are quite similar, the one exception being that Sabrina (Julia Ormond) travels to Paris for a fashion internship at Vogue instead of culinary school like Ms. Hepburn’s character.

Sabrina has loved the younger and carefree David Larrabee (Greg Kinnear) for as long as she can remember, but she is almost invisible to him.  After she returns from Paris a transformed woman, David’s pending marriage to the perfect woman (Elizabeth Tyson, played by Lauren Holly) is threatened when he finally notices Sabrina.  Not wanting to see the potential business partnership between the Larrabee and Tyson families go up in smoke, David’s older and more responsible brother, Linus (Harrison Ford), steps in and distracts Sabrina and David.  What started out as just a job turns into something more—Linus actually falls in love with her… and Sabrina with him.

Catie shocked me with the trivial fact that Cary Grant was considered for the role of Linus… the role that Humphrey Bogart landed.  So, I did a little digging of my own and learned some interesting facts myself:

The character of David Larrabee was Greg Kinnear’s first “major” role, but like most acting jobs in Hollywood he was not the only candidate—Tom Cruise was also considered.

And how about Sabrina?  While I believe Ms. Ormond gave a fabOoolous performance, just look at this list of actresses considered at one time or another for the Cinderella-type role: Winona Ryder, Demi Moore, Gwyneth Paltrow, Robin Wright, Cameron Diaz, and Sandra Bullock.  Now that’s competition…

I don’t normally watch romantic comedies.  I prefer action, adventure, dark and raunchy comedy, and horror over romantic comedies.  Who knows?  Maybe I’m not a “typical” girl; after all, I live and breathe sports.  Regardless, the 1995 film did not disappoint; however, I do believe I still prefer the original.  I mean, it’s Audrey Hepburn… c’mon.

What do you think?  Have you seen either the original or the remake of Sabrina?  If you’ve seen both, which do you prefer and why?  If you haven’t, do you want to?  I’d love to hear from you! 

Remember to stop by Catie’s blog discussing the original if you haven’t already.

Friday FabOoolousness – “One, Two, Freddy’s Coming for You.”

It’s time again for Catie Rhodes and I to break down another cinematic original and its remake.  Sticking with our usual ways, Catie reviews the original and I take on the remake.  This month we tackle the classic horror film, A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Usually, I include Catie’s Homemade Summary that applies to both films.  But this time, I tweaked it just a bit:

A group of teens’ dreams are haunted by the ghost of a child molester who has the power to kill them while they sleep.

Before I begin, let me just say why I chose the remake.  Regardless of how ashamed I am to admit it, I usually choose the newer versions because I have not seen the originals.  But, that is not the case today.  Not only have I seen Wes Craven’s 1984 A Nightmare on Elm Street, I’ve watched it so many times I’ve lost count over the years.  However, I still remember my first time…  I was a little girl, not quite ten years old, and Freddy Krueger scared the bejeezus out of me.

Since then, I’ve watched the original and all of the subsequent movies in the franchise probably more times than I should admit.  A few years ago, in preparation for the remake, I even hosted a group of girls for a Nightmare movie marathon.  Despite having seen the film countless times, the fear of Freddy and his razor-sharp claws still worked its magic… I checked under all of the beds and in all of the closets before going to sleep.  I know; I’m a dork—Freddy doesn’t get anyone while they’re awake, it’s after they fall asleep…

Wake Up! Wake Up! Wake Up!

One thing’s for sure, the endearment “Sweet Dreams” changed drastically in 1984 when audiences met Freddy Krueger for the first time.

And, what about that eerie nursery rhyme with the little girls dressed in beautiful, white baby-doll dresses jumping rope, singing, and having fun?

“One, Two, Freddy’s coming for you.

Three, Four, Better lock your door.

Five, Six, Grab your crucifix.

Seven, Eight, Gotta stay up late.

Nine, Ten, Never sleep again.”

Say what you will, but that rhyme still spooks me to this very day!  Not to mention the fact that I have a hard time remembering the actual lyrics to the peaceful, children’s song now.

Craven created the Nightmare franchise with his horrifying screenplay and his directing brilliance.  Robert Englund may still be recognized today as his character, Freddy Krueger, more than he is as Robert Englund, the actor.  This horror flick opened the door for nine feature films, including a 2010 remake produced by Michael Bay, Andrew Form, and Brad Fuller.

That’s right—Michael Bay.  Many associate his name with major motion picture action and drama masterpieces (Transformers, Bad Boys, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, etc…), but he also co-owns the production house responsible for so many of our favorite remakes, including Friday the 13th and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  Mr. Bay may be one of my favorite producers in Hollywood now simply for this reason.

Okay, let’s talk about this remake… first up, Freddy:

The 2010 version included more of the backstory of Freddy Krueger.  Anyone familiar with the character knows that Krueger was an alleged child murder—we never really saw anything to confirm these suspicions in the original, but the message was clear.  In the 2010 movie, there’s no doubt—only this time, Freddy is a confirmed child molester.  Viewers witness him preying on the children at the local Springwood daycare; we watch as the parents chase him to an abandoned warehouse and set the fire that burns him beyond recognition; and we see WHY he has hand-selected the teenagers he is currently stalking.  Plus, in my opinion, this Freddy (played by the great Jackie Earle Haley) looks a bit more realistic with his scars, and is still just as terrifying as Englund’s character.

Now, let’s meet the rest of the cast… the teens:

The 2010 movie successfully caters to today’s teenage audience by casting Katie Cassidy (Arrow), Kellan Lutz (The Twilight Movies), Kyle Gallner (Jennifer’s Body), Thomas Dekker (The Secret Circle), and the fabOoolous Rooney Mara (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) as the heroin, Nancy.

Every group of teens in the Nightmare movies tries to fight Freddy; they fight to stay awake.  But, this group was different; they were stronger.  Not only did they do their very best in fighting off the man in the red and green sweater (and, of course, not all of them survive), a few of them actually researched the man haunting them in their dreams and figured out exactly what was going on, making the predictable fight scene at the end that much more intense and satisfying… if you ask me.

The fabOooolous Rooney Mara. Sadly, I’m afraid she’ll never reprise her role as Nancy after the success of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

Now, let’s talk about… the classic Freddy-esque scenes:

While the remake definitely stands on its own, it would be a mistake to ignore some of the memorable elements from the 1984 classic.  Luckily for those of us that love the Nightmare movies, the remake pays homage to those moments.  Take the bedroom scene from the original film:

Tina, wearing the oversized, white button down shirt, flailing about, blood spraying everywhere, levitating, crawling on the ceiling, and finally crashing onto her bed — dead.  Her boyfriend standing helplessly by, watching an invisible knife slash through his girlfriend, screaming her name, “Tina!” – completely terrified and confused.   

Almost everything about this scene holds true in the remake, except the character of Tina is now Kris (Cassidy) and she’s wearing a cute jersey-style t-shirt.

It doesn’t stop there!  The remake also incorporates other familiar scenes from the franchise, not necessarily limited to the original—the very frightening razor-sharp claw in the bathtub scene; the jail cell murder scene; and, the steaming scenes from the boiler room, with Freddy dragging his razor-sharp fingers down the metal pipes—to just name a few.

Never fall asleep in the bathtub!!

And, let’s not forget about the dialogue… especially Freddy’s quirky one-liners:

Jesse (Dekker): Oh, God.
Freddy: No, just me!

Freddy: Why are you screaming when I haven’t even cut you yet?

Freddy: How’s this for a wet dream?

Obviously, I’m having a really great time with this post and could probably go on and on… but, I’ll stop here.

Bottom line: is A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) worthy of watch?  I answer with an unequivocal YES!

The original was ground-breaking, but this film, from a story-telling aspect, is better; it was more developed, allowing it to stand on its own in today’s market… especially for those who aren’t familiar with the franchise… and let’s hope that demographic is very small!

The 2010 film did not disappoint this Nightmare-aholic .

What do you think?  Have you seen either the original or the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street?  If you’ve seen both, which do you prefer and why?  If you haven’t, do you want to?  I’d love to hear from you! 

Remember to stop by Catie’s blog discussing the original if you haven’t already.

Friday FabOoolousness – The Best “Mechanic” in the Business

It’s time again for Catie Rhodes and I to break down another cinematic original and its remake.  Sticking with our usual ways, Catie reviews the original and I take on the remake.  This month we tackle the action film, The Mechanic.

First, let’s check in with Catie’s Homemade Summary that applies to both the 1972 and 2011 versions:

A hit man befriends the son of one of his victims and begins to train him in the business.  Will the student outsmart the teacher?

Before I begin, let me just say why I requested the remake.  Regardless of how ashamed I am to admit it, I usually choose the newer versions because I have not seen the originals.  And while I indeed haven’t seen this 1972 movie, that is not why I picked the 2011 film this time.  Heck, I even had Bronson’s Mechanic on my DVR for a few weeks while I waited for Catie to decide which one she would cover.  But, because she is an extremely nice person, she let me take the remake.  Why did I request the more recent of the two?  Two words—Jason Statham.

Hello, Jason…

For those who have friended me or follow me on Facebook, they know that I like to get in my monthly dose of the British actor.  Like most girls, I’m not limited to just the one, but he is my current crush and has been for a few years.  Luckily for me, I have the best guy in the world.  He understands my obsession with Jason and he usually goes upstairs to play video games so that I can watch my next Jason movie.  Two months ago, it was the British crime drama Blitz.  Last month, it was his most recent release Safe.  Last night, it was the 2011 version of The Mechanic—for like the fourth or fifth time.  Maybe it’s Jason’s constant five o’clock shadow; maybe it’s his serious facial expressions with the occasional smile; maybe it’s his sexy, sexy voice; maybe it’s his sculpted body; maybe it’s his ability to fight with some of the best; or maybe it’s all of the above.  Bottom line, Catie granted me this opportunity and I thank her for my monthly Jason fix.

Now, to the 2011 adaptation of The Mechanic

As a part of our original versus remake series, I like to compare the similarities between the two films.  And considering the 2011 motion picture was the idea of two of the original producers from the 1972 version (Irwin Winkler and Robert Chartoff), the two movies are very similar.  Very.

Jason Statham plays Arthur Bishop, a mechanic.  By definition, a mechanic is a hit man or assassin with a strict code and unique ability to eliminate the targets.   According to Bishop, there are three types of hits: 1) the hits that make it look like an accident; 2) the hits that cast suspicion onto someone else; and 3) the hits that send a clear message.

“The best jobs are the ones nobody ever knows you were there.”  That’s Bishop.

Bishop receives these “assignments,” from “the company” led by Dean Sanderson (Tony Goldwyn), and no one is better than Bishop.  His skills are so refined, there’s no assignment he won’t complete successfully—even when tasked with killing his mentor and friend.

Side bar: ever since the movie Ghost, when I see Tony Goldwyn, I know he’s a scum bag.  Am I the only one?

Back to the movie…

Catie mentioned that her Bishop led a lonely life.  So does my Bishop.  He lives alone in a lavish lake house; he has a recurring “relationship” with a New Orleans prostitute; and he appears to only have one “friend” (Harry McKenna, played by Donald Sutherland).  But that’s not to say he doesn’t have love in his life; he does—his vinyl records and his 1966 Jaguar E—he treats both with love and finesse.

Bishop’s strict code includes: “It’s stupid to kill someone when you have a motive.” and “Revenge is an emotion that can get you killed.”  But what about guilt?

Bishop and his student…

For what seems to be out of guilt, Bishop decides to mentor his friend’s son (Steve McKenna, played by Ben Foster).  In his father’s words, Steve is a screw-up; yet oddly enough, his father had still confided in Steve what Bishop does for a living.  Steve is anxious to join Bishop and train to be a mechanic, perhaps too anxious.  On his first solo assignment, Steve ignores all of Bishop’s instructions and messes up the job.  He gets it done, but it’s not clean.

“The company” is not pleased with Bishop’s bringing in an outsider, even when Bishop makes a good point—anyone trained by him would be valuable for them.  But will this training come back to bite Bishop?

As with every good movie, there is one particular part that defines the story—the one particular part that grabs the viewer and makes them say, “uh-oh.”  In The Mechanic, this moment comes the second Bishop learns “the company” has deceived him.  Why in the world would anyone cross who they consider to be the best hit man in the business?  When Steve learns “the company” lied to him about the “why” behind an assignment, he takes matters into his own hands.  Two words can describe the action going forward in this film—Game On.

As with any good Statham movie, we get to watch him single-handedly fight his way out of situations where he is completely outnumbered by men and weapons.  But Ben Foster is no slouch.  When I first watched The Mechanic, I didn’t know Mr. Foster.  At one point, I even thought that maybe Statham’s co-star was Ryan Gosling.  I was disappointed when I realized it wasn’t Mr. Gosling, but in this role, Mr. Foster holds his own.

So, is The Mechanic (2011) worthy of watch?  Yes; but, if anyone is still uncertain, answer these questions: Do you like action movies?  Did you like the original 1972 film?  Do you enjoy Jason Statham?  Did you like The Transporter movies?  Do you like to watch Tony Goldwyn get his?  If anyone answered “yes” to the above questions, this remake is a safe bet.

That’s my Jason… when will people learn to stop messing with him?

What do you think?  Have you seen either the original or the remake of The Mechanic?  If you’ve seen both, which do you prefer and why?  If you haven’t, do you want to?  I’d love to hear from you! 

Remember to stop by Catie’s blog discussing the original if you haven’t already.

Friday FabOoolousness – Kill for Mother (Friday the 13th)

It’s time again for Catie Rhodes and I to break down another cinematic original and its remake.  Sticking with our usual ways, Catie reviews the original and I take on the remake.  This month we tackle the horror classic, Friday the 13th.

Usually, I include Catie’s Homeade Summary that applies to both films.  But this time, I tweaked it just a bit:

A group of young adults is terrorized by a killer at Crystal Lake and the nearby deserted summer camp.

Before I begin, let me first mention that I love Friday the 13th—not just the movie franchise—but the actual date itself.  But when I think about it, maybe I love it when a Friday lands on the thirteenth of a month because I automatically associate the day as a scary day because of the horror movie and its subsequent sequels.  Regardless, I’m a fan…  When I see that a particular Friday actually falls on the thirteenth, I hit the television and search immediately for a Friday the 13th marathon.  Sadly, not many stations actually take the opportunity to air an all-day and all-night marathon of Jason Voorhees movies; and if I ever run a TV station, this will be one of my first orders of business.

Friday the 13th is a classic and Catie said it best in her blog post discussing the original—if anyone considers themselves to be a horror buff and they have not seen this movie, shame on them.  Because of this movie, there have been many instances in real life where I have felt uncomfortable—like when I stayed at a week-long Athletic Training Camp at Prude Ranch in high school; I heard noises outside my cabin… and I really didn’t want to shower out there—or anytime I go to a lake; one never knows what or who’s lurking in that dirty water—or when I camped overnight at Palo Duro Canyon in college; I heard noises in the dry, dead brush all around us the entire time.  Thanks a lot, Jason.

One might ask, if the 1980 film is so great, why remake it?  Well, I don’t feel Friday the 13th (2009) is an actual remake… it’s more a re-envisioning of the first few films in the franchise.  The writers did a fantastic job creating somewhat of a new story all its own, while still incorporating many elements of the other films and the classic horror movie rules.

Let’s talk about the similarities—things that if were missing from the film would not make a Friday the 13th movie complete:

The Curse of Camp Crystal Lake:

It all started in 1980, when innocent camp counselors worked to open an old camp site; a camp that had been closed after a young boy, Jason Voorhees, drowned in the lake.  How did Jason drown?  Two camp counselors that were supposed to watch him decided to have sex instead.  Devastated by her son’s death, Jason’s mother took matters into her own hands to ensure the camp didn’t open again—to protect other children from counselors who were more interested in their summer shenanigans than watching the children.  One by one, she stalked the unaware teenagers, placing blame on each of them for her son’s death.  Mrs. Voorhees managed to brutally murder each counselor—all except for one.   Alice managed to escape Mrs. Voorhees’ murderous rampage and turned the tables on the crazed mother.  In what began the true Friday the 13th style, Alice decapitated Mrs. Voorhees’ with a machete.  Thus, we have the Curse of Camp Crystal Lake.

Jason, the mask, and the machete:

Jason Voorhees remains one of the most frightening characters today.  He’s gigantic, has super strength, obtains supernatural abilities, and isn’t afraid to kill.  He always has his machete, but he will also never shy away from bows and arrows, spears, pitchforks or chainsaws—anything that will cut right through his victims.

Yeah, I’d run if I saw him coming…

The music:

Ki ki ki, ma ma ma – The dreadful, eerie, creepy music.  There have been many debates over what the actual sounds of the Jason music are.  The ‘ki’ sound comes from the word ‘kill’ and the ‘ma’ sound from ‘mommy’—a line in the original movie spoken by Mrs. Voorhees in her child’s voice: “Kill her mommy!”

The killings:

Even the murders mirror classic Jason killings from a few of the earlier movies:  a machete chop through the head; a machete stab through the chest and into a tree; an arrow through the head; a metal hook through the throat; a towel rack and an ax through the back; and a fireplace stoker through the eye.  Okay; it’s been a while since I’ve seen all of the Jason movies, but all of these kills at least seemed familiar… next Friday the 13th, hopefully I’ll find a marathon so that I can confirm that all of these tactics have indeed previously taken the lives of a few other teenagers in Jason’s way.

The re-envisioning also incorporates a few of the franchise’s key moments: a shrine to Jason’s mother with her decapitated head as the centerpiece, showing his love and dedication to her, and also Jason’s finding an old hockey mask to cover his disfigured face.  We also see the classic horror elements Catie listed in her post: the prior “evil” events at Camp Crystal Lake in 1980, and the fact that help is not coming.

Next, let’s go over the horror movie rules present in Friday the 13th (2009) just in case someone isn’t quite familiar:

  1. Don’t show your breasts.  Show your breasts, and die.
  2. Don’t have sex.  Everyone knows that the second a couple fornicates, they die.
  3. Don’t drink or do drugs.  Intoxicate yourself in any way, and die.

Now, let’s switch gears and discuss cast and characterization.

Catie mentioned that the cast of the original was primarily a group of relatively unknown actors.  One of Jason’s victims back in 1980 may not have been well known then, but he’s a huge Hollywood star today—Kevin Bacon.  How many times have we seen someone’s starring in a slasher film actually launch their career?  But I digress…

Unlike the original, the 2009 version stars many familiar faces: Jared Padalecki (Supernatural), Danielle Panabaker (Shark), Amanda Righetti (The Mentalist), Travis Van Winkle (Transformers), and Willa Ford (ex-wife to hockey super-star, Mike Modano and former Dancing with the Stars contestant).  Each of these actors and actresses can be described as easy on the eyes, or eye candy—a feature that doesn’t hurt when deciding which movie to go see…

Clay will do anything to protect his sister… much like Mr. Padelecki’s Supernatural character will do anything to protect the world… He’s awesome.

And where the casting can affect whether or not I’m interested in seeing the movie, the characterization determines whether or not I enjoy the movie—usually.  In the case of horror films and slashers, I usually can’t empathize with many of the characters.  In other words, I don’t mind the fact that I know each and every one of them are about to be hacked into pieces.  However, I can list four characters in Friday the 13th (2009) that I actually liked:

  • Clay, the hero—the good guy on a mission to find his missing sister and protect as many as he can in the meantime.
  • Jenna, the nice girl—the girl with substance, unlike her partying friends, who wants to help others and not only protect herself.
  • Whitney, the damsel—the girl that even though held captive, plays her captor like a fiddle to prolong her survival.
  • Jason, the killer—the poor, lost soul who wants to follow his mother’s orders (“Kill for mother.”), protect his land (“They must be punished, Jason.”), and be left alone (“We just want to be left alone, and so does he.”).  He may be a serial killer, but viewers see a side of Jason we’ve never seen before… more of a “why” he does what he does.

As usual, Michael Bay’s production does not disappoint.  That’s right—Michael Bay.  Many associate his name with major motion picture action and drama masterpieces (Transformers, Bad Boys, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, etc…), but he also co-owns the production house responsible for so many of our favorite remakes  (A Nightmare on Elm Street, and last month’s feature, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre).  Mr. Bay may be one of my favorite producers in Hollywood now simply for this reason.

I’m not ashamed to admit that I was one of the crazed, movie-goers that attended the premiere of Friday the 13th on Friday, February 13, 2009.  How could I possibly pass up the opportunity to see a Friday the 13th film on Friday the 13th?  I couldn’t… so I coaxed my guy into taking me by playing the Valentine/birthday card.  While he tolerated it (he’s not into slashers and horror like I am), the film didn’t disappoint this Friday fan.  I enjoyed all of the classic elements of the older versions, as mentioned above, but especially and most recognizably the ending—Jason’s resurrection after being buried in the water, from which he rises and grabs a survivor before the screen fades to black…  Did you jump?  I sure did!  Now that’s my kind of ending…

What do you think?  Have you seen either the original or the “remake” of Friday the 13th?  If you’ve seen both, which do you prefer and why?  If you haven’t, do you want to?  I’d love to hear from you! 

Remember to stop by Catie’s blog discussing the original if you haven’t already.

And while it may not  be horror, remember to check out my YA Mystery novel, Football Sweetheart… now available on Kindle and Nook!