Remakes: Redux Or Ridiculous? Dystopian 3-Way: LOCKOUT vs. ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK With Some Assist From DOOMSDAY

It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.... unless your name is John Carpenter. In May of 2015, John Carpenter won a plagiarism case in France over similarities between the Luc Besson produced LOCKOUT (2012) and his 1981 cult movie ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK. The sum he won--a paltry $95,000--was much less than the 2 million+ he was going for. Luc Besson and his company, EuropaCorp, decided to appeal; doing so caused the producer/filmmaker more problems. The court then ordered he pay the equivalent of U$500,000 to Carpenter in July of 2016 with the sum divided among the claimants. The case, filed in 2014 by both Carpenter and Nick Castle, claimed Besson's movie was literally the same as the 1981 endeavor.

But what constitutes an imitation? Merriam-Webster defines it as, "the act of copying or imitating someone or something; something that is made or produced as a copy". The High Court of Paris cited a very long list of items that, in both their view and Carpenter's, imitated ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK like The Thing to the members of that Antarctic outpost.

Despite the ruling in Carpenter's favor the lawsuit is bewildering for a few reasons--one of them being LOCKOUT wasn't a massive success to begin with (32.2 million worldwide against a 20 million budget). I'd never even heard of it till a few weeks ago. Having now seen it, it didn't seem anymore similar to ESCAPE FROM NY than any other action movie of the last few decades. The 'rescue' portion of the movie that seemed to be the source of Carpenter's twisted breeches doesn't feel as familiar as Carpenter and the court make it out to be. If the ruling is anything to go by, it doesn't appear the films were closely scrutinized as certain details are either vague, totally wrong, or outright questionable.

In this article we're going to take a look at the similarities and the differences between the two movies; and other films that have lifted themes and topics.

In the court ruling it says at one point, "The court nevertheless noted many similarities between the two science-fiction films: both presented an athletic, rebellious and cynical hero, sentenced to a period of isolated incarceration". How many fat slobs are action heroes, exactly?

Elsewhere it says, "[Snow] is given the offer of setting out to free the President of the United States or his daughter held hostage in exchange for his freedom; he manages, undetected, to get inside the place where the hostage is being held, after a flight in a glider/space shuttle". In ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, the mission is to rescue the president. Rescuing the daughter was in ESCAPE FROM LA--a film not mentioned in the judgment (at least the parts I have read).

How many rescue mission movies are there again? Thousands of them?

Does Carpenter have some exclusivity clause that only HE can make a movie where a president or relatives of said president are put in peril and must be rescued? We did, after all, have two very similar "rescue the president" movies in 2013 with WHITE HOUSE DOWN and OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN and not an infringed ego in sight. Takin' it way back, the president of the US had been kidnapped a full year before Carpenter did it. In 1980s THE KIDNAPPING OF THE PRESIDENT, William Shatner must save POTUS Hal Holbrook while being held hostage aboard a booby-trapped armored vehicle primed to detonate within a certain amount of time.

In reading the court ruling descriptions, I was reminded of the plot of THE DIRTY DOZEN (1967); that film where the title 12 prisoners are given a veritable suicide mission that requires they enter the locale of their target(s) undetected; and if successful, guarantees their freedom. Naturally certain elements are altered but the template is basically the same... in exchange for their freedom, athletic, rebellious and cynical heroes must get inside--undetected--the place harboring their targets.

Furthermore, Snake wasn't sent in to rescue the president's daughter in ESCAPE FROM LA; he was sent in to kill her and retrieve a black box containing world codes for EMP attacks. How is this ruling even viable if some of the main points of the suit aren't in the damn movie that is purported to have been plagiarized?

Unlike NEW YORK, Snow doesn't "get inside undetected". He's spotted immediately upon entering--a feat he manages inside a spacesuit while clinging to the outside of a sleeker version of a Space Shuttle. How else is he supposed to get inside if not covertly? But there's more to it than that....

A negotiator goes aboard MS1 to try and get the president's daughter out using a deception. It goes bad and Snow--attached to the hull of the shuttle--is ordered to get inside since the first plan didn't go so well. He's immediately spotted by one of the criminals and the leader is informed it's a trap; whereby they begin searching for him.

How many "rescue the daughter" movies have their been? Can you sue for rescuing a daughter or only if they're the president's daughter? And is that any president, or just the president of the United States?

"Look, CanalPlus is the company that, with me, owns ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK... You have to change a couple things. He’s after the president’s daughter? Come on. So I took him to French court". Let's look at some other differences between these two rescue movies, shall we? Let's also include LA as well.

1. Snow has a partner named Mace.
1a. Snake works alone.
2. Snow is an ex-CIA operative.
2a. Snake is a decorated war hero.
3. Snow talks a lot. He's a walking quip machine for 95 minutes.
3a. Snake says very little. He's the strong, silent type.
4. MS1 is a literal prison.
4a. New York is a veritable prison.
5. Snow runs into the president's daughter as soon as he gets aboard.
5a. In ESCAPE FROM LA Snake spends the bulk of the movie searching for the black box and the president's daughter who he's supposed to kill, not rescue.
6. In LOCKOUT the president's daughter enters the space prison on a humanitarian mission and is trapped there and constantly threatened. Her father wants her back alive.
6a. In ESCAPE FROM LA the president's daughter enters LA to join the criminals of her own accord. Her father wants her dead.

Another difference--and a big one--is that LOCKOUT isn't technically a dystopian-style, futuristic action thriller. Outside of a quip from Snow about his taxes being raised again it's ambiguous as to the status quo situation. There is none of the defeatist prophesying akin to what Carpenter did in both ESCAPE movies. LOCKOUT is most favorable to the 1980s Action Hero paradigm. The tone is upbeat and hopeful while ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK is downbeat and hopeless.

Since we're discussing infringement.....

Anyone seen Enzo G. Castellari's 1990: THE BRONX WARRIORS (1982)? Anyone? I am curious if Carpenter has seen it and what he thinks of the clear and present poaching done from his ESCAPE. In that one the president's daughter(!) of The Manhattan Corporation has escaped into the "No Man's Land" that is New York--now run by roving gangs who've seen THE WARRIORS (1979) one too many times. Castellari does in fact know about court injunctions regarding blatant ripoffs. If ever there was a literal copy of another filmmaker's work it's THE LAST SHARK (1981) to Spielberg's JAWS (1975). On the other side of the coin, maybe Castellari can sue John Carpenter for using the "president daughter" motif for his ESCAPE FROM LA (1996)? On a side note, I am curious if the Village People could have sued for the use of their likeness on the Italian locandina.

Sergio Martino's 2019: AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK (1983) certainly sounds familiar, too....

Don Siegel's ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ (1979) has a certain ring to it as well, doesn't it?

Some of the details specified in the ruling are utterly retarded by their inclusion; or give the impression those involved in deciding the case didn't watch the film(s) too closely. 

1. Comparisons are drawn to the fact both men are wearing black; that police are wearing helmets; that both films take place at night (no, seriously, did you expect sunlight in outer space?); and that "the head prisoner is violent"... so how many passive villains are there, exactly? And who would want to watch one?!

2. The injection Snow receives prior to accepting the mission was for his preparation for stasis aboard MS1 where all the prisoners are kept in suspended animation; not the purposes of his termination should he not complete the mission in the time allocated as in ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK.

3. At no point in the movie does Snow receive a leg injury resulting in a limp a la Snake Plissken.

4. Who doesn't struggle to recover after being knocked out?

5. There is no prisoner mutiny in ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK.

6. There is no scene in LOCKOUT of a "helicopter shooting fugitives at night". Snow is on the run and is pursued by the police and a military-styled, futuristic chopper (this is 2079, after all). In ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, a plain, everyday helicopter bombs some prisoners trying to escape Manhattan Island. How this is supposed to evoke imagery of Carpenter's movie is anyone's guess. If nothing else, it resembles BLADE RUNNER (1982).

7. The briefcase Snow is after contains secrets about the Space Program. He manages to hide them with the help of his partner, Mace. Mace is the reason Snow accepts the job after secretly learning he is aboard the space prison. No one but Mace knows the location of the briefcase--the contents of which may clear Snow's name (although a last minute twist reveals it to be something else entirely) and reveal who was really behind the death of his CIA friend. This contradicts the use of a briefcase in ESCAPE, carried by the POTUS; containing an audio cassette detailing the construction of a new bomb. The two films share nothing in common in this instance other than a damn piece of luggage.

Now that I think about it, both Snow and Snake smoke cigarettes so Carpenter could have nailed them for copying a hero who smokes death sticks.

Ever see any Quentin Tarantino movies? I mean, if you can sue because two very different characters are wearing black and both films have briefcases in them....

Could you watch LOCKOUT and say, "hey, this reminds me of ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK"? Of course you could. And you could easily say the same in regards to STAR WARS (1977), BLADE RUNNER (1982), DIE HARD (1987), and even BATTLE ROYALE (2000)--from the look of the movie, to the types of weapons used (the exploding head gag), the action scenario of sneaking around in the ducts, to the space battle at the finale.

From Carpenter's own words, CanalPlus also wanted to sue Hideo Kojima, creator of the wildly popular video game series, Metal Gear Solid; the character named Solid Snake is reminiscent of Snake Plissken. Carpenter wasn't interested in this lawsuit stating, "I know the director of those games, and he’s a nice guy, or at least he’s nice to me". Other characters--some of whom have Snake in their name--wore an eyepatch and or talked in that deep, low tonality of Plissken's that Jason Statham has since adopted for every movie he's done, only Carpenter hasn't sued him, either.

John Carpenter is quite the hypocrite for suing in the first place when you take a closer look at certain titles in his filmography. Possibly this was a move designed to help finance his concert tours; or the fact he's executive producer on a proposed remake of ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK (which seems to be what this is all about); or that he never got to make 'Escape From Earth' and Besson made a film similar to that concept.

'Escape From Earth' was the intended third Snake flick that Carpenter and Russell had an idea for had ESCAPE FROM LA been successful. Carpenter said in a September 1996 Fangoria interview, "there's nothing like a hit... what's the only place left to escape from? It's Earth. We have a story... we'll just have to wait and see". Unfortunately, the cult audience of the original was about all that showed up to buy a ticket for the sequel that was essentially a souped-up, more action-packed remake of the original.

Speaking of cloning, let's look at Carpenter's history of retrieving existing plot devices...

Everyone knows about HALLOWEEN (1978). There's no denying it's a fantastic horror feature. Still, the famed POV shots of the killer were done equally effectively in Bob Clark's BLACK CHRISTMAS (1974); a film where, like HALLOWEEN, a young lady discovers the corpses of her friends piled, or herded into a single room (a slasher staple when the genre became fashionable). Both films even begin with a POV of the killer approaching a house where a murder is about to take place. 

According to Clark, he didn't wish to make a sequel to BC but had he done so it would have been titled 'Halloween'; it would be about the killer's capture and subsequent escape from a mental hospital thereby returning "home" to stalk and kill again. Clark gave the idea to Carpenter who then fashioned his own movie out of it.

Then there's THE FOG (1980). Like ESCAPE FROM NY, it too is a fabulous film (with one of the spookiest opening sequences ever devised), but its tale of ghost ships, hellish fog, and bloodthirsty spirits of rotting, leper pirates combines plot elements of Amando De Ossorio's 2nd and 3rd Blind Dead movies; those being 1973s RETURN OF THE EVIL DEAD (EL ATAQUE DE LOS MUERTOS SIN OJOS) and 1974s THE GHOST GALLEON (EL BUQUE MALTIDO). You have the 100 year centennial celebration and eventual, vengeful return of the slain monsters of the former (itself indebted to Romero); and the ghost ship enveloped in an otherworldly fog of the latter.

Aside from borrowing elements from other pictures for his own ventures, Carpenter occasionally ripped himself off; one such occasion was with GHOSTS OF MARS (2001) wherein a script initially intended as Snake's third chapter became an American version of Mario Bava's PLANET OF THE VAMPIRES (1965). At heart a martian retread of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD's (1968) siege formula, GHOSTS likewise cloned Carpenter's earlier flick that reeked of Romero, ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 (1976)... a film that was predominantly a modernized do-over of RIO BRAVO (1959).

Should Katherine Bigelow sue the makers of those FAST AND FURIOUS movies for aping her POINT BREAK (1991)? Should Kevin Costner sue James Cameron for AVATAR (2009) and the makers of THE LAST SAMURAI (2003) over similarities to DANCES WITH WOLVES (1990)? Which in turn Costner should be sued by Elliot Silverstein and the makers of A MAN CALLED HORSE (1970). Maybe Spielberg should reconsider suing Joe Dante and Roger Corman for PIRANHA (1978); or Russell Mulcahy for RAZORBACK (1984); or Edward L. Montoro for GRIZZLY (1976) if he can find him. Or maybe Corman could counter-sue Spielberg since the director has said JAWS is a bigger budgeted Roger Corman movie. In other cloning news, Sergio Leone did settle out of court with Toho over the striking sameness of FISTFUL OF DOLLARS (1964) to YOJIMBO (1961).

Speaking of Italian clones, the American production company, The Asylum, has been keeping the Euro spirit of a bygone era alive since 1997. They were sued in 2012 over familiarity with Universal's BATTLESHIP movie. Despite flagrantly identical promotion, Asylum was simply required to change the title from AMERICAN BATTLESHIP to AMERICAN WARSHIPS... and all was well in the universe. One of their recent crap titles is IN THE NAME OF BEN-HUR!

Since LOCKOUT got cordoned off at the box office, few seemed to point out, or even notice, anything that screamed 'Snake Plissken' prior to this lawsuit that took two years to even come about.

Take this 2012 LOCKOUT review from Screen Rant for instance. Nowhere in it do they mention it's a clone of ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK. It seemed to have slipped past Roger Ebert's review as well. Nor did anyone seem to notice in this LA Times review from 2012, either. Now, some critics did cite comparisons to ESCAPE, but others either didn't see it, or didn't think it was overbearingly noticeable enough to mention. Ironically, the film has been referred to as "DIE HARD in space"; and the blurb on the bluray cover says, "DIE HARD meets BLADE RUNNER".... Plissken escaped being noted.

Since we're talking John McClane, how many movies have blatantly aped the DIE HARD schematic?

If there was one guy who could have sued it is George Miller. After MAD MAX (1979), and especially THE ROAD WARRIOR (1981), he not only made the apocalypse fashionable (lots of good guys wearing black before Plissken wore it), but monetarily attractive for a great many filmmakers. Gas might of been in short supply but there was no shortage of desert-set movies--both foreign and domestic--that glaringly cloned Miller's movies.

Which brings us to one of the most glaring (multi) rip-offs of them all... 

In 2008, Neil Marshall (THE DESCENT) made a B movie (okay, C movie) mishmash titled DOOMSDAY--about Kate Beckinsale lookalike, Rhona Mitra, as a one-eyed military gal on a mission to find the only scientist who can cure a devastating virus. Located somewhere inside a fortified prison wall around Scotland, the place is run by various gangs representing both the past and a Carpenteresque, dystopian future. With a time limit to find him (does this sound familiar yet?), she and her team run afoul of a cannibalistic gang led by Rob Halford with a Mohawk. The picture then goes to Medieval World for about 20 minutes before returning to ESCAPE again, and blatant ROAD WARRIOR territory for its conclusion.

Not only is the music eerily similar (with some cues sounding exactly like JC's ESCAPE score), Mitra's Major Sinclair has only one eye and occasionally wears an eyepatch! In addition to the familiar music cues, certain shots are virtually identical to ESCAPE and its sequel; as is the opening narration describing the "prison wall" surrounding Scotland. Marshall's movie even uses the same font for the opening credits! And no peep from John Carpenter. Like Kojima, Marshall must be a nice guy... at least nice to Carpenter.

Much like the approach taken with LOCKOUT, Marshall's movie is an amalgamation of assorted ideas from other pictures. The end result might be a love letter to Marshall's favorite movies, but is lacking considering what the director had done with DOG SOLDIERS and THE DESCENT (2004). The ESCAPE cloning is far more obvious than anything in LOCKOUT. It's the most brazen example of thematic pilfering since the glory days of Italian exploitation. And that's exactly what DOOMSDAY feels like... a glossier version of an Italian imitation.

ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK is one of John Carpenter's most innovative works--one that has been imitated to one degree or another over the years since its release. Some similar elements aside, LOCKOUT doesn't look or feel like a copy of that film. That Carpenter would go after Besson's production is petty. When one thinks about the bizarre, chaotic, and tragic social climate in France these days, the thought of such a suit being won isn't all that surprising. Still....

Considering there's dozens of movies that bear similarities to one another; and that the Italians built an entire industry around ripping off American movies; and that Carpenter himself has built his career around lifting from other sources, a new, alarming precedent has been set for artistic expression--albeit one that occurred in France--that could possibly prove worrisome for the future... especially the always impending, dystopian future prophesied by left-wing filmmakers.
  

Remakes: Redux, or Ridiculous -- Mothers, Mannequins & Maniacs

 

In December, 1980, William Lustig's controversial horror favorite, MANIAC, was unleashed onto an unsuspecting world. It caused a critical uproar and media frenzy in relation to the films unrelenting array of savage violence and misogyny. It's among a handful of rough and rowdy genre pictures whose reputation is warranted -- remaining a powerful work some 33 years after its initial release. 

Fast forward to 2011, French filmmaker Alexandre Aja produced (along with his frequent writer/producer collaborator, Gregory Levasseur) a remake of the infamous slasher/character study with a mostly French crew and Franck Khalfoun directing. Below are my thoughts in how the new picture compares to the original shocker, and also notations of some of the similarities and differences between the two films.

THE MOVIES

MANIAC (1980) is a brutal, uncompromising motion picture that dwells on its viciousness. When it's not depicting women being terrorized, strangled, stabbed and scalped, its story unfolds almost entirely from the perspective of the title psychopath. Technically not a slasher movie, the movie begins much like a typical stalk and slash picture, but quickly descends into the all-encompassing madness of its title character for the remainder of its 90 minutes. This dedication to unsettle and nauseate the audience works perfectly. The slummy tinge of the 80s NYC only enhances the raw ambiance. However, the oppressive mean-spiritedness may leave some viewers cold to its touch. And therein lies the power and divisiveness of Lustig's movie. Much of the original films power lies in its lead star, Joe Spinell.

This shot, a reflection of the killer, is an homage to the original films iconic poster artwork.

The MANIAC remake evokes a faithfulness to Lustig's original that is commendable, and, like Aja's own HILLS HAVE EYES (2006) remake, installs a handful of alterations (some bigger than others) that deviate from what has come before. Moreover, its glossiness fails to achieve any semblance of reality that was captured the first time around. While visually striking and beautifully photographed, it's no match for Joe Spinell's soul-shattering one-man-freakshow that permeates every frame of the 1980 movie; which leads us to this particular films meat and potatoes...

THE MANIACS

Freddy Krueger was nothing without Robert Englund and Frank Zito just doesn't feel right without the irrepressibly lovable Joe Spinell filling those psycho killer shoes. He is the heart of the picture, so it's difficult to imagine anybody else essaying this role other than Spinell. His character quirks and nuances are stamped all over the film. MANIAC is literally 90 minutes of cinematic Joe onscreen. He does a magnificent job becoming this epically deranged character. So finding the right actor to even come close to emulating Spinell's unstable performance is no easy task.



Unfortunately, the filmmakers went for a daring choice in casting Elijah Wood, of all people. Apparently, a lot of folks who've seen the new film feel Wood does a great job in the part; and he does, only I had difficulty feeling any sense of revulsion emanating from his portrayal of a wacko with a mother complex. Spinell's serial killer is ripped from the headlines. Wood is little more than a standard horror movie villain enhanced by an ambitious gimmick (discussed below).

There have been some very successful remakes such as THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2003) and DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004) and some duds like FRIDAY THE 13TH (2009) and NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010). So what makes a FRIDAY THE 13TH movie? It's Jason, but moreover it's the violence Jason brings to those horny teenagers. People go to see the kills and the remake didn't deliver any that stood out. So what makes a NIGHTMARE movie? It's the wicked personality, and nightmarish world of Freddy Krueger, and the limp remake didn't have those, either.



Frank Zito, as played by Joe Spinell, is what makes MANIAC (1980) an unsettling experience. Tom Savini's splattery gore effects stand out as appalling displays of latex craftsmanship; but without that frighteningly effective portrayal of Frank, the gore is all you got. And for all the glossy bells and whistles, and tip o' the hat from the remake, that's ultimately all it has, too.



Elijah Wood (Frodo in the LORD OF THE RINGS movies) plays Frank much differently in the remake. The mother complex remains, but his insecurities emerge when in the company of women (see above photo). He not only hates them, but he's terrified of them; all but Anna, at least. This is in direct contradiction with Spinell's interpretation of the character. He's very friendly and something of a ladies man on occasion, at least till his evil side surfaces. In regards to Anna, both Frank's want to kill her, but they're intrigued by her because of their shared interest in "keeping beauty alive forever."



In Lustig's movie, Frank was anything but indifferent towards the fairer sex. He was a charmer. He could mask that evil behind his smile. This is what made Spinell's Frank Zito real and frightening -- he could be your neighbor, or blend in with the crowd virtually unnoticed. Not so with Wood's depiction of Frank, who draws attention to himself, and stumbles around in broad daylight suffering from recurring headaches.

Khalfoun's movie integrates a unique innovation that, at least in my eyes, proves to be the films biggest detriment when compared with the original movie. It's shot almost entirely from a first person perspective. A lot of reviewers state that this approach made them feel compliant, or taking part in the murder scenes as if they were the killer. I never felt this way. I guess I couldn't get past the fact that Elijah Wood was nowhere near the ballpark where Joe Spinell was hitting home runs with his skin-crawling rendition of the composite killer he wrote for himself.

We rarely ever see Wood -- save for reflections in mirrors and objects; and moments when he's committing some of the kill scenes. We barely ever see Wood actually acting out the role of Frank. We hear him occasionally, but all the jittery mannerisms, odd bodily movements, groans, heavy breathing, and unnervingly teary delivery brought to life by Joe Spinell is totally lost here. 

Furthermore, Frank Zito's past isn't visualized via flashbacks in Lustig's picture. We get just enough information through Spinell's line delivery. On the remakes side of the coin, we are shown a series of flashbacks as opposed to envisioning his sickening upbringing in our minds. Ironically, we're denied Frank's pain exuded from the actors body language in the new film since we hardly ever see him.



For me, this was the portion of the movie I was partially intrigued and leery of prior to seeing it -- wondering just how Elijah Wood's interpretation was going to turn out. He didn't seem the right actor for it, and after seeing the film, I maintain that opinion. I recall the original films director, William Lustig suggested Tom Sizemore for the role, which was an interesting, and more logical choice. Still, it was an unusual, and brave gamble the filmmakers made in casting the title role. Most seem pleased with it; only in my opinion, it wasn't the right decision.

THE GORE & VIOLENCE




The original movie uses all practical effects. There was no choice, obviously. Tom Savini's juicy exploding heads, severed limbs, scalpings and other latex 'n blood magic still look good today. Despite the extreme nature of the gore, only the exploding head scene is lingered upon for any length of time. The camera stays on it till the last piece of brain matter and scraps of skull rest against the blood-stained car interior. There's also a fairly uncomfortable strangling that seems to go on forever. Suffocation is one of the numerous plot details imported from William Lustig's original movie.




The new film mixes practical gore with (occasionally) unconvincing computer generated violence. The scalpings are front and center here, and we see a few of them in graphic detail. The original only had one that was shown (see insert), but we never saw the entire skin and hair removal. The new film revels in them. However, some of the scalping effects are a bit cartoony; particularly the one at the beginning. Frank has barely cut into the girls forehead and her entire scalp comes loose like a wet band-aid. One of the later scalpings is far more grotesque, and that's because it appears to give Frank some trouble cutting it off.



Compared to other remakes that are as good as, or, dare I say, better than their originals, the 2012 MANIAC is, while very well made, an average remake. For me, this is based solely on what made the original movie so memorably reprehensible -- Joe Spinell's skin-crawling portrayal. Elijah Wood just doesn't do it for me. Below are a list of ten comparisons and alterations between the two movies -- a few of which were mentioned above.

1. The 80s MANIAC showcases a Frank Zito with a disturbing fascination with mannequins and bloody scalps of the women he kills. Not only does he use them as bizarre examples of art, he also sleeps with them. While we spend the entire film with Frank, we never see him at a job other than stalking and killing women. He later tells Anna (Caroline Munro) that he's a painter. We do see various paintings adorning his walls presumably done by him (see background of insert photo).

The MANIAC of 2012 inherits his family's business where he partakes in antique restoration with an accent towards repairing mannequins. Unlike the first movie, we actually see our killer at work performing duties that don't always involve butchering women. His usage of mannequins mirrors that of the 1980 movie.

2. The locale of MANIAC (1980) was NYC. The limited, but grimy settings added an element of societal decay that only reinforces the films raw brutality.

The new MANIAC (2012) takes place in Los Angeles. Aside from a couple street shots in and around a theater marquee, the locations are as glossy and clean as the film stock. This is a stark contrast to the squalidity seen in Lustig's movie.



3. The character of Anna (played by Caroline Munro in the original and Nora Arnezeder in the remake) is a photographer in both pictures. She's single in the 1980 movie and there are hints she's possibly attracted to Frank on a romantic level.

In the 2012 version, you're led to believe Anna's single, and possibly interested in Frank; he's definitely interested in her, but an abrupt revelation late in the film reveals she has a boyfriend already.

4. In the original movie, Frank's attraction to Anna stems from her photographic profession. His "profession", twisted as it is, involves capturing a woman's beauty by removing their scalps and attaching them to store mannequins. His works of art are completed by dressing them in the dead women's attire. As short-lived as their relationship is, Anna is the first woman he shows any level of moderate affection for. When he's around her, he's strikingly debonair in this respect -- the antithesis of his evil alter ego.

Frank meets Anna much sooner in the remake; at approximately 20 minutes in (as opposed to 50 minutes into the original). Frank's infatuation with her is also more profound in the new film. The new Frank is not the suave ladies man of Lustig's film. He never appears confident, and is overly nervous and rattled during close, intimate encounters with females.

5. Spinell's Frank relays to Anna that his mother was killed in an automobile accident when he was a young boy. Through some of Frank's monologues, we can speculate that he may have actually killed his mother at some point. We also see (and hear) that his mother was abusive to him both physically and mentally.



Wood's version of Frank explains to Anna that his mother passed away the previous summer. Unlike the first movie, we see a few flashbacks showing Frank's mother prostituting herself in front of him. The physical abuse aspect is vague, or absent altogether. So we're left with a child whose mother's sexual proclivities drove him to become unhinged.

6. Both films have great scores -- the original films soundtrack is a synth driven collection of haunting vocal orations and stinging chords that raise a goosebump or two. The new film is likewise synth driven, and while familiar, it's more melancholy than nerve-jangling. The music by the single named Rob in Khalfoun's movie is extraordinarily good.



7. Joe Spinell's MANIAC is a lumbering slob of a man. He talks to himself, talks to his mannequins, both loves and hates his mother. His body bears scars of an abused upbringing. He even has a couple of shrines to her in his room amidst a gallery of toys, dolls and other childhood paraphernalia. His mannerisms evoke a deeply disturbed individual. He looks scary, and even more so when he turns on his face of normalcy.

Elijah Wood's MANIAC is of slight build, short, and doesn't look threatening at all till he has a bladed implement in his hands. He's withdrawn, gets nervous around women, and also loves and hates his mother. Aside from his bloody mannequin collection, there's nothing else in his room that divulges a twisted connection to his early years. His bodily mannerisms are difficult to ascertain since we rarely ever see him other than hear his voice, or see his hands (which often look really dirty). This love/hate character trait is the only shared emotional quality between the two killers.




8. Both MANIAC's have a fondness for scalping their victims and nailing them to the heads of mannequins. The newer maniac adds some CGI flies swarming around the bloody scalps giving the impression that Frank's domicile might not smell very pleasant. Even so, he lives in the back of his workshop, yet nobody who enters (we only ever see Anna inside the shop) seems to smell anything unusual.




9. MANIAC (1980), outside of a couple brief snippets, unfolds entirely from the killers perspective. The camera rarely leaves his face. The viewer spends 90 minutes with Joe Spinell. We watch him have conversations with himself, to his "collection" -- vocalizing as if his mother is in the room with him. This startling performance is the films greatest strength.

MANIAC (2012) is likewise told from the killers perspective, but takes a novel approach by enabling the viewer to see everything the killer sees from his POV. Save for a handful of scenes, the entire movie unspools from a first person view. This device is an original approach for this sort of movie, but we're robbed of a visualized emotional rollercoaster from the lead actor; or as close to emulating the tour de force that was Joe Spinell. 



10. The original MANIAC concludes with Frank returning to his apartment after chasing, and attempting to kill Anna. Once there, he imagines himself being torn apart by his victims. He's discovered by two cops apparently dead from a self-inflicted stab wound.



The finale of the new MANIAC ends structurally the same way, but dramatically changes some key elements. The only alteration I'll mention is that the finale occurs during broad daylight versus the dark of night from the original.

THE LAST WORD

MANIAC (1980) may not be a mainstream horror favorite, but its notoriety is well deserved. Despite what you may think of it, or how the picture makes you feel viewing it, there's no denying the punch to the gut you receive from watching Joe Spinell masticate scene after scene of one of horrors most vile movies. The violence gets most, if not all the attention, but there's a bounty of expositional loot lying just under the surface.

The new version of MANIAC lacks the wallop of a Spinellian performance, but treats the material respectfully -- much like Aja's prior remake projects. Aside from two major deviations (the POV motif and a portion of the finale), and a few alterations here and there, this would never be mistaken as anything other than a remake of the 1980 movie. It takes some gambles that, in this viewers opinion, never totally pay off. It's a middle of the road remake, but succeeds in regards to production value, direction and a string of creatively gruesome scenes. The latter of which, is the one area where the successor surpasses its descendant. The 2012 interpretation is recommended on its fresh approach, even if this reviewer feels it's not entirely successful in its ambitions.