O vs. R #1: Prom Night

Prom Night (1980) vs. Prom Night (2008)

Original or the Remake? That is the question. I've mentioned before that there are many reasons to remake a movie and many reasons NOT to remake a movie. I've decided to have a series where I put the original up against it's remake. Remember that Tommy G scoring system that has disappeared? Well, it might make an appearance or two in these breakdowns.

To start off the "O vs. R", if you haven't noticed up top, I'm going to evaluate Prom Night.

The Story:

The Original (1980) directed by Paul Lynch: 5/10 points

Four preteen kids accidentally kill a fellow preteen girl during a game. They make a pact and swear not to talk about it or tell anyone and let police misjudge on what happened. Six years later, a mysterious person seeks revenge on them during prom night.

The Remake (2008) directed by Nelson McCormick: 4/10 points

A stalker high school teacher obsessed with one of his students kills her family and gets locked up. Years later he escapes just days before her senior prom and heads back to claim his prize.

Tommy Gun's Take:

A horror film that takes place on Prom Night. What a great idea! Hack up some sexually active high schoolers! I'm down with that. Where does these two rank with that idea? The original serve it well. The remake pissed me off. Prom Night taking place in a rich hotel? You're kidding right?

As far as taking ideas from the predecessor, the 08' version takes very little from it's original. In the original, the police believe that a sexual predator named Leonard was responsible for the little girl's death. Leonard gets locked up and thrown into a mental hospital only to escape right before prom.

This is basically the only idea the remake takes from the original. But in the remake, instead of being an "alleged" killer, it uses that character to be the killer of the film. Both have the police trying to find this character before the prom. In one film it's more predominant than it is in the other film. All good reason, since we KNOW in one film that he's the killer. All other story lines go different directions. Outside of taking place on Prom Night, these two films had nothing else in common.

If I could go back in time and tell the Hollywood exec.'s what would make this film more successful, I would say change the name. It really has nothing to do with the first film, outside of taking place on prom. With all the bitter hard-core horror fans pissed off at remakes anyways, it would have done the industry justice by having this film have a different title. It had nothing to do with the original. I know that you want room to wiggle when making remakes, but let's be honest, you could have slapped a different name on it and had it be more successful.

The Villain:

1980: 7/10 points

An unknown mysterious prank caller leaving messages for his victims in a scratchy deep voice. This person hides in the shadows, concealing his identity. Doesn't fully appear until it's time to do business. When the villain appears...it looks like he's ready to knock off a 7-11 in a robbery. Besides wearing a black ski mask, the killer is dressed in total black. Almost a complete black leotard outlining his junk and all.

He's not overly bearing, nor does he discriminate when it comes to weaponry. Uses an axe at times to "lop" off some heads, and also finds use of a big kitchen knife to do some dirty work.

2008: 2/10 points

The killer is an obsessed high school teacher. Yep. It could be your Biology or Algebra teacher. No tormented past, and no disfigurement. Just don't go in after class looking for extra credit assignments. It will probably end up landing you on the "detention list". Just an average looking mid-30's or 40's looking dude. Wow. Scary.

The film makes no effort hiding his character. Outside of always hiding in the closet, the audience knows who and where he is. He doesn't hide in the shadows, lurking and creating doubt in the audience's mind. Nope. Just another obsessive dude in a baseball cap. Not even good at that. If you're going to focus on a killer being obsessive, wouldn't you want to create some tendencies and back ground for him? Something simple like have him sniffin' panties. Not a chance. The film couldn't even give the audience something to fear. Might as well place subtitles on the screen saying, "This is a scary obsessive person...Scream...Be Afraid." Same effect.

The Cast:

1980: 5/10 points

Okay, the film pulled an 'Ace' out of the deck and scripted Jamie Lee Curtis for the lead role. She had just busted out on the big screen with horror film hits like Halloween and The Fog, so she's golden. Nothing could go wrong. Theoretically. For the lead character, she was pretty...unsympathetic. Her part wasn't written well; it didn't make good use of her abilities.

After blowing the budget on signing her, the rest of the cast were a bunch of no name no body's. With the exception of her father/principal...Leslie Nielsen. The comedic genius. Didn't even have a chance to show it. He was just another father-like dude.

2008: 5/10 points

So if you can't act, flaunt it. That's what the Team Motto was for this flick. The lead lady is the absolutely gorgeous Brittany Snow. She looks stunning in a prom dress and is...have I mentioned...freakin' hot! And that's all I can complement her on. Her character sucked. A girl who has been targeted by an obsessive high school teacher (don't blame him), had her family slaughtered pretty much before her eyes, then moves on to live with her aunt and uncle where she becomes a super-nerd extraordinaire with no emotional baggage. Also can stop screaming by just simply placing her hand over her mouth. Bravo!

The rest of the eye candy...mean cast is a bunch of hot women (Jessica Stroup, Dana Davis, Brianne Davis) who can't act either, but look fabulous in slutty dresses and makes my eyes and the rest of my body...kinda warm. The script makes them into brainless twits that have no clue in life and believe that prom is the most important thing in life.

SFX/Gore/Body Count:

1980: 10/10 points

Campy, cheesy 80's slasher movie. Bad effects, bloody kills and a descent body count. That's all I have to say about gore.

2008: 10/10 points

Honestly, how can a modern film suck in this category. Special effects alone are top notch now a days. The kills were done nicely, even though none of them were anything special. Typical high body counts due to "cannon fodder" of useless characters in the film. But as long as the bodies pile up, I can't complain.

Overall Grade:

1980: 73/100 points = C

A classic slasher film worth checking out.

2008: 62/100 points = D

A piece of crap worth avoiding.

Final Thoughts...and Prayers

They (Hollywood) tried fooling us with another slap it-package it-and-roll with it film, but not me. The "remake" sucked. I'm sorry, but it had very little to do with the original, outside of taking place on prom night. Even then it felt more like: "Rich Hotel Killer" than it did Prom Night. They slapped a PG-13 label on it to attract younger, dumber audiences. How? Why? Horror films are meant to be rated one way. R. Or NC-17. Not P.iece of G.arbage-13 yr olds give us money.

The original film is much better to watch. The remake gave us a more polished looking film on screen with a lot of hot "eye candy". I expect that though. The production looks of the remakes are far superior to the originals. And they should be. Modern technology is far above and beyond of the films made 15 years or more ago. There are some cases where a few of the originals actually look awesome when we can tell it was done on a dollar budget.

Our modern philosophy of girls wearing less, eating less, and pushing up the twins is probably the number one reason to remake. Most of the early slasher films, the chicks are big haired, heavily clothed thirty year olds portraying teenagers. That's a great reason to remake! But for cryin' out loud, give them a script to work with!

In this case, the special effects and gore is actually better in the original. It might have something to do with the R vs. PG-13 thing, but I didn't think the kills in the remake were all that creative. Or realistic. Come on', one stab to the chest isn't going to instantly kill someone. Nor will it only give three drops of blood.

The original movie in this case is far superior. Should they have remade this? Based on the one they gave us...NO! Could they have done a better job? YES!

Favorite to Watch: The Original
Better Movie: The Original

Bottom Line:
Original is better!