Halloween Horrors: Rating the Horror Remakes

Reruns, kids, reruns of my annual horror movie guides, which have grown voluminous over the years. I even had a Blast from the Past featuring many of the movie trailers for these remakes (and their originals). You see can that here (hopefully, most are still live). And if you're interested in watching any of the full movies on Halloween night, read on. . .

ORIGINAL POST:

I've finally over the last year or so, gotten to viewing a slew of the new remakes and reboots of classic horror films.  There have been quite a few, and some are better (or worse) than others. Here's a handy guide for you, to help you out with your holiday video viewing.  (*Star ratings are for within-the-genre only)

Greenlee Gazette Modern Horror Remakes Guide

The Thing (2011) - This one is almost brand new, having only been around for a couple of weeks. Apparently it isn't tearing up the box office records, but then neither did the 1982 installment. If you liked the original, I can't see why you wouldn't like this one. There is no big Kurt Russell-type star. But it's basically the 1982 version, spruced up, and with improved effects. It has genuine suspense, and in some ways is more satisfying than the original one was. And if you hate the cold? You'll have a little more to shiver about. The 2011 Thing is more gooey, and more gross, so of course I recommend this one. Be sure to watch through the end credits. Something happens there that could potentially make this one inappropriate for this list. But whatever. ***

Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007) - If there was ever a horror series that needed a change, it was Halloween. Though the original is an all-time classic, and there are a few enjoyable sequels sprinkled in there, the last three sequels run the gamut from bad to worse.  But Zombie's reboot of the franchise isn't promising. The movie itself is fine, and if it had no legend to live up to might be rated higher.  It is tied to the previous series--interestingly enough--by having the star of parts 4 and 5 as one of the actors.  But you won't be scared by this one, and anything promising for a new series is trashed by the immediate Halloween II remake, which is bizarre and confusing, trying too hard to shoehorn in supernatural elements.  You could certainly do worse, but you can do so much better by renting or buying the original.  **  (Sequel: No *)

Friday the 13th (2009) - This reboot had no real legend to live up to.  The Friday the 13th series is an interesting mixture of nostalgia and "so bad, it's good" in the pantheon of horror, and literally couldn't be wrecked.  Also, Jason Voorhees' character and back-story were already muddled, and continuity between editions was so loose, re-starting the story is no big deal.  You might call it more of a ret-con than a reboot. Anyway, this is by far the highest quality, best produced edition of the series.  You've never seen such clarity and crispness in a Friday film, which were usually muddy and dark.  Acting is better than the original series, and the effects are fun.  This is really a remake of Part 2 of the original series, which was one of the better ones, and it's really not bad.  They fleshed out Voorhees' background, adding in a couple of odd elements, neither improving or detracting much from what we know. It has a few surprises, and a couple of jolts. But scary? Not so much.  More fun than later Friday sequels (except for maybe Freddy vs. Jason). Amazingly, this film still doesn't explain why Jason's mother thought he was dead, how he survived, or why he was there to witness his mother's death!  Any future sequel would play like an extension of the first series, rendering the reboot kind of moot.  ***

Image from Wikipedia

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) - This one had me the most worried, going in.  The original Nightmare is an undisputed classic. Sure it was low-budget, had some problematic acting, and is hopelessly mired in the 80s. But it was so original, mixing the dream world with reality, relatable nightmares and a terrifying villain in Freddy Krueger. Later sequels kind of neutered Freddy though, so a reboot, Wes Craven's New Nightmare was made several years ago.  New Nightmare was not a success, even though it was critically praised, so this remake came to be, recasting and rebooting the entire franchise.  It's a mixed success. There's a new guy playing Freddy, and while he did a fine job, Robert Englund is a tough act to follow.

This isn't like the other horror franchises, with masked killers.  Englund was Freddy. That's the toughest aspect to get around.  I was surprised that they didn't focus on Nancy's house much at all, which was such an iconic aspect of most of the original series.  Also, Freddy is made more creepy and disgusting than scary.  He was always a "child killer" but the implications of that were obscured before. Here, he's very definitely a pedophile and killer, which makes you more queasy than terrified.  All in all, a decent remake, but the original is still better. **

The Hills Have Eyes - You couldn't really damage the original in this Wes Craven flick.  Hills falls into the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Wrong Turn sub-genre of films, with ordinary people finding themselves in desolate places ruled by murderous, cannibalistic mutants/hillbillies/inbreds.  It's nasty, it's bloody, and you will want to cover your eyes in parts.  If you like it messy and nasty, this belongs on your rental list. The sequel falls right in line, playing like an extension of the first. Not Shakespeare, but what horror is?  *** (Sequel **1/2)

April Fool's Day (2008) - The original is a personal favorite, though not very well known. By the same people as the Friday the 13th series, April Fool's Day was a novel twist, with better acting, humor and an interesting premise of a "murder mystery weekend" going horribly wrong (or did it?).  The "remake" is really in name only. There's some decent gore, and even the acting isn't too bad. But it's a terrible movie. No stars.

Image from Wikipedia

The Last House on the Left (2009) - Another remake of a Wes Craven film, and this one is better than the original.  The old one was gritty and dirty, and disturbing, feeling almost like 70s porn.  This one is more standard-issue modern horror, but more disturbing than your typical slice & dice.  The acting is terrific, with Tony Goldwyn (Ghost) and Garrett Dillahunt almost unrecognizable as the bad guy, Krug (apparently based on the same bully of Craven as Freddy Krueger).  The film--though it does have a few typical "oh, they wouldn't do that" horror movie moments--is quite engaging and suspenseful, and is only marred by an ending that seems kind of out of left field.  It's satisfying, gory and nasty, but not entirely believable. Overall though, the best of this list. ****

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) - Unlike the other remakes in this list, I've never seen the original Tobe Hooper film.  I've caught a handful of the sequels though, and this one is better than any of those.  Some decisions by main characters are completely unbelievable, but that's a critique of most horror films, so it goes with the territory. This one plays like a better-produced installment of the never-ending original franchise.  **

There are others, of course.  George Romero's Dead series of zombie films has the unique distinction of having different folks produce remakes of each of the original three movies, and even sequels to them.  There's Prom Night, Psycho, Children of the Corn. . .but a good rule of thumb is this: get the original.  It's almost always better.

Blast from the Past: Remade in the 80s (and 90s)

I have a friend who first heard the song Ticket to Ride as The Carpenters' version, and to him it's the "real" version of the song. The Beatles' original version is to him the lesser of the two. That's crazy, I know, but it really does seem to be the one you heard first that sticks and feels "real" to you. As a consequence, lots of people alive in the 1980s are far more familiar with remakes made of earlier songs, and think it is the 80s cheese that reigns supreme.

1. & 2. You Keep Me Hangin' On - Kim Wilde vs. Diana Ross & The Supremes
 

3. & 4. Venus - Bananarama vs. Shocking Blue
 

5. & 6. Hazy Shade of Winter - The Bangles vs. Simon & Garfunkel
 

7. & 8. Lean on Me - Club Nouveau vs. Bill Withers
 

9. & 10. Take a Chance on Me - Erasure vs. ABBA
 

I really saved the best for last there, didn't I? I could watch those two over and over!

Happy Monday, everybody.

Blast from the Past: Battle of the Horror Movie Remakes!

Just about every successful horror movie begets sequels, imitators and if enough time goes by, remakes. This isn't unusual, really. It's been going on since the original monster movies were sequelized, teamed up, reimagined and copied. These days, a horror "reboot" is considered a big event among horror fans. More often than not, the remake displeases the hardcore fans, while gaining a few new ones. By the time they remake the remakes of these movies, fans of the current remake will be displeased too! Anyway, here they are, the trailers for the original "classic," and its (somewhat) modern day counterpart.

Friday the 13th, 1980 & 2009



Halloween, 1978 & 2007



A Nightmare on Elm Streeet, 1984 & 2010

The Last House on the Left, 1972 & 2009

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, 1974 & 2003



The Thing, 1978 & 2011

My Bloody Valentine, 1981 & 2010

And that's probably as many as I can post without choking everyone's web browser. Other famous examples include Psycho, I Spit on Your Grave, The Amityville Horror, The Fly (which is old enough for yet another reboot), Dawn of the Dead (along with most of the Dead series), The Crazies, Piranha, Prom Night, April Fool's Day, The Omen, The Fog, The Hills Have Eyes, The Hitcher and many, many others. In all cases, the original is worth viewing. And in most cases--excepting April Fool's Day, The Fog, Halloween II, Prom Night and The Fog--the remake is worth a view too. Your mileage may vary, but avoid the ones I just listed, just. . .trust me.

Happy Monday and Happy Halloween!!!

Blast from the Past: Remade in the 80s

I have a friend who first heard the song Ticket to Ride as The Carpenters' version, and to him it's the "real" version of the song. The Beatles' original version is to him the lesser of the two. That's crazy, I know, but it really does seem to be the one you heard first that sticks and feels "real" to you. As a consequence, lots of people alive in the 1980s are far more familiar with remakes made of earlier songs, and think it is the 80s cheese that reigns supreme.

1. & 2. You Keep Me Hangin' On - Kim Wilde vs. Diana Ross & The Supremes
 

3. & 4. Venus - Bananarama vs. Shocking Blue
 

5. & 6. Hazy Shade of Winter - The Bangles vs. Simon & Garfunkel
 

7. & 8. Lean on Me - Club Nouveau vs. Bill Withers
 

9. & 10. Take a Chance on Me - Erasure vs. ABBA
 

I really saved the best for last there, didn't I? I could watch those two over and over!

Happy Monday, everybody.

Star Trek Into Darkness, a Mini Movie Review

Image from Wikipedia

On Friday, we did a rare thing. The Other Half and I not only went to a movie theater, we kept a prearranged "date" with a couple of friends to do so. This almost never happens. Particularly the cinema thing. As much as I love superhero, horror and sci-fi movies, I seem to always procrastinate until the Blu-ray comes out. I mean, even the entire phase one of Marvel Comics' massive movie blitz were all seen on our DLP TV, rather than at the movies. The "always wins" exception to that is any version of Superman, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th (yes, really) and Star Trek.

I've labeled this as a "mini" review for a reason. I've just read the Zaki's Corner review of Star Trek Into Darkness, and his writing simply puts mine to shame. Though I disagree with his C+ grade, I can't deny that he's the superior blogger. So, as Bart Simpson says, "can't win, don't even try." So, I'll just give you a little more surfacy review, and give you Zaki's link at the end.

I'll start with an observation that the commercials and other miscellany that precedes a film these days are a crashing bore. I still love the movie previews, but I'm astonished that the theater chains actually brand these "pre-shows," and act as if they've done you a favor by making you sit through them. But once the Paramount logo whooshes on the screen, and the surprisingly already familiar Star Trek (2009) theme played, I felt a little sense of glee. Also a sense of why did we have to wait FOUR YEARS for a sequel? But I digress.

Into Darkness stars with a pre-credits sequence that puts you right into the action. It's removed from the main storyline, but sets it up well. Chris Pine really evokes William Shatner to me (though maybe not as much as Zachary Quinto's Spock captures Leonard Nimoy), and his ice blue eyes really pop on that big screen. We didn't go to the 3D version, partly due to cost, and partly due to the fact that I have great difficulty seeing 3D movies. But this movie is stunning, even in 2D. We saw it on a digital DLP screen, which maybe helps.

They certainly look the part. Image from USAToday.

I can't get into the storyline much without spoilers. Suffice it to say that there is more than one villain, and their motives are a matter of perspective. If you're a longtime Star Trek fan, you'll pick up on some clues early on, and you may deduce who the main villain "really" is. There are several allusions to past Treks, one in particular. Whether these nods tickle you--or irritate you--will depend upon how meta you like your pop culture. I appreciated it to a point, and then I actually said to my self, "No. Don't say it." And then the character did. Ugh.

But I found that to be one of the only moments I didn't like. The movie is relentless in its pacing, actually making me feel a bit exhausted. In a good way. I remember years ago, the first time I saw Rutger Hauer's The Hitcher. That movie wore me the hell out, and Into Darkness did that, but with a whole lot more whiz-bang. One thing I liked about this movie was its scale. Everything is big. The starship bays. The engineering section of the ship. The cityscape of San Francisco in the 23rd century, which features in a smashing ending. Where Star Trek: The Original Series could feel claustrophobic, and even its planet-scapes felt small, this movie just feels big.

There are several plot complications, and our heroes are in lethal situations many, many times. There are perhaps a few too many familiar tropes they could have left out (especially the trite "dangling by one hand" near-death experience). And though our heroes ultimately prevail--as you knew they would--this Trek has an unusually high body count. Then again, in the previous film, the entire planet of Vulcan was wiped out, so maybe not.

The ending of this film is interesting. I don't think I'm spoiling much to say that at the end, it feels like the crew of the Enterprise is about to actually start their careers, as though it ends at the beginning of a hypothetical new Star Trek series. But, at two movies in to the new adventures, it actually feels kind of weird. Particularly since that's kind of where the previous film left us. So, if you're like Zaki, and found this to be a middling installment, you can actually ignore it, and go into Star Trek III (actually XIII) as though it followed the 2009 film!

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a spoiler alert or not. . .

Some people lament the J.J. Abrams era of Star Trek, decrying its action and flash (and lens flares!) at the expense of character development, and Roddenberry-esque themes. I don't. I still have my hundreds of hours of classic Trek. They didn't go anywhere. I find these new films to be a great addition to what came before, and they've surely breathed new life into a moribund franchise. Now, can they bring us another one before Quinto and Pine are in their forties?

My review: Highly Recommended (B+)

And here is Zaki's Corner's Review

Halloween Horrors: Rating the Horror Remakes

If this post seems familiar, it's because I ran it last year, and just this weekend ran a Blast from the Past featuring many of the movie trailers for these remakes (and their originals). You see can that here. And if you're interested in watching any of these on Halloween night, read on. . .

ORIGINAL POST:

I've finally over the last year or so, gotten to viewing a slew of the new remakes and reboots of classic horror films.  There have been quite a few, and some are better (or worse) than others. Here's a handy guide for you, to help you out with your holiday video viewing.  (*Star ratings are for within-the-genre only)

Greenlee Gazette Modern Horror Remakes Guide

The Thing (2011) - This one is almost brand new, having only been around for a couple of weeks. Apparently it isn't tearing up the box office records, but then neither did the 1982 installment. If you liked the original, I can't see why you wouldn't like this one. There is no big Kurt Russell-type star. But it's basically the 1982 version, spruced up, and with improved effects. It has genuine suspense, and in some ways is more satisfying than the original one was. And if you hate the cold? You'll have a little more to shiver about. The 2011 Thing is more gooey, and more gross, so of course I recommend this one. Be sure to watch through the end credits. Something happens there that could potentially make this one inappropriate for this list. But whatever. ***

Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007) - If there was ever a horror series that needed a change, it was Halloween. Though the original is an all-time classic, and there are a few enjoyable sequels sprinkled in there, the last three sequels run the gamut from bad to worse.  But Zombie's reboot of the franchise isn't promising. The movie itself is fine, and if it had no legend to live up to might be be rated higher.  It is tied to the previous series--interestingly enough--by having the star of parts 4 and 5 as one of the actors.  But you won't be scared by this one, and anything promising for a new series is trashed by the immediate Halloween II remake, which is bizarre and confusing, trying too hard to shoehorn in supernatural elements.  You could certainly do worse, but you can do so much better by renting or buying the original.  **  (Sequel: No *)

Friday the 13th (2009) - This reboot had no real legend to live up to.  The Friday the 13th series is an interesting mixture of nostalgia and "so bad, it's good" in the pantheon of horror, and literally couldn't be wrecked.  Also, Jason Voorhees' character and back-story were already muddled, and continuity between editions was so loose, re-starting the story is no big deal.  You might call it more of a ret-con than a reboot. Anyway, this is by far the highest quality, best produced edition of the series.  You've never seen such clarity and crispness in a Friday film, which were usually muddy and dark.  Acting is better than the original series, and the effects are fun.  This is really a remake of Part 2 of the original, which was one of the better original sequels, and it's not bad.  They fleshed out Voorhees' background, adding in a couple of odd elements, neither improving or detracting much from what we know. It has a few surprises, and a couple of jolts. But scary? Not so much.  More fun than later Friday sequels (except for maybe Freddy vs. Jason). Amazingly, this film still doesn't explain why Jason's mother thought he was dead, how he survived, or why he was there to witness his mother's death!  Any future sequel would play like an extension of the first series, rendering the reboot kind of moot.  ***

Image from Wikipedia

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) - This one had me the most worried, going in.  The original Nightmare is an undisputed classic. Sure it was low-budget, had some problematic acting, and is hopelessly mired in the 80s. But it was so original, mixing the dream world with reality, relateable nightmares and a terrifying villain in Freddy Krueger. Later sequels kind of neutered Freddy though, so a reboot, Wes Craven's New Nightmare was made several years ago.  New was not a success, even though it was critically praised, so this remake came to be, recasting and rebooting the entire franchise.  It's a mixed success. There's a new guy playing Freddy, and while he did a fine job, Robert Englund is a tough act to follow.

This isn't like the other horror franchises, with masked killers.  Englund is Freddy. That's the toughest aspect to get around.  I was surprised that they didn't focus on Nancy's house much at all, which was an iconic aspect of most of the original series.  Also, Freddy is made more creepy and disgusting than scary.  He was always a "child killer" but the implications of that were obscured before. Here, he's very definitely a pedophile and killer, which makes you more queasy than terrified.  All in all, a decent remake, but the original is still better. **

The Hills Have Eyes - You couldn't really damage the original in this Wes Craven flick.  Hills falls into the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Wrong Turn sub-genre of films, with ordinary people finding themselves in desolate places ruled by murderous, cannibalistic mutants/hillbillies/inbreds.  It's nasty, it's bloody, and you will want to cover your eyes in parts.  If you like it messy and nasty, this belongs on your rental list. The sequel falls right in line, playing like an extension of the first. Not Shakespeare, but what horror is?  *** (Sequel **1/2)

April Fool's Day (2008) - The original is a personal favorite, though not very well known. By the same people as the Friday the 13th series, April Fool's Day was a novel twist, with better acting, humor and an interesting premise of a "murder mystery weekend" going horribly wrong (or did it?).  The "remake" is really in name only. There's some decent gore, and even the acting isn't too bad. But it's a terrible movie. No stars.

Image from Wikipedia

The Last House on the Left (2009) - Another remake of a Wes Craven film, and this one is better than the original.  The old one was gritty and dirty, and disturbing, feeling almost like 70s porn.  This one is more standard-issue modern horror, but more disturbing than your typical slice & dice.  The acting is terrific, with Tony Goldwyn (Ghost) and Garrett Dillahunt almost unrecognizable as the bad guy, Krug (apparently based on the same bully of Craven as Freddy Krueger).  The film--though it does have a few typical "oh, they wouldn't do that" horror movie moments--is quite engaging and suspenseful, and is only marred by an ending that seems kind of out of left field.  It's satisfying, gory and nasty, but not entirely believable. Overall though, the best of this list. ****

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) - Unlike the other remakes in this list, I've never seen the original Tobe Hooper film.  I've caught a handful of the sequels though, and this one is better than any of those.  Some decisions by main characters are completely unbelievable, but that's a critique of most horror films, so it goes with the territory. This one plays like a better-produced installment of the never-ending original franchise.  **

There are others, of course.  George Romero's Dead series of zombie films has the unique distinction of having different folks produce remakes of each of the original three movies, and even sequels to them.  There's Prom Night, Psycho, Children of the Corn. . .but a good rule of thumb is this: get the original.  It's almost always better.

Blast from the Past: Battle of the Horror Movie Remakes!

Just about every successful horror movie begets sequels, imitators and if enough time goes by, remakes. This isn't unusual, really. It's been going on since the original monster movies were sequelized, teamed up, reimagined and copied. These days, a horror "reboot" is considered a big event among horror fans. More often than not, the remake displeases the hardcore fans, while gaining a few new ones. By the time they remake the remakes of these movies, fans of the current remake will be displeased too! Anyway, here they are, the trailers for the original "classic," and its (somewhat) modern day counterpart.

Friday the 13th, 1980 & 2009



Halloween, 1978 & 2007



A Nightmare on Elm Streeet, 1984 & 2010

The Last House on the Left, 1972 & 2009

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, 1974 & 2003



The Thing, 1978 & 2011

My Bloody Valentine, 1981 & 2010

And that's probably as many as I can post without choking everyone's web browser. Other famous examples include Psycho, I Spit on Your Grave, The Amityville Horror, The Fly (which is old enough for yet another reboot), Dawn of the Dead (along with most of the Dead series), The Crazies, Piranha, Prom Night, April Fool's Day, The Omen, The Fog, The Hills Have Eyes, The Hitcher and many, many others. In all cases, the original is worth viewing. And in most cases--excepting April Fool's Day, The Fog, Halloween II, Prom Night and The Fog--the remake is worth a view too. Your mileage may vary, but avoid the ones I just listed, just. . .trust me.

Happy Monday and Happy Halloween!!!

Greenlee Gazette's Guide to Friday the 13th

It's Friday the 13th, y'all! You know the drill!

Happy Friday the 13th everybody! If you've read this blog even a little bit, you know that I'm a cheesy horror movie fan. And there is no cheesier series of horror films than the Friday the 13th series. From the beginning, it was a rip-off (but the first one!) of Halloween. But you could safely say that Halloween as a franchise was born due to the success of Friday the 13th. The following blog post was written for my annual Halloween scary movie retrospectives. But every time there is a Friday the 13th on the calendar, these movies come back into vogue. Better get it in now, this is the last one of the year!

Original post from October 2011.

Photo from Wikipedia.org

Unlike the original Halloween, I'm not sure anyone would put Friday the 13th in the "classic" category. At least not good classics. The series is loved with a heavy dose of nostalgia, and not a lot else.

Sure, it's iconic, was amazingly influential, and made a whole lot of money for both Paramount and New Line studios. But the Friday the 13th string of movies was easily the hollowest, least plotted, acted and impactful storywise of the horror movie franchises (Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Hellraiser). Each Friday film pretty much follows a mindless killer, stalking stupid people.

There were variations along the way. And if you try to assign a real-world continuity to the films, you'll give yourself a headache that feels like a machete in your skull. Here are some short recaps (star ratings do not relate to the real movie world, only within the horror movie genre!):

Friday the 13th - The first film is by far the best. Jason does not appear (outside of a possible hallucination), but his storyline is set up. Notable for Betsy Palmer's iconic performance as Jason's mother. Sets the tone and atmosphere for the first four to seven movies. Genuinely scary for the uninitiated. Plus, Kevin Bacon. ***

Friday the 13th, Part 2 -Almost as good as the first, though very short (especially considering the recap at the beginning). Notable for Amy Steel's strong performance, the VW bug scene, and the guy in the wheelchair. Struggles to find a reason why Jason didn't drown, and why he was motivated to start his killing spree. Though the explanation is weak, it is used as the basis for the rest of the series. **

Friday the 13th, Part 3 - This (originally) 3D installment is one of the weakest, with very little story, and shots that were intended for the 3D audience. Most notable for hand-walking guy's death, and Jason's acquisition of his iconic hockey mask.  I initially thought this installment was terrible, but it's better in retrospect. *

Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter - Yeah, right! It's the best of sequels, and could have served as the finale, but there was more money to be made. Jason ventures out of Camp Crystal Lake, and seems to meet his end. Considering that this was 1984, I'm sure you know that it wasn't to be. Plus, Corey Feldman and Crispin Glover? ***

Friday the 13th (Part V): A New Beginning - Close to as good as part 4, reviled by fans for its plot twist, but very much in line with the tone of the first four movies. And Corey Feldman only wishes he grew up to look like John Shepherd!  Woof. **

Friday the 13th, Part VI: Jason Lives - Yeah, I guess he lives. Often considered one of the best sequels, it left me cold. It felt like a different studio picked up the reigns. This edition has a vastly different tone from the first five films, and the gory kills just aren't there.  But I guess the MPAA is to blame for that. *

Friday the 13th, Part VII: The New Blood - They throw a psychic girl into the mix, and tack on a ridiculous ending, which puts Jason into the same scenario as the end of the last movie--making this one irrelevant. On the plus side the tone of the first five movies is back. And for you gay fans out there, this one is known as FriGAY the 13th for the high number of gay actors in the movie. *

Friday the 13th, Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan - The tone is still there, as Jason stows away on a cruise ship bound for New York. Most of the action is on the boat, and there are some great scenes. But it feels like the series is running on fumes. And that ending. What the hell? *1/2

Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday - Speaking of Hell, New Line Cinema took over the franchise from Paramount here, and it is very, very obvious this was made by others. Some of the feel is still there, and the film is undeniably fun. Adds a bunch of new story elements that wreck any (already strained) continuity from the first 8 films. Also ignores the end of Part VIII. Fun anyway. And it sets up the movie after the next one.**1/2

Jason X - Tenth installment puts Jason in space, with no context to the rest of the storyline. Continuity-wise has no home, and is akin to a comic book "elseworlds" or "imaginary story." Has its fun parts, but utterly skippable. But the cryogenic scene? Priceless. *1/2

Freddy Vs. Jason - I loved it. They took the monster from the best horror franchise (though it had run out of steam) and the worst (but still loved), and pitted them against each other. Truly, one of the best outings for this type of movie in a long, long time. That said, not the least bit scary. Plays like gory comedy. ***

Friday the 13th (Remake) - I was right that they couldn't really mess up the remake. It's a hoot. The twist--apparently--is that most of the characters you kinda want to see dead. And Jason is given a much heftier back-story. Unfortunately, they still don't explain what happened that made Mrs. Voorhees think he died when he didn't. Still, I'd put this in the top three with the first two installments. I don't know if there will be a part 2 (actually XIII), but I'm game. ***

Portia De Rossi to be New Lily Munster

Portia and Yvonne, from D-Listed

When it comes to my nostalgia TV, I'm a Bewitched over Jeannie guy. I'm a Star Trek over Lost in Space guy. I'm a Brady Bunch over Partridge Family guy.  I'm a Mary Ann over Ginger guy (oh, who am I kidding, I liked the Professor!). And when it comes to the macabre monster-themed shows, I always liked The Addams Family over The Munsters. Personal preference.

But The Munsters had a lot going for it, not the least of which was the casting. Yvonne De Carlo and Fred Gwynne as Lily and Herman. And if The Munsters has to be re-done again (as all of the above have been, again and again), they could do a helluva lot worse than Jerry O'Connell (sure to be the hottest Frankenstein's monster since Andy Worhol's) and Portia De Rossi. And look she's even got that "De" in the middle there, even if she uses "DeGeneres!" After adoring Portia in both Arrested Development and Better Off Ted, I'm actually looking forward to it!

[Excerpt]

Portia De Rossi Is The New Lily Munster

. . . Deadline says that Portia got the role after ABC Studios refused to let Lorena from True Blood out of her contract with that Devious Maids mess, which might be headed for Lifetime. Yeah, so Lorena from True Blood is totally farting in somebody's coffee mug today. Portia will put on a luscious skunk wig to play Lily alongside Jerry O'Connell as Herman, Eddie Izzard as Grandpa Munster, Charity Wakefield as Marilyn and Mason Cook as Eddie. . .

Read more (at the very snarky): D-Listed

Come On! Arrested Development News

Image from source, HuffPo

I watched Arrested Development back when it was on FOX originally. But I think I kind of lost track of it before it was prematurely cancelled. I was thankful when Netflix added all three seasons, so that I could marathon them. It turned out I'd seen a lot of them. . .maybe most of them. But full immersion was far better than my standard half-hearted divided TV attention. AD is nothing short of brilliant. Its cancellation was thus a crime, and inevitable. But fortunately for fans, it wasn't the end.


[Excerpt]

Mitch Hurwitz Talks Arrested Development 2.0


Doubters to the left: The Arrested Development reunion took another step toward reality on Tuesday when creator Mitch Hurwitz and several members of the cast appeared onstage together at a Netflix-sponsored event in Las Vegas. Speaking on the floor of the National Association of Broadcasters convention, Netflix chief Ted Sarandos confirmed that all ten episodes of Arrested's long-awaited fourth season will premiere together on a single day sometime next year. Hurwitz also confirmed that production is set to begin this summer, but he also dropped a new nugget of information about what form the Arrested revival will take. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Mini Movie Review: Fright Night (2011)

Okay, so one of the things I wanted to do with my vast (now, nearly depleted) Christmas vacation, was to catch up on some movies. I don't get out to the moving pictures much, unless my friend Stupid Monkey Planet entices me out for a brew and a view.  So, one of the 2011 movies I missed was the remake of the classic 80s horror/comedy flick, Fright Night. The original is treasured by folks of my vintage (seventies/eighties pop culture fiends), but it is not--by any stretch--award winning cinema.

Image from Wikipedia

The original Fright Night starred a pre-Herman's Head William Ragsdale, a pre-Married. . .with Children's Amanda Bearse, a pre-gay porn Stephen Geoffreys and a post-Susan Sarandon Chris Sarandon. It was as much humor as horror, and is a pastiche of the 80s. I loved it then, I loved it later, and I. . .kind of. . .like it now. It is simply a product of its era. So, quite rightly, a remake should be of its current era.

Whether it is or not is a question for a future time, and for a student of the twenty-pre-teens. As it is, I quite liked it. Anton Yelchin (2011's Star Trek's Chekov) stars in the Ragsdale role of Charley Brewster. As in the original, Brewster is the unfortunate neighbor of new home owner Jerry Dandridge (Colin Farrell), a vampire. As in the original, Brewster comes to realize Dandridge's real nature with the assistance of his nerdy friend Evil Ed. And Evil Ed gets to live up to his name this time too.

Chris Sarandon, the original sexy vampire.

The new version amps up the effects (the original's were effective the first time, but don't hold up well upon repeated viewings), and has the advantage of almost thirty years in technology. Farrell is at least as sexy as Sarandon (who appears in a cameo), but lacks the subtlety of the original. The change in venue to Las Vegas makes sense, but will not fool a near-native like me. And there is something about modern movie making that simply surpasses the art of the 1980s. But the charm of the original is lacking.

I liked 2011's Fright Night. It even made me jump at least once, matching the original. But will it rate in my lifetime top 100, to be viewed over and over as I age into oblivion? Probably not.

My rating: *** (on a scale from crap to *****, genre always kept firmly in mind)

Halloween Horrors: Rating the Horror Remakes

I've finally over the last year or so, gotten to viewing a slew of the new remakes and reboots of classic horror films.  There have been quite a few, and some are better (or worse) than others. Here's a handy guide for you, to help you out with your holiday video viewing.  (*Star ratings are for within-the-genre only)

Greenlee Gazette Modern Horror Remakes Guide

The Thing (2011) - This one is almost brand new, having only been around for a couple of weeks. Apparently it isn't tearing up the box office records, but then neither did the 1982 installment. If you liked the original, I can't see why you wouldn't like this one. There is no big Kurt Russell-type star. But it's basically the 1982 version, spruced up, and with improved effects. It has genuine suspense, and in some ways is more satisfying than the original one was. And if you hate the cold? You'll have a little more to shiver about. The 2011 Thing is more gooey, and more gross, so of course I recommend this one. Be sure to watch through the end credits. Something happens there that could potentially make this one inappropriate for this list. But whatever. ***

Image from Wikipedia

Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007) - If there was ever a horror series that needed a change, it was Halloween. Though the original is an all-time classic, and there are a few enjoyable sequels sprinkled in there, the last three sequels run the gamut from bad to worse.  But Zombie's reboot of the franchise isn't promising. The movie itself is fine, and if it had no legend to live up to might be be rated higher.  It is tied to the previous series--interestingly enough--by having the star of parts 4 and 5 as one of the actors.  But you won't be scared by this one, and anything promising for a new series is trashed by the immediate Halloween II remake, which is bizarre and confusing, trying too hard to shoehorn in supernatural elements.  You could certainly do worse, but you can do so much better by renting or buying the original.  **  (Sequel: No *)

Friday the 13th (2009) - This reboot had no real legend to live up to.  The Friday the 13th series is an interesting mixture of nostalgia and "so bad, it's good" in the pantheon of horror, and literally couldn't be wrecked.  Also, Jason Voorhees' character and back-story were already muddled, and continuity between editions was so loose, re-starting the story is no big deal.  You might call it more of a ret-con than a reboot. Anyway, this is by far the highest quality, best produced edition of the series.  You've never seen such clarity and crispness in a Friday film, which were usually muddy and dark.  Acting is better than the original series, and the effects are fun.  This is really a remake of Part 2 of the original, which was one of the better original sequels, and it's not bad.  They fleshed out Voorhees' background, adding in a couple of odd elements, neither improving or detracting much from what we know. It has a few surprises, and a couple of jolts. But scary? Not so much.  More fun than later Friday sequels (except for maybe Freddy vs. Jason). Amazingly, this film still doesn't explain why Jason's mother thought he was dead, how he survived, or why he was there to witness his mother's death!  Any future sequel would play like an extension of the first series, rendering the reboot kind of moot.  ***

Image from Wikipedia

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) - This one had me the most worried, going in.  The original Nightmare is an undisputed classic. Sure it was low-budget, had some problematic acting, and is hopelessly mired in the 80s. But it was so original, mixing the dream world with reality, relateable nightmares and a terrifying villain in Freddy Krueger. Later sequels kind of neutered Freddy though, so a reboot, Wes Craven's New Nightmare was made several years ago.  New was not a success, even though it was critically praised, so this remake came to be, recasting and rebooting the entire franchise.  It's a mixed success. There's a new guy playing Freddy, and while he did a fine job, Robert Englund is a tough act to follow.

This isn't like the other horror franchises, with masked killers.  Englund is Freddy. That's the toughest aspect to get around.  I was surprised that they didn't focus on Nancy's house much at all, which was an iconic aspect of most of the original series.  Also, Freddy is made more creepy and disgusting than scary.  He was always a "child killer" but the implications of that were obscured before. Here, he's very definitely a pedophile and killer, which makes you more queasy than terrified.  All in all, a decent remake, but the original is still better. **

The Hills Have Eyes - You couldn't really damage the original in this Wes Craven flick.  Hills falls into the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Wrong Turn sub-genre of films, with ordinary people finding themselves in desolate places ruled by murderous, cannibalistic mutants/hillbillies/inbreds.  It's nasty, it's bloody, and you will want to cover your eyes in parts.  If you like it messy and nasty, this belongs on your rental list. The sequel falls right in line, playing like an extension of the first. Not Shakespeare, but what horror is?  *** (Sequel **1/2)

April Fool's Day (2008) - The original is a personal favorite, though not very well known. By the same people as the Friday the 13th series, April Fool's Day was a novel twist, with better acting, humor and an interesting premise of a "murder mystery weekend" going horribly wrong (or did it?).  The "remake" is really in name only. There's some decent gore, and even the acting isn't too bad. But it's a terrible movie. No stars.

Image from Wikipedia

The Last House on the Left (2009) - Another remake of a Wes Craven film, and this one is better than the original.  The old one was gritty and dirty, and disturbing, feeling almost like 70s porn.  This one is more standard-issue modern horror, but more disturbing than your typical slice & dice.  The acting is terrific, with Tony Goldwyn (Ghost) and Garrett Dillahunt almost unrecognizable as the bad guy, Krug (apparently based on the same bully of Craven as Freddy Krueger).  The film--though it does have a few typical "oh, they wouldn't do that" horror movie moments--is quite engaging and suspenseful, and is only marred by an ending that seems kind of out of left field.  It's satisfying, gory and nasty, but not entirely believable. Overall though, the best of this list. ****

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) - Unlike the other remakes in this list, I've never seen the original Tobe Hooper film.  I've caught a handful of the sequels though, and this one is better than any of those.  Some decisions by main characters are completely unbelievable, but that's a critique of most horror films, so it goes with the territory. This one plays like a better-produced installment of the never-ending original franchise.  **

There are others, of course.  George Romero's Dead series of zombie films has the unique distinction of having different folks produce remakes of each of the original three movies, and even sequels to them.  There's Prom Night, Psycho, Children of the Corn. . .but a good rule of thumb is this: get the original.  It's almost always better.

Greenlee Gazette's Guide to Friday the 13th

Happy Halloween! If you have not yet picked out your scary movies for your Halloween weekend, here is another of my lists from the early days of the blog, this one a run-down of the famous Friday the 13th series. When I originally wrote this, news of a "reboot" of the series was fresh. Now it is available on DVD and Blu-ray, and I definitely recommend it.

Photo from Wikipedia.org

Sprinkled throughout this blog is ample evidence that I am a horror movie nut. That's in addition to being a comic book/superhero nut, a 70s ABC-TV nut, and a far-left loony moonbat political nut!

With Halloween coming up, there will undoubtedly be a heavier focus on the horror movie nut side of me. Previously, I commented on how much I did not want to see Rob Zombie's re-imagined Halloween. I still don't, but I'm sure someday I'll get the DVD. Anyway, unlike the original Halloween, I'm not sure anyone would put Friday the 13th in the "classic" category. At least not good classics. The series is loved with a heavy dose of nostalgia, and not a lot else.

Sure, it's iconic, was amazingly influential, and made a whole lot of money for both Paramount and New Line studios. But the Friday the 13th string of movies was easily the hollowest, least plotted, acted and impactful storywise of the horror movie franchises (Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Hellraiser). Each Friday film pretty much follows a mindless killer, stalking stupid people.

There were variations along the way. And if you try to assign a real-world continuity to the films, you'll give yourself a headache that feels like a machete in your skull. Here are some short recaps (star ratings do not relate to the real movie world, only within the horror movie genre!):

Friday the 13th - The first film is by far the best. Jason does not appear (outside of a possible hallucination), but his storyline is set up. Notable for Betsy Palmer's iconic performance as Jason's mother. Sets the tone and atmosphere for the first four to seven movies. Genuinely scary for the uninitiated. Plus, Kevin Bacon. ***

Friday the 13th, Part 2 -Almost as good as the first, though very short (especially considering the recap at the beginning). Notable for Amy Steel's strong performance, the VW bug scene, and the guy in the wheelchair. Struggles to find a reason why Jason didn't drown, and why he was motivated to start his killing spree. Though the explanation is weak, it is used as the basis for the rest of the series. **

Friday the 13th, Part 3 - This (originally) 3D installment is one of the weakest, with very little story, and shots that were intended for the 3D audience. Most notable for hand-walking guy's death, and Jason's acquisition of his iconic hockey mask.  I initially thought this installment was terrible, but it's better in retrospect. *

Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter - Yeah, right! It's the best of sequels, and could have served as the finale, but there was more money to be made. Jason ventures out of Camp Crystal Lake, and seems to meet his end. Considering that this was 1984, I'm sure you know that it wasn't to be. Plus, Corey Feldman and Crispin Glover? ***

Friday the 13th (Part V): A New Beginning - Close to as good as part 4, reviled by fans for its plot twist, but very much in line with the tone of the first four movies. And Corey Feldman only wishes he grew up to look like John Shepherd!  Woof. **

Friday the 13th, Part VI: Jason Lives - Yeah, I guess he lives. Often considered one of the best sequels, it left me cold. It felt like a different studio picked up the reigns. This edition has a vastly different tone from the first five films, and the gory kills just aren't there.  But I guess the MPAA is to blame for that. *

Friday the 13th, Part VII: The New Blood - They throw a psychic girl into the mix, and tack on a ridiculous ending, which puts Jason into the same scenario as the end of the last movie--making this one irrelevant. On the plus side the tone of the first five movies is back. And for you gay fans out there, this one is known as FriGAY the 13th for the high number of gay actors in the movie. *

Friday the 13th, Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan - The tone is still there, as Jason stows away on a cruise ship bound for New York. Most of the action is on the boat, and there are some great scenes. But it feels like the series is running on fumes. And that ending. What the hell? *1/2

Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday - Speaking of Hell, New Line Cinema took over the franchise from Paramount here, and it is very, very obvious this was made by others. Some of the feel is still there, and the film is undeniably fun. Adds a bunch of new story elements that wreck any (already strained) continuity from the first 8 films. Also ignores the end of Part VIII. Fun anyway. And it sets up the movie after the next one.**1/2

Jason X - Tenth installment puts Jason in space, with no context to the rest of the storyline. Continuity-wise has no home, and is akin to a comic book "elseworlds" or "imaginary story." Has its fun parts, but utterly skippable. But the cryogenic scene? Priceless. *1/2

Freddy Vs. Jason - I loved it. They took the monster from the best horror franchise (though it had run out of steam) and the worst (but still loved), and pitted them against each other. Truly, one of the best outings for this type of movie in a long, long time. That said, not the least bit scary. Plays like gory comedy. ***

Friday the 13th (Remake) - I was right that they couldn't really mess up the remake. It's a hoot. The twist--apparently--is that most of the characters you kinda want to see dead. And Jason is given a much heftier back-story. Unfortunately, they still don't explain what happened that made Mrs. Voorhees think he died when he didn't. Still, I'd put this in the top three with the first two installments. I don't know if there will be a part 2 (actually XIII), but I'm game. ***

Blast from the Past: Classic Songs and Their Remakes

Cover songs are nearly as old as their originals. In fact, back in the early days of the rock era, covers of hit songs would often come out almost simultaneously with their originals, sometimes with the "remake" doing better than the "original." Take for instance Twist and Shout. The original version (then called Shake it Up, Baby was by The Top Notes in 1961. It went nowhere. Then, it was remade by The Isley Brothers in 1962, and it went to #17. But The Beatles took it to #2 (#1 on the Cashbox chart).



Sometimes, a longer amount of time goes between version one and version two. But both become classics of their eras. Take You Keep Me Hangin' ON, which was huge in 1967 for Diana Ross and the Supremes. It was remade by Vanilla Fudge the same year, and went to #6, amazingly enough. But it was in 1987 that it went to number 1 again for Kim Wilde.



Straying into the (early) disco era, a song by LaBelle called Lady Marmalade went to #1 in the States. And though it was remade a couple of times, it took until 2001 to go to #1 again, this time for the movie Moulin Rouge by Pink, Christina Aguilera, Lil' Kim and Mýa.



But one of my favorite remakes is of Fred Astaire's 1946 Puttin' on the Ritz, itself not truly an original, but a remake itself of a 1929 tune. But aside from the treatment the song was given in Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein, the 1983 version by one-hit-wonder Taco (#4 on Billboard) is the one that sticks in many minds of my generation.



And that will do it for me for now, folks. Happy Monday!

Bewitched to be Remade Again?

Bewitched is one of my all-time favorite television shows. While it may be a product of its 1964-1972 era, with all the sexism that implies, it was one of the smartest, most entertaining and enduring sitcoms of its time. In the late 70s, ABC tried to duplicate Bewitched by spinning it off into Tabitha, putting Samantha and Durwood's daughter into the starring role (several years too early, by mortal calendars).  Several other sitcoms (Just Our Luck, Sabrina the Teenage Witch) have tried to recapture the magic over the years, but none really got it.


Sadly, when Hollywood elected to remake Bewitched, they turned it into a Will Farrell vehicle, and it fell on its face. Even with Nicole Kidman starring, the result was a convoluted and disappointing follow up to a classic premise. But now they're trying again.

As a huge, lifetime fan of the source material, I feel I should offer some advice, even if it's too late:


- Keep the storyline in the "real world," and not in a Hollywood movie within a movie.
- Keep the "Samantha must keep her magic in the closet" premise, but make it for a better reason than that her husband "says so."
- Hire an equal to Elizabeth Montgomery, and settle for nothing less.
- Do not directly remake episodes of the original (since they did that themselves in the last seasons). But feel free to make homages to them.
- Hire Jim J. Bullock to be Uncle Arthur.
- Hire RuPaul to be Endora.
- Hire Katherine Helmond to be Aunt Clara.
- Hire Jim Parsons to be the second Darrin after The Big Bang Theory is done.


[Excerpt]


CBS Orders 'Bewitched' Reboot Script

Is CBS looking for a little magic in its 2012 lineup? The network has reportedly ordered a 'Bewitched' reboot script from Sony. . .

Read more at: TV Squad

Movies I Can't Wait to See: the new Fright Night

The original gang of the original Fright Night

In the 80s, I had the good fortune to be the right age at the right time for the home video explosion. VCRs (video cassette recorders, if you didn't know) were finally affordable to the masses. Mine had a wired remote! And video rental stores popped up all over the damned place. My favorite was called West Coast Video, because they had a seemingly endless supply of cheesy, bad--but so good--horror movies. And my old, VCR with the wired remote? It was cheap enough--oddly enough, a Samsung, which today produces my awesome new cell phone--that the MacroVision copy protection could be thwarted with some simple RCA patch cables! My pirated VHS cassette collection was legend--wait for it--dary!

And it is now landfill. But back in the day, I had everything. And one of the ones that got the most play was Fright Night (1985). This was one of those "genre savvy" movies, where the characters have an inkling that they are in a horror movie scenario. But of course, none of the adults believe them. Also, the movie was chock full of wink-and-a-nod pop culture references, and a definite vein of humor to it. Add to that stellar performances by the actors (William Ragsdale of Herman's Head, Amanda Bearse of Married. . .with Children, the gorgeous Chris Sarandon, ex of Susan, Stephen Geoffreys of gay porn, and the also gay, but fabulous Roddy McDowell), and you have what should be a masterpiece of cinema. A timeless mixture of genres for the ages. But it isn't.

The original Fright Night was one of my favorite movies for many years. But I put it down for 10 or 15 years, and revisited it. Annnnnd. . . you know what? It doesn't hold up. The 80s music and fashions just wreck the picture. There are still things about I like. But it must be viewed as a period piece. In fact, maybe if you go into it with the notion: "Back in the 80s, Charlie Brewster faught the sexy, suave vampire, Jerry Dandridge, with the assistance of cheeseball horror movie host, Peter Vincent," then maybe it would be okay. So, a remake of one of my (former) favorite movies is not a stake to the heart after all. And this preview? Rocks. And Colin Ferrell? Fangtastic. And (squeeeeee!) it's set in my backyard in Las Vegas? AWESOME!!!

Fall TV Season: Charlie's Angels Looks. . .Bad

The original and true Charlie's Angels

I'm a big fan of cheesy 70s TV shows, especially the ABC "jiggle" era, since it was the beginning of my pop-culture awareness. I was 10 in 1976, which is about the time I started buying 45 records, and cluing in to Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley, ABBA, and Charlie's Angels. There is something special about the era, and the products of that era that can't be recaptured for people who weren't there (though the brilliant-but-cancelled Swingtown came close).

Charlie's Angels, the original TV show, wasn't by today's standards a great show. There was a looseness and a languidness about 70s TV dramas. Today's dramas probably have two to three times as much script as they had in those days. And you can't say the acting was terrific (though Kate Jackson was a pro), but it was serviceable, and better than it had any right to be. What the original Charlie's Angels had was an intangible but obivous magic. It captured lightning in a bottle, with a cast that clicked spectacularly, and an energy that is undeniable. When Farrah Fawcett left the show (after one short season) in a tragic contract dispute, they captured the lightning again, amazingly enough, with the casting of Cheryl Ladd as Fawcett's character's sister. It should have failed. The writers didn't even try to be clever with that one, but Ladd fit right in as if nothing ever happened.  Jackson still crackled with her "smart one" routine, and Jacklyn Smith's "streetwise" character got fleshed out more. It was all going great.

The later, fake Charlie's Angels

But when Jackson left, the show became a shadow of its former self. Neither Shelley Hack nor Tanya Roberts clicked at all, and the show sputtered out after five years. After that, there were abortive attempts at a TV reboot, and then two feature films featuring Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu and Cameron Diaz. The movies were successful commercially, but not critically. That in itself isn't any different from the TV show, which never got critical respect.  But the movies had little to do with the series beyond the setup, and an attempt at continuity with the original (Smith appeared in part two). I never really understood how there could be three Bosleys (David Doyle, Bill Murray and  Bernie Mac) in that continuity, but whatever.

The biggest problem was, the movie Charlie's Angels made the girls into superheroes, sort of a trio of kick ass James Bonds. In fact, the movies seemed to be a blend of 007 and The Matrix. The 70s series was just a group of very pretty women who used to be cops, who were now private investigators. They weren't gifted karate pros, or supernaturally spritely waif-fu experts. I'd hoped, when I heard that the show was being rebooted, that they'd take it back to its roots, but spruce it up with modern storytelling. Looks like they went the movie route. Pity. It looks like it's going to suck. It looks like it will follow Bionic Woman, Knight Rider and V into the remake abyss.

Actress Picked for Wonder Woman TV Show

Image from source, TVSquad

They've been promising a Wonder Woman movie for years now, a project that was bounced around and ultimately seemingly shelved. Then came word that David E. Kelley (Ally McBeal, Boston Legal) would be making a TV version. But the biggest question throughout it all has been, who would play Wondy? Lynda Carter--though forever trapped in a 70s disco-era confection--was Wonder Woman. Well, they found somebody. I never heard of her, but she looks pretty. Can she fill out a bustier? Apparently. Can she act? Carter herself couldn't at first (though she took to it very quickly). I guess we'll have to see. Let's hope it works out better than the remakes of Knight Rider and The Bionic Woman.

[Excerpt]

And Our New 'Wonder Woman' Is ... 'Friday Night Lights' Alum Adrianne Palicki



Hold onto your superhero underoos, people!


NBC released a wonderful bit of casting news today: 'Friday Night Lights' alum Adrianne Palicki is set to play the title role (and two alter-egos) in David E. Kelley's buzzed about 'Wonder Woman' reboot. . .

Read more at: TV Squad