The concept of experience, and how it works for and against us is something of a misnomer. By logic, having the foresight to see how a course of action works, we are able to improve upon the decision making which led up to it, ultimately culminating in a better decision.
Or at least, that is the way these types of things are supposed to work. Indeed, in the realm of theater and movies, that concept has never functioned on a consistent basis to produce better movies that work in more effective ways. The next example of this is 2006's "When a Stranger Calls," which itself is a remake of the 1979 film of the same name that, according to the IMDb page, was originally planned to be a sequel to Black Christmas.
Like the original, we meet a young woman (the very lovely Camilla Belle) who will be babysitting the children of the wealthy Dr. and Mrs. Mandrakis (the same names used for the parents of the 1979 original) whilst they are away to dinner and a movie. And like the original, throughout the course of the night, the young babysitter is bombarded with phone calls from a malevolent stranger who is planning to do more than just scare her over the course of this evening.
Unlike the original however, this film is loaded in back story. Take the first scenes as an example of how this back story functions differently. In the original, we start with the baby sitter arriving at the Mandrakis' home; in this remake we start with an allegedly grisly multiple murder apparently perpetrated by the same man trying to do the baby sitter harm. The creators of the film may have included it in the hope of creating a more dynamic story, but in fact this works against the film.
In the original, for instance, we get the sense that this very disturbed individual (with a creepy, spastic English accent that seems to make your skin crawl with its perversity) has in fact been stalking this girl. Without the back story, it makes sense that the intruder knows that the girl was in the house alone, that her calls didn't alert the police of the impending doom, and so on. The absence of the back story asks the viewer to fill in the gaps.
In this remake however, the presence of the back story makes no sense. In the conversation with Mrs. Mandrakis, we learn that Jill was retained at the last minute ("we were so thrilled to find a babysitter at the last minute," or something to that effect), albeit while we are marveling at this isolated house. So, why is the psycho stalking Jill? How did he come to know that she was babysitting? How did he gain access to a secured house (no doubt ADT would happily dis-spell the absurd failings of this beautiful home's security system if one were interested enough to call them and ask), the phone number, the son's phone number (the son who doesn't always live in the guest house), and knock off the housekeeper without being spotted? Is it silly to ask this question? Well then, how about the other questions- how is it that Jill's best friend gets through the main gate when it would seem logical that the Mandrakis' would've shut the gate when they left? In the age of voice mail, why is Jill answering the phone at all? In the opening scene, when the policeman says there wasn't a murder weapon, then what was used to kill the woman and her child(ren)? I mean, lets consider this logically- if someone used their bare hands, then there is still a murder weapon, right? So much of this movie depends on the viewer to ignore the contradictions and the nonsense and focus merely on atmosphere, sound and the dialogue between the killer and Jill- however this only works so far. The opening scene, where a detective opens the door and looks horrified while piercing music works so poorly that no one in the theater could even understand how to feel when I was watching the film. Less than ten seconds later, he's still visibly shaken whilst the coroners cart out the body bags- by mere logical presumption the only thing he could've been looking at were body bags from the doorway of the room. Perhaps terrifying for a private citizen, but for a detective whose job it is to track down killers? C'mon.
Everyone in this film is cute except the killer, and whilst I originally thought that this was a curious coincidence, later I began to ponder the message. This film is not intended for adult audiences- its cast and its very slight levels of violence seem to indicate its meant much more for a young teen audience. And this is exactly what teens these days need: a movie sending the message that the beautiful people are always good and wholesome, and the not so beautiful people are evil psychos.
In the course of writing this review, I have even rethought the score and reduced it sharply. If you're looking for scares, may I suggest renting the original, or better yet, rent "Black Christmas"- a film much better than either the original or the remake.
Or at least, that is the way these types of things are supposed to work. Indeed, in the realm of theater and movies, that concept has never functioned on a consistent basis to produce better movies that work in more effective ways. The next example of this is 2006's "When a Stranger Calls," which itself is a remake of the 1979 film of the same name that, according to the IMDb page, was originally planned to be a sequel to Black Christmas.
Like the original, we meet a young woman (the very lovely Camilla Belle) who will be babysitting the children of the wealthy Dr. and Mrs. Mandrakis (the same names used for the parents of the 1979 original) whilst they are away to dinner and a movie. And like the original, throughout the course of the night, the young babysitter is bombarded with phone calls from a malevolent stranger who is planning to do more than just scare her over the course of this evening.
Unlike the original however, this film is loaded in back story. Take the first scenes as an example of how this back story functions differently. In the original, we start with the baby sitter arriving at the Mandrakis' home; in this remake we start with an allegedly grisly multiple murder apparently perpetrated by the same man trying to do the baby sitter harm. The creators of the film may have included it in the hope of creating a more dynamic story, but in fact this works against the film.
In the original, for instance, we get the sense that this very disturbed individual (with a creepy, spastic English accent that seems to make your skin crawl with its perversity) has in fact been stalking this girl. Without the back story, it makes sense that the intruder knows that the girl was in the house alone, that her calls didn't alert the police of the impending doom, and so on. The absence of the back story asks the viewer to fill in the gaps.
In this remake however, the presence of the back story makes no sense. In the conversation with Mrs. Mandrakis, we learn that Jill was retained at the last minute ("we were so thrilled to find a babysitter at the last minute," or something to that effect), albeit while we are marveling at this isolated house. So, why is the psycho stalking Jill? How did he come to know that she was babysitting? How did he gain access to a secured house (no doubt ADT would happily dis-spell the absurd failings of this beautiful home's security system if one were interested enough to call them and ask), the phone number, the son's phone number (the son who doesn't always live in the guest house), and knock off the housekeeper without being spotted? Is it silly to ask this question? Well then, how about the other questions- how is it that Jill's best friend gets through the main gate when it would seem logical that the Mandrakis' would've shut the gate when they left? In the age of voice mail, why is Jill answering the phone at all? In the opening scene, when the policeman says there wasn't a murder weapon, then what was used to kill the woman and her child(ren)? I mean, lets consider this logically- if someone used their bare hands, then there is still a murder weapon, right? So much of this movie depends on the viewer to ignore the contradictions and the nonsense and focus merely on atmosphere, sound and the dialogue between the killer and Jill- however this only works so far. The opening scene, where a detective opens the door and looks horrified while piercing music works so poorly that no one in the theater could even understand how to feel when I was watching the film. Less than ten seconds later, he's still visibly shaken whilst the coroners cart out the body bags- by mere logical presumption the only thing he could've been looking at were body bags from the doorway of the room. Perhaps terrifying for a private citizen, but for a detective whose job it is to track down killers? C'mon.
Everyone in this film is cute except the killer, and whilst I originally thought that this was a curious coincidence, later I began to ponder the message. This film is not intended for adult audiences- its cast and its very slight levels of violence seem to indicate its meant much more for a young teen audience. And this is exactly what teens these days need: a movie sending the message that the beautiful people are always good and wholesome, and the not so beautiful people are evil psychos.
In the course of writing this review, I have even rethought the score and reduced it sharply. If you're looking for scares, may I suggest renting the original, or better yet, rent "Black Christmas"- a film much better than either the original or the remake.