Speak No More Evil

 

It’s been a while since we’ve done a good ol’ compare and contrast. While I generally find “the original is better than the remake!” arguments dull, I also find the very idea of a talented filmmaker re-adapting very new material for an English-speaking audience usually has SOMETHING to say about the general perception of what a studio or artist thinks about its target.

So here we are. Two years between films, one month between my own review, we’re speaking no more evil.

Quick Plot: Basically, for about 65 minutes, 2024’s Speak No Evil follows the exact same beats as, you know, Speak No Evil. A somewhat uptight couple (Louise and Ben Dalton) with a daughter named Agnes and her beloved stuffed bunny befriend a pair of free spirits (Paddy and Ciara) and their tongueless son while on vacation. A few months later, Louise and Ben visit Paddy and Ciara at their secluded country estate. Tensions rise, violence ensues. 

Having watched the original Speak No Evil so recently, it’s impossible for me to review this Americanized version without directly referencing it. If you haven’t seen either film, the easy boil down is that the 2022 film is darker, sharper, and yes, better. The 2024 version is perfectly adequate as a standalone horror film, particularly as it’s stacked with several excellent actors doing very good work. But the stark differences in the third act are almost The Vanishing-levels of silliness. 

So let’s spoil.

Both.

Before we get to the major change, it’s worth noting that there are a few character differences that actually work well for James Watkins’ adaptation. Louise and Ben are expats who came to London for Ben’s job offer that fell apart. They have money, but no real sense of home. Louise has been so detached that she started a texting flirtation with a dad from Agnes’s school, driving an even bigger wedge in her fragile marriage. Sex is monthly at best. 

Which, oddly enough, leads us to one of the first real changes in this version that seems to have been made deliberately and does NOT work. In the original film, Louise and Bjorn’s first real discomfort with their hosts comes after they find their daughter sleeping in a nude Patrick and Karin’s bed. It’s perfectly reasonable that this would be the thing to finally drive them out of their perfect guest facade, but the reason WHY Agnes ended up there is key: she knocked and knocked on her parents’ door, but they were busy having sex. It’s clear that the guilt and embarrassment over this is what keeps Louise somewhat humbled.

No such dynamics happen here, as our Americans have to feel a bit more likable. As in the original, they almost make their exit but return when Agnes realizes she’s left her stuffed bunny behind.  Some sense of normalcy is restored, until Paddy’s treatment of Ant becomes intolerable. The next big change is one that KIND of makes sense, but also leads to a very different movie. 

Big spoilers (in case you needed a fourth warning): in both films, the host couple is revealed to be a pair of serial killers who lure small families in, murder the parents, and steal the child, trading that last bit with each cycle. In Christian Tafdrup’s film, Bjorn discovers this by finding the boy (Abel in that version) drowned. He quietly tries to pack his family and leave without telling them what’s going on, only to be caught on the way out. Without having communicated his discovery to Louise, she’s easy prey. Agnes’s tongue is cut out, and Louise and Bjorn accept their fate: death by stoning, all because they couldn’t be rude. 

It’s one of the darkest endings I’ve seen in some time, but it’s also pretty perfect. Speak No Evil is a cruel film, yet it all adds up. Everything this family does (and neglects to do) leads them to this. 

James Watkins’ version is…different. It’s Ant who tells (well, shows and mimes) his family’s secret to Agnes, who then goes and tells her parents, who then spend a fair amount of time figuring out how to excuse themselves from being murdered. This leads to the last act being pure Home Alone siege.

It’s a choice.  

On one hand, I appreciate an only-two-years-later remake reimagining its source material. Otherwise, what’s the point? 2022’s Speak No Evil is mostly in English, so you can’t even make the “Americans don’t like to read” argument. But apparently, if you’re James Watkins, you can make some other “Americans are” arguments. 

Here’s an excerpt from a Deadline interview with the director:

American culture is very, whether it’s your frontier mentality or your can-do culture, I didn’t believe my characters would be as quiescent [laughs]. I didn’t believe that they would, confronted with mortal danger and their child in mortal danger, at least try to run, hide or do something. Christian’s version is a brilliant satire on Danish compliance, but as soon as I changed it to a different culture, different things apply. 

Sure? 

As an American, my personal opinion here is that James Watkins is giving us far too much credit. The idea that these outsiders could, ultimately rather easily, murder three experienced murderers (well, two and one accomplice) and escape relatively unharmed seems pretty darn optimistic, particularly from the same man behind Eden Lake.  

It’s kind of, well, dumb. And maybe even a bit insulting? There is certainly something to be said with just how the violence unrolls, with Mackenzie Davis’s Louise emerging as the real alpha. The toxic bromance of Scoot McNairy being blinded by the sheer magnetism of James McAvoy’s masculine energy zooms in even further on the dynamics in Tafdrup’s film (or maybe that’s because the only other film I’ve seen McNairy in is Nightbitch, where his husband character plays a similarly shrinking role). Watkins even tosses in one line that casts Aisling Franciosi’s Ciara into a completely different light that opens up a pile of moral questions the film doesn’t have time to answer. 

2024’s Speak No Evil has interesting ideas, a game cast, and strong filmmaking. Even with all of that, things simply don’t add up to something anywhere nearly as starkly satisfying as its predecessor. 

High Points

Enough can’t be said about the performances, all of which work off each other to create clear relationships ready to explode

Low Points

Sure, the Daltons don’t immediately transform into trained assassins, but their victory still feels silly

Lessons Learned

The internet has made us all very stressy

When you’re in the country, you’re going to find old stains

It’s okay to think things, but you’re not supposed to say them

Rent/Bury/Buy

Here’s the thing: many genre fans will likely have a good time with 2024’s Speak No Evil if that’s how they start, and backtracking to the 2022 film may make that pack an even bigger punch. At this point, anyone approaching either film probably knows the big twist, so if you’ve read this far without watching either (which I told you several times not to do), then why not start with the lighter course to make the main that much better? The new film is now streaming on Peacock, with the original on Shudder.

I Know Who Called Me

 

Have we reached that point of time where 2008 feels retro? Back when all we could really do with a cell phone was play Snake or hold it above our heads to find bars, there was a predictable onslaught of mobile-themed horror movies. Today's film is occasionally considered the worst of them. 

Naturally, I was eager to watch it.  

Quick Plot: St. Luke's Hospital is in flames, but young Laurel and her teddy bear make it out okay. Put a pin in that, as we now move to college student Shelley stressing out as something spooky occurs at her elaborate koi pond. Her cat disappears, her phone rings, her cat reappears, and a Carrie-ish hand drags her down to sleep with the fishes.

And her cat.

Shelley's best friend Lean is understandably bummed. Visiting pal Beth's post-funeral party doesn't help, especially when they discover an eerie voicemail dated in the future. Could this be connected to Shelley's mysterious post-call death?

Obviously, yes: there's some form of ghost hunting coeds via their mobile lines, and it won't stop until it Final Destinations its way through the whole graduating class.

Beth teams up with hunky sad cop Jack, whose own sister fell victim to the cell phone serial killer right before Shelley. Together, they follow the Law & Order: SVU trail through to discover things that answer some, but far from all of their questions. 

One Missed Call is, like many a studio produced PG-13 horror film of the aughts, a rather bland remake of a Japanese hit (in this case, one I haven't seen). Yes, it's incredibly derivative of The Ring, Pulse, and similar titles, and yes: it's not very good. But when you see that 0% fresh Rotten Tomatoes rating before watching, you can't help but be both disappointed and impressed.

THIS is what the general film critic masses of 2008 thought to be the worst film of the year? THIS?

It has ACTORS. LIGHTING. RAY WISE AND MARGARET CHO (each with two scenes). 

No, that doesn't make this movie GOOD, but it's...fine. Yes, studios made way too many derivative horror remakes in the mid-2000s. The year of One Missed Call's release also coincided with some of the century's best, including original The Children, Let the Right One In, and Lake Mungo. The remake well was drying up, though some of its worst was still to come.

One Missed Call is far from the worst. There are actual characters and occasional tension here. Yes, the dated CGI and predictable plotting probably outweighs the overall skill, but I was never bored or angry. Maybe time has softened the standards I used to have. Fifteen full years have passed, and it's a big enough distance that we can probably be a little more objective. 

I never had a personal affection for this kind of product (which, let's face it, this kind of movie is) but oddly, there's something mildly comforting in watching them today. 

Or maybe I'll just never tire of seeing a messy computerized monster and saying, "so that's what it would look like if Ally McBeal's dancing baby had its own baby with Baby Oospsie Daisy."

High Points

It's a small thing, but I'm fairly certain the end credit font was intended to resemble mobile texting and you know what? I approve

Low Points

The best way to destroy the sense of dread your film has worked hard for is, and continues to be, to introduce roughly rendered CGI at your climax

Lessons Learned

No frat party is complete without a fresh vegetable spread

Checkhov's law of teddy bear closeups reminds us all to pay very close attention to any featured stuffed animal

Between this and her Cassandra arc on Buffy, Azura Skye clearly cornered the marked on self-aware doomed young adults

Rent/Bury/Buy

I can't really tell anyone that their lives would be improved by spending 90 minutes on the American remake of One Missed Call, but it wouldn't be THAT much worse. It's there on HBO Max (or whatever we're calling it now).

My Buddi

After more than 10 years of writing about horror old and new, I hope it's clear to my loyal readers that I have no issues at all with the idea of film remakes. They're a staple of storytelling, from Eve and Pandora to Emma and Clueless. Yes, when you make something as awful as 2009's It's Alive, I'll complain about the details, but the actual concept of re-adapting a previous property is never the problem in itself.

So why, you might ask, did Emily boycott the Child's Play remake?

Boycott is a strong word, especially in the lazy age of the internet. I never made an oaktag sign or signed an online petition. I simply avoided any kind of support or even mention of a movie that I felt was a bit of an insult to a property I cherish.

Unlike almost every other franchise in cinema, Child's Play has always been distinctively Don Mancini's. The first film (one of the most personally influential films on my development as a horror fan) was his real break into the industry, and he remained the screenwriter for every installment (unheard of in horror or any genre). With Seed of Chucky (my personal favorite, probably because its campy sensibilities seem custom-made for my humor), Mancini moved into the director's chair and has been completely in control of Chucky's destiny from that point on. 

Until 2019.

Look, I understand any film studio dusting off its records to see which properties it still owns and can generate a few quick bucks. But unlike Freddy Krueger or Jason Voorhes, Chucky was never Orion's; it was Don Mancini's. John Carpenter may have created Michael Meyers, but I'd bet a few packs of cigarettes that he never even saw most of its sequels. Mancini was (and thankfully, is still) working on a Chucky television series when Orion decided to throw the title at a new writer/director team. 

In a business that never pretends to value loyalty, it still felt dirty, and from my own sense of morality and diehard devotion to all things Don Mancini, I vowed to never give 2019's Child's Play any kind of money.

It's on Hulu now, and having heard many a critic or friend whose film opinions I deeply respect give the film hearty endorsements, I figured I could finally watch Child's Play without feeling too dirty.

Quick Plot: The Kaslan company is in high production on its first generation Buddi, an interactive doll that connects to all Kaslan-branded smart devices while also imprinting on your family. As you might imagine, conditions for the Vietnamese factory workforce are less than ideal. When one of the production workers is fired, he uses his last minutes on the job to disable the safety filters in a Buddi before it hits the US market (then promptly throws himself off a building).

Back in a Canadian city standing in for Chicago, young mother Karen is struggling to acclimate her moody son Andy to his new surroundings. When an unsatisfied customer returns a Buddi doll at the department store where she works, Karen gives Andy an early birthday present.

Naturally, said Buddi is that lucky product we saw in the prologue. It's not that Chucky is bad; he's just a sociopath with no sense of right or wrong. Throw on a little Texas Chainsaw Massacre II, bitch about your mom's jerk boyfriend, and before you know it, you're cutting class to cover up his decapitation. 

Kids really do have it harder in the era of smartphones.

Directed by Lars Klevberg from Tyler Burton Smith's fairly clever script, Child's Play was definitely more enjoyable than I was prepared to admit. The tone is consistently snarky without falling down the "is this movie insulting me for watching it?" wormhole so many self-aware films often just can't escape. Sure, Aubrey Plaza brings a very specific eye-rolling energy, but it works for both the character and overall feel. 

As for Chucky, it's hard not to be disappointed when one of our favorite villains of all time is reinterpreted in such a way that loses the very essence of your character. Mark Hammill is one of the most talented voice actors working today, but he's playing a robot, one that almost feels like a weird riff on autism. I don't mind the decision to cut the Charles Lee Ray persona in the name of a new story--in fact, I welcome a fresh take--but it just doesn't quite yield the full zany gold the setup promises.

That being said, I'd be lying if I said Child's Play 2019 wasn't a fun watch. At under 90 minutes, it wastes little time, and has a grand ol' time setting up elaborate, fairly ridiculous murders. I can't deny it points for having a good, mean time, even if I still feel wrong about enjoying it.

High Points

Bear McCreary has become the go-to composer for genre film and television over the last few years, and he delivers yet another quirky score that has its own point of view 

Low Points

While the final act's department store massacre is a joy, the actual ending has a certain rushed abruptness that feels lacking, even with a brief sequel-suggesting but low energy stinger

Lessons Learned

Efforts towards inclusivity onscreen should always be appreciated, but when watching a horror film, always remember that a character with a hearing aid exists solely for said hearing aid to eventually be used against him

Those who wait too long to take down their Christmas lights have no choice but to face the consequences of their inaction

As we learned from Furbies and Bratz, Americans sure do love their ugly dolls

Rent/Bury/Buy

Try as I may, I still feel wrong offering any kind of official endorsement about this Child's Play, but hey: it's fun. There's a point of view with some satirical thought behind it, and the movie manages to provide a few surprises along the way. 

It just...shouldn't have been made under its circumstance. 

Friends Forever

Pascal Laugier's Martyrs remains one of the most discussed, most celebrated horror films to come out this century. On the surface, it was packaged like a just another example of the French extremity and torture porn movements that had become the subgenre du joir. Look closer and you see a potpourri of styles, from ruthless home invasion to J-horror ghost story. Watch the whole film and take a breath and you get something completely different: a philosophical conundrum that asks deep questions it refuses to answer. It's truly something special, and one that even gets better upon rewatch.

Hollywood being Hollywood, it naturally got remade and dumped into DVD bins right as the world stopped buying DVDs. Naturally, I rented it via Netflix disc. Because there's always one...

Quick Plot: Young Lucie escapes some kind of torturous warehouse, ending up in the care of St. Mary's Orphanage where she is quickly befriended by the kind Anna. Ten years later, Lucie makes a standard homicidal home invasion call to a seemingly normal white collar family. Anna swings by to help and finds herself in shock at Lucie's shotgun violence, believing her friend to be delusional. As she tries to help clean up the mess, she soon discovers a sprawling torture chamber and trapped little girl named Sam, thus proving Lucie right.

So far, so Pascal Laugier's Martyrs. Written by Mark L. Smith of Vacancy, The Revenant, and the very clever Overlord, Martyrs stays extremely close to its source material until a very specific character decision. If you want it revealed, stop now. If you're one of the eight people in the world who care how the American remake of Martyrs turns out, continue.

Unlike Laugier's original, Lucie survives her attempted suicide only to be re-kidnapped by the philosophical torture gang (is there a better way to describe them?), here led by Kate Burton's Eleanor. Anna gets a few rounds of electro-shock torture but proves a victim rather than titular martyr, though her survival instincts kick in to save her from being buried alive, free young Sam one more time, and display some rather impressive hand-to-hand combat moves in an attempt to save her BFF.

Where Laugier's Anna was flayed full body to the point of martyrdom, Lucie gets what seems like a minor scraping. While it's a ridiculous way to nod to the most powerful image of the first film, the final moments of Martyrs actually have something slightly new to say. 

Anna's love of Lucie was always a fascinating aspect of Laugier's film, so if directors Kevin and Michael Goetz were going to do anything different with their remake, centering that certainly works. Anna has a different arc here: initially dismissed as too weak for martyrdom, she reaches it via a different path and seems to ascend side by side with Lucie.

It's an interesting twist, even if it confuses some of the ambiguity of Laugier's film. In 2008's Martyrs, Anna seems to reach the point the torturers seek. When she whispers what she sees into Mademoiselle's ear, the woman reacts by shooting herself in the head. We're left to wonder what Anna said. Was it so beautiful that Mademoiselle couldn't wait to get there? A condemnation for all her sins? My theory has always been that there was nothing there, because what could be worse than realizing the years of hell you've put innocent children through was for naught?

In the Goetz's remake, Lucie whispers something to a different character, who promptly shoots himself in the face. Anna then puts a bullet in Eleanor's head. There's something...odd about that. 

On one hand, sure. Kill the woman in charge who oversaw the torture of your best friend. On the other...what does that really mean? Should we feel vindication that Eleanor never gets to know what martyrs see? 

My point, I suppose, is that there is something to Martyrs 2015 in how it tried to take the original film and explore some different angles within it. Unfortunately, it doesn't really get too far. 

High Points

I hate a lot of the decisions made in Martyrs 2015, but I do think it's important that Smith's script recognizes the connection Anna has to Lucie to be a hugely important element in their story

Low Points

The amount of Bond villaining that keeps a character alive so that she can hear dastardly plans before being almost executed in an elaborate manner is more ridiculous than the sentence I just wrote

Lessons Learned

When burying someone alive, take a few extra seconds to make sure there's no exit route

Or, if the main goal is to kill said person, just kill them

New weapon of choice: a shotgun, which is apparently extremely easy to aim, deadly to use, and fast to load

Pretty Little Final Girls

And with Martyrs, thus do we complete the first unofficial (of what I hope will be many more) round of Pretty Little Liars in horror films. Lucie shares some of Spencer Hastings' determination, so in its own way, it's kind of fitting that Troian Bellisario (who definitely deserves better) finds herself here.

Rent/Bury/Buy

Look, I'm not going to tell you to spend much energy in tracking down and watching 90 minutes of the mediocre Martyrs remake. That being said, I went into this expecting the pits, something akin to the American Pulse. The Goetz's Martyrs will never make the list of best reimaginings, but honestly, it's very far from the worst. While it certainly feels a bit neutered, it also offers a slightly different point of view on the original material. If you're going to recreate one of the best genre films of the last twenty years, you better have some kind of reason other than "Amurikans don't read." There is something here. Is it worth a watch? Not necessarily, but I appreciate the effort.