![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
philosoraptor42Attack Of The 50 Foot Woman - Original (1958) and remake (1993)
Imdb links:
Original version (1958)
Remake (1993)
One line synopsis: An abused wife grows to giant size because of an alien encounter
Genre: Monster movie?
I ended up seeing the remake first by accident. I decided to watch it anyway and was intrigued to see Christopher Guest's name as the director. That said, as far as directing is concerned, I only really know him for "Best In Show" and this was released quite a while before that.
In the remake, the protagonist, Nancy Archer, is played by Darryl Hannah. She isn't great in the role, but I guess she does a passable job. To try to add some depth, Guest has decided to link her change in size with an increase in confidence. This means that during the earlier part of the movie she is extremely whiny and annoying. While in the original we could put this down to being stressed and, having seen a UFO, understandably (and temporarily) hysterical. In the remake, she seems to have more permanent psychological issues and has a withdrawn manner which, at times, comes across a little like River from Firefly. Still, as the movie progresses and she's slowly allowed to be play a more confident figure, the role seems to suit her better.
Her husband, played by Daniel Baldwin, seems to be typecast as an arsehole. Though he's had a fairly lacklustre career, I must admit I thought he was alright as James Wood's second-in-command arsehole in John Carpenter's "Vampires". Perhaps arguing that things are a bit too over-the-top in a movie called "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman" is redundant, but it's not really the over-the-top acting that's the problem. The plot of the remake is not simply over-the-top, but convoluted beyond belief.
I had initially thought that this plot must be entirely new to the remake, so I gave it some credit for trying to be interesting. Then I saw the original and realised that the original movie's plot was pretty similar, but a lot simpler and easier to follow.
The Basic Setup
In the original the plot works like this: Our protagonist is a rich woman with low self-esteem. She is married to a man who is cheating on her. He doesn't respect her, but he's staying with her to benefit from her money and she's too weak-willed to give him the boot. Meanwhile the girl he really liked spending time with points out that he could inherit his wife's money if she were to die.
In the remake, not only does the entire town know about her husband's extra-marital relationship (no change there), but that includes her father. The gist seems to be that Darryl Hannah's father wants to sleep with the same woman that Daniel Baldwin does. Also he's working professionally with Daniel Baldwin's character. Essentially it seems that Baldwin's marriage to his daughter is half business proposition and half an attempt to get Baldwin away from his girl.
The very idea that this father wouldn't be saying: "Get out of my house you rotten cheating scumbag", or at very least only reluctantly welcoming this man that her daughter forgives far too readily. The only purpose I can imagine for bringing in the father in this way is so the woman both him and Baldwin are sleeping with can come off in a better light. Rather than a woman who is happily breaking down a marriage (and what's more plotting dark designs against the wife), she is instead put forward as someone being rather more passively passed back and forth between these exploitative men.
In both movies, there's a suggestion that the woman is actually in a position of a power, even though she's allowing herself to be manipulated by a man. The source of power is her wealth. The remake is further convoluted by the idea that Darryl Hannah has inherited the money from her dead mother and her father is simply a kind of trustee handling her fortune. Um... does it ever work like that? In any case, the presence of her father is endlessly confusing and the original benefits from greatly from his absence.
To avoid giving away the whole plot (because in either movie, there isn't much of one), the female protagonist finds a UFO and then... see the title for details.
After The Growing
In the remake, a lot more of the movie takes place after the protagonist changes size. For one thing, every single male character seems to be plotting against her, not just her husband and his lover. I know the film is trying to promote feminism, but this might also be promoting paranoid delusions. For example, if you don't trust a doctor your husband has provided with a syringe, the solution is to go to a new doctor. The solution is not refusing all injections on the grounds that a man is doing the injecting.
So, in her new as-big-as-a-house form, Darryl Hannah decides to arrange a romantic meal for her and her husband and (unconvincingly) explains that her new size might benefit their relationship. To be quite honest, after her ridiculous performance at normal height, I'd been struggling to warm to her as the protagonist. Now that she's giving her more self-assured performance that is rather more convincing, it's not a great idea to put me in a position where I'm siding with the weaselly husband. If you watch the trailer you'll hear the line: "What did you expect me to do? Get a wetsuit and a flashlight?" And it's true. They aren't really anatomically compatible anymore.
Alien Troll
As much as I've been berating the remake, there's one change from the original that was absolutely worth it. They ditched the alien monster. In the remake you start off just seeing colourful lights coming out of the UFO and, right at the end, we discover what is really inside. The ending of the remake is quite silly, but it's nice that they didn't go with the depressingly tragic end of the original. In the original however, we see a giant troll-like thing coming out of the flying saucer pretty early on. That stupid troll is probably the biggest problem with the original movie.
The Woman Attacks!
Naturally the main thing the movie is building up to is the scene in the poster. The remake of this actually seemed, if anything, less impressive than the original. I just didn't get the impression that Darryl Hannah was posing any real threat. In the original, however, our protagonist storms the town like Godzilla. It really felt like what would happen if you replaced Godzilla with a giant woman. Sure, it's rather inconsistent how her clothes seem to grow at the same rate she does. (In the remake they have to get clothes specially made for her enormous size.) However, this scene is a much better payoff in the original.
The Original
The original version of the movie sticks to a more basic set-up. It's a simple story told well. The remake makes a big mistake removing Nancy Archer's well-meaning butler in favour of her condescending father. The butler was a great character.
One thing both movies have in common is that you really want the Nancy Archer to leave her horrible husband. However, she doesn't get so much opportunity to do so in the original and, as such, her motivations make a great deal more sense. The characters as a whole are far more realistic in the original, thanks mainly to the far less convoluted script. As was already noted, the sections involving the giant troll alien are absolutely ridiculous, but that doesn't spoil the overall movie.
The original Attack of the 50 Foot Woman has good performances, an economical script and, in spite of a few inconsistencies and a rather unimpressive alien troll monster, provides some good solid entertainment.
The remake of Attack of the 50 Foot Woman has a fun change to the ending, but sadly the acting quality is poorer, the script is convoluted and confused and the thrills of the actual "attack" are greatly diminished.
Original version: B- (Solidly good movie)
Remake: D+ (Poor but with a few good elements)
The film's concept seems to have inspired quite a few people on the net.
Imdb links:
Original version (1958)
Remake (1993)
One line synopsis: An abused wife grows to giant size because of an alien encounter
Genre: Monster movie?
I ended up seeing the remake first by accident. I decided to watch it anyway and was intrigued to see Christopher Guest's name as the director. That said, as far as directing is concerned, I only really know him for "Best In Show" and this was released quite a while before that.
In the remake, the protagonist, Nancy Archer, is played by Darryl Hannah. She isn't great in the role, but I guess she does a passable job. To try to add some depth, Guest has decided to link her change in size with an increase in confidence. This means that during the earlier part of the movie she is extremely whiny and annoying. While in the original we could put this down to being stressed and, having seen a UFO, understandably (and temporarily) hysterical. In the remake, she seems to have more permanent psychological issues and has a withdrawn manner which, at times, comes across a little like River from Firefly. Still, as the movie progresses and she's slowly allowed to be play a more confident figure, the role seems to suit her better.
Her husband, played by Daniel Baldwin, seems to be typecast as an arsehole. Though he's had a fairly lacklustre career, I must admit I thought he was alright as James Wood's second-in-command arsehole in John Carpenter's "Vampires". Perhaps arguing that things are a bit too over-the-top in a movie called "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman" is redundant, but it's not really the over-the-top acting that's the problem. The plot of the remake is not simply over-the-top, but convoluted beyond belief.
I had initially thought that this plot must be entirely new to the remake, so I gave it some credit for trying to be interesting. Then I saw the original and realised that the original movie's plot was pretty similar, but a lot simpler and easier to follow.
The Basic Setup
In the original the plot works like this: Our protagonist is a rich woman with low self-esteem. She is married to a man who is cheating on her. He doesn't respect her, but he's staying with her to benefit from her money and she's too weak-willed to give him the boot. Meanwhile the girl he really liked spending time with points out that he could inherit his wife's money if she were to die.
In the remake, not only does the entire town know about her husband's extra-marital relationship (no change there), but that includes her father. The gist seems to be that Darryl Hannah's father wants to sleep with the same woman that Daniel Baldwin does. Also he's working professionally with Daniel Baldwin's character. Essentially it seems that Baldwin's marriage to his daughter is half business proposition and half an attempt to get Baldwin away from his girl.
The very idea that this father wouldn't be saying: "Get out of my house you rotten cheating scumbag", or at very least only reluctantly welcoming this man that her daughter forgives far too readily. The only purpose I can imagine for bringing in the father in this way is so the woman both him and Baldwin are sleeping with can come off in a better light. Rather than a woman who is happily breaking down a marriage (and what's more plotting dark designs against the wife), she is instead put forward as someone being rather more passively passed back and forth between these exploitative men.
In both movies, there's a suggestion that the woman is actually in a position of a power, even though she's allowing herself to be manipulated by a man. The source of power is her wealth. The remake is further convoluted by the idea that Darryl Hannah has inherited the money from her dead mother and her father is simply a kind of trustee handling her fortune. Um... does it ever work like that? In any case, the presence of her father is endlessly confusing and the original benefits from greatly from his absence.
To avoid giving away the whole plot (because in either movie, there isn't much of one), the female protagonist finds a UFO and then... see the title for details.
After The Growing
In the remake, a lot more of the movie takes place after the protagonist changes size. For one thing, every single male character seems to be plotting against her, not just her husband and his lover. I know the film is trying to promote feminism, but this might also be promoting paranoid delusions. For example, if you don't trust a doctor your husband has provided with a syringe, the solution is to go to a new doctor. The solution is not refusing all injections on the grounds that a man is doing the injecting.
So, in her new as-big-as-a-house form, Darryl Hannah decides to arrange a romantic meal for her and her husband and (unconvincingly) explains that her new size might benefit their relationship. To be quite honest, after her ridiculous performance at normal height, I'd been struggling to warm to her as the protagonist. Now that she's giving her more self-assured performance that is rather more convincing, it's not a great idea to put me in a position where I'm siding with the weaselly husband. If you watch the trailer you'll hear the line: "What did you expect me to do? Get a wetsuit and a flashlight?" And it's true. They aren't really anatomically compatible anymore.
Alien Troll
As much as I've been berating the remake, there's one change from the original that was absolutely worth it. They ditched the alien monster. In the remake you start off just seeing colourful lights coming out of the UFO and, right at the end, we discover what is really inside. The ending of the remake is quite silly, but it's nice that they didn't go with the depressingly tragic end of the original. In the original however, we see a giant troll-like thing coming out of the flying saucer pretty early on. That stupid troll is probably the biggest problem with the original movie.
The Woman Attacks!
Naturally the main thing the movie is building up to is the scene in the poster. The remake of this actually seemed, if anything, less impressive than the original. I just didn't get the impression that Darryl Hannah was posing any real threat. In the original, however, our protagonist storms the town like Godzilla. It really felt like what would happen if you replaced Godzilla with a giant woman. Sure, it's rather inconsistent how her clothes seem to grow at the same rate she does. (In the remake they have to get clothes specially made for her enormous size.) However, this scene is a much better payoff in the original.
The Original
The original version of the movie sticks to a more basic set-up. It's a simple story told well. The remake makes a big mistake removing Nancy Archer's well-meaning butler in favour of her condescending father. The butler was a great character.
One thing both movies have in common is that you really want the Nancy Archer to leave her horrible husband. However, she doesn't get so much opportunity to do so in the original and, as such, her motivations make a great deal more sense. The characters as a whole are far more realistic in the original, thanks mainly to the far less convoluted script. As was already noted, the sections involving the giant troll alien are absolutely ridiculous, but that doesn't spoil the overall movie.
The original Attack of the 50 Foot Woman has good performances, an economical script and, in spite of a few inconsistencies and a rather unimpressive alien troll monster, provides some good solid entertainment.
The remake of Attack of the 50 Foot Woman has a fun change to the ending, but sadly the acting quality is poorer, the script is convoluted and confused and the thrills of the actual "attack" are greatly diminished.
Original version: B- (Solidly good movie)
Remake: D+ (Poor but with a few good elements)
The film's concept seems to have inspired quite a few people on the net.
