If I could say three things to the “geniuses” who continue to remake classic horror films, they would be:

1. Stop it.
2. No, really. Stop it.
3. “More” is not always “better.”

Regarding one and two, let’s just admit that it’s about the money. But there are lots of “not so classic” horror films out there that would probably benefit from a remake/reimagining. And there are lots of writers out there just waiting to get a crack at doing something a little more original. Perhaps Hollywood could take advantage of those. Number three is the result of just a warped, wrongheaded understanding of what makes the “classic” horror film classic. Poltergeist has some great examples of that. For most of those who have seen the original, “the clown scene” is probably the most frightening scene in the film. I know this because I can still remember sitting in the theater, watching the reaction of several of my school chums who shall remain nameless because they’re probably reading this right now.  So what do the filmmakers do for the sequel? They decide there should be a whole BOX of clowns. Because if one clown is scary, well then…  The problem is that in the original, it’s a case of the boy’s own toy turned against him. It’s the familiar become frightening. Are the branches from that tree outside your window just scraping against it from the storm? Or are they clawing their way inside?  In the sequel, there’s not even a believable reason for HAVING the clown box! It’s just left there by previous owners! “People collect strange things,” says Dad. This is true, but if it was that important to collect, you’d think they wouldn’t leave it behind.

The other place “more” is not always better is CGI, which I’ve become convinced is simultaneously the greatest and most abhorrent development in film in the past 30 years. I think it was Stephen King in Danse Macabre who wrote about why horror, whether filmed or written, should be wary of “opening the door” because what’s on the other side might end up being disappointing. That is, often our imaginations are so much better than whatever the reality is (something I wish King had remembered for the conclusion of “It”). I think this is why so many remakes are from the horror genre: there’s a thinking among the Hollywood powers-that-be that somehow CGI is “going to make that great old horror film even better!” The problem should be obvious—the film was great despite not being filled with CGI effects. For whatever reason, it didn’t need them. Look, putting a new frame and paint job on a car with a piece of shit engine isn’t going to suddenly make it start winning races.

This new film uses CGI effects to actually shows us what’s on the “other side” (whereas the original left it to our imaginations), and I think they do so ineffectively, and at the expense of more vital things like better writing and character development. It might look kind of cool (for me, it was “meh”), but at that point, I didn’t really know all that much about the family (the mother has what, maybe a dozen or so lines beyond a word or two?), and consequently didn’t care about them all that much.

Okay, I’ve ranted enough about remakes in general, so here’s the deal with the film—the story is so similar as to make the remake unnecessary, and most of the differences are, frankly, a step down. Kyle Catlett, who plays young Griffin, does a decent job, but that may just be in comparison to the others. Even one of my favorites, Sam Rockwell, can’t save this one. He just isn’t given anything interesting to work with. Is it scarier than its predecessor? I guess, maybe. But the scares won’t stick with you after the film ends the way Tobe Hooper’s film does. And this one definitely doesn’t have Spielberg’s touch in its screenplay, either. If you’re a fan of the original, do yourself a favor: skip this one and watch that one again.

IMDB has it at 5.2, and I’d put it a bit lower, in the 4.5-5.0 range. (running time 1:33)