Dissecting Martyrs 2015 | Worst Remake Ever? | Spoiler-free

Hello, horrorphiles. A remake of the 2008 classic French horror film of the same name, Martyrs 2015 was produced by Blumhouse pictures. Jason Blum himself said of the film, "Making the remake destroyed the original in every way and the remake never should have existed."

"With help from a friend (Bailey Noble), a tormented woman (Troian Bellisario) tracks down the family that imprisoned and tortured her when she was young," according to Rotten Tomatoes.

This is Dissecting Horror: Examining the anatomy of fear in film, television and literature with Kelsey Zukowski and Steven Aguilera.

We hope you find it in your cold, black, withered hearts to join our Society of Grotesquery and Loathing and keep our podcast suffering onward:

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/dissectinghorror
PayPal one-time donation of any amount: https://paypal.me/dissectinghorror
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@dissectinghorror
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dissectinghorror
Kelsey Zukowski: http://kelseyzukowski.com
Steven Aguilera: https://www.stevenaguilera.com

Photo credit: Slevin Mors

Transcript

0:09

Hello, Horrorphiles. You're listening to Dissecting Horror, examining the anatomy of fear in film, television and literature. I am filmmaker Steven Aguilera I'm writer and performer Kelsey Zukowski. In this episode, we'll examine the 2015 American remake of Martyrs. This dissection will be spoiler free. We are the horror whisperers, you're champions of horror and keepers of the fearscape, On this podcast of frightsome delights, if you will. I will. And we hope you will join us, too, won't you? With help from a friend, Bailey Noble, a tormented woman, Troian Bellisario tracks down the family that imprisoned and tortured her when she was a child. That according to Rotten Tomatoes, a remake of the 2008 French film of the same name, which we covered in our previous podcast. Martyrs was produced most notably under Blumhouse, among other entities. I guess I can see why they would remake that film since this would open up to English speaking territories as a well-made and popular movie. If done right. Well, even our producer, Jason Blum, actually said making the remake destroyed the original and every way and the remake never should have existed. Which I thought Wow. It was like his apology. Like, I'm sorry we did this, So, yes, as you mentioned in our last episode, I was a huge fan of the 28 film. And when this came out, the the thought was kind of just, well, that's really unneeded. And you can have an unneeded remake. And yes, I potentially brings it to another audience who might not have seen it, but I don't know. It just had the the feeling of they're probably not going to really go there where they need to go and this is going to be something else that's kind of just cashing in on the some of the name and notoriety and without capturing the horror, misery, power and stark commentary that the original had. And I will say I hated this a lot less than expected. It has very, very low ratings. It's pretty universally hated If you look at the various scores out there perhaps low expectations was part of it. That never hurts. I also do really like one of the main actors, Troian Bellisario. She was on Pretty Little Liars and was actually that show was still filming at the time that this came out. And while the acting doesn't measure up to the depth and power of the original, I do think I overall enjoyed the acting and I think it helped keep me engaged like I was engaged during this film, but not it's really where the biggest issues are, where it's the comparison to what it should have been and the original. I feel like this is a case where it would have still been a fairly forgettable film and in many ways it is a little hollow, but it could have been a fairly compelling good torture survivalist horror film like, again, barely forgettable. But it's just it really just lacks the depth and artistry that the original had. So, yeah, it's a case where there is a good amount of things that are changed story wise. And the filmmakers did say they viewed it as more of a reimagining and more inspired by the mood and style overall of the original film. But especially like Martyrs is just such a gritty, intense endurance. But like using this pain and suffering for this higher sort of exploration and and just digging really into like humanity. And there are a lot of elements that were even almost exact lines from the original film. So there are areas where you could see they kind of tried to keep the story and intent consistent. And then there are some significant changes that they made as well. Some of those changes are okay. The ending, I think, kind of just ruins it. It just the antithesis of what this story was actually about. So I kind of feel that This film got a 9% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes and 15% audience score, and rightly so. I would say this film leans into its revenge horror aspect more than the original, and I could tell in the first minute that this was going to be a more generic American ized interpretation without any of the edge or style. These films felt very different. as far as the casting goes. I felt it was also rather generic and bland, not especially distinctive. In the original, the actors faces alone, both the children and adult versions of the characters were just so captivating. And I'm I'm not knocking the actors necessarily in this remake. They gave it their all and tried to sell the best they could the material they were given. This is more of a casting failure, in my opinion. And not to rag on the children, but they did not seem particularly damaged or psychotic. Instead just a bit depressed in a couple of scenes, or as frightened as one would be after having a nightmare not genuinely traumatized. I thought the little girl who they came upon later in the film was the best child actor, though she still physically didn't look like she had been through hell and back based on her hair, makeup and costume. I guess more than anything. But none of the tortured victims looked distressed or like they'd been trapped for more than 30 minutes or so. Anna for being supposedly an abused orphan just looked like an idyllic middle class church girl with nothing edgy or damaged about her. An American cheerleader type just to clean, cut and fresh. none of the tortured people looked like they were anywhere near messed up enough to attain the state they were supposed to be going for. Even after a character is electro shocked, many times she didn't seem particularly messed up afterwards, despite the true brain damage that actually causes. Yeah, the filmmakers even beforehand making it, they did say that it is their intent to tone back on the Gore. yeah, again, it's like, well, okay, do you really wanna remake this film then? Yeah, if you want just a similar concept and you know, there's some torture and torment and fighting and perseverance, just make that film instead. there are certainly moments of torture and, and gore, but none of them really they don't have the same effects remotely as there is in the original film. So yeah, I think I think there's a part of like you're not even if you believe that they're really going through this, there's not that same element of discomfort and emotion. And just like in the original, it's just like this whirlwind of kind of emotions and different things being torn at you from, but imagining this like the physicality of this happening to the emotion and the trauma and all that that does to you in I still like to see that they do kind of have a little bit of the psychological horror element with what happened to her when she was young, kind of having a very physical monster there to fend for her in one moment, but can quickly turn it on her and is just her constantly sort of plaguing, not really able to leave what happened to her behind. But that was pretty much an element not explored further. Whereas in the original film you saw this with all of the victims. It was immense, immense physical torment beyond the capabilities you would think anyone could withstand. But it was also they were just absolutely plagued and traumatized on a mental and psychological element as well. This film was so tame compared to the French one, and that didn't make it any better. I don't know what they were thinking. If you want to tell this story, you really need to commit. they should have gone for the Hard-R none of the suffering scenes were presented artfully. It took what was the most horrific tale of torture and misery anyone could go through and turn it into almost a charming coming of age story between two girls. Yeah, it did become again, the the relationship between the two girls is definitely important and almost a saving grace in the original. But again, story wise, it takes such a different turn part of me didn't mind that they went a little bit of a different direction, but there was also a lot that definitely was taken away from it, even kind of being the subjects. It changed Lucie's story a lot. Absolutely. And there was something sad and cruel about her escaping all those years ago, trying to build a new life and then still being kind of pulled back and tormented by the monsters that created. And then what she views as her sort of one chance of revenge. It just sucks her back into this world even further and brings others along with her. But I think in the original, again, trying to not be too spoilery, but in the original it's sort of a different subject that the core of this plight of martyrdom is happening to. And by switching the character, I think it ultimately takes a little bit more away because it's not as much as of that bleak, hopeless, enraged Jean really being alone and fighting against the tormentors of essentially your only family who was viewed as a failed subject in the end. So I feel like in the original, it's a little bit more of like passing of the torch of this cruelty that even just changing the character, that's the focus. You lose a little bit of that. This was not extremity horror, it was like PG 13 horror. And for this story, for this subject matter, that just doesn't work. This film was not rated, which I guess means they didn't have to stick any PG 13 guidelines, but In the original, for example, our lead is covered in blood in just the first few minutes and it was a bloodbath. I mean, it was it was blood galore. But in this one, she literally has two drops on her face and her hair still looks pretty good. You mentioned before Jason Blum saying that it should have been never should have existed? Is the exact quote from Blum. The producer Did he mention that it was tame down for a certain reason? Was it meant to be more for American audiences or is it for some sort of a, I don't know, broader reach on various territories? seemed like it was the filmmaker's intent. I don't know. Maybe they were trying. I mean, usually the reason for that is to try to reach the wider audience that you can hit more of the, I guess, PG 13 crowd. But then again, it's like just make, just make a different film Yeah, call it something else. And you could still like there were elements that I think were strong. You felt the fear and compassion and intensity and horror, and there was loyalty and, you know, just fighting through everything to try to save yourself and your friend. And there was like there was good elements there, but it was just like in the wrong it wasn't the film that it was supposed to be. You could have two girls of tortured, troubling past, then kidnaped, tortured, fighting for their lives. Like that's a pretty basic starting point where they could just do that and make their own film that they wanted to and it would probably probably would have stood as a little stronger because it's like knowing what it should have been. What it could have been is what makes that feel so hollow and like a pale comparison. Yeah, I think having seen the original does affect one's viewpoint on this one. If like I saw some positive not I wouldn't say positive reviews. It was more like people didn't hate it as much as I thought they were going to hate it. And I thought they must have not seen the original. They didn't have anything to compare it to because I think if there's anything, any hints of goodness in this film, it's what was extracted from the original. And that was just twisted to such extent of badness that I don't see anything recognizable there. But James Cameron said to one of his junior editors, I think that he only really knows how to make a film after he's finished making it. I'm paraphrasing, but personally, whenever I finish a project, I realize only then all the things I did wrong or could have done better or what truly worked or didn't, and I carry that experience forward to the next project in the hopes of at least making that one better. But in this case, we have a French version from 2008, which was done very well to begin with. One would think that going in and creating a remake would afford the filmmakers a similar opportunity to take what didn't work and fix those points, if any, while bolstering those points that were successful. Yet this film really didn't take advantage of having witnessed the previous film and setting that as a bar to meet or exceed in making their own version somehow they managed to take something that was very unique, compelling and fresh and make it feel run of the mill cliche. Even. I am actually kind of fascinated by that, like, how do you fuck that up? You basically have permission to literally copy this other praised, well-made film. All you have to do is that but in English? Yeah, absolutely. As we talked about in our previous episode, a lot of what was so striking about the original film was the writing and just how the story was told and how it just constantly weaved and flourished and went in so many different directions. It was, yeah, just very, very creative and captivating and horrifying and just almost the, the direction and story structure and just every element of the filmmaking almost had a life of its own. And yes, you have the total opposite here of in some ways, if this was just another film I stumbled across, I wouldn't be anything to write home about. But like I was engaged while I was watching it, and there was moments where I again, maybe I'm slightly biased because I like the actor and I think she does well in horror and dark material that she has good fear and intensity, and I think a lot of that just translated for me. But overall, like if this was a film that wasn't called Martyrs, it was just its own film. And I think it would be a decent, engaging enough torture, survival horror film, But yeah, it's because It just took something very creative and innovative and powerful and full of depth and meaning and just made it very generic. More cliched. I keep on coming back to the word hollow because I feel like that feels really right. again, I didn't necessarily hate it, but it doesn't have whether the creativity or artistry or or the meaning or really deeper sense of story that just other than elements that I mean, it's not like there's no story, but even the elements that are in there feel kind of too convenience, especially certain characters that you're like, Oh, well, they're okay, okay, they're still okay. Really, really Like it just it's not everything that's happening to them doesn't have the consequence that it feels it should. overall, it definitely loses a lot of the depth and takes away from a lot of the sentiment, themes and just essence of what the story was really about. I think especially with where it goes in the end, part of me gets that they were kind of trying to go for a hopeful message about trauma and finding one's strength and kind of perpetuating that that fight. But it's also that's that's a different story. That's not the story because the bigger part is really meant to be about, again, like a forewarning of cruelty and just the dangers of a world where those in power seek to control and use. You No, I actually did hate this film. There was nothing. do. I was actually surprised I didn't Mark again, maybe I expected it to be horrible, but yeah, I'm. I'm surprised you didn't hate it more, honestly, Especially with your attachment to the first one. I'm almost disappointed in you for not hating this movie more, but that's okay. Got to keep you surprised, I had a client eight or nine years ago not to talk to my clients, but I did visual effects for him and some of which are in my VFX reel to this day. But it was a weird thing where he would only allow a certain level of quality to exist in his work, despite his super passionate and enthusiastic kind of guy. But anything beyond that would have to be degraded to match the mediocrity of the rest of his work. It didn't matter how first rate the shots were I provided to him, he would always somehow lower it to the level of the rest of his. I want to say shitty filmmaking, but that would be anyway, he he either color graded it badly or reframed the shots oddly or edited it strangely. It was weird. One way or another he would always find a way to fuck it up and it's like there was only a certain level of quality that was acceptable to him. Granted, he had very limited consumer level gear with which to work, and I actually do root for people who are passionate and make the best with what they've got. But beyond his shitty camera, his camerawork, his casting, the acting, the screenwriting music and so on was always brought down to about the same level of cheese and even to this day, all these years later, the quality of his work has not really improved at all. So my point is, I think we're seeing the same thing here. Everything from the casting, the characters, the dialog, the shots, editing score were all mediocre at best, and that's being generous despite the source material they had to work with. It's like no quality above a certain level was admitted or if every department had as part of their mandate to take this rich deep material and and dumb it down for American audiences, everything is dumbed down and spelled out. The French version was just so much more gritty and bold. I found something interesting that I never thought of before. And I know we keep going on about how screechy women in horror films annoy me, but I realize that it's only in films where the characters are written badly. In the original film, despite all the horrific actions performed by characters is, you could still feel empathy on some level. In this film, everyone just annoyed me. Everything they did just totally pissed me off. I could not root for anyone. The the characters were just so stupid, not just stupidly written, but stupid as characters in the bad decisions they kept making. If anything, I was rooting against them. I was unable to invest in these characters or the story at all, and they had that kind of screechy screaming that I hate. But every time someone did that, I just wanted her to die. It was insufferable. The powerful means of creating rooting interest for a character so that you root for them is what's called undeserved misfortune. Like somebody's wife dies or they get laid off from work or something like that. But in this case, when the character is acting so stupid to the point where they kind of deserve of what's after them, it's hard to root for them. I'll just say, if the filmmakers themselves can't connect with the material, you can't expect the audience to either. I had sympathy and I was invested enough in the characters. But Anna in particular, this version compared to the original, she's definitely the weaker character and makes is more that I experience more of those moments of like, Oh really? You're going to do that? No, don't do that. I wouldn't do that. Why are you doing that? So I would say I saw that more with her. Granted, in some ways she's still she endures and she goes back in and fights. And so, I mean, she's not it's not like she's a total damsel in distress just waiting to die. And I'm not going to try to do anything. But yeah, overall, they kind of switched kind of these characters and kind of in this version, Lucy kind of got the both of the stronger qualities of both characters in the original. So overall she was the stronger character because again, they, they gave her that, that material in focus. But yeah, even, even like our our villain I know you were commenting on just everything was very spelled out. It's very clear the intention and why they're doing this in this version. But there is something a little a little lost where there was you kind of had an understanding in the original, but there was a little bit more subtlety and almost could have been a number of different things being the prime reason that was inspiring them to do this to people. But yeah, there's really there's really no no subtlety here. I imagine the original French filmmakers hearing the news that Hollywood wanted to make an American version of their film and then thinking in their mind something much more epic with, you know, Matt Damon or somebody and and something grand and polished. But then getting this cheap straight to streaming bullshit, I wonder what they felt the first time watching this. But I will say as a filmmaker in Los Angeles and as an American citizen, I apologize on behalf of the United States of American film industry for this abomination. although I prefer the original Swedish version of Let the Right One In, I think they did a good job on an American remake renamed Let Me In. So just because something foreign is Americanized doesn't mean it necessarily has to be terrible. Well, interesting that you mention let the right one in, because that was also an example that came to mind for me as actually similar to this in cases of remakes and adaptations. I don't really go there with the source material. You didn't like the remake, so the book let the right One in by far the best and the most dark and disturbing and goes deeper than even the Swedish film. The Swedish film is incredible as well. So then slightly not going 100%. They're going like 90% there. I still love that film. Let Me In was fine again. It helped that it was well acted out. Chloe Moretz is great, but it it added absolutely nothing new and I don't think it really went to how dark some of that source material was. And even more so, there was a recent Showtime that was one season immediately got canceled that was really a case of it's like they had some different ideas and some different ways, directions that they went, and there was some really powerful acting. There was some interesting things, but so much of it was a departure from what the original story was even really about. So it felt like another one of those where they're just kind of capitalizing off of the name and general premise. like the haunting of Hill House different film, you know, make the film that you want to make that's maybe even, you know, has some similarities. But that was especially let the right one in. There's now been three adaptations of it, none of which go to the most dark, disturbing material that the book has. So it's like, why, why, why are you keep on making these things if you don't want to really go there? That's an interesting point because I saw the American version. Let let me in. I don't know why they call it that. Actually. It doesn't really fit the vampire theme, which is, I assume, let the right end the door. I don't believe my eyes out, I think is because they have to be invited into the house. Yeah, well, I think. Let the right one in would then make sense. Right? Because I mean, either one you have to sort of grant sort of some sort of permission to to let them. I don't know. I'm confused by by those. Is the is the book in English originally. No, it's a Swedish. Okay. So the first exposure I had was the American version. And so I have nothing to compare it to is like, wow, this is really good. And then I saw this Swedish version, which I liked more, but I don't know if it's because it was more they really went there more or if it was because it was a different culture. And I was examining the Swedish people and they look different, They act different, and it just gave it a different layer of of I don't know, interesting this, but I don't really have anything more to say about that. Oh, good. So I do feel like Matt Reeves is a very good director. He did let me in, and I think he did the Planet of the Apes films and was going to do yet This is where I bring in Star Wars again. He was supposed to do another Star Wars film that never got made. I think that was him. But regardless, my point being, I think that movies can be remade for American audiences and it could be done well. There's no reason why, but in this case, they failed. really I mean, maybe maybe more so in drama or I don't know, I just feel like there's been very few times I've seen an American remake of a foreign film. I'm been like, Oh, I like the ring. I feel like TV shows do it more often, like being human. The American version was amazing. Yeah, I'm sure there's other examples, but yeah, I. Oh, the ring were saying I think the ring was good. The ring, too, was not good. Even though the same director did. The original ring in Japan directed the ring to. It was just, I don't know, maybe it was studio interference, but this isn't about the ring, nor is it about But at the same time, I will introduce a random rant it's something that exists in not just this film, but also in the original and many other films where a shotgun especially is used. It's a thing where when someone gets shot, they go flying back eight feet, and if the person who shot them was really mad, they fly back 15 feet through glass or something. I know it's a movie, but in reality when one is shot, they're just going to fall straight down. And it bugs me when when that sort of overly dramatic thing happens in films. But the amount of impact a person feels when shot is the same kickback that the person who fired the gun feels against their shoulder. I know I'm nit picking. I know it's just Hollywood logic, but Newton's law dictates that for every there is an equal and opposite reaction and of rant also hate and this is in any genre where somebody gets hit, like in a superhero film The Soup, the super villain strikes somebody and they fly against the room, you're dead. It's like getting hit by a car or something, I don't know. And they get up and like, Oh man, fuck it. And they just get back in the fight. After shaking. I think that the more you can ground things in reality like Rocky, you know, it just felt like, wow, even that was like a stretch because nobody is going to let the fight go on after you're beat up that much. But it when it feels more real and you can invest in it, you can live vicariously through that. But it starts getting into like the haunting 1999 territory where it's just so over the top. Then you really start to lose me. And I think everyone is as an audience member, Yeah. Becomes more comedic. And even if you're taking it seriously, it's it feels like I'm part of the focus of this entire material is human monsters and cruelty and actual darkness happening in the world. Even if it's put into a different extreme or lens, there should be something that feels grounded. Hmm. Well, I think I'll skip my rant about the score because nobody cares and I didn't care. It was just saying, Well, you know, the the end credits was nice. It's like they had a real musician come in and play a cello or something. But I'm going to skip that. As for the cinematography, I don't feel like most of the shots were planned out and thought through, but were more like the crew showed up on the day and they just winged it in a hurry. probably shot it all in two or three weeks. Many scenes were really? Yeah. So I have a feeling it was fairly low budget. I think most of the budget went to the actors, Hmm. Well, I don't remember the actors being like expensive looking actors. There was one at the time this was filmed, Troian Bellisario was in Pretty Little Liars, which is a very successful show for like eight years. So probably she might have been a little bit of the bigger name Bailey Noble I recognized from True Blood. She was in that for about a season. Again, not like a A-list star names, but still, I imagine a good part of the budget went there. If you look on IMDB for the credits on the two lead actor, actually anybody in there, it's always a point of amazement how they'll have like 30 or 44 credits or something like how and they're like 30 years old or 25 or something. And how come I never saw you before? I heard of you and and how are you getting so much goddamn work compared to all these other actors I know that don't even have an IMDB page. So there's I guess it's just about getting a good manager and meeting the right people. Some of it's like, Oh, they were, they were on one episode of this show or that show, you know, sometimes like smaller things, Well, many of the scenes I noticed were shot with a Steadicam or as a wide shot and they didn't really take the the proper care to do coverage or really punctuate each moment. It was just so quick and dirty. Everything about the production felt rushed and glossed over like nobody cared. It certainly didn't have the passion of the the first film or the guy who wrote it was also the director. And you know, he's going to be more invested. But it felt more like, you know, when you have like a painter or a maintenance guy come into your apartment to fix something and they don't give a rat's ass if if the paint matches or if there's globs of, you know, gunk painted over and, you know, hairs in it and all that. They just want to get it done, move on to the next, the good enough mentality. Exactly. Yeah, I can see that for sure. I also preferred the gritty, photochemical esthetic of actual film in the original over the more tiresome, overly color graded digital look of this, though I actually am a big proponent of digital filmmaking, but it didn't work nearly as well as the first film I mentioned. They had similar budgets. They're both low budget enough I don't think anybody was constrained by ratings, but the original was rated R. This one had no rating. Yeah. I think it's some of the passion. You know, like if you're a filmmaker and, you really have a strong sentiment in the story that you want to tell versus if you're doing adaptation, not that you can't be a love of film and do a good worthy adaptation. There have been some very good horror remakes, I would say. But yeah, I think it's yeah, not being fully invested and and the power of the original and what more you could do to add to the story. I think it's actually astonishing how different two movies based on the same source material can be, even though they were both low budgets, limited location productions. it's interesting to see how two sets of filmmakers interpret the same material, what choices they make to change things from scene to scene, character to character, line to line. Obviously, more passion was poured into the original, since that was both written and directed by the same person. But I can't emphasize enough how different these two films are. The first one had me beside myself while the second one was so bland and uninspired, even though they were both portraying many of the exact same scenes. It's weird how I could be watching essentially the same scene. Yet in this American version, there was no tension. There was no there was nothing shocking or scary or intriguing. It was just kind of there is as information like one of those true crime TV shows explaining what happened in a detached way. Yes, I felt more safe and toned down again. I I felt invested and enjoyed it well enough as its own thing, but it very much lacked the substance and creativity and sort of unique perspective and style. This American version is much more on the nose. That is to say, things are more obvious spelled out and to the point with little or no subtext or us having to think about anything. It all felt so flat. I kept pausing it every few minutes just to check how much longer it was going to last. It's like all the ingredients were there. It was going through all the motions, but none of it was landing. And I felt nothing or if anything, boredom. It commits is perhaps the ultimate sin of being bland or mediocre, not to mention a waste of great material. Yeah, and that is one I think of. The main focus is and goals of French extremity to have you definitely enduring and feeling and taking in everything that they're exploring. But also it's meant to view this, usually very bleak makeup world that they've created, but it's also meant to be a parallel and get the audience to think and examine some of those things that might be present in their world or those around them. the lack of making you want to think about it or, you know, really resonated. Is that alone it kind of shows that it missed the mark. I want to keep expressing how much I hated this film for like another half hour. And I want to state examples, but we can't really do that. There's so many plot holes and nuances which might spoil things, but I will say one example. This is the biggest plot hole that exemplifies how little thought they put into this film. There is a point where one of the actresses is crawling through a tube and when she enters it, it's clearly nighttime. And then we cut away, cut back to her and she's exiting the tube, which is about, I don't know, 20 feet long. And now it's daytime. It's like middle of the day. And there's nothing to justify that. She didn't pass out and then wake up or she wasn't trapped. She just crawled through a few yards of tube and it was suddenly 12 hours later. Nobody cared. The the whole thing was so rushed. there were points, let's say the beginning, without saying what the beginning was in the original went on for like five or 10 minutes. And you really were involved in the people. We were intermingling the with. And in this film it's just breezed over and it's like, Oh yeah, okay, I can see why they sort of went through the motions that that scene happened, but It's like they put forth the absolute minimum effort to get this thing out at what is it, an hour and 26 minutes. this comes in 13 minutes shorter than the original, emphasizing its laziness, I hated this movie. Noted. But yeah, that is, that is valid. There definitely there wasn't as nearly as much care put it and simple logistical common sense, things like that might have been like, Oh, maybe we take one more night and shoot this all at night. Yeah, there is some laziness for sure. I do feel better when you say that. that Jason Blum equally was displeased with this film and I feel like I can respect it more for being honest about that because this felt like I want to say it was a cash grab, but I can't see this making any money. It was just so poorly made. It was cheaply made. But yeah, of a cash grab maybe. And maybe then they realized, Yeah, okay, we'll just release it. Yeah, I want to stop talking about this movie. So end of podcast, That was. You know, what made that one so painful was just. I hated the movie so much that it wasn't even, like a love hate thing. Like the haunting 1999 where it was a guilty pleasure. This is the first thing we've done. I just couldn't stand even thinking about the movie filled me with loathing ing, grotesquerie and loathing. Yeah, in a bad way. I watched it twice. Powerful wasn't powerful. I watched both of them twice and I thought I would maybe like it more the second time because I was maybe in a bad mood or too sleepy the first. No, no, no. I, I loved the original more the second time, and I hated the remake more the second time. But I I'm really seriously disgusted with that film on every level. If anything, it was it was fascinating or morbidly interesting to see how they would have just interpreted the same material differently and just seeing how how it could diverge in terms of quality so far from something that was so good and that was just like it was watching like watching a house burn down or something. Like there's a there's a metaphor for that that I can think of. But yeah, seems to be a common thing of tackling something dark and intense and taboo and disturbing and just playing it super safe. This is one of those where I like the wrong material. Well, I would have loved if somebody said, Steve, can you make a remake of this film? I would have jumped in and I would have loved to have tried to make something really great out of it because you have something. If you have something really great to work with in hell, you know, that would just be an opportunity, not something to squander, but it's true. Like you can have ten, I think you can ten writers and give them the same exact concept and they'll do something very different. Yeah. right. On that note, If you would like to join our Society of Grotesquerie and Loathing, please subscribe and give this podcast like comments your wretched thoughts below along with what you would like us to expose in future episodes. Keep our podcast suffering on by finding it in cold, black withered hearts to support us on patron a link to our paperless also below for one time donations of any amount. It was nice knowing you