ikrani

Funny enough, I think its strengths lie in what the original did weaker, and its weaknesses are where the original was strong.

Look, I'm not going to pretend that either Rocky Horror is a good movie; it's not. Sure, the original was weird, a beloved classic, and probably the film that kick-started the very idea of cult films, but it's not good. In fact, I wouldn't even go so far as to say that I liked it. I like SOME of the music (Time Warp, Hot Patootie, and especially Sweet Transvestite), I like Riff Raff and his sister Magenta, I liked Meatloaf as a freeze-dried biker, I freaking LOVED Tim Curry as Dr. Furter, but everything else garnered a "meh" at best.

So I can't be bothered to get too angry at a film that more or less strikes even in terms of quality. The acting's a lot less sloppy from everyone this time around, with the human characters and Rocky turning in solid performances. I dug the set design, a little more quality while still looking like bizarre horror-movie. Sidebar: why didn't they take the time to honor some of the NEW sci-fi and horror icons that have come after 1976? The original was a tribute to O'Brien's love of schlock, so why couldn't someone else's love of schlock be shown here? The only reference I caught was a rather ingenious if obvious Back to the Future wink, which I dare not spoil. They saw an opportunity, and they took it.

The songs are... Surprisingly, I enjoyed them more than the originals, with two exceptions. And, unfortunately, those exceptions happen to be the biggest songs of the movie: Time Warp and Sweet Transvestite. It baffles me how they managed to make welcome updates to the lesser numbers, even getting Hot Patootie on-point, but then managed to screw up the aforementioned two through over-production and lifeless performances. Riff Raff sounds great when he's doing the Richard O'Brien voice (which I dug; Richard O'Brien sounds like an other-worldly weirdo already; see "Dark City" if you want proof of his vocal perfection). But when he sings for realsies, he sounds like a generic 2010s pop singer; they ALL do.

I also think the film suffers is areas where it tries to be TOO faithful. Coming to mind is that dual-seduction joke with Furter going to Janet and Brad's individual bedrooms. In the original it was funny, but because they swapped Furter's gender and kept the same order of visits, the humor isn't as strong this time. Purists were going to wail anyway, so why not change it? And if Laverne Cox wasn't going to pull of the Frank N. Furter accent, just do away with it. Give her a different sexy-mad-scientist accent, one that she at least keeps consistent.

If you're a fan of the original, you have no reason to watch this movie. It doesn't change enough to warrant your curiosity, and I guarantee you won't like the tamer elements. Your original Rocky Horror is still being shown and this TV movie isn't slowing its juggernaut of a theatrical run. But if your like me and thought the original was a bad film with some brilliant high points, give this a watch. If I had to say which one to watch first, the 1976 version. There are some moments and reactions that need to be experienced fresh, and the original, despite its flaws, had more teeth than this one.

It's a case of Temple of Doom vs. Crystal Skull: do you take a mediocre film that more or less plays it safe, or a bad film that throws caution to the wind? In both cases, I choose the one that's less polished but more memorable where it DOES shine.

Finally, TIM CURRY, KEEP THE COMEBACK COMING, YOU BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL MAN!