The Remakes Thread

[enterthehero]

Originally Posted by Demdike

I can see how the younger generation may prefer RZ's Halloween. As Nosferatu said its like a lump hammer to the head. The original version could be seen as a bit dull after the first ten minutes as its a slow build up of suspense with very few shocks until the final reels.

In time Enterthehero will come to appreciate the original as a masterpiece of horror cinema.

Imo, Zombie's remake is a film i enjoy, as is the sequel. However i don't consider it a true Halloween film in the way H20 or The Curse of Michael Myers are.

Lol I've said I love both I just prefer the remake,as for his sequel I did not enjoy that as much but they are both miles better then Halloween resurrection


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.609064,-0.269023

[enterthehero]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

That's what I tried to do what I saw the remakes of Halloween, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Friday the 13th etc, but they still didn't work for me as horror films due to the lack of atmosphere and heavy-handed way in which the jumps were handled.

Yea that is true there defiantly is a lack of atmosphere in the remakes, Friday the 13th is the only one that doesn't feel like a remake to me, it feels more like another sequel


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.609147,-0.268952

[cloud]

I watched the Unrated version of Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning last night, and while a perfectly solid modern horror film I felt it had a lot of the issues that the 2003 remake suffered from. For a start it was far too polished and edited in such a way that it wasn't able to really capture the atmosphere of the 1974 movie. And while I don't want or expect films to be a carbon copy of older movies, I look at the retro approach that directors such as Rob Zombie and Alexandre Aja go for and feel that is the best approach for remakes; having its own style but staying true to the look and feel of the time it was reflecting. And while there are far worse actors to carry a movie, I do think that once again R. Lee Ermey was far too overexposed leaving Leatherface to look like an afterthought. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed both this and the 2003 movie to a degree, but the slick look and feel just didn't fit with the film itself, so in that regard I feel both were missed opportunities.

And while I'm here I'll just say that I'm one of the few people who really liked Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. One of the very few people who quite enjoyed Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation and one of the handful of people who absolute hated Tobe Hooper's sequel to the original.

[Criterion7]

I have nothing against well done remakes. I even enjoyed Friday for the throwback to original slasher it was. Though there are a couple unforgivables.

RZ'S Halloween That was a passable film but it showed he had no idea what a Halloween film was about.

Part 2 was just horrible. It has to go down as one of the worst made films ive ever seen. ( and I watched The Room and Troll 2) It was one of the most laughable idiotic non-horror films....ever.

The other is Nightmare on Elm Street which completely missed the whole point of the original film and any of the sequels. Freddys a dream demon and his kills are that boring...wtf?

[Daemonia]

The Hills Have Eyes was a decent enough remake and I thought it actually improved on the original, which I've never really liked anyway.

And Cloud is not alone in liking TCM: Leatherface and TCM: The Next Generation. I do too and make no apology for it.

[Rik]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

And Cloud is not alone in liking TCM: Letaherface and TCM: The Next Generation. I do too and make no apology for it.

And me, Leatherface more than Next Generation though.

[cloud]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that Rob Zombie didn't understand the original movie when he made his, I mean all the original elements were there, he just did it with a more exploitative feel over suspense and that was fine by me because instead of being a carbon copy it had its own identity. I really like that movie a lot. As for the sequel, I really need to revisit it in its director's cut, but I recall the first 30 minutes being as good as anything I've seen over the past decade, then once you realise it's a dream and the film then starts off properly it went wrong... horribly wrong! Its downfall included an overly dark look which stopped it from being as atmospheric as the first. In addition there was the casting of his wife as a ghost which imo looked tacky as hell, not to mention pointless, the characterisation of Laurie and Dr. Loomis which made them both REALLY unlikable and also the bearded Michael Myers appearance which I just didn't think worked. So yeah, I had such high expectation for it and really felt it was a huge letdown.

[Criterion7]

Originally Posted by cloud

I wouldn't go as far as to say that Rob Zombie didn't understand the original movie when he made his, I mean all the original elements were there, he just did it with a more exploitative feel over suspense and that was fine by me because instead of being a carbon copy it had its own identity. I really like that movie a lot. As for the sequel, I really need to revisit it in its director's cut, but I recall the first 30 minutes being as good as anything I've seen over the past decade, then once you realise it's a dream and the film then starts off properly it went wrong... horribly wrong! Its downfall included an overly dark look which stopped it from being as atmospheric as the first. In addition there was the casting of his wife as a ghost which imo looked tacky as hell, not to mention pointless, the characterisation of Laurie and Dr. Loomis which made them both REALLY unlikable and also the bearded Michael Myers appearance which I just didn't think worked. So yeah, I had such high expectation for it and really felt it was a huge letdown.

Yeah 2 was unforgivable.Even Resurrection was better.

Part 1 I didn't say was a bad film, I just don't think he understood the original film or concept. The unknown of Michael and the boogeyman aspect. Someone inexplicably kills for unknown reasons. Michael didn't have a backstory. Hell even Carpenter admitted he was tipsy when he write the brother-sister thing for part 2 and he regretted it. It took away from the horror.
Zombie obviously never got that and apparently thought he was making Friday the 13th meets TCM because that's how it came off. Not bad for a film on its own but horrible film for the Halloween name.

[cloud]

I guess that's one way of looking at it, but personally none of that bothered me. I do agree though that it did have an urban Texas Chainsaw Massacre feel to it, especially with the stepfather. As disappointing as the sequel was, I dunno if I disliked it more than Resurrection though, wow that film was so bad! I remember watching it in the cinema and wondering how it even got a theatrical release as it looked so straight to DVD, especially with the shoddy webcams which didn't work at all and made a poor film damn near unwatchable for me. That Resurrection marked the end of the original series' end was no surprise whatsoever and it was especially disappointing because I thought H2O actually breathed new life into what had become an incredibly stale - if watchable - series.

[Ranarchy]

I absolutely loved Piranha 3D!!!!! Full of fun, schlock, boobs, gore and Eli Roth gettin' his head crushed!



I also greatly enjoyed My Bloody Valentine 3D.....it's one of the only horror remakes where I like both versions the same!