Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Crook
I agree, you don't need everything to be shown explicitly. In fact it's usually scarier when it isn't...
|
I totally agree also. Gore fests are just revolting and not scarey in the least.
One need only to look at
'The Omen' and the recent gorey remake. The original was suspenceful and psychological (never really confirming that Damien was the Anti-Christ... although strongly suggesting it). The remake dumps suspence and psychology (not to mention good casting) for CGI and blood.
The clearly papiermache (sp) head rolling over a sheet of glass in the original was much more effective than the remake's gorey decapitation... because the original had an art to the story-telling whereas the remake (even though working from the same script) was lazy in its telling, being overly reliant on gore and anatomically realistic images.
I do not mind gore in the least, so long as a movie does not rely on the amount of blood alone... so long as the film-makers are not using blood and gore to cover a lack of ideas and skill in the production.
The only use I would find for the remake, would be for a comparitive exercise in how the very same script can produce two such different movies. One with excellent casting, suspence and psychology... and the other one fail due to bad casting, and unimaginative dealing with the script.
Bad casting also castrated the
'Psycho' remake... though it was a pointless exercise in any case... Gus Van Sant simply showing that whilst he could match Alfred Hitchcock shot for shot, he was still unable to match the Master of Suspence in the craft of film-making or genius.