Another Awful Remake?

[Girard]

name='John Hamilton' timestamp='1286099559' post='479558']

I think The Thing and The Thing (From Outer Space) present valid arguments why some remakes are justified watched both films back-to-back with my son who is 15 (about the same age I first watched the original) and he was amused by the first and riveted by the second. Carpenter's version had film-making styles, acting, content and special effects all reflecting a different approach to the same subject matter and therefore could appeal to a different generation, and/or appeal to those like me who still enjoy the original.



In the case of the seemingly endless remakes of 1970's/1980's horror movies, they seem to be concentrating on topping the bloodletting rather than anything else and as such add nothing of value.

The James Arness 'Thing' reflects general 1950s thinking--that all space monsters were out to take over Earth and either enslave or devour its inhabitants. I can't believe scientists now, if they discovered a 'round-shaped object' buried in the ice, would set off charges to hasten digging it up. I thought that was pretty stupid of them, even then, when I saw it, age twelve or so.



In the 1950s, if you mentioned there could be some validity in life on other worlds, you'd be looked upon as some sort of weirdo by those who cavalierly discounted the fantastic odds that only this little obscure orb contained life, intelligent (and the jury's still out on this one) or not. Now, I'm wondering how many eyes would be raised if a ship landed in Times Square or in London and a Michael Rennie-type materialized.



The Day the Earth Stood Still cast the alien in a more humane light, of course. Everything considered, I still prefer the earlier version.

[John Hamilton]

name='Girard' timestamp='1286115157' post='479640']





The Day the Earth Stood Still cast the alien in a more humane light, of course. Everything considered, I still prefer the earlier version.

I haven't see the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, is it worth watching?

[Monkeymanbob]

name='Kitty Whiskers' timestamp='1285759026' post='478476']



Some books/films can be remade a million times and it doesn't seem to matter to anyone - all horror films, Pride and Prejudice, Taking of Pelham 123 or The Picture of Dorian Gray.

I would have to disagree with the fact it dosn't matter to anyone in regards to "all horror films".



A good film, remake or not is a good film and as such should be enjoyed for it's merits, but recent horror remakes, Prom Night, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, to name a few, did matter because they were awful, with Prom Night being possibly the worst horror movie it's ever been my misfortune to watch. Due to their terribleness, the franchises are again dead in the water, and to the Horror film community to see beloved franchises ballsed up has generate much wrath amongst those keyboard critics.

[Girard]

name='Girard' timestamp='1286115157' post='479640']



The Day the Earth Stood Still cast the alien in a more humane light, of course. Everything considered, I still prefer the earlier version.

I meant to say I preferred the earlier Thing to the remake, but I do seem to have read something about their possibly remaking The Day the Earth Stood Still.

[TimR]

name='John Hamilton' timestamp='1286214689' post='479893']

I haven't see the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, is it worth watching?

I watched thirty minutes of it and could not stand any more. It is terrible.



Keanu Reeves should not be making films of any kind.



Just my two cents...

[paul kersey]

name='TimR' timestamp='1286235163' post='480006']

I watched thirty minutes of it and could not stand any more. It is terrible.



Keanu Reeves should not be making films of any kind.



Just my two cents...

Totally agree about the "Day the earth stood still", it was so jaw droppingly bad that I gave my copy away

[waldo_lydecker]

I always rage about remakes, and then a niggling voice inside my head reminds me that most of my favourite classical plays and operas were, strictly speaking, 'remakes'. But I guess the point is that the likes of Shakespeare and Mozart 're-made' material that they knew they could improve. Most of today's remakes are re-made because they aim to feed off the fame and following enjoyed by the original. I think there should be something like a swear box in every Hollywood studio: every time someone suggests remaking a clasic film, they should have to contribute to the restoration of the original. Then we'd get more Criterion DVDs!

[John Hamilton]

name='TimR' timestamp='1286235163' post='480006']





Keanu Reeves should not be making films of any kind.

won't disagree with that!

[John Hamilton]

name='Monkeymanbob' timestamp='1286224743' post='479965']

I would have to disagree with the fact it dosn't matter to anyone in regards to "all horror films".



A good film, remake or not is a good film and as such should be enjoyed for it's merits, but recent horror remakes, Prom Night, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, to name a few, did matter because they were awful, with Prom Night being possibly the worst horror movie it's ever been my misfortune to watch. Due to their terribleness, the franchises are again dead in the water, and to the Horror film community to see beloved franchises ballsed up has generate much wrath amongst those keyboard critics.

Yeah but Prom Night was not a good film to begin with, nor was He Knows You are Alone, My Bloody Valentine et al

[Bernardo]

name='Marky B' timestamp='1285847389' post='478733']

I preferred the bearded one's version of The War Of The Worlds to the original 1953 version (although neither of them scared a nation like Awesome Orson's radio did);John Lee Hancock's version of The Alamo stuck more to history than the Duke's version,which seem to run parallel with Wayne's political views;John Singleton's version of Shaft was far superior to the 1971 original (after all,it did have the excellent Jeffrey Wright).

As for those who were not worthy remakes:

The Jackal

The Ladykillers



Of course,let us not forget about films which were supposed to be sequels,but were merely rehashes of the first film:US Marshalls,which was very poor compared to the excellent The Fugitive.

Ta Ta

Marky B

There is that extremely, irritating, infuriating arrogance in quite a few remakes when the circumstance, history or location is removed from the original and placed in the U.S. of A. Everyone knows that the Alamo plot was nicked from the Siege of Calais in the 100 Years War. (anyone insulted by the last remark? That is how we feel!)

[will.15]

name='Bernardo' timestamp='1286315317' post='480277']

There is that extremely, irritating, infuriating arrogance in quite a few remakes when the circumstance, history or location is removed from the original and placed in the U.S. of A. Everyone knows that the Alamo plot was nicked from the Siege of Calais in the 100 Years War. (anyone insulted by the last remark? That is how we feel!)

I wasn't insulted. I could care less about the Alamo. A bunch of white trash racists living on Mexican land tried to grab it for themselves and were killed by a guy they later named an airport after. I never wore a coonskin cap either,

[will.15]

name='Bernardo' timestamp='1286315317' post='480277']

There is that extremely, irritating, infuriating arrogance in quite a few remakes when the circumstance, history or location is removed from the original and placed in the U.S. of A. Everyone knows that the Alamo plot was nicked from the Siege of Calais in the 100 Years War. (anyone insulted by the last remark? That is how we feel!)

You guys do it, too. The Michael Winner remake of the Big Sleep changed the locale to London and the British Burn Witch Burn was filmed previously by Universal and based on American writer's Fritz Leiber's novel set in the U.S.

[Marky B]

Erm,I'm keeping out of this one .

Ta Ta

Marky B

[John Hamilton]

name='will.15' timestamp='1286355945' post='480332']

You guys do it, too. The Michael Winner remake of the Big Sleep changed the locale to London and the British Burn Witch Burn was filmed previously by Universal and based on American writer's Fritz Leiber's novel set in the U.S.

Not uncommon with horror movies at the time: The Haunting, City of the Dead etc. Hollywood production costs were significantly higher than England at the time. These were however effectively American movies being shot in location not really British movies set in the US

[Kitty Whiskers]

name='Monkeymanbob' timestamp='1286224743' post='479965']

I would have to disagree with the fact it dosn't matter to anyone in regards to "all horror films".



A good film, remake or not is a good film and as such should be enjoyed for it's merits, but recent horror remakes, Prom Night, Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, to name a few, did matter because they were awful, with Prom Night being possibly the worst horror movie it's ever been my misfortune to watch. Due to their terribleness, the franchises are again dead in the water, and to the Horror film community to see beloved franchises ballsed up has generate much wrath amongst those keyboard critics.

The originals weren't much chop either (no pun intended). I saw most of the originals of Prom Night, Halloween, Amityville Horror, etc. at my local suburban drive-in in the 70s and early 80s and they were pretty crap then. I agree the remakes are REALLY awful, but IMHO they weren't 'good' to begin with. It's the same crappy plot every time! Group of unlikeable, over-sex teenagers go somewhere and get hacked to pieces by the town nutter except for one decent chap/chapess who fights the nasty until it dies an unconvincing and ambiguous death (cue sequel). The only difference now is the sex is more graphic and they can afford one or other of the two blokes from Supernatural.

[Kitty Whiskers]

name='TimR' timestamp='1286235163' post='480006']

I watched thirty minutes of it and could not stand any more. It is terrible.



Keanu Reeves should not be making films of any kind.



Just my two cents...

As a female viewer, I freely admit I am prepared to sit through anything Keanu Reeves is in (regardless of how dodgy his acting, just as long as he looks dreamy) but even I couldn't get more than 20 minutes into The Day the Earth Stood Still. It was poo. Utter poo.



I did like Planet of the Apes though. I though the critics were really too hard on it. Tim Roth and Helena Bonham Carter as a monkeys? What's not to love about that?

[Monkeymanbob]

name='Kitty Whiskers' timestamp='1286372115' post='480360']

The originals weren't much chop either (no pun intended). I saw most of the originals of Prom Night, Halloween, Amityville Horror, etc. at my local suburban drive-in in the 70s and early 80s and they were pretty crap then. I agree the remakes are REALLY awful, but IMHO they weren't 'good' to begin with. It's the same crappy plot every time! Group of unlikeable, over-sex teenagers go somewhere and get hacked to pieces by the town nutter except for one decent chap/chapess who fights the nasty until it dies an unconvincing and ambiguous death (cue sequel). The only difference now is the sex is more graphic and they can afford one or other of the two blokes from Supernatural.

I disagree with the Halloween comment, I think it's a tightly made little movie that did well for the time on a tiny budget.



As for the same plot, could say the same for every western, war movie or thriller if one was to be obtuse. And with the move towards making all horror movies a 15 certificate, the graphic sex is no more, and you are more likely to see more boobage in an HBO tv series. In fact in the last year the only piece of nakedness I've seen in a horror movie was a fake penis in Cabin Fever 2 (that was subsequently bitten off), and Boogie Nights showed more (in every sense).

[will.15]

name='John Hamilton' timestamp='1286368950' post='480350']

Not uncommon with horror movies at the time: The Haunting, City of the Dead etc. Hollywood production costs were significantly higher than England at the time. These were however effectively American movies being shot in location not really British movies set in the US

The difference is Burn Witch Burn, with the exception of Janet Blair, has a British cast doing British accents. There is no attempt to make it look like an American set film. It is also one of the few remakes that is substantially better than the original.



The 1973 The Legend of Hell House is not a remake, but the novel it was based on is set in Maine. The British production relocated the story to England.



H.G. Wells didn't have a problem with Orson Welles adapting War of the Worlds to radio changing it to contemporary American.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUdghSMTXsU

[Kitty Whiskers]

name='Monkeymanbob' timestamp='1286386984' post='480418']

I disagree with the Halloween comment, I think it's a tightly made little movie that did well for the time on a tiny budget.



As for the same plot, could say the same for every western, war movie or thriller if one was to be obtuse. And with the move towards making all horror movies a 15 certificate, the graphic sex is no more, and you are more likely to see more boobage in an HBO tv series. In fact in the last year the only piece of nakedness I've seen in a horror movie was a fake penis in Cabin Fever 2 (that was subsequently bitten off), and Boogie Nights showed more (in every sense).

I agree Halloween was the best of a dodgy lot, but it had several production advatages, not the least of which was having the fab Jamie Lee Curtis in the lead (who doesn't love her?). But really it was the same old plot recycled...again...with a great lead. Sure other genres recycle, but they aren't so blatant in not trying. Horror has to display the worst laziness in a very lazy and complacent Hollywood. The only time anything a bit different crops up, it's usually something the Japanese made first. Don't get me wrong, I love a good horror film..but I rarely get one!



As for the sex: My Bloody Valentine and Friday the 13th had some pretty graphic sex scenes them, but in all honesty, if they were half the standard of an HBO series no one would care what they put in it. (Loved Deadwood!) My point is, they usually throw it in to stop people dozing off between the axe murders because the plot (and acting) is so generic.



BTW: You may be interested to know there's a remake (again) of Child's Play coming up with BOTH blokes from Supernatural in it. In 3D - can't wait.

[TimR]

name='Kitty Whiskers' timestamp='1286372614' post='480363']

As a female viewer, I freely admit I am prepared to sit through anything Keanu Reeves is in (regardless of how dodgy his acting, just as long as he looks dreamy) but even I couldn't get more than 20 minutes into The Day the Earth Stood Still. It was poo. Utter poo.

The original is one the best science fiction films made and the remake is one of the worst films of any kind ever made.



As for Reeves - I can't stand the fellow. But I won't go on.

I did like Planet of the Apes though. I though the critics were really too hard on it. Tim Roth and Helena Bonham Carter as a monkeys? What's not to love about that?

I saw all of the originals when I was a boy. There were many sequels. I may take a look at the DVD of the remake. But it won't be the same without Charlton Heston and Roddy McDowell.