Halloween

[SmallBlueThing]

"Richard Franklin's 'actually-better-than-you-remember' Psycho II)?"

Actually, I remember Psycho II as being very good indeed!

Steev

[Keef Monkey]

Just saw this today and really enjoyed it, not as good as the original but a far better remake than anyone would have expected probably. Not perfect by a long shot, was a bit too relentless towards the end, felt like you were constantly being bombarded, the result of which being that the effect was somewhat diminished.

As for Zombie being a hack, not really sure what that means but he's obviously got some technical smarts as so far his movies have been visually impressive if nothing else. Sure he may not have the deftness of touch required to debate the "abused/abuser cycle" as it was called earlier, but then he doesn't ever try to. All we see is that his household situation is pretty shitty but that's never at any point blamed for his murderous behaviour. Loomis even says as much, that outer influences were just that extra push over the edge for whatever was happening inside the kid's mind. So really Zombie's explanation isn't any different to Carpenter's, the guy's just plain evil. I also don't think that seeing his face as a child robs the mask of anything. For myself the original wasn't scary because you'd never seen the killer's face to start with, it was scary because you weren't able to see it during those stalk and slash moments. It's the sight of Myers as an expressionless emotion-vacuum that scares me, but I guess a great horror movie's strengths is that it works on different levels for different people. For myself the sense of terror was present and correct.

So yeah, not a fantastic classic movie but a very very good one from a director who I reckon knows what he's doing and shows great dedication to the cause of entertainment by having wife in her undies in almost everything he does. He's okay in my book.

[vzzbux]

If anyone has hangups about seeing remakes on pricipal, just do what I do, look at it as a new film with no ties with the original.

When the Italian job remake came out I though 'oh god no', but when I actually saw it I thought it was a bloody good film.

Also the planet of the apes remake was closer to the book (in concept) than the original was(but still a long way off) I bloody well enjoyed that one as well.

And no I am not a Mark Wahlberg fan.

V

[Satanist]

"Also the planet of the apes remake was closer to the book (in concept) than the original was(but still a long way off) I bloody well enjoyed that one as well. "

You are a narrow minded simpleton who lives under a rock.   ;-D

Not really but I HATE that remake.

[Funt Solo]

I'm not against remakes on principal, but I am against remakes on both personal experience and clear evidence.

The Italian Job remake: lots of money thrown at the screen and a ton of liquid smug poured over every scene.  See also: Oceans 11 remake, Oceans 12, The Fast and the Furious.  Smug + Money = vacuous cinematic experience.

Planet of the Apes remake: it's like the original, except it's sexy!  Yeah!  Let's make it sexy - less about the how, and more about the young, virile actor and the new monsters.  Sexy, sexy, sexy - FLOP!  It was shit.  You're alone.

Psycho remake.  I'll go fucking psycho in a minute - what a fucking travesty.  I ask you, what is the point of making something that is mostly the same as, and yet worse than, the original.  That's right - there's no fucking point at all.  (Well, no artistic point - it's just to do with making a quick buck out of people's curiosity.)

Having said that, there are some good remakes out there.  I can't remember any examples, off hand.  Erm...Evil Dead II.  There.

[Leigh S]

They're remaking Death Race 2000, which in principal is a great idea, but in practice will probably not be!

Anybody else get the Mills/O'Neill Death Race comics - did they ever 'finish' or did it get cancelled?

[Richmond Clements]

The Dawn of the Dead remake is good- better than it has any right to be.
The Thing is the perfect example of a remake that's as good as, if not better, than the original.
The Michael Mann version of Last of the Mohicans is splendid too.

[Leigh S]

Hmm - didn't know any more than they were remaking Death Race.... wish I hadn't looked!

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Race_%28film%29" target="_blank">AieeEEEEE!!!

[Keef Monkey]

The Thing is a great example, on of my favourite movies and I always forget it was a remake. And although I prefer Infernal Affairs, The Departed is still a cracking movie in it's own right.

[vzzbux]

I totally agree The Thing remake is a masterpiece ahead of its time.

I wonder how The Day The Earth Stood Still would pan out in a remake.

Or Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers, Oh they did again and again and agai...............

[Richmond Clements]

I'll teach you to keep you're yap shut.

Link: http://www.empireonline.com/News/story.asp?nid=20600" target="_blank">Careful what you wish for...

[vzzbux]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.........

[House of Usher]

I went to see the Halloween remake today. Not bad, if unecessary. I didn't see Michael Myers as an abused child particularly - more a neglected and bullied child, but a weird kid nonetheless. His background didn't explain his murderous behaviour, although his treatment of his pets did bring to mind the details of at least one real-life serial killer's formative years.

The portrayal of the child Michael Myers in the original helped build the sense of menace sinply because it didn't explain anything. We didn't know what prompted Michael to kill his sister; it was a motiveless crime, and there is no clue in the original that Michael had any personality whatsoever before the first killing. The remake makes him seem much more like a normal mouthy, sulky kid, apart from the mask-wearing and cruelty to animals.

Some of the dialogue retained from the original doesn't fit right in the remake as a consequence of the background invented for Michael before his escape. Dr Loomis talks about Michael as having been an emotionless monster since the day he arrived in his care, but this is quite at odds with what the cinema audience has seen of the interaction between the two - which we didn't see in the original!

There are numerous plot holes, but there's no point worrying about them. There seems to be far less effort devoted to building tension in the remake than in the original, which is a pity, but then what's the point when you know what's going to happen anyway?

[Wils]

The Thing is the perfect example of a remake that's as good as, if not better, than the original.

Isn't The Thing a slightly more faithful adaptation of Who Goes There rather than a remake of Howard Hawks' 'Plantenstein', though?

[Keef Monkey]

The Carpenter movie is definately pretty close to the story, but I have to admit to not having seen the original. Am I right in thinking it ditches the whole alien disguising itself as human aspect? And with that in mind is Carpenter's film really a remake or just an adaptation from the same story?