Zombies?? Mutants?? The Hills Have Eyes... Hudson?

That movie scared the crap out of me when I was thirteen.
Bet this one doesn't. Of course I'll have to find out.
 
Yeah I can't see how they can top the original. It will probably just be "more" and not better. I'll see it anyway, but I don't have any high hopes for it.
 
Obviously there are some films that should not be remade; or so we think...

Remakes like Dawn of the Dead 04 and Texas Chainsaw were great while other's stumbled badly. In the grand scheme of things who cares.
 
I'm all FOR remakes if the writer/director can bring something new to the material, update the effects substantially (without ruining an originals feel) or somehow expand what was done originally.

That said, I just don't think most of the remakes or reimaginings do that. They play it way too safe and are often seemingly too scared to take chances with material. I think there a lot of great old(er) films out there would be ripe for redoing with the benefit of modern effects and technical equipment, I don't always think these are the films they choose to do... why remake a cult classic other than to bleed it dry for cash? Ug. Can't forget its called show BUSINESS. But if a mediocore remake that makes a hefty amount of dough finances a new original horror film, so be it.

-Robert

Happy '06 all!
 
I feel that remakes tend to be lazy by definition. Why not take all that energy and create something NEW. If I want to see "Psycho", why would I go anywhere else but the the original. If you're going to do a remake, make it something completely different, instead of just a little updating of the material. An example of this would be "No Way Out" being the remake of "The Big Clock." It seems like quite a few of the Noir films have turned up as remakes. I'm probably a little more willing to accept the original director doing a remake of his own film because of technological changes he believes will allow him to make the movie he was originally trying to make but couldn't. But then again, maybe he's just trying to cash in and make an extra buck in a similar fashion to putting out a Deluxe DVD so you'll feel you have to get that or you'll have missed something. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.............
 
Not a huge fan of GVZ but I really enjoyed the remade shot for shot. I think people ***** about it just to ***** and be prententious. GVZ deliberatly did NOT remake it as to honor Hitch.
 
Blaine said:
I feel that remakes tend to be lazy by definition. Why not take all that energy and create something NEW. If I want to see "Psycho", why would I go anywhere else but the the original.
Click to expand...

Man did that re-make stink like hell. Vince Vaughan and Ann Heche. Unwatchable.

Blaine said:
If you're going to do a remake, make it something completely different, instead of just a little updating of the material. An example of this would be "No Way Out" being the remake of "The Big Clock."
Click to expand...

Interesting. I wonder how much audiences will accept such strong deviations from originals.
 
I'd say don't play up the remake facet of the story. I wonder how may people actually knew that "No Way Out" WAS a remake of "The Big Clock". After I found out, I had to search "The Big Clock" out and watch it. While they had some underlying things in common, they were very different movies. If there is enough time between the original and remake, AND the original truely had unrealized potential, by all means remake it and make it right. But when the original is really good or even a classic, do something else.
 
I have ALOT of hope for this new Hills Have Eyes.

I too am a fan of Craven's early stuff. Last House is a personal fav. However I don't think this is a case of just trying to cash in on a namesake with a cheap remake. Although Money is always the driving force behind any hollywood film. The reason being the director they put in charge of the project.

Alexandre Aja. He directed High Tension a year or so ago. Which was an excellent horror film. It didn't really bring any new story elements to the genre however the style that movie had was unique. Aja has a real knack for atmosphere it seems. The movie is no joke it is tense. He utilizes all the elements of filmmaking (Lighting, Framing, Sound, etc.) and crafts some nasty and wickedly disturbing scenes. The key is atmosphere. He knows when to hold back and when to unleash an unbridled fury on his characters. I don't think there are any directors in the horror genre today who know how to do this as well as Aja.

For example in a recent interview Craven (after screening the first cut which received an NC-17) claimed it was too intense for him. He went on to say,

It's fairly faithful to the original, but Alex added other things that also make it worse, what's happening to these people. It's protracted. It's a long, slow process rather than being a chaotic, relatively fast process. It's just too much for people that have to rate it, by a mile.
Click to expand...

Too much for Craven? This is a movie i have to see.

I expect to be severly disturbed after viewing it and hopefully it will deliver everything that has been falsely promised by films like Wolf Creek, both Saws, and I want to say Hostel but I'll give Eli Roth the benefit of the doubt even though i hated Cabin Fever.

The point being that Aja is a skilled horror filmmaker who has the tenacity and fortitude to pull no punches and eviscerate his audience. That's something i think the old vanguard of horror has forgetten how to do and the new crop of "music video" directors never knew how to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top