Forum for the IMDb Games community

Survivors of the IMDb Apocalypse
 
HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 Remakes vs. Originals

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Shred

avatar

Posts : 346
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 30

PostSubject: Re: Remakes vs. Originals   Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:54 am

It's totally cool!! I didn't like the remake too much (I get the presence of the sheriff, but it didn't work for me), but to each their own. You might have to sleep on the couch if you talk so nicely about it again though <3.

Hey I just realized that none of us have brought up The Fog (2005) yet Laughing. I remember when that came out and was considered the nadir of horror movie remakes. Stevie Wayne was a supporting character and it wasn't right.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
EnnJaySee

avatar

Posts : 2193
Join date : 2017-02-03

PostSubject: Re: Remakes vs. Originals   Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:00 am

A hard time with balls body horror Laughing Hostel part II. That dick scene was grim but the bath blood scene got to me most. I'm not sure why, I think it was because of the circumstances. Completely vulnerable, tied up hanging upside down naked. Also the way the woman starts out so gently, just grazing her but then starts to cut and gets faster and faster as the girl's screams intensify. Pure torture. I could picture it happening to myself lol unable to do anything about it.

I've never seen the third one.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Merriska



Posts : 973
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 25
Location : New Brunswick

PostSubject: Re: Remakes vs. Originals   Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:07 pm

I have hard times with genital mutilation, eye gouging and throat slashes.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
EnnJaySee

avatar

Posts : 2193
Join date : 2017-02-03

PostSubject: Re: Remakes vs. Originals   Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:45 pm

Lmao stop doing it then! New Brunswick's most wanted! Laughing
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Merriska



Posts : 973
Join date : 2017-02-03
Age : 25
Location : New Brunswick

PostSubject: Re: Remakes vs. Originals   Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:47 pm

NEVERRRR
Back to top Go down
View user profile
EnnJaySee

avatar

Posts : 2193
Join date : 2017-02-03

PostSubject: Re: Remakes vs. Originals   Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:46 am

I just found out they REMADE POLTERGEIST! Lmao I didn't mean to type that in caps but it adds to dramatic effect, like SERIOUSLY?! Laughing what are they going to remake next, The Shining? Can't imagine that would go down well. I love how at this time of year (and Christmas), they put old movies on at the cinema. Just Googled The Shining and saw it's showing in places here. It's really good for the younger generation who haven't seen it. The best movies really are from the 70s-90s.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
A-Supreme
Admin
avatar

Posts : 655
Join date : 2017-02-07
Age : 31
Location : Funkytown, USA

PostSubject: Re: Remakes vs. Originals   Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:12 am

I took far too long to check out the Poltergeist remake, admittedly... I never really sought it out because I too loved the original and have memories of it freaking me out as a kid. I had only seen bits and parts of the original on TV but that was enough for the movie to creep me out. It wasn't until I found the remake's DVD for dirt cheap on Black Friday leftover deals that I even got around to watching it. That's disappointing too consider it was a pretty entertaining movie. I loved Sam Rockwell as the dad. Good actor. I doubt I would've thought much about the Poltergeist remake, if not for him.

He was pretty good as the big bully brother in the controversial 80s Clownhouse home-invasion horror, too... that part where his terrified brother asks to hold his hand on their walk home (because, you know, they were being stalked by clowns) and he begrudgingly extends his hand because he knew it was the right thing to do despite how lame it seemed to him. The scene just worked really well and rung true to how siblings behave to each other. Especially when one is much older than the other.

There is a remake of The Shining, actually. Rebecca De Mornay is Wendy and from the way I understand it, it sort of remains more truthful to the book in that Wendy is more of a strong female lead instead of a mousey waif as in the Kubrick's version. I've never read the book so I can't comment on how great it is to see Wendy as a stronger character, but I will say that I find Shelley Duvall's portrayal very realistic, if painfully unpleasant... this was a battered-housewife performance at its core and it's very effective IMO. I don't think Stephen King liked it much at all, but I thought it helped solidify the potent feeling of dread and fear you feel for Wendy and Danny as their patriarch descends into madness. This remake is another one that I've never cared enough to seek out, though it wouldn't surprise me if I loved it if I ever came across it and watched it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.imdb.com/user/ur55248812/
soullimbo

avatar

Posts : 395
Join date : 2017-02-04
Location : UK

PostSubject: Re: Remakes vs. Originals   Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:03 pm

I watched the remake of "the eye" the other night, it was one of the late channels during my night shift, and while it was not as good as the original, it was nowhere near as bad as that review I read of it years ago. Jessica Alba was surprisingly good in the lead role, but some of the other performances were not. There were no full-on scary moments, but a few scenes were "chilling".

I also preferred the "shadows" or "escorts" in the original. In this remake they were too detailed and they also tried to make them scary, which doesn't work unfortunately.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
soco-81

avatar

Posts : 465
Join date : 2017-02-06

PostSubject: Re: Remakes vs. Originals   Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:40 pm

Yeah The Eye remake had that "remake hate" that didn't really fit. I even liked Shutter, which also got a lot of hate and "worst movie EVER" comments.

The original The Eye though...soooo good and scary. Ying Ying <3 <3 <3 loved that little girl character.

The Poltergeist remake on the other hand...wtf. The tree was totally creepy though. That's the only thing they got right. I would've chopped that bitch down the minute I moved in. It was just looming there like a demonic beast waiting to eat somebody.

I love Clownhouse <3 there's all that behind the scenes awkwardness but I still try to watch the movie without that effecting my feelings for it. it truly is terrifying and the brothers were sweet to each other. It's that movie that stays with you, or at least with me it did cause I saw it way back in the 90's on Cinemax or something and never forgot it. It's so poorly lit and scary. So many things about it were great. Smile
Back to top Go down
View user profile
A-Supreme
Admin
avatar

Posts : 655
Join date : 2017-02-07
Age : 31
Location : Funkytown, USA

PostSubject: Re: Remakes vs. Originals   Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:25 am

Inside
2007 vs. 2017



Much like the French film Martyrs, this harrowing film received the remake treatment to make it an English film. The tale involved a pregnant widow being terrorized in her home by an unknown woman with a penchant for sharp instruments on Christmas Eve. The original was pretty shocking and graphic (you will never look at a pair of scissors the same way again), but does the remake come close to being as memorable?

The Verdict: Close, but probably no cigar? I gave the original and remake both a solid 7/10. It really is a toss-up given that there are things I hated and loved about both of 'em. I'm definitely not a rabid supporter of the original to find it insulting that it got remade. In fact, I hated how the original ended and would never really call it a masterpiece.

Spoiler:
 

The cast in the remake is downright awesome, though. Rachel Nichols played a pretty badass female lead in P2 and I loved seeing her as our damsel-in-distress here, but her character does a major moronic thing midway through the movie that I don't remember our heroine doing in the original so the character loses likeability there. Mulholland Dr's Laura Harring does awesome as the formidable vilainess; she seems to balance the nurturing aspect of the character with her viciousness quite well. The remake definitely gets points for its casting of these two actresses, no doubt about it. Between the two films, I suspect you'd remember the original a bit more which is probably to its credit. The remake is easier to enjoy though and I admit I'm fully biased because I liked two of the actresses involved before watching it. Take this all for what you will because the jury is still out to lunch here!

Dementia 13
1963 vs. 2017



This lesser-known Psycho ripoff actually got a remake this last year. A woman kills her husband before visiting his family's estate to earn her slice of the pie; unfortunately, a killer lurks the grounds. Does the remake deserve a little more fanfare for bringing this obscure title back to the front and center?

The Verdict: Let's just put this out in the wide open.... neither films are avant garde in the horror genre by any stretch of the imagination. The original itself was drawn up as a cheap cash in on Psycho's success, so there's no reason to believe that the remake was going to be any better. I don't think either film is ever going to be anybody's favorite horror EVER, but sometimes its fun seeing a different spin on the same ol' tale which is where I find value in watching the occasional ripoff. For instance, in concerns to Dementia 13, the different spin here is the vixen Louise, who is our Marion Crane. Yet, she was a different kind of strong female lead before her time. Unlike Marion Crane who even while going rogue was no doubt a good person who came to her senses before biting the dust, Louise was calculating and unashamedly bitchy. Yet, I loved her all the same. Like Psycho before it, the original sets her up pretty well to be our heroine and it did it so much better than the remake, which didn't bother investing much in the character because it knew that we knew what her fate would be. Both films, unfortunately, fail pretty much at maintaining interest in the movie after our bitchy heroine bites the dust. The original half attempts to keep the mystery aspect going, while the remake goes a more traditional slasher route with it. Neither one handles their respective second half better than the other, though. Therefore, what it really comes down to for me is how well Louise is set up as our lead, and the original did it so much better so that has to be my vote here.

Unhinged
1982 vs. 2017



This little slasher shocker can be quite the find for slasher completists who make it a point to dig up films like these, so obscure that it seems all the more fitting that it got a quiet remake released 35 years later. Which version is worth seeking out the most, though?

The Verdict:: The remake is a mess, plain and simple. The original wasn't really a horror classic itself, but it wasn't as fatally flawed as this remake was. The problem with the remake is that the girls make such heinously bad choices from start to finish, such as not reporting killing a man in self-defense and deciding to bury him themselves on the property of a kookie, eccentric woman living back in the European boonies. At least the original had them running off the road, only to be saved by this woman and her helper, giving a good reason for them to be stranded. The original had a pretty good almost-gothic like setting; the remake was set in an all-too-modern looking home where the woman doesn't have a phone in 2017 yet she does have a dish (!!!) attached to her home. Yet, apparently all this woman does is hunt for her meals in the ominous woods nearby and read books...? I don't know why the fact that she had a dish bothers me so much, but it does. Laughing If this remake does do something right, it gives its female cast pretty good edits, which the original faltered at with having one of its already-limited bodycount bedridden the whole film until it was her turn to die. The killer (a bride with a ghoulish mask) looked pretty spooky at times in the remake, as well. The ending of the original had to be shocking for 1982 audiences; aside from the dark 70s, I don't think many from the golden age of 80s slashers ended quite this way which is probably why it got its video nasty cred when really it wasn't all that nasty compared to others. This not the worst remake I've ever seen, but it is down there on the quality scale and it seemed a bit cheap (not a good thing) despite its likeable (though dumb) female cast. Cheap independent films can look halfway decent, or they can look pretty bad. And this one looked pretty bad at times.


Last edited by A-Supreme on Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.imdb.com/user/ur55248812/
soco-81

avatar

Posts : 465
Join date : 2017-02-06

PostSubject: Re: Remakes vs. Originals   Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:20 pm

Laura Harring of Mulholland Dr. playing "The Woman". That lady creeped me out in the original and Laura is a perfect choice to play her in the remake. I didn't even know they remade that. Laughing I should've known cause it's SO old.

I probably couldn't even watch it again. Is the remake at least less grisly? Great film though, just hard to rewatch.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
A-Supreme
Admin
avatar

Posts : 655
Join date : 2017-02-07
Age : 31
Location : Funkytown, USA

PostSubject: Re: Remakes vs. Originals   Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:13 am

The remake is definitely less grisly, but still a bit hard seeing THE WOMAN beat up on a pregnant woman for most of the running time. Decent remake, but it will still be a hard watch for people.

Tyler, read the spoiler below... they pertain to the storyline so you'll know everything. I just didn't want to spoil the story for others who had never seen the original....

Spoiler:
 

If you do decide to check it out, let me know what you think!
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.imdb.com/user/ur55248812/
soco-81

avatar

Posts : 465
Join date : 2017-02-06

PostSubject: Re: Remakes vs. Originals   Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:46 pm

I am definitely a fan of Laura Harring so I will check this out for sure. She has a great Lynchian technique to her acting, and I could see her playing THE WOMAN wonderfully. Thanks for the feedback <3
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Remakes vs. Originals   

Back to top Go down
 
Remakes vs. Originals
Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» ALW's The Phantom of the Opera (20??): the remake
» Photoshop boredom
» AK Originals | Professional Custom Sets | Tested
» NaruHina! Originals
» The Audio Research versions of the Dynaco ST-70

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Forum for the IMDb Games community :: Other :: Horror-
Jump to: