Posts: 3,746
Threads: 22
Thanks Received: 0 in 0 posts
Thanks Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2009
Reputation:
0
This is true. I feel as though The HIlls Have Eyes remake is sort of what Wes Craven wanted to do with his original but unfortunately lacked the directorial and financial experience to make it work. I prefer the remake over the original.
"The conquest of fear lies in the moment of its acceptance. And understanding what scares us most is that which is most familiar, most common place"
- Chris Carter
Please check out my blog: The Paradise of Horror
•
Posts: 1,391
Threads: 23
Thanks Received: 0 in 0 posts
Thanks Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation:
0
The remake of the Hills Have Eyes is a great remake but I kind of like the original storyline and family dynamic of the original-Papa Jup's speech to Big Bob Carter's charred remains "I'll eat the brains of your kids kid" is so much better than in the remake
Torture is only truly pleasurable when performed.....slowly----The Machine Girl
•
Posts: 3,746
Threads: 22
Thanks Received: 0 in 0 posts
Thanks Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2009
Reputation:
0
I think it's about time I watch the original once more. I saw the two movies about 2 years apart from each other.
"The conquest of fear lies in the moment of its acceptance. And understanding what scares us most is that which is most familiar, most common place"
- Chris Carter
Please check out my blog: The Paradise of Horror
•
absolutely hell no and shake my effin head at this lol
•
Posts: 1,391
Threads: 23
Thanks Received: 0 in 0 posts
Thanks Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation:
0
I'll never understand how he could do that to a classic
Torture is only truly pleasurable when performed.....slowly----The Machine Girl
•
Posts: 5
Threads: 1
Thanks Received: 0 in 0 posts
Thanks Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation:
0
I think his Halloween remake fits well with this generation. I mean, he stayed pretty damn close to John Carpenter's original, and it is definitely a better remake than the films being remade! But I don't think they are better!
•
Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Thanks Received: 0 in 0 posts
Thanks Given: 0
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation:
0
04-26-2012, 03:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-26-2012, 07:13 PM by Chainsaw Brutality.)
justinfkntime Wrote:I think his Halloween remake fits well with this generation. I mean, he stayed pretty damn close to John Carpenter's original, and it is definitely a better remake than the films being remade! But I don't think they are better!
From the reviews I have read, RZ's remake is miles away from the original. I haven't seen the first remake, saw the 2nd though and I 100% disagree in every single way.
Laurie portrayed as a slut, the whole backstory with Michael, all the blood/gore, the cuss words used throughout, Michael's "ZZ-Top" looking beard & the long hair are all aspects that were not present in Carpenter's Halloween.
Carpenter didn't need lots of blood and cussing to get your attention or get his point across. Michael is scariest when he has limited camera time and has an unknown background/childhood. In the credits, Michael isn't listed as Michael Myers - he's credited as 'The Shape'. Which refers to his silhouette from afar.
RZ over-explaining Michael's childhood was his first mistake among many.
•
Posts: 2,296
Threads: 125
Thanks Received: 0 in 0 posts
Thanks Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation:
0
Chainsaw Brutality Wrote:From the reviews I have read, RZ's remake is miles away from the original. I haven't seen the first remake, saw the 2nd though and I 100% disagree in every single way.
Laurie portrayed as a slut, the whole backstory with Michael, all the blood/gore, the cuss words used throughout, Michael's "ZZ-Top" looking beard & the long hair are all aspects that were not present in Carpenter's Halloween.
Carpenter didn't need lots of blood and cussing to get your attention or get his point across. Michael is scariest when he has limited camera time and has an unknown background/childhood. In the credits, Michael isn't listed as Michael Myers - he's credited as 'The Shape'. Which refers to his silhouette from afar.
RZ over-explaining Michael's childhood was his first mistake among many.
Rob Zombies Halloween 2 is his own version/take on Michael Myers. He wasnt trying to make it like the original movie because he already did that. If people stopped comparing H2 to the original movie, they would enjoy it more for what it is. Horror fans expectations= way too high.
•
Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Thanks Received: 0 in 0 posts
Thanks Given: 0
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation:
0
mrblue Wrote:Rob Zombies Halloween 2 is his own version/take on Michael Myers. He wasnt trying to make it like the original movie because he already did that. If people stopped comparing H2 to the original movie, they would enjoy it more for what it is. Horror fans expectations= way too high.
Ok, it still sucks ass even if you don't compare it to the original. Let's say I did try to enjoy it - difficult to do when Michael looks like a hobo, Laurie a hooker & a confusing/convoluted story. Oh, I haven't mentioned Michael McDowell as Dr. Loomis ...... way off base with his portrayal.
I didn't have any expectations because there never should have been 1 Halloween remake in the first place.
•
Posts: 2,296
Threads: 125
Thanks Received: 0 in 0 posts
Thanks Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation:
0
I guess the fact that his mask changes in every entry isnt confusing. Or the fact he got his eyes shot out in part 2 yet he has them again in part 5. Can't forget about that bat-shit crazy part 6. ITS A REMAKE, THINGS ARE SUPPOSE TO BE DIFFERENT. The Thing, The Fly, The Blob, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, all different from the original films yet still regarded as the best remakes.
And you're right, there should never have been a remake in the first place let alone a sequel but there was. Now its time to put the original movies past us and watch Zombies take with fresh eyes and an open mind.
•
Posts: 4
Threads: 1
Thanks Received: 0 in 0 posts
Thanks Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation:
0
I didn't like the 2nd remake i felt it was like Watching 2 Movies at The same time.
•
Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Thanks Received: 0 in 0 posts
Thanks Given: 0
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation:
0
04-27-2012, 08:57 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2012, 11:31 AM by Chainsaw Brutality.)
mrblue Wrote:I guess the fact that his mask changes in every entry isnt confusing. Or the fact he got his eyes shot out in part 2 yet he has them again in part 5. Can't forget about that bat-shit crazy part 6. ITS A REMAKE, THINGS ARE SUPPOSE TO BE DIFFERENT. The Thing, The Fly, The Blob, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, all different from the original films yet still regarded as the best remakes.
And you're right, there should never have been a remake in the first place let alone a sequel but there was. Now its time to put the original movies past us and watch Zombies take with fresh eyes and an open mind.
The mask changes didn't bother me, neither did his eyes getting shot in part 2 & have them back in 4. I don't regard part 6 that highly anyhow, I rank it near the bottom in the franchise.
Originals of The Thing, The Fly & The Blob aren't on the classic level of Halloween - so, those remakes were improvements. The TCM remake was fair, imo....I prefer the original.
The problem with remakes is there will always be comparisons to the original film, whether you like it or not. Fair or unfair, fans/critics/media will always stack it up and measure it against that series' original.
To avoid those comparisons don't remake a film, let alone a classic. It's easier to have an open mind with a remake like The Hills Have Eyes, because there was room for improvement. That original is at, or below, average - not on the level of Halloween.
When you remake a classic like TCM, ANOES, Friday the 13th, Psycho, Halloween, Hellraiser you're just setting yourself up for failure. It's nearly impossible to overcome fan's feelings and love for those original films. Factor in the expectations for the movie, the comparisons to it's original are natural.
•
|