|
|
Post by Quorthon on Jul 15, 2006 16:13:44 GMT -5
I'm sure some of you are aware of this latest travesty-in-the-making, but I saw a poster at the theater today for, that's right, the remake of the British classic, the Wicker Man. THERE IS NO GOD!
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Jul 15, 2006 16:20:14 GMT -5
The reason, I think, that some of us zombie freaks prefer the slow retarded zombies--logically--is that we can accept the fact that, sure, a rotting corpse has managed to get up and go meandering--and because it's rotting and coming apart, it makes sense to us that they should be slow, shuffling freaks.
I could easily accept the ones in 28 Days Later because they were still living when they became berserker zombies. But of course, there are no real "set rules" when it comes to zombies. I think a lot of us just prefer the ones Romero created--to us older zombie gorehounds, they make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Jul 16, 2006 10:07:28 GMT -5
Okay, to set the record straight, I don't really have a problem with either slow or running zombies. Whatever "the rule" is for that particular film, I'm fine with it. Slow zombies are creepier, but running zombies can actually catch you easier. Keep in mind though, that in the original DAWN, even though the zombies are of the shuffling, lumbering variety, two child zombies do make a running attack. So they broke their own rule. Take it up with Romero.
Anyway, slayrrr, I never said, DAWN was a "great" remake. Certainly not on the level of THE THING or THE FLY. But I did think that, except for not being a completely original idea, it was successful at pretty much everything it attempted to do. There really haven't been that many "great" remakes. Besides THE THING and THE FLY, what would you consider better horror remakes than DAWN?
And to get hung up on some of the details you did, the mall, for instance, is really nitpicking, when you're willing to let so much crap slide in those pretty awful SCI-FI CHANNEL original movies. Seriously man, not even mentioning the hilarious CGI, (Oops, guess I just did!) those things have to be some of the most cliche-ridden and devoid of any surprise or real drama "movies", to make it onto basic cable. I guess they'd be great if you've never seen any other horror or sci-fi movies, which you clearly have, but other than that they're free and "ahem" original, I don't see why you would waste your time. I say SCI-FI should save up their budget money and maybe air one really good one every six months or so, with real writers, directors and better actors. Instead of constantly bombarding us with one Z level movie after another. I mean, that's fine if you or others enjoy them, we all have our guilty pleasures, but you really have to put things into perspective if you're going to rip on one for minor details, but turn such a blind eye to so much poor stuff in the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Jul 16, 2006 11:20:25 GMT -5
I do get what you're saying, Heiney, and believe me, that happens a lot on other message boards, where I go superhard on a popular film and then turn a postive spin on a "piece of crap," however I was hard on Dawn for two reasons:
1. My out-right love for zombie movies. They are among my all-time best films and I really love watching them. It seems like minor points, but I take them seriously and those are the kinds of factors that can lower a film's rating to me.
2. The original is one of my favorites, and there are many things about it that I loved (the only thing I didn't care for at all in that one was the constant hammering home of the consumer-society message. I get it already, tell the story) and when I sat down and watched them both one after another, the remake came up short. It didn't have the love and charm that the original has.
Now, I do know those explanations sound a little off, but my initial viewing of the film in theatres was much like your opinion know (I liked it a lot, and thought it was one of the best films of 04) but afterwards I went into a zombie fix and started watching a large amount of them, and suddenly found so many of them that I felt were better than the Dawn remake I had seen months earlier. When I came back that Christmas and got the DVD, I wasn't that big on the film by then, and it really doesn't hold up for me. But I at first did like it.
I have said before that I can't stand the lame CGI creatures in those Sci-Fi Channel Creature Features many, many times in my reviews for them, but for pure cheese and camp, they are quite entertaining to me. A technically proficient film to me doesn't mean anything, it has to entertain me with lots of action, a storyline that I can get into, and a continuous pace of getting to it's end point. A turn-your-brain-off-and-enjoy film is the kind I really enjoy, as I hate to think at something that was meant to entertain, and movies like this are just suppposed to entertain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Jul 16, 2006 19:07:52 GMT -5
...it has to entertain me with lots of action, a storyline that I can get into, and a continuous pace of getting to it's end point. A turn-your-brain-off-and-enjoy film is the kind I really enjoy, as I hate to think at something that was meant to entertain, and movies like this are just suppposed to entertain. Hmmm... oddly enough, that description, sounds just like the remake of DOTD, IMHO. I admit I haven't seen anywhere the amount of zombie flicks you have, so I don't have nearly as much to compare it to, therefore I'm just basing my opinion of it on how much that particular movie entertained it, not so much as to how it compares to all the other zombie movies. I guess after I see 30 other zombie movies (probably not gonna happen) my opinion of it may differ, but for now, it'll have to stand as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Jul 17, 2006 10:40:29 GMT -5
I never had a problem with the zombie kids in the original Dawn. They were brief, and in a sense, zombie kids running makes a tad more sense than zombie adults running. Kids were built for speed and energy.
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Jul 17, 2006 11:07:20 GMT -5
...it has to entertain me with lots of action, a storyline that I can get into, and a continuous pace of getting to it's end point. A turn-your-brain-off-and-enjoy film is the kind I really enjoy, as I hate to think at something that was meant to entertain, and movies like this are just suppposed to entertain. Hmmm... oddly enough, that description, sounds just like the remake of DOTD, IMHO. I admit I haven't seen anywhere the amount of zombie flicks you have, so I don't have nearly as much to compare it to, therefore I'm just basing my opinion of it on how much that particular movie entertained it, not so much as to how it compares to all the other zombie movies. I guess after I see 30 other zombie movies (probably not gonna happen) my opinion of it may differ, but for now, it'll have to stand as it is. Hey, not a problem at all. Just tell you where I was coming from. After my zombie ninge after seeing it, it lost a little along the way, but for the record, I did enjoy when it first came out. |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Jul 17, 2006 13:16:30 GMT -5
I never had a problem with the zombie kids in the original Dawn. They were brief, and in a sense, zombie kids running makes a tad more sense than zombie adults running. Kids were built for speed and energy. Eh, I think you're grasping with that reasoning, but whatever. It never bothered me that they could run and other zombies couldn't. I was just mentioning it as Romero breaking his own rule of having running zombies in a slow moving zombie movie. I may be wrong, but I think it may have happened in the original LIVING DEAD as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Jul 17, 2006 18:01:38 GMT -5
Zombies have always had some minor speed when necessary--like when near a healthy meal.
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Jul 18, 2006 12:24:53 GMT -5
I never had a problem with the zombie kids in the original Dawn. They were brief, and in a sense, zombie kids running makes a tad more sense than zombie adults running. Kids were built for speed and energy. Eh, I think you're grasping with that reasoning, but whatever. It never bothered me that they could run and other zombies couldn't. I was just mentioning it as Romero breaking his own rule of having running zombies in a slow moving zombie movie. I may be wrong, but I think it may have happened in the original LIVING DEAD as well. They're was a zombie or two that did move pretty fast at times. The cemetery zombie running after Barbara in her car comes to mind quite easily. |
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Jul 18, 2006 20:01:43 GMT -5
Eh, I think you're grasping with that reasoning, but whatever. It never bothered me that they could run and other zombies couldn't. I was just mentioning it as Romero breaking his own rule of having running zombies in a slow moving zombie movie. I may be wrong, but I think it may have happened in the original LIVING DEAD as well. They're was a zombie or two that did move pretty fast at times. The cemetery zombie running after Barbara in her car comes to mind quite easily. Here, I'm going to add to the mythos! That guy was a fresh zombie. The fresh ones can still move pretty quickly!! |
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Jul 19, 2006 10:34:11 GMT -5
So, as long as the zombie was "created" a short while ago (less than a week, let's say) then he would be able to move fairly more rapidly than a re-animated corpse of something that has been dead for a couple years? Is that what you're trying to say Q?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fenril on Jul 23, 2006 19:52:03 GMT -5
I'm a bit late to this tread, I guess, but just to add my two cents:
I don't mind the idea of remaking any movie (or making another film adaptation of a book, depending on the case) so much as the fact that most remakes these days are a trend and are obviously not made because of a director / screenwriter's idea, but simply ordered by executives to cash in.
That's why 80's remakes such as "The fly" or "The blob" worked, because in those cases the directors actually had fresh ideas to add to old plots. In the case of "The thing" it's even a more faithful adaptation of the original short story "Who goes there?", rather than a remake of the 50's movie.
Another way in which remakes can work, I think, is if you use an already existing story to illustrate something different. The three (so far) existing versions of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, I think, are the best example. So far all three versions worked (well, the 90's version is undoubetdly the worst of the lot, but it still has its' own share of fans) because each one presents a different kind of fear: the '56(?) version deals with fear of communism, the '78 with depersonalization in big cities (a la "Dawn of the dead"), the '94 with fear of intrusive military action and so on.
Most current remakes are clearly made strictly to draw in huge audiences rather than to scare and provoke viewers, which is one of the things that horror is supposed to do. Also, there seems to be a lack or adult-oriented horror, and by that I don't just mean R or NC-17 rated movies. Even the "Dawn" remake is clearly intended for younger audiences than the original one. It just doesn't have the social commentary.
What I think of some recent (or relatively recent) remakes:
- The hills have eyes. Decent, mostly thanks to Alexandre Aja (of the excellent Haute Tension fame)'s crisp direction. It doesn't have the gritiness or the realistic hillbillies of the Craven original, but it does a decent job of updating the storyline.
- The manchurian candidate. Intersting for the idea of replacing the communist villain with an evil corporation (another example of updating fears), but not as suspenseful.
- Dawn of the dead. An entertaining zombie movie on its own, but it definitely can't hold a candle to the original. As for the running zombies thing the only problem I have with them is that here I didn't find it scary, I found it like something out of a teen-oriented videogame. In fact the whole movie looks like a videogame at times, and frankly I feel that BATTLE ROYALE was the only movie that managed to pull that look off. Well, that and BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF.
- House of wax. Dumb but fun, loved the finger-snapping scene. It doesn't really have anything to do with the original movie (itself a remake of MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM, by the way) other than the title or the use of wax, so I don't really mind it.
- Psycho. Should not have been made EVER, period.
- King Kong. Boring, and what's up with the cheesy ice-skating scene? The 70's version with Jessica Lange was pretty boring, too. They should have just left the original one alone.
- Night of the living dead. The 90's remake was actually okay, pretty harmless.
- The ring. I say this is the one that kick-started the current remake craze. And while it's a fine ghost movie on its own, it lacks the subtle social comentaries (yes, I'm very mindful of those) of Ringu. They even replaced Ringu's disturbing ending with a more conventional one.
- When a stranger calls. A huge waste of time, but it makes the original look even better.
Etc.
I agree that as long as they are remaking everything, it should at least be movies that did need a retooling. One that comes to mind is an 80's movie called PULSE, concerning a house where the electricity has somehow "gone bad" and is now trying to kill the family inside.
It was an interesting concept, but that movie never really did much with it. And it could even work better these days, when technology is quickly absorbing everybody's time and interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankenjohn on Jul 23, 2006 22:31:29 GMT -5
That's a really good idea. "Pulse" wasn't that bad anyway, but a remake would be cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Jul 24, 2006 11:55:59 GMT -5
There's a remake of Pulse coming out soon, frank. I don't know the date, I don't care to, but there is one. I've seen the previews for it.
|
|
