|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 15, 2008 11:14:34 GMT -5
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory-2005 I've never seen the original version of this, nor do I have any plans to after seeing this one. Awe.... you should still give the original a chance. Gene Wilder is awesome. And how have you not seen it yet? Isn't WILLY WONKA required viewing for all children? I think I'd already seen it about 3 times by the time I was 10. They showed it when I was in school during this time when the didn't want to do anything, but I never paid attention. If there wasn't a dinosaur or giant monster in the film, I wasn't interested and never had the urge to watch it since. |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Dec 16, 2008 8:21:20 GMT -5
If there wasn't a dinosaur or giant monster in the film, I wasn't interested and never had the urge to watch it since. Some things never change, huh?  |
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 16, 2008 11:13:28 GMT -5
Hey, I've seen a lot more variable films than I expected to when I started this. Would you have thought of me watching The Departed, We Own the Night or any films like that at this point last year? Maybe I might watch the original, I'm only afraid it's got "The Exorcist" syndrome attached to it: I've seen too many parodies of it that I'm going to be spending most of the time exclaiming "Oh, so that film was ripping on this scene" rather than just taking the film on it's own merits.
The Parent Trap-1998
One of my younger sister's favorites, so this one gets a lot of watches when I'm baby-sitting here, just know managed to get it to count. It does get a little long at times, especially in the second half of the romance, but at least the premise makes up for that with some pretty good slapstick (I still enjoy the scenes of them pulling pranks at the camp, which are non-stop laughs) and the switch is pulled off to allow for the laughs rather than the realism, which is the real selling point for this one. It's enjoyable if you're into this kind of film, but the length and the family-rating could be obstacles to overcome for some.
7.5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Dec 17, 2008 9:27:55 GMT -5
Hey, I've seen a lot more variable films than I expected to when I started this. Would you have thought of me watching The Departed, We Own the Night or any films like that at this point last year? No worries. I'm well aware of the fact that besides myself, you're the only other Board member who has really gotten into this and participated every single month. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S ROMEO + JULIET (1996) Shakespeare's most famous play is transplanted to modern Verona, California, and updates the rivalry between the Capulets and the Montagues and the romance between the main characters. DiCaprio and Danes are perfectly cast as the leads. Enjoyed this updated version a lot more this time around than I did the first time I watched it. For some reason, I just got into it a lot more this time. Guess it just shows how mood can affect your enjoyment of certain movies. 7/10 THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (2005) Very loosely based on the true story of the Lutz family, who were terrorized by evil forces in their dream home, the sight of a mass murder only a year before. Of course, how true the facts in the book this is all based on has always been under question too, so who am I to question why details deviate so much from the original movie to this movie? Notches up the "creepiness factor", but also includes a lot of MTV-style editing and modern type horror effects that are becoming kind of cliché. Not great, about as good as the original, but definitely better than the remake of THE OMEN which was inferior in almost every way. 6.5/10 |
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 18, 2008 11:05:27 GMT -5
The Messengers-2007
I'm not sure which Asian film this is a remake of, which, even if I've never seen it, I at least know, but all the guys on my horror forums are claiming it to be a remake so I guess it guess here. Definitely much better the second time around, I got distracted the first time and by sheer coincidence, managed to pay attention to the film during it's dialogue-heavy scenes instead of it's impressive series of scares and jumps, which this one does feature a heavy dose of. I couldn't give a shit if they're obvious, I jump at the misstacked-iron-in-the-closet gag no matter how often they pop up, so that goes a long way for me. A fun, furious finale and an engaging story also help out, as it's ruined only by the rating. Had this been 'R', I'd place it with The Grudge films among the best of the movement.
8/10
|
|
raina
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by raina on Dec 18, 2008 17:47:31 GMT -5
The Messengers-2007 I'm not sure which Asian film this is a remake of, which, even if I've never seen it, I at least know, but all the guys on my horror forums are claiming it to be a remake so I guess it guess here. Its actually not a remake. Its an original screenplay, just not a particularly ORIGINAL original screenplay.... It was the first English language film by the Pang brothers, who directed The Eye. |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Dec 20, 2008 14:57:38 GMT -5
Sorry Slayrrr. Sounds like that one's not going to count. Looked it up and didn't see anything about it being a remake, unless, like Raina said, un-originality is the same as remake. HORROR OF DRACULA (1958) Christopher Lee's first turn at "Bat". Ha Ha!!! I kill me. ;D Anyhoo, Lee is Dracula and Peter Cushing is Van Helsing in the first of the Hammer Films series based on the Bram Stoker novel. Both are very good, though I wish Lee had more screen time and dialog. Nice to see The Count in color. Tends to drag when Lee's not on screen though. 6/10 JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH (2008) How do I put this? This was a bad movie, but in a 70's live-action Disney movie kind of way. Cheesy, loud and at times, sentimental. There's nothing here that's offensive, so a family could watch together, but I guess I was hoping for a slightly grittier, and more realistic version of this story. Decent effects, but nothing groundbreaking. And man, did I get tired of Brendan Fraser yelling "Hang on!" or "Hold on!", or just screaming in general. Indiana Jones he ain't. Speaking of Indy, nice ripoff of the mining car chase from TEMPLE OF DOOM.  The original was way too long and bored me, and at only 90 minutes, this one just kind of annoyed me. 4.5/10 |
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 21, 2008 11:11:49 GMT -5
Oh, all right. I didn't pay attention to it's pedigree when it came out due to:
1. It fell into The Ring/Grudge style of films, which I knew where remakes immediately.
2. I have no knowledge at all of Asian horror cinema, on several occaisions trying to get into them and just can't.
3. There was an Asian director at the helm.
All those combined, I just assumed, and I think we all know what happens when you do that. Go ahead and erase it from the totals then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Dec 21, 2008 15:17:40 GMT -5
I AM LEGEND (2007)
Will Smith stars in this third film version of the Richard Matheson sci-fi novel about a man, possibly the last man on earth, trying to survive after a plague wipes out most of humanity and transforms others into daylight-fearing creatures who feed on humans.
Some shaky CGI on the creatures, a couple of plotholes/unanswered questions and a so-so ending, but overall a pretty intense and suspenseful flick. Smith puts on a pretty great one-man show for most of the film, and is as believable in the action sequences as in the quieter moments.
I've seen all three versions of this story and think this is the best one by far.
8/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Dec 22, 2008 9:27:44 GMT -5
KING KONG (2005)
Director Peter Jackson's dream project is too long (An hour and ten minutes pass before we even see Kong on-screen!) and bloated (Way too much back-story on characters we don't really care about.).
But there are also a lot of things I like about this remake which make it worth watching. First and foremost, is Kong himself, which is easily the most realistic version of the giant ape. This CGI Kong is very life-like. The Skull Island natives look great and are very menacing, but kind of disappear from the film after their initial encounter with the crew of The Venture. And it's awesome to finally see the "spider pit" sequence make it into a Kong film. One of the best "creepy crawler" scenes ever put on film.
The other creatures and dinosaurs in the film are also well animated, though none come close to the realism of the main star himself. The problem is overkill. Kong takes on 3 dinosaurs instead of one. In the original he battled one flying creature, here he has to take on a whole flock of prehistoric-looking bat creatures. The dinosaur stampede also goes on way too long and gets preposterous with dinosaurs crashing and tripping into each other.
Kong's rampage through New York City looks great and I applaud Jackson's attention to detail in recreating a convincing 1930's New York.
The cast is fine. Jack Black overacts here and there, but overall restrains himself. Naomi Watts isn't amazing, but she doesn't embarrass herself either. Heck, if Jessica Lange could go on to win Oscars after her awful performance in the 70's version of KONG, then I'm sure Watts will be fine.
Overall, an impressive film that would've been even better had Jackson edited it a bit more. The story of KING KONG is great, but it does not need to be over 3 hours!
8/10
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 22, 2008 11:13:45 GMT -5
Cheaper by the Dozen-2003
I should start out by mentioning both of these are baby-sitting views, which really shouldn't matter but in a sense it does. Actually thought this one was pretty good, a lot of really great scenes (the meaty-underwear scene is classic) that are a lot funnier than I thought they would be, especially early on with all the different antics between the kids. The sentimental bits are were it falls apart, since it's supposed to have them in a film like this and it's really just a matter of getting past them onto the laughs, but thankfully they aren't as centered in the film as others of this type are. It's not really that harmful and does have some guilty-pleaseureness stuck to it.
8/10
Yours, Mine and Ours-2005
Guess I finally found a decent one from 2005. I really didn't know this was a remake until I saw in the TV guide for last month a film with this title and a similar plot and wanted to watch that one, but we all know how that one turned out. Onto this one, pretty much just felt like a lite-version of the other film, only with more kids and more sentimentality. Gotta hand it to them, though: being able to give 18 kids a distinct look so I could pick them out was a nice touch, although I forgot who was who's kid at times. The laughs aren't as big or frequent as before, but again, harmless guilty pleasure fun if approached in the right way.
7/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Dec 23, 2008 8:29:43 GMT -5
THE JACKAL (1997)
Remake of the 1973 spy thriller THE DAY OF THE JACKAL. Bruce Willis plays the title character, an assassin who's been hired by a powerful Russian mobster to avenge his brother's death, killed in an FBI sting.
On his trail are Sidney Poitier as a deputy FBI boss and Richard Gere as an ex-IRA terrorist, who has personal reasons for wanting to bring down The Jackal.
Decent, if a little long. Cold, unsettling performance by Willis and look for a young pre-stardom Jack Black in a cameo.
6.5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Dec 23, 2008 8:34:15 GMT -5
An update. The scores for this month so far.
December: THE REMAKES
Heineken Skywalker = 17
Slayrrr666 = 11
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Dec 24, 2008 11:11:26 GMT -5
Black Christmas-2006
I'm not a fan of the original (I think it's boring, dull and not really that interesting) so this one just completely stomps on it into the ground with reckless abandon. Simply incredible slasher, tons of suspenseful moments, a ton of gore, some brutal kills, a frenetic pace, some fun confrontations and a wicked sense of fun. This is what I expect from my slasher films, featuring elements such as these and not really featuring much of anything else. Kinda forgot what my flaws were when I first put the review up last year, so this one got better.
10/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Dec 24, 2008 11:36:22 GMT -5
THE NUTTY PROFESSOR (1996)
Eddie Murphy plays Sherman Klump, a brilliant, but obese, college professor who develops an instant weight-loss formula. When he tries it on himself he becomes thin, but his alter ego Buddy Love, is an obnoxious loudmouth.
Murphy is at his best here, playing seven different characters, all completely different from each other. There's a lot of crude humor, but also some very sweet moments.
I enjoy this much more than the Jerry Lewis original, which I only found funny in fits and starts. This remake is a much more well-rounded film, imho.
8.5/10
|
|
