Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2010 17:46:37 GMT -5
Best Highlight Package EVAR! I was going to post this as well, eariler but it escaped me. One of my favorite end credits ever. Although the film lacking of Curtis Mayfield's "Freddie's Dead" is a crying shame.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on May 2, 2010 18:01:31 GMT -5
I disagree. Most people I talk to about these remakes, ones who aren't horror enthusiasts who go to these types of films while on dates and whatnot... they actually like these movies. It's very close minded to speak for THEY (as you put it) as you're clearly stating your own opinion under the guise of everyone else. I saw the movie in front of a packed house on opening night and there were screams from people in the audience and in the lobby, everyone was talking about how awesome the film was. Clearly THEY have a differing opinion on the film, when compared to the 'THEY' that you speak of. I understand what you're saying, but I'll back Rorschach up on this one. The movie does fulfill its intended purpose - it provides a few scares for people out at the movies on dates and whatnot (mostly through those CAT scares, natch), but how many of those same people will be talking about how amazing the film was months from now? Even WEEKS from now? This is just anecdotal evidence, but I've noticed this about PD's previous horror remake, Friday the 13th. Most of us agree that it's the best of the recent PD remakes, and here we are a year later and it's already well on its way to obscurity, along with the reboots of TCM, The Hitcher, Prom Night etc. And I'm just making a call here - in 12 months' time, after the DVD has been released and the next horror movie has come along at the multiplexes, nobody will give a s*** about this movie. I agree that time will tell on the verdict of how this movie will be received. But it's been out 3 days and already there are people calling it a bomb and disgrace to their Nightmare on Elm Street. And if anything, there's hope that this film will jumpstart the franchise again, although with a new backstory. I think it's unfair to compare it to the original, especially since they went their own way with the concept of Freddy Krueger. It's not as though they went and replaced all the old copies of Nightmare with this new and improved version, they're just starting over for a new generation. Sure, there's people with the 'if it ain't broken, don't fix it' mentality. And that's part of the problem. Just think, had Freddy not grown into a stand-up comedian in the series later entries, how awesome and how far the series could have gone as a horror entity. However, most fond memories of ANOES series are contained with parts 1, 3, and New Nightmare. And here we are now, with the original series being past the point of fixing it, and there's a movie out there trying to make Freddy scary again. Sure, there's a vocal minority with a heightened sense of entitlement out there to bring down any and everything done to make this happen, but most people who have seen this remake will probably go and see the sequel to it, and so on. It's just like the original Elm Street series in the 80's, as the movies kept coming out, more people went to see them. Remember Nightmare 4 took in the most of the series at it's time, and it's lauded as the end of the 'scary Freddy' movies. I wouldn't just yet discount their efforts to bring ANOES back to the big screen, as the movie wasn't anywhere near as bad as the hardcore fans say and leaves room for more films afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on May 2, 2010 19:05:27 GMT -5
I understand what you're saying, but I'll back Rorschach up on this one. The movie does fulfill its intended purpose - it provides a few scares for people out at the movies on dates and whatnot (mostly through those CAT scares, natch), but how many of those same people will be talking about how amazing the film was months from now? Even WEEKS from now? This is just anecdotal evidence, but I've noticed this about PD's previous horror remake, Friday the 13th. Most of us agree that it's the best of the recent PD remakes, and here we are a year later and it's already well on its way to obscurity, along with the reboots of TCM, The Hitcher, Prom Night etc. And I'm just making a call here - in 12 months' time, after the DVD has been released and the next horror movie has come along at the multiplexes, nobody will give a s*** about this movie. I agree that time will tell on the verdict of how this movie will be received. But it's been out 3 days and already there are people calling it a bomb and disgrace to their Nightmare on Elm Street. And if anything, there's hope that this film will jumpstart the franchise again, although with a new backstory. I think it's unfair to compare it to the original, especially since they went their own way with the concept of Freddy Krueger. It's not as though they went and replaced all the old copies of Nightmare with this new and improved version, they're just starting over for a new generation. Sure, there's people with the 'if it ain't broken, don't fix it' mentality. And that's part of the problem. Just think, had Freddy not grown into a stand-up comedian in the series later entries, how awesome and how far the series could have gone as a horror entity. However, most fond memories of ANOES series are contained with parts 1, 3, and New Nightmare. And here we are now, with the original series being past the point of fixing it, and there's a movie out there trying to make Freddy scary again. Sure, there's a vocal minority with a heightened sense of entitlement out there to bring down any and everything done to make this happen, but most people who have seen this remake will probably go and see the sequel to it, and so on. It's just like the original Elm Street series in the 80's, as the movies kept coming out, more people went to see them. Remember Nightmare 4 took in the most of the series at it's time, and it's lauded as the end of the 'scary Freddy' movies. I wouldn't just yet discount their efforts to bring ANOES back to the big screen, as the movie wasn't anywhere near as bad as the hardcore fans say and leaves room for more films afterwards. But see, you sit there and accuse ME of throwing MY opinion around as if it were fact, and superimposing MY thoughts on the film onto everyone, and yet you do it yourself TWICE in this reply. If you're going to take me to task for something, play by your own rules, please. "The movie wasn't anywhere NEAR as bad as hardcore fans say"..... In your opinion. And you know what? It's not just "hardcore" fans that are saying this thing FAILS at everything it tries to do, not least of which is being scary. I would hardly count most major newspaper critics amongst the screaming horror fanboy(girl) elite...yet so MANY journalists and critics are ripping this thing to shreds it's not even funny. I would also not deem them to be the "vocal minority" as you so snidely put it. Just because they don't agree with you, doesn't make them a "minority", though they have been pretty vocal with how much they've disliked this thing, so you're at least half right. And before you try and deflect that with "horror movies traditionally don't get very good reviews" or "The ANOES series has never been given good reviews"....that is no excuse for PD to follow along in that vein, is it? Why shouldn't they strive to be the first to break that cycle, and get a series that's long been a critical whipping boy some respect? I mean, they got a respected character actor into the role of Freddy...they were off to a good start.... "Sure, there's a vocal minority with a heightened sense of entitlement out there to bring down any and everything done to make this happen," And why do you think that the "vocal minority" (weird how because they oppose YOUR stance, they automatically become the minority) has been in that state of mind? Could it possible be because Platinum Dunes has a track record of taking these horror franchises that a lot of us hold dear, and utterly...utterly f*****g them up? (And no, that is NOT my sole opinion. Check out some of the things that the horror community at large has said about these remakes. There aren't many kind words directed at Form and Fuller within the community, and there's a damn good reason for that.) After at least THREE major shots at rebooting these damn things, they've yet to do ONE right, and properly generate a new series from it. They tried with Texas Chainsaw, and failed with that movie (hmmm....lopping off the protagonists arm in the FIRST movie in the series might not have been the way to go there, guys) and so they had to do a prequel...and despite being gory, and nasty, and bloody (actually their films have been bloodier than Hooper's original every time out) this one failed too, and that series went dormant again, where it will probably remain until someone convinces the studios that they can unf*** what PD did to the series. Next up was Jason Voorhees, and we all know how that turned out. It's probably their best effort, but again, despite having a kick ass Jason (I love Derek Mears and hope that whatever happens to the franchise, they bring him back as Jason) and hitting most of the notes right, they still didn't deliver a Friday the 13th that the series fans could get behind and support, or that the general public really cared to see again, all that much. Now, with Freddy...they're taking on an even bigger "sacred cow" within the horror community: the modern day equivalent of Bela Lugosi's Dracula. With Jason, Dunes got lucky because outside of those "hardcore" fans you snub your nose at and call "entitled"....no one really notices much of a difference with who's behind the mask of Jason. As long as he's big, and burly and badass...no one much gives a damn. You could put WWE's Kane behind that hockey mask, and people probably wouldn't fuss too much. But Freddy Krueger...that is a whole other ballgame, my friend. In that case, Dunes was taking a character that is associated with one man, and one man only...Robert Englund. This, if not the equivalent of someone taking the Dracula mantle from Lugosi, was at least the equivalent of a new actor taking over the role of James Bond. You have to find JUST the right guy for the job....and you know, I think that Platinum Dunes did just that. If they've proved one thing, it's that they know how to cast their "big bads". I think they actually found, amongst the working actors in Hollywood right now, THE single best actor to take over the mantle of Krueger from Englund in Jackie Earle Haley. Unlike many folks, I don't think Haley was a problem at all in this film. He certainly acquitted himself well enough in the "menacing" and "creepy" categories. No, the problem is not Haley, in my opinion...it's the movie he's in that fails him. And as far as all of the "hardcore" fans feeling "entitled" to something that they don't deserve....I don't even know where to begin on that one. I mean, since Platinum Dunes is taking an EXISTING franchise, and trying to bring it back...don't you think that fans of that franchise are entitled to having it treated with respect and hell, while we're at it the moviegoing public in general...ARE entitled to getting a good movie for their $10 at the door? Obviously Platinum Dunes doesn't think so...but then again, not everyone can be Peter Jackson have a deep seated reverence for the source material. His version of KING KONG? That is what you get when the remake is handled by someone that gives two s***s. Every other Platinum Dunes remake? That's what you get when two goofballs named Form and Fuller (who I swear are the horror genre's equivalent of Seltzer and Friedberg) get together, smoke some weed, and think they can reinvent the wheel. In the end...yes, there are people out there, even amongst that "vocal minority" of horror fans (and why are the most vocal FANS always considered the minority here? I've ALWAYS wondered that. Wrestling "fans" who become vocal about the product are considered the minority...are Twilight fans also considered a minority? Not when they LIKE the product, I guess. But if Stephenie Meyer ever killed off Edward Cullen and incited a mass riot of preteen girls...I guess at that point those pissed off fans would be a vocal minority. I just don't get the dichotomy there. I really don't...but I digress) that liked the movie, and thought it was great. There will likely be defenders of this film til the ends of time, who think it stands head and shoulders above anything Englund and Craven ever did on the series. Good for them! If this film inspires them to care about it as passionately as I do the original...then by all means, it's accomplished it's mission. However...like TR, that is what concerns me, because from what I saw on that screen, and from the response to Platinum Dunes other efforts in the genre...I don't see that happening. I don't think this is a strong enough film to stand the test of time.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on May 2, 2010 19:34:59 GMT -5
Here's a counterpoint to my argument, that actually supports what Whiplash was saying...I found this over at DreadCentral's thread on the movie. It's by a poster named Akumu.
"Hey guys, I'm new here!
I'm just curious, is there anyone on here that hadn't seen the original before they saw the remake? I'm a huge Nightmare fan myself, in fact my username is japanese for nightmare, well, I'm more of a fanatic-- my room is completely covered in Freddy Posters, I have every movie, and in some cases, multiple copies of the same movie; I have the toys, and a couple of Freddy costumes. Needless to say I worship Englund and the series. However, when I went to see this movie, I saw it with an open mind, and didn't compare it to the original at all, and I thougfht overall it was pretty good. Now I also saw it with 8 other friends, none of which had seen the original, and only 1 who had seen part 2. This was their first Nightmare experience, and they all loved the movie. They thought it was great, the concept was creative, and now nect week they're all coming over to my house to marathon the entire franchise. This seems to be the trend. All the negative reviews I've seen are from people who had seen the original. All the good ones are from people who had never seen any of the films before, or had an open mind when watching it. It all comes down to the point of remakes: they're not supposed to reinvent the franchise, they're not supposed to be better than the original, no, they're supposed to bring the franchise back to life. They're made to allow a new generation of teenagers, like myself, to experience what the olddr generation experienced 30 years ago. Remakes are made to bring a franchise back to the forefront, and on these grounds, NoES 2010 is a fantastic success.
As for this fanatic thoughts on the movie: JEH did a fantastic job as Freddy, as well as the kid who played Quentin. The story was good simple because there was a story, it wasn't just a kill flick. Adding Freddy's backstory made it entertaining, and the last scene was amazing. Everyone in the theater literally cheered when it happened. Aesthetically it was stunning; it looked fantastic. The acting was overall decent.
I give it a 4/5
I think though that if I were to judge it based on comparisons to the original it would be a 2/5, which is what everyone seems to be doing, which as I said simple isn't fair to the remake.
As for the eight films in the series, it currently ranks four, after 1,3 and New Nightmare."
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Walsh is Insane. on May 2, 2010 23:45:09 GMT -5
Guys, please knock it off.
You are all horror fans, so lets please just calm down.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Walsh is Insane. on May 2, 2010 23:48:58 GMT -5
BTW, if anything, Platnium Dunes got the Nightmare name back out there, and Freddy is now easily attainable to a new generation of people that might not be into horror movies. If anything, it can grasp a new audience and maybe they can discover the older movies.
Also, the King Kong remake was a long, overbearing, miscast movie. So I don't know if that is a movie that should be used as an example for how to do a remake the right away.
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on May 2, 2010 23:54:23 GMT -5
BTW, if anything, Platnium Dunes got the Nightmare name back out there, and Freddy is now easily attainable to a new generation of people that might not be into horror movies. If anything, it can grasp a new audience and maybe they can discover the older movies. Also, the King Kong remake was a long, overbearing, miscast movie. So I don't know if that is a movie that should be used as an example for how to do a remake the right away. Really, the only way to remake a movie? More boobs. That's why the Friday the 13th remake works so well. ;D
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on May 3, 2010 0:12:09 GMT -5
I agree that time will tell on the verdict of how this movie will be received. But it's been out 3 days and already there are people calling it a bomb and disgrace to their Nightmare on Elm Street. And if anything, there's hope that this film will jumpstart the franchise again, although with a new backstory. I think it's unfair to compare it to the original, especially since they went their own way with the concept of Freddy Krueger. It's not as though they went and replaced all the old copies of Nightmare with this new and improved version, they're just starting over for a new generation. Sure, there's people with the 'if it ain't broken, don't fix it' mentality. And that's part of the problem. Just think, had Freddy not grown into a stand-up comedian in the series later entries, how awesome and how far the series could have gone as a horror entity. However, most fond memories of ANOES series are contained with parts 1, 3, and New Nightmare. And here we are now, with the original series being past the point of fixing it, and there's a movie out there trying to make Freddy scary again. Sure, there's a vocal minority with a heightened sense of entitlement out there to bring down any and everything done to make this happen, but most people who have seen this remake will probably go and see the sequel to it, and so on. It's just like the original Elm Street series in the 80's, as the movies kept coming out, more people went to see them. Remember Nightmare 4 took in the most of the series at it's time, and it's lauded as the end of the 'scary Freddy' movies. I wouldn't just yet discount their efforts to bring ANOES back to the big screen, as the movie wasn't anywhere near as bad as the hardcore fans say and leaves room for more films afterwards. But see, you sit there and accuse ME of throwing MY opinion around as if it were fact, and superimposing MY thoughts on the film onto everyone, and yet you do it yourself TWICE in this reply. If you're going to take me to task for something, play by your own rules, please. "The movie wasn't anywhere NEAR as bad as hardcore fans say"..... In your opinion. And you know what? It's not just "hardcore" fans that are saying this thing FAILS at everything it tries to do, not least of which is being scary. I would hardly count most major newspaper critics amongst the screaming horror fanboy(girl) elite...yet so MANY journalists and critics are ripping this thing to shreds it's not even funny. I would also not deem them to be the "vocal minority" as you so snidely put it. Just because they don't agree with you, doesn't make them a "minority", though they have been pretty vocal with how much they've disliked this thing, so you're at least half right. And before you try and deflect that with "horror movies traditionally don't get very good reviews" or "The ANOES series has never been given good reviews"....that is no excuse for PD to follow along in that vein, is it? Why shouldn't they strive to be the first to break that cycle, and get a series that's long been a critical whipping boy some respect? I mean, they got a respected character actor into the role of Freddy...they were off to a good start.... "Sure, there's a vocal minority with a heightened sense of entitlement out there to bring down any and everything done to make this happen," And why do you think that the "vocal minority" (weird how because they oppose YOUR stance, they automatically become the minority) has been in that state of mind? Could it possible be because Platinum Dunes has a track record of taking these horror franchises that a lot of us hold dear, and utterly...utterly f*****g them up? (And no, that is NOT my sole opinion. Check out some of the things that the horror community at large has said about these remakes. There aren't many kind words directed at Form and Fuller within the community, and there's a damn good reason for that.) After at least THREE major shots at rebooting these damn things, they've yet to do ONE right, and properly generate a new series from it. They tried with Texas Chainsaw, and failed with that movie (hmmm....lopping off the protagonists arm in the FIRST movie in the series might not have been the way to go there, guys) and so they had to do a prequel...and despite being gory, and nasty, and bloody (actually their films have been bloodier than Hooper's original every time out) this one failed too, and that series went dormant again, where it will probably remain until someone convinces the studios that they can unf*** what PD did to the series. Next up was Jason Voorhees, and we all know how that turned out. It's probably their best effort, but again, despite having a kick ass Jason (I love Derek Mears and hope that whatever happens to the franchise, they bring him back as Jason) and hitting most of the notes right, they still didn't deliver a Friday the 13th that the series fans could get behind and support, or that the general public really cared to see again, all that much. Now, with Freddy...they're taking on an even bigger "sacred cow" within the horror community: the modern day equivalent of Bela Lugosi's Dracula. With Jason, Dunes got lucky because outside of those "hardcore" fans you snub your nose at and call "entitled"....no one really notices much of a difference with who's behind the mask of Jason. As long as he's big, and burly and badass...no one much gives a damn. You could put WWE's Kane behind that hockey mask, and people probably wouldn't fuss too much. But Freddy Krueger...that is a whole other ballgame, my friend. In that case, Dunes was taking a character that is associated with one man, and one man only...Robert Englund. This, if not the equivalent of someone taking the Dracula mantle from Lugosi, was at least the equivalent of a new actor taking over the role of James Bond. You have to find JUST the right guy for the job....and you know, I think that Platinum Dunes did just that. If they've proved one thing, it's that they know how to cast their "big bads". I think they actually found, amongst the working actors in Hollywood right now, THE single best actor to take over the mantle of Krueger from Englund in Jackie Earle Haley. Unlike many folks, I don't think Haley was a problem at all in this film. He certainly acquitted himself well enough in the "menacing" and "creepy" categories. No, the problem is not Haley, in my opinion...it's the movie he's in that fails him. And as far as all of the "hardcore" fans feeling "entitled" to something that they don't deserve....I don't even know where to begin on that one. I mean, since Platinum Dunes is taking an EXISTING franchise, and trying to bring it back...don't you think that fans of that franchise are entitled to having it treated with respect and hell, while we're at it the moviegoing public in general...ARE entitled to getting a good movie for their $10 at the door? Obviously Platinum Dunes doesn't think so...but then again, not everyone can be Peter Jackson have a deep seated reverence for the source material. His version of KING KONG? That is what you get when the remake is handled by someone that gives two s***s. Every other Platinum Dunes remake? That's what you get when two goofballs named Form and Fuller (who I swear are the horror genre's equivalent of Seltzer and Friedberg) get together, smoke some weed, and think they can reinvent the wheel. In the end...yes, there are people out there, even amongst that "vocal minority" of horror fans (and why are the most vocal FANS always considered the minority here? I've ALWAYS wondered that. Wrestling "fans" who become vocal about the product are considered the minority...are Twilight fans also considered a minority? Not when they LIKE the product, I guess. But if Stephenie Meyer ever killed off Edward Cullen and incited a mass riot of preteen girls...I guess at that point those pissed off fans would be a vocal minority. I just don't get the dichotomy there. I really don't...but I digress) that liked the movie, and thought it was great. There will likely be defenders of this film til the ends of time, who think it stands head and shoulders above anything Englund and Craven ever did on the series. Good for them! If this film inspires them to care about it as passionately as I do the original...then by all means, it's accomplished it's mission. However...like TR, that is what concerns me, because from what I saw on that screen, and from the response to Platinum Dunes other efforts in the genre...I don't see that happening. I don't think this is a strong enough film to stand the test of time. Simmer down, Rorschach. I think you took my line about the vocal minority the wrong way, and I really don't enjoy being talked down to here just because you're emotional about some things. What I meant was that the movie made $32 million on it's opening weekend. That's hardly a figure to throw around when calling it a tank, especially when they made their budget back in 3 days. Add that to plenty more in the coming weeks and DVD/Blu-Ray sales and you have what I'd call a financial success. With the "vocal minority" line, I meant that PD (the people you dislike) shouldn't have to make an entire film to appease the hardcore fans of the first series just so a portion of the audience can feel comfortable with an entirely new setting. You say the moviegoing public is apparently not entitled to get their money's worth for the film, but you make seem as though Fuller and co. purposely ruined the film, en route to making a boatload of cash. I respectfully disagree that they made a subpar film just to piss people off. They took a gamble on putting Sam Bayer at the helm and let's face it, Samuel Bayer is no Wes Craven. Is it perfect? No. Not by a long shot. I'd give the movie a 6/10 for execution, mainly because of some cool effects and great acting by JEH. Could have used less of those cheap thrills they induced, but to some, that probably might have actually added to the horror element with so many jump scares. However, I don't see why you had to turn your whole post into a personal attack on me because we don't see eye to eye on the subject. If my post came off a bit smug, I'd credit that to bad word choice, more than anything. I wasn't saying the people who hate the film are the 'vocal minority'. That's close minded. And for the record, I had no intention of 'snidely' singling out those who are passionate about Elm Street. It'd be kind of silly of me to do so, seeing how I am a huge fan of the original, myself. What I was saying was that those who hate the film simply because it's a remake, and those who hate the film because it's not as good as the original and thus should be chalked up as an 'epic fail' for the producers do need to get off their high horses, though. It's a standalone movie made for an entirely new generation, and with that, the movie was pretty good, IMO at least. Although any movie with a good box office like so can at least say for itself that it had some interest going towards it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2010 1:14:15 GMT -5
BTW, if anything, Platnium Dunes got the Nightmare name back out there, and Freddy is now easily attainable to a new generation of people that might not be into horror movies. If anything, it can grasp a new audience and maybe they can discover the older movies. Also, the King Kong remake was a long, overbearing, miscast movie. So I don't know if that is a movie that should be used as an example for how to do a remake the right away. Really, the only way to remake a movie? More boobs. That's why the Friday the 13th remake works so well. ;D {Spoiler}Willa Ford's death may have been the greatest ever, thanks to the part where Jason has to pull up his machete and you get one last view of her glorious rack. BRILLIANT!
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on May 3, 2010 8:55:28 GMT -5
What I was saying was that those who hate the film simply because it's a remake, and those who hate the film because it's not as good as the original and thus should be chalked up as an 'epic fail' for the producers do need to get off their high horses, though. I'll respectfully disagree with you on this here, Whiplash, as there are horror fans who WANTED to like this movie and just found themselves unable to get into it - myself included. As Guyofownage will tell you, I was - and am - someone VERY MUCH in favor of a remake of Nightmare on Elm Street, and was actually jazzed following the news filtering down throughout the production process. And the final product...to me, was just very underwhelming. Alright, ANOES weekend is over, and Classic Horror Remake Furor 2010 (*cue theme from 2001*) is nearing its finish line. And I've got to tell you all that once again you've surpassed all expectations. Damn near seven pages in between this thread and the previous one over a four-day stretch is AMAZING, so please, give yourselves a hand. So where do we go from here? Episode 2 of Happy Town airs in about sixty hours, so there's that.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on May 3, 2010 10:00:27 GMT -5
Also, the King Kong remake was a long, overbearing, miscast movie. So I don't know if that is a movie that should be used as an example for how to do a remake the right away. In your opinion. It has an 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, with Top Critics garnering it a 77%, with Roger Ebert giving it four stars (his highest rating).
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on May 3, 2010 10:08:29 GMT -5
Also, the King Kong remake was a long, overbearing, miscast movie. So I don't know if that is a movie that should be used as an example for how to do a remake the right away. In your opinion. It has an 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, with Top Critics garnering it a 77%, with Roger Ebert giving it four stars (his highest rating). I'll back you up on that. Jackson's Kong was boss. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2010 11:27:05 GMT -5
Jackson's Kong is just very freakin' long, that's all. Like the NC said, you don't need all that crap on the boat. I understand you want to build up tension and you want to care about the characters, but not when you have boring Adrien Brody and nutbar Jack Black. Although, Naomi Watts...giggity.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Tull-eus S. Venture on May 3, 2010 12:13:24 GMT -5
Got my copies of Phantasm and Phantasm II in the mail this past Friday, and watched them this weekend. Angus Scrimm as the Tall Man is still frightening after all these years.
I jumped a bit when Mike opens the front door to his house in the first film and The Tall Man is right there.
"I've been waiting for you!" and then grabs him.
|
|
|
Post by sunwukong on May 3, 2010 12:16:54 GMT -5
Also, the King Kong remake was a long, overbearing, miscast movie. So I don't know if that is a movie that should be used as an example for how to do a remake the right away. In your opinion. It has an 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, with Top Critics garnering it a 77%, with Roger Ebert giving it four stars (his highest rating). A RT score of 77% isn't fantastic. If that were a grade it would be a C on a ten point scale. That sounds about right to me. It was average when it should have been great.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on May 3, 2010 12:17:44 GMT -5
Jackson's Kong is just very freakin' long, that's all. Like the NC said, you don't need all that crap on the boat. I understand you want to build up tension and you want to care about the characters, but not when you have boring Adrien Brody and nutbar Jack Black. Although, Naomi Watts...giggity. I was fine with the length. Nutbar Jack Black worked considering I felt Carl Denham was meant to be a careless, wacky director (he's purposely filming a movie knowing the possible danger of it all and not letting his crew know). I didn't mind Adrien Brody, though I will admit he could have been a bit better (which is weird to say considering I think Brody is a fantastic actor). For me, the 3 hour length felt like it was only an hour and a half. In your opinion. It has an 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, with Top Critics garnering it a 77%, with Roger Ebert giving it four stars (his highest rating). A RT score of 77% isn't fantastic. If that were a grade it would be a C on a ten point scale. That sounds about right to me. It was average when it should have been great. For top critics, that's pretty good (especially considering a lot of top critics aren't fans of popcorn flicks such as King Kong).
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Walsh is Insane. on May 3, 2010 14:41:31 GMT -5
Also, the King Kong remake was a long, overbearing, miscast movie. So I don't know if that is a movie that should be used as an example for how to do a remake the right away. In your opinion. It has an 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, with Top Critics garnering it a 77%, with Roger Ebert giving it four stars (his highest rating). Exactly! And this thread is about opinions... which is why I wanted everyone to calm down. Me doing mod-like things, who knew I had it in me? And if King Kong were to cut out the first 30-45 minutes... it WOULD have been great. The exposition was just so slow and long... also, with Brody and Black in their parts, it felt longer than it should have. That is why I mention the miscastings in that movie; it was hard to take SRS Jack Black seriously. And Brody was very, very dry. I like dry if they are witty as well... but I didn't feel that from him.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on May 3, 2010 16:54:24 GMT -5
In your opinion. It has an 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, with Top Critics garnering it a 77%, with Roger Ebert giving it four stars (his highest rating). Exactly! And this thread is about opinions... which is why I wanted everyone to calm down. Me doing mod-like things, who knew I had it in me? And if King Kong were to cut out the first 30-45 minutes... it WOULD have been great. The exposition was just so slow and long... also, with Brody and Black in their parts, it felt longer than it should have. That is why I mention the miscastings in that movie; it was hard to take SRS Jack Black seriously. And Brody was very, very dry. I like dry if they are witty as well... but I didn't feel that from him. Sorry about that. Couldn't tell that's what you were aiming for.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on May 3, 2010 17:32:05 GMT -5
I've posted the rant a few times before, but the short version is that action scenes in movies honest-to-christ BORE me anymore. The long build-up to the action-packed second and third acts of King Kong is actually my favorite part of the movie, although those parts of the movie are very good, as well, since Jackson actually knows how to calm the f*** down with his editing. But this is a horror thread.
|
|
erisi236
Fry's dog Seymour
... enjoys the rich, smooth taste of Camels.
Not good! Not good! Not good!
Posts: 21,904
|
Post by erisi236 on May 3, 2010 18:22:47 GMT -5
King Kong is kind of horror, it's about a giant monster after all.
|
|