|
Post by mathias on May 17, 2010 19:37:19 GMT -5
I liked the the new NOES. Not great cinema by any means, but lets remember, none of the follow ups to the original have been, and this is just another followup, even if it is a remake. It's still loads better than 2, 6 and possibly even 5 or 7. I never understand the "It's better than a lot of other things!" defense. It seems Doug also used it last episode to justify Diary of the Dead. Just because something is better than the worst thing ever does not mean it's worthwhile. I won't argue that. The point is that I hear WAY more complaining about this movie that the ones I mentioned. The other point is that given the history of remakes and sequels is usually a reasonable poor product (especially when compared with the original material) what exactly was everyone expecting? Most of the negative reviews I read and hear come of as being surprised (and insulted!) that the film wasn't as good as the original. It's really rare that the remake is as good as the original (the thing, and mabey the fly).
|
|
|
Post by wolfemann on May 17, 2010 20:33:51 GMT -5
I'll be posting my own in-depth, post-digestion spoiler-filled review to my blog eventually, but I've already said my bit on the forum here. Ultimately, I liked it. My brother loved it. And we've both seen all the decent Nightmare movies (we haven't seen 5 and 6, but that's it).
Also, out of curiosity, why no Voicemail segment this show? Just wondering if it was a case of pre-recording your shows, since I know I tried to send one in....
|
|
|
Post by Stuart on May 18, 2010 9:20:54 GMT -5
I have an ambivalent attitude towards The Beyond. I really enjoy the staple horror elements in there and I appreciate that the pacing is much better than in House by the Cemetery but it is a mess and I’m not convinced that it’s truly surreal. To me, Eraserhead is surreal. The Beyond comes across as muddled and confusing, and to my mind that’s not the same thing. A fun film if you’re happy to just sit back and watch the gruesome and disturbing scenes (and I don’t mean that disparagingly - there's a lot to be said for melting zombies , but frustrating if you’re hoping to understand it.
|
|
|
Post by deadlydolls on May 21, 2010 6:51:45 GMT -5
I'll jump on Team NOES Remake. I think fans are being way too hard on what turned out to be a neat little film that respected its source material with small homages, but brought it plenty of new material with a darker backstory. The acting/characters was pretty much on par with the original; sorry people, Johnny Depp wasn't anything special in 1984, even if he did rock a half-shirt. I loved what they did with Chris/Not Tina's death, sort of reminding you of the original but twisting it so the pain came from her being hurled against a wall rather than sliced up. Overall, miles above the lazy F13 remake and a promising start to a rebooted franchise.
|
|
misterd
Frightful Fiend
Posts: 1,220
|
Post by misterd on May 26, 2010 17:19:33 GMT -5
I liked the the new NOES. Not great cinema by any means, but lets remember, none of the follow ups to the original have been, and this is just another followup, even if it is a remake. It's still loads better than 2, 6 and possibly even 5 or 7. I never understand the "It's better than a lot of other things!" defense. Isn't that just the flipside to "it's not as good as" attack? Basically the majority of the attacks I've seen on remakes and sequels is not the quality of the film itself, but whether it measures up to the benchmarks of the original. Its not just NOES. I keep hearing all this shit about Iron Man 2. I don't know anyone who actually disliked it, but they just can't seem to help saying "not as good as the first", which immediately casts a negative light on the whole production. Now, where I do think such comparisons are apt are in analyzing the overall reception to the film. There have been far worse movies than NOES(r) and F13(r), but the responses to them are so overwhelmingly harsh you'd think the actors were fed dead baby sandwiches and clad in panda furs.
|
|
|
Post by mangorilla on Jun 14, 2010 9:48:24 GMT -5
Kudos to the marketing team for the Nightmare on Elm Street remake. The trailers really had me believing that the remake was going to offer up something interesting, and a new take on the Freddy character. And then I bought my ticket and saw the movie... The inherent problem with any reboot/remake/regurgitation is that it is naturally a draw for the long-time fans. They can claim that the intent is to introduce a new audience to a beloved character until the cows come home, but the long-time fans are going to be the ones who plunk down the cash on opening weekend to see what they've done with their favorite characters. The die hard fans will make or break your remake. And for some reason, the filmmakers feel that they can appease the die-hards just by including loads of in-jokes and references to the original films. In Nightmare on Elm Street, we had virtually shot-for-shot recreations of scenes. Only the scenes were Michael Bay-ed to death, so what was once subtle, atmospheric and creepy is now over-done and in your face. Suddenly pocket change being slapped down on a table resonates with a seat shaking sonic boom, for no reason other than "A loud noise might make a few of 'em jump a bit." The Tina character's death in particular was far too over the top for me. Instead of the creepy slow drag, she's lifted from the bed like an alien abduction, then tossed around like a beach ball so fast that you can't tell what's happening at all. Is it Freddy? Is it an abduction? Is it a seizure? Did the projectionist splice in scenes from The Exorcist by mistake? As for the Freddy is innocent angle, it could have been interesting. It could have been a new twist that would justify the remake. Instead, they mention it, and throw it away seconds later. Why bring it up at all if you're just going to throw it away seconds later? I'm ok with Freddy as Uncle Touchy, because I feel like it was always understood that he likely molested the children as well as killing them. But if he's "only" touching the children, what's the point of the razor glove? And say what you will about Johnny Depp and Heather Langenkamp's acting in the original; at least they could pass as high school students, and they were at least somewhat sympathetic characters. You went to school with kids like them. You were friends with people like them. They were your average anywhere USA high school students, not the stereotypical secluded outcasts and unrealistically gorgeous actors we're presented with in the reboot. I liked Jackie Earl Haley as Freddy, and thought the scenes with pre-burn victim Freddy were interesting. Why not explore that further and show his decline into the killer we all know? Maybe he touched the parents when they were young and nobody believed them back then, and now that they have children of their own, the parents took action to stop him once and for all. That'd make a lot more sense than, "Yeah, he touched you all when you were in kindergarten, but you don't remember and we hid all evidence, except for the school itself, of course..." Bottom line, there was a lot of potential for this film to present something new and interesting while still keeping the cornerstones of the franchise intact, but instead it just relied on loud noises and modern camera trick gimmicks to tell the exact same story. It's the same product in a new, flashier package, which is why it's instantly forgetable.
|
|