Posts by briskhound2

velvetcrane57 said:If you found those birds to be a poor cinematic experience, then I wouldn't suggest looking at the old cult classics at all; stick strictly to the remakes. Personally, I won't even touch a remake, because if someone is merely rehashing or pilfering from Hitchcock, I have absolutely no desire to watch their work. The last thing I sat through was that absolute garbage, Disturb. It felt like nothing more than a blatant rip-off of the brilliant Rear Window. And I’ve heard that even Eagle Eye is a total plagiarism—it practically steals from Kubrick and Hitchcock combined! Some people truly possess no sense of shame. Honestly, I'd love to see them held accountable.
But I digress....

It just occurred to me that there is also a remake of Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder... it's called A Perfect Murder, and it isn't actually bad. I see someone on IMDb claiming it’s significantly better than the original... which is nonsense, it doesn't come close, but it isn't complete trash either....

I actually thought the movie was great—terrifying, really, one of Hitchcock's absolute best—but I've got mixed feelings about the remake, even if the director is pretty solid. It’s true for most other films, though; every single one is just some kind of adaptation, and they almost always end up being worse versions that just happen to be more profitable... so the movie gets a better rating based purely on the money. The new The Hitcher flopped at the box office, which led to all those bad reviews, which honestly just shows how quality is judged these days...

crimsondriver54 said:Personally, I’m not one for remakes, especially when the original stands on its own. If you've got actual legends in the cast, there’s really no reason to touch it. That said, exceptions exist; occasionally, an old classic might actually benefit from a modern touch. We could dive into specific titles later, but consider this: can a modern version of Spartak starring Goran Visnjic ever truly compete with the original Spartak? Or a new take on Samson and Delilah compared to the first... it's almost laughable.

And honestly, the people making these things are fully aware of that—they'll tell you right out of the gate that it's just a "TV product," basically trying to lower your expectations before you even hit play. For me, speaking of TV, I actually preferred the newer miniseries version of 'Salem's Lot. Don't get me wrong, massive props to Tobe Hooper and the original, but sometimes the older stuff just feels a bit dated...

velvetcrane57 said:Ah, yes, another one just popped into my head.

The absolute titan himself, Alfred Hitchcock, actually decided to remake his own film, The Man Who Knew Too Much. And if you ask me, the remake actually edges out the original.

I've heard people talk about that, but I'll be honest—I haven't sat down with either version yet. You did, though, give me a solid heads-up that they're starting—or maybe already are—filming a remake of his The Birds. The original is pretty terrifying to me, but since George Clooney is supposed to be in this new one, I've got some mixed feelings about how good it might actually turn out...

Lawrence Booth2 said:When it comes to Raimi, I’ll admit I only really dig his more low-key stuff—take Ben-Hur, for instance.
+
The Thing

I think there might be another two or three floating around in my head—I just can't pull them to the surface right now... let's say Invasions of the Body Snatchers.

Which invasion are we talking about? There are like three different versions floating around... but honestly, it’s gotta be The Thing. No contest.

Jason Clark4 said:I can’t recall a single time where a remake actually beat out the original. Every few years, we get some tired reimagining, like a fresh take on "Assault on Precinct 13," or... I can't even think of another one. The last remake I sat through was "The Day the Earth Stood Still," which wasn't even over-the-top; it was just plain bad.
The whole point of these remakes is that there's no new idea behind them—just a blatant cash grab built on old nostalgia. At this rate, we'll be seeing more remakes than original films every year, which is pretty depressing.

Ah, John Carpenter... looks like the guy finally lost it once half his filmography had already been remade (we've got Fog in the mix too) and then there was Attack... which was a decent enough refresh, though I still lean toward the old version. A quick buck here and there, nothing fancy, just a bunch of unknown actors, but hey, the movie still hits the spot. They announced a remake of Escape from New York a couple of years back, so who knows... maybe he'll live long enough to see every single one of his movies get ripped off.

Elizabeth Garcia2 said:Honestly, the most brainless, totally pointless remake ever made has to be Psycho Gus by David Van Sant.
I mean, David Van Sant is such an incredibly talented and powerful director... I just can't wrap my head around what he was thinking or what he was going through to even decide to do this...

Facts. I sat through that movie and I’m genuinely stumped as to what he was trying to achieve with such a frame-for-frame imitation. The original is a classic—if you aren't going to actually refresh the vision or at least give it some new flavor, you probably shouldn't have touched it in the first place.

rustyraven4 said:not sure
honestly, I’m more of a remake guy... like, Halloween by Rob Zombie? Way better than the original for me. Same goes for Friday the 13th... ☕

I won't say this is my first comment on the subject, but it’s one of those rare times someone actually suggests that Zombie managed to outdo Carpenter. Look, the original Halloween is a total cult classic, no question—but in my opinion, Zombie just needlessly watered down the whole vibe by trying way too hard to explain why Michael Myers is the way he is. It’s all just confusing... and now they're gearing up for a sequel, planning both a remake and some original "sequels" too. As for Friday the 13th... mmm, I'll hold my tongue so I don't start a war with the fans, but let's be real: the original flick is pretty rough, which basically practically invited someone to make a remake. On that point, I think we can all agree...

I somehow totally blanked on mentioning The Thing—which, honestly, is one of my absolute favorites—so that immediately made me think of Village of the Damned. You’ve got John Carpenter again, and another remake of an old classic, but... I don't know, he just didn't quite hit the mark with the second one the way he did with the first. It's funny though, because even the first one was pretty much branded a total flop when it first came out. I guess time really does have a way of fixing its own mistakes sometimes...

So, we've got Friday the 13th and My Bloody Valentine hitting the schedule, and since every single one of these already has its own dedicated threads, I won't treat them like they're some big new releases... more like just another look at how Hollywood loves to recycle the past. What’s everyone's take on this whole obsession with remakes? You know, that massive trend where studios just dig up old gems to polish them up again. Which movies actually deserve a second look, which ones were already done right the first time, and which ones were just total downgrades from the originals? This is a wide-open topic—doesn't matter the genre—so if you’ve got a remake that actually holds water, let me know, or if one was a complete disaster. Feel free to weigh the classics against the modern versions... I'll kick things off with a few titles that have been remade, and you guys can take it from there.

Get Carter
Dawn of the Dead
The Hitcher
The Italian Job
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
Shaft

Stanley Kubrick was one of those perfectionists who wouldn't leave a single frame to chance—and honestly, Ridley Scott is cut from the exact same cloth. Both of them worked on their films in a way that probably drove producers and crew members absolutely insane... so much so that there's really no middle ground when it comes to them today. You either love their movies because they're pure reflections of their specific visions, or you can't stand them because you think they're just pretentious types overcomplicating perfectly simple stories. Here’s a little bit of random trivia for you: Blade Runner actually serves as this weird little bridge between the two legends. That "happy ending" that got cut from the film? It was actually unused footage taken straight from Kubrick's The Shining. And if the rumors are true, Kubrick actually liked Blade Runner... which goes to show that even the greats tend to see eye to eye on things like this.

briskbison41 said:Yeah, you've got a point there.
I haven't really been paying close attention to every single zombie flick listed on IMDb... kind of lost track.
The only one that really stuck with me was that bio one. 28 Days Later is decent enough, but I still haven't even gotten around to watching 28 Weeks Later.

Anyway, it's definitely an upgrade over the Resident Evil series—forgot to mention that earlier—and honestly, it feels like the Brits showed Americans how these movies should actually be done, even if they still pull a few ridiculous stunts here and there. It’ll hold up over time... not a bad flick.

briskbison41 said:Another zombie flick... great...😁
The last one—Diary of the Living Dead—was actually decent enough, so maybe this one won't be half bad either. Though, let's be honest, they're all starting to follow pretty much the exact same blueprint...😁
btw, I'm actually digging this latest poster🙂

Wait, wasn't the last movie in that series Diary of the Living Dead? Plus, Romero also teased a new entry in that franchise... you've got the British guys with their sequels to 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later, and then there's that Dead Set series. Honestly, the whole zombie theme is definitely starting to feel a bit played out...

Arthur Anderson49 said:Honestly, I'm just bummed out that they turned this whole thing into a massive franchise. It really should have just been one standalone masterpiece and called it a day, don't you think?

Man, Aliens is just such a killer movie... honestly one of those rare sequels that actually manages to live up to the original—though I know people can get pretty heated about that part. But after that, the franchise really should have just called it quits. It’s got this perfectly solid payoff, a great final showdown, and wraps the whole story up just right. And don't even get me started on stuff like Alien vs Predator... we seriously need a separate thread just for all those bad movies...

quietdriver3 said:I don't know, I think it depends on the context. Rutger Hauer had all those human qualities that make you actually feel for him, whereas Stanley Kubrick makes you feel bad for a blinking red light. To me, that feels like a much bigger achievement.

At the end of the day, it’s just about how you personally experience a movie—everyone's got their own take, and you've gotta respect that. Maybe I just find it easier to connect with characters who have actual human traits, but if you look strictly at the film, Blade Runner sort of suggests that "humanity" is defined by those who lack it... which is why you end up feeling for Hauer and his character's end. Then you have 2001: A Space Odyssey, which basically teaches you that if something breaks, you just shut it down. I think the whole HAL 9000 situation was handled way better in the sequel—technology demands honesty, and it’ll give you exactly what it gets. HAL maintains control of the Discovery right until the very end, and that question—"David, will I dream?"—it taps into emotion and empathy much more deeply than his initial shutdown, even though that scene was pretty heavy too...

Arthur Anderson49 said:So, we’re diving into the absolute peaks of the genre here. But let me flip the script for a second: what do you guys think is the biggest massive letdown in sci-fi cinema history?
I’m not talking about just "bad" movies—I mean there are plenty of those rotting in the bargain bin (my personal pick for a total dud would be Starship Troopers 2, with Avalon breathing down its neck), but I'm talking about those films that had everything they needed to be legendary, yet somehow completely blew it.

Alien 3. It basically just trashed everything from the previous movie and didn't have anything new to say...

quietdriver3 said:Uh, uh, I'd never say anything against Cameron, but I just don't see how that comparison works. 😉

And I'm not really sure why people describe Odyssey as being so cold? It doesn't feel cold to me at all. I think the tension between these two films basically boils down to poetry. 😁 Which one is more poetic: the dying gasps of the "Daisy" lullaby, or "moments vanishing like tears in the rain"?

On paper, I'd pick the latter, but on celluloid—and we are talking about a movie here, after all—it's always going to be the former. 😉

To be a bit cliché, I guess Kubrick achieved what every artist dreams of: making life start imitating art. I mean, I don't think there's a smart speaker today that isn't essentially a clone of HAL 9000 (that cold, monotone voice of a rejected, repressed lover, if I remember Pauline Kael 😁 describing it that way correctly).

For me, it feels cold because I just don't care about the characters. I mentioned before that the scene where HAL gets disconnected is probably the most emotional part of the whole thing, but generally, I just don't give a damn about the people involved—what happens to them afterward doesn't move me. Compare that to when I watch Blade Runner, where I'm always left wondering what happened next. It's a lucky break that there isn't a sequel, honestly, because it keeps people intrigued. In that sense, 2001: A Space Odyssey feels cold to me (even the lead actors weren't exactly unforgettable) whereas Blade Runner feels warmer, more like a human story. I’ll vote for the end of Blade Runner; that monologue Rutger Hauer delivers is pure genius—the guy actually improvised it on set—and I totally agree that 2001: A Space Odyssey left us with that motif of a machine turning against humanity, which was pretty unique for its time.

Jerry Martin19 said:That series is actually perfect, honestly—I’m a huge fan. I just noticed everyone was getting all worked up over titles because of the comparisons, so I brought up The X-Files and it felt like it came off with a bit of a negative
vibe...

I guess it came off that way. But hey, I'm a fan too. Sometimes you gotta drop other titles in just to make a point, or maybe to let people know there's actually a better movie out there than the ones being discussed... okay, maybe this is a slightly tougher case, but if we were talking about Michael Bay and big action flicks, those comparisons would be totally necessary. If you thought I was bringing up The Abyss to be weird, my bad—it just feels much closer to 2001 to me since they share similar themes, so the connection felt pretty natural, at least in my head.

Jerry Martin19 said:All we need now is a mention of The X-Files 😁

edit: I know it’s minor, but it’s spelled Odyssey with a "y"... if anyone feels like fixing the title, that'd be great 🙂...

Is anything really missing from that series? You can't just take two films of that caliber—what people call the heavy hitters of hardcore sci-fi—and expect them to be summed up in a single sentence. You have to look at the directors behind them since they're the ones responsible for that level of success... plus, you need to make some comparisons just to explain what you're talking about, otherwise you'll always run into some smart-ass asking, "Oh yeah? Give me one example that proves your point." When you talk about those two movies, you're essentially talking about the entire sci-fi genre, because they basically set the gold standard...

Arthur Anderson49 said:Hmm... You know, maybe. Maybe Stanley Kubrick took a much bigger gamble than I'm giving him credit for. The guy was a total risk-taker; he never cared about playing it safe or sticking to the status quo. I don't personally view his work that way, but hey, maybe film history will see it differently one day. From where I'm standing right now, though? I see Odyssey as a brilliant failure.

A lot of critics lately have been talking about how Odyssey kind of shows the exhaustion of the material—that sealed-off, hermetic feeling you get from that whole genre (and we're talking about those movies centered on first contact with alien intelligence here). They argue that visual and technical perfection alone isn't enough to keep a movie like this at the top tier for decades when there are better versions out there—films that are actually clearer, which is pretty much a prerequisite if you want to stay on the "all-time greats" lists forever. I’m mostly thinking of James Cameron's The Abyss, which tackles that same first contact theme but in a way that's way more accessible...

Thanks. I’m a huge fan of both movies, and seeing that you are too makes this an easy conversation to have... It’s been a solid discussion—definitely one that was overdue for us sci-fi fans who prefer something a bit more substantial than just flashy, mindless blockbusters.