Ok, I watched the remake of House on Haunted Hill tonight. It, The Haunting, Thirteen Ghosts, and probably Ghost Ship, all are horrid remakes of classic films. (Ok, so the originals of HOHH and 13 Ghosts weren't THAT great. But they were a hell of a lot better than the current remakes. And they had the advantage of being "gimmick" movies.) Then, for the hell of it, let's consider Gus Van Sant's Shot by shot recreation of Psycho. Why remake a classic? Wouldn't it be easier to just clean up an old print, dust off the gimmick, and re-release it?
I mean, the originals were effective even without the gimmicks. And especially without the elaborate sets and CGI that are de riguere in any of today's horror films. And special tomatoes to The Haunting for ignoring not only the original movie, but the book as well. I mean, hell, even Jason X ended up using the damn fake looking CGI effects. Rent the original Friday the 13th, or for that matter any of the original slasher flicks, and compare them with recent sequals. All of the originals were low budget, but effective without any of today's technology. Most of today's aren't even attempting to be scary or shocking. More like "Look at our set! We spent $2 million on it and $10 on the script!"
Not that any of my bitching matters. The new versions make money, even if they are crap. I remember a few years back when Fangoria started making movies saying they were for the fans. Of the 2 I saw, Mindwarp was mildly watchable (only because of the cast) and I, Zombie could have refered to the acting. The only amusing scene in that one was the guy's penis rotting off when he tried to have a zombiegasm.
I just wish someone would remember that something can be scary without CGI monsters that get more screentime than the heroes.
- Tags:bitch, movies
- Music:"Tainted Love"-Soft Cell