Re: Favorite Remake Of A Film?
True to some degree but that doesn't negate my point - which was that the fanboys of the original used such terms because they assumed it was a typical US remake instead of being a very faithful remake. No one could watch LMI and think it's a typical US film, appeal to the mass market, film.
Some have watched it and still, bizarrely, believe the original to be way, way, way better. Fair enough. But there are others who just attack it because it's a remake, and throw the untruths at it because they generally hold true for most American films.
Where I think your statement isn't true is the basic equasion of gloss = lack of atmosphere/tone. There are phenomenally atmospheric films with no gloss, such as Halloween (but also a host of bad ones) and there are phenomenally atmospheric films with lots of gloss, like The Thing (as well as plenty that stink). The truth is that a good film is good, regardless, and the same holds for a bad film.
It does except for Bottin's Arnold face effects.
Originally posted by sasqits
View Post
Some have watched it and still, bizarrely, believe the original to be way, way, way better. Fair enough. But there are others who just attack it because it's a remake, and throw the untruths at it because they generally hold true for most American films.
Where I think your statement isn't true is the basic equasion of gloss = lack of atmosphere/tone. There are phenomenally atmospheric films with no gloss, such as Halloween (but also a host of bad ones) and there are phenomenally atmospheric films with lots of gloss, like The Thing (as well as plenty that stink). The truth is that a good film is good, regardless, and the same holds for a bad film.
With all due respect to the original, it now looks cheap and dated. Whether the film turns out to be good, the effects and look will undoubtedly be a step up.
Comment