Print Page | Close Window

LAST CHANCE 2-B UN-ORIGINAL...

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: FORUMS on 2009 RELEASES
Forum Name: LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT
Forum Discription: Yet Another Un-Needed Horror Remake...HO HUM!
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3519
Printed Date: October 22 2014 at 9:00am


Topic: LAST CHANCE 2-B UN-ORIGINAL...
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: LAST CHANCE 2-B UN-ORIGINAL...
Date Posted: March 11 2009 at 8:50am

THIS IS NOT ONLY the UMP-TEENth HOLLYWOOD REMAKE of an EXISTANT HORROR MOVIE of LATE, BUT IT's ALSO TECHNICALLY the http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0844708/movieconnections - THIRD VERSION of THIS SAME MATERAIL . AND EVEN THOUGH the 2009 VERSION of http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=343 - LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT  MAY TURN OUT to BE ONLY SO-SO, WE'DE LIKE to BE OH SO CLEAR on ONE POINT:

ENOUGH with the LAZY REMAKES, ALREADY!

IN an AGE WHEN EVERY THIRD PERSON in AMERICA HAS an IDEA for a SCREENPLAY, AT LEAST 1 in 100 HAS GOTTA BE BETTER THAN the FORMULAIC, LAZY, LITERALLY GRAVE-ROBBING REMAKES THAT HAVE LITTERED the CINEMA LANDSCAPE for the PAST 5 YEARS!

PLEASE, HOLLYWOOD -- MAKE SOMETHING ORIGINAL for a CHANGE. DO SO and, WHO KNOWS, YOU COULD EVEN WIN ONE of THOSE "OTHER AWARDS" EVERYONE ACTUALLY WANTS to WIN...INSTEAD of BEING CONSIDERED a CONTENDER for OUR AWARDS... 

GIRL: "Somebody help me!  I've been taken prisoner and tortured...and told I look frighteningly like Sarah Jessica Parker!!"



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 11 2009 at 9:08am
While I agree, that the remakes are a lazy film making method, there was a commenter on the IMDB that raised a good point. The originals, are sometimes just not up to snuff for the current generation of movie goers. Some people born after say 1980, may never of even heard of the Wes Craven version, and most people outside of Germany probably have absolutely no idea that the German one even exists....

The remakes, while lazy and not anywhere near as great as the originals, can sometimes raise awareness of the original, and actually cause a rise in the original's popularity. Sort of like how whenever there is a remake of one of the Japanese Horror films, Best Buy suddenly has a butt-load of copies of the Japanese original out.

Also, I will admit that I finally got around to watching the original "Day the Earth Stood Still" after the Keanu version made me want to gouge out my eyes with rusty nails... So sometimes, the evils of the remake help to highlight the virtues of the original...


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 11 2009 at 2:41pm
Not all remakes have been that bad at all. I know a couple of remakes that have been good films, example: Insomnia and The Departed. Miami Vice, an R-rated remake of the 1980's TV series, was more in the middle of good and bad, so more of a mixed.

-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 11 2009 at 3:23pm
I think that is the first time I have seen someone say something that was even mildly positive about the Miami Vice movie...


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 11 2009 at 3:40pm
That movie was listed as a possible RAZZIE contender for 2006, but because of some positive reviews, we never started a forum on that movie...

-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 11 2009 at 3:51pm
I will have to hunt down these positive reviews... I must have missed them when the movie first came out.

-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 11 2009 at 3:59pm
You can look at the RT page for the reviews on MIAMI VICE. Here's a http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/miami_vice/ - LINK to look at the reviews for MIAMI VICE...

-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 11 2009 at 4:14pm
Well you are a helpful one to have around, aren't you? You bring to light the fact that not all reviews of Miami Vice bad, and then offer up a link to prove it! Thank you :)

-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 11 2009 at 4:18pm
No problem whatsoever.

-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 11 2009 at 8:01pm
What if books did remakes? I mean, yes, sometimes people sort of pilfer a story, but have you ever heard of a book remake? Anyone wanna take a crack at rewriting The Lord of the Rings?
I know some people can put a positive spin on the remake "menomina" (*Doo-Doooo-dadoo-doo*), but this is money that's just being poorly spent. Instead of investing $20 million on a live action remake of Steam Boat Willy, put it into something that's going to create permanent jobs for people, instead of another 8 figures into the wallet of Michael Bay and Jim Carrey.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 12 2009 at 12:35am
This is the third (American) horror movie remake in a span of three months this year! At this rate, that means there will be 12 contenders for Worst Remake in 2010 right there! Seriously, I used to love movies, but in this day and age of H-Wood making remakes, sequels, and adaptations galore, I'm finding it hard to have respect for filmmaking in America. It's coming to a point that we have to turn to IFC for good movies, but they get no press and are barely in any theaters outside of art houses.


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 12 2009 at 5:01am
Originally posted by Michaels

This is the third (American) horror movie remake in a span of three months this year! At this rate, that means there will be 12 contenders for Worst Remake in 2010 right there! Seriously, I used to love movies, but in this day and age of H-Wood making remakes, sequels, and adaptations galore, I'm finding it hard to have respect for filmmaking in America. It's coming to a point that we have to turn to IFC for good movies, but they get no press and are barely in any theaters outside of art houses.


I pointed out in another forum, that the adaptations and remakes are not all that bad. I mean, over the last 8 Years, the Best picture winner at the Oscars was generally a remake or Adaptation (with the exception of Crash). There are some good remakes and adaptations out there, that are not only good stories, but artfully executed. The Lord of the Rings series, was almost universally praised, not only for being a fairly decent adaptation, but also for being an artistic achievement. Dark Knight as well, was an adaptation, that was just shy of amazing. The reboots, remakes, and adaptations, aren't necessarily the problem, the problem is how they are executed.

Stuff like Transformers, while not the greatest film on the planet, worked as precisely what it was created to do. It was not made to be the end all of movie-making. It was made to be a fun, summer popcorn flick, something it achieved with spades.

I am not saying that it is wrong to bash a movie (I do it all the time, it's fun). I just think that we should perhaps look at what the general population wants. As long as these movies keep making money, Hollywood will keep churning them out. Once People stop paying to see this stuff, Hollywood might start to try other things...




-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: tomsmo35
Date Posted: March 12 2009 at 5:47am
I'm surprised that there are not forums for either http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/race_to_witch_mountain/" target=_blank alt tooltipText="No consensus yet." jQuery1236879769984="98 - Race to Witch Mountain   or http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10010760-miss_march/" target=_blank alt tooltipText="No consensus yet." jQuery1236879769984="100 - Miss March

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10010760-miss_march/" target=_blank alt tooltipText="No consensus yet." jQuery1236879769984="100 -  



-------------


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 12 2009 at 9:58am
To those who complain, quit whining. At this rate, you'll probably commit suicide because there will be tons more remakes coming out this year, and you guys have to learn that NOT ALL ARE BAD. As you cannot tell by now, this and "The Uninvited" are probably the good ones so far this year. I can tell this film will be like "Taken," how it'll be an audience pleaser (if you couldn't already tell by the trailer). People love to see bad guys getting hurt so there will be a lot of praises for this movie, no doubt. In this economic downturn, people love to reach a catharsis. They love to see some things that will make them happy. This probably will do the job even though there's a rape scene.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 12 2009 at 10:16am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

To those who complain, quit whining. At this rate, you'll probably commit suicide because there will be tons more remakes coming out this year, and you guys have to learn that NOT ALL ARE BAD. As you cannot tell by now, this and "The Uninvited" are probably the good ones so far this year. I can tell this film will be like "Taken," how it'll be an audience pleaser (if you couldn't already tell by the trailer). People love to see bad guys getting hurt so there will be a lot of praises for this movie, no doubt. In this economic downturn, people love to reach a catharsis. They love to see some things that will make them happy. This probably will do the job even though there's a rape scene.

This movie will be lucky if it places third. People will see it for what it is, a cheap remake that trying to ride the coattails of "Saw". It will be owned by "WatchMen" and "Race To Witch Mountain". Oh, and yes, not all remakes suck ... but all HORROR movie remakes do! 



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 12 2009 at 1:11pm
Originally posted by Michaels

This movie will be lucky if it places third. People will see it for what it is, a cheap remake that trying to ride the coattails of "Saw". It will be owned by "WatchMen" and "Race To Witch Mountain". Oh, and yes, not all remakes suck ... but all HORROR movie remakes do! 

Not all do...surely you can't be serious! "I am serious...and don't call be Shirley." Anyway, I think there is another more deserving film that should recieve the worst of this week. *cough*Miss March*cough*

As for Watchmen, it'll drop 75+%. Trust me. I did not like the film at all, along with several millions of other people. Here are the downfalls of Watchmen: You can't just simply market a movie one way and have the audience watch a completely different other. It was marketed as an action film but was instead a very, very, very talky, uninteresting, boring, film with dribble written all over the screen.

Another downfall is that the movie mostly appeals to those who have read the graphic novel. Considering that 80% of audiences who have seen the movie were not familiar with the GN, it'll get a bad-word-of-mouth. It already has around my school and online (including IMDb). Although it's in the top 250, it's dropping each day. The box office earnings are dropping each day. Like I said, it's going to drop like a rock this weekend.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 12 2009 at 3:51pm

Will "Watchmen" drop because of the reasons mentioned, sure. Does the giant, blue, CGI penis also not help matters, of course. Will "Last House On The Left" be the movie to dethrone it? Hell no! That "honor" will go to "Race To Witch Mountain". Why? Two words: family friendly. That mean each ticket sale comes in packs of three, four, or more. Plus, unlike "Friday The 13th", no one born in the '80s ever heard of the original "LHOTL", so it's not like teens will be running in to see how it compares. And seeing how it's just a "Saw" knockoff, any social comments and undertones that were in the '70s version will no doubt be gone in exchange for mindless violence. I mean seriously, microwaving someone's head? It's up there with nuking the fridge. As any one of the millions of people who own a microwave will tell you, they don't work if the door is opened.

Seriously, MWG, why do you defend these movies, these remakes? I mean they don't do anything to improve the original material, all they do is update the technology, slang, and fashion for this generation, that's it. It's all "what over the top and creative ways can we kill people so the youth of the nation no longer fears violence, but instead laughs at it with joy"? As for "Taken", well, it had good "Bourne" like action and a great leading actor. "LHOTL" is just ... weak sauce. 



Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 12 2009 at 8:34pm
MWG, seriously, I feel like so much of what you say has to do with the fact that you weren't around when they still made original movies. You're settling for what they give you. For your generation, you have all of what... ONE horror movie to claim as your own, "Saw ONE". Sequels are nothing. (And no, that's not to blame anyone younger than me on the Horror movie trend.)
As for Watchmen, many movies over the years have been rated R not because of the offensive content, but because it's intended for a more mature audience. It's deeply political, and intended for a thoughtful crowd. I don't feel that it was marketed as an action movie because it had guys wearing "Batman and Robin" costumes. I've read that they intentionally made the Ozymandias costume as a direct parody. But that being said, if people are walking out of the theater pissed off because there wasn't enough action, and it doesn't make AS much money as they hoped, that's a good thing. It's smart material for smart people, and if we're so insistent on being dumb, then we shouldn't be pretending to "get it, but not like it because it made me think." Wait until it hits overseas. Europe and Asia will probably eat Watchmen up.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 12 2009 at 11:47pm
Originally posted by Michaels

Will "Watchmen" drop because of the reasons mentioned, sure. Does the giant, blue, CGI penis also not help matters, of course. Will "Last House On The Left" be the movie to dethrone it? Hell no! That "honor" will go to "Race To Witch Mountain". Why? Two words: family friendly. That mean each ticket sale comes in packs of three, four, or more. Plus, unlike "Friday The 13th", no one born in the '80s ever heard of the original "LHOTL", so it's not like teens will be running in to see how it compares. And seeing how it's just a "Saw" knockoff, any social comments and undertones that were in the '70s version will no doubt be gone in exchange for mindless violence. I mean seriously, microwaving someone's head? It's up there with nuking the fridge. As any one of the millions of people who own a microwave will tell you, they don't work if the door is opened.

Seriously, MWG, why do you defend these movies, these remakes? I mean they don't do anything to improve the original material, all they do is update the technology, slang, and fashion for this generation, that's it. It's all "what over the top and creative ways can we kill people so the youth of the nation no longer fears violence, but instead laughs at it with joy"? As for "Taken", well, it had good "Bourne" like action and a great leading actor. "LHOTL" is just ... weak sauce. 

Have you actually read any of the positive reviews for LHOTL? I don't think so. And for your information, it's actually the best of this week, seeing how Miss March has like an 8% and Race to Witch Mountain has a 36% so that just proves you wrong.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 13 2009 at 12:47am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Have you actually read any of the positive reviews for LHOTL? I don't think so. And for your information, it's actually the best of this week, seeing how Miss March has like an 8% and Race to Witch Mountain has a 36% so that just proves you wrong.

Wow, you seriously don't even read what is written. I said "Witch Mountain" will be #1 at the Box Office because it's family friendly, thus more people will go see it (that and like him or hate him, Dwayne Johnson's movies always make money). Do I care about whatever positive reviews "LHOTL" gets? Nope. It will be lucky if it will even break the top 5. "RTWM" will be #1 or #2, "Watchmen" will drop a few spots, Tyler Perry, "Paul Blaut", "Taken", and "Slumdog Millionaire" will all keep "LHOTL" at bay. Now it's just time to wait for the token 6 out of 10 review.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 14 2009 at 9:32am
Originally posted by Michaels

Wow, you seriously don't even read what is written. I said "Witch Mountain" will be #1 at the Box Office because it's family friendly, thus more people will go see it (that and like him or hate him, Dwayne Johnson's movies always make money). Do I care about whatever positive reviews "LHOTL" gets? Nope. It will be lucky if it will even break the top 5. "RTWM" will be #1 or #2, "Watchmen" will drop a few spots, Tyler Perry, "Paul Blaut", "Taken", and "Slumdog Millionaire" will all keep "LHOTL" at bay. Now it's just time to wait for the token 6 out of 10 review.

You are a so full of yourself. Of course you care about the positive reviews. That's how films AREN'T mentioned in here. The fact I proved you wrong twice just makes you look even more ignorant. Hey, look, it has a 44% in RT. RTWM has a 39%. I don't care if you think RTWM will be #1. It doesn't take a genius to think so. But again, you should be a better predictor because LHOTL beat Watchmen this Friday. Again, if you hate the movie soooo much, I feel sorry for you. You're delusional. I told you that Watchmen will drop 75+% and you don't believe me. I told you people hated Watchmen. You don't believe me. I told you LHOTL was one of the better remakes and, what a surprise, you ignored my comments. Keep digging yourself a hole until you can;t climb out of it. You're wrong and I'm right. It's not an opinion. It's a fact you'll never going to learn with this subject we're talking about. Please, take your head out of your @$$.

And the reason why I asked you if you've read the reviews is quite obvious. I don't want to use Roger Ebert again but he gave this movie a positive review, which says a lot because he usually rate horror movies below a 1.5 rating. Here's what you said:

I mean they don't do anything to improve the original material, all they do is update the technology, slang, and fashion for this generation, that's it. It's all "what over the top and creative ways can we kill people so the youth of the nation no longer fears violence, but instead laughs at it with joy"? As for "Taken", well, it had good "Bourne" like action and a great leading actor. "LHOTL" is just ... weak sauce. 

And I'm telling you to read the reviews because you're already wrong on most of these generalizations you're making on the film. Reviews have said the performances were surprisingly well acted, and slang, really, in this type of film? Why the hell would they put, "I ain't dogging on this sheeeeeet!"?! WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY PUT THAT LINE IN THE MOVIE?!

And I'm sure the over-the-top deaths are INTENTIONAL, because it's a film where a girl gets raped and her parents are killing the baddies in great ways to have the audience cheer of them. THE IS THE F*CKING POINT. I'm sorry, but if you didn't really know that...I just feel sorry for you. Do you really think that having the parents kill the baddies in such predictable ways will actually be enough for what they did? Hell no. That's why there's a creative proccess going on. The better the deaths, the more the audience will cheer, and the worst deaths the baddies will get. That's the point. Who cares if it's inhumane and Saw-like. That's not the point.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 14 2009 at 10:47am

The original debate was that "TLHOTL" would take "Watchman"'s place as the #1 movie. Although it did knock "WM" down a notch, it isn't #1 (as of Friday), "RTWM" is, as I predicted it would be. So in those terms, we are both right and wrong. So neither one of us is smarter than the other in predicting which movie will do better.



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 15 2009 at 10:40am

Oops, I spoke too soon, in the end, I was right after all. Families and Dwayne Johnson fans made "RTWM" #1, but "Watchmen" only dropped to #2, so it was not blown out of the water by #3 "TLHOTL". Score one more victory for good, thinking man's movies. I guess people don't HATE "WM", they are just indifferent to it. It just goes to show that we at the Razzies are right, these horror movie remakes are weak sauce, just cheap money making scams to get teens who no longer think violence is ugly, unusual, and cruel, but funny, exciting, and enjoyable to watch (these people are freaks who need mental help). Next time, the studios should just re-release the original American horror movies in theaters for a week or two, or English dub or subtitle Asian horror movies. They need to stop wasting money in these times of people losing their jobs and houses on a daily basis. It is just disrespectful to the filmmaking art form. You don't see any authors trying to rewrite "Moby Dick" for the 21st Century, so why is it okay to remake classic films when 9 out of 10 times the remakes are inferior in every way? If it doesn't stop, we might one day see a "Citizen Kane" remake in which Kane becomes rich from owning a "Girls Gone Wild" style Internet website and he tries to make his Kim Kardashian wannabe celebrity type girlfriend famous by giving her a reality TV series, and then it turns out "rosebud" really was just a nickname he had for her womanhood. That is just unaccpectable. I understand people like a fun blockbuster movie that doesn't make you think too hard, but when movies insult your IQ, it's a waste of time and money for both the studios and the movie goers. Until the powers that be change their ways, we at the Razzies will always be here to bring them back down to Earth by pointing out the errors of their ways during the same time that they pat themselves on their backs for the small handfuls of good movies that they made.



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 15 2009 at 11:11am
Originally posted by Michaels

Oops, I spoke too soon, in the end, I was right after all. Families and Dwayne Johnson fans made "RTWM" #1, but "Watchmen" only dropped to #2, so it was not blown out of the water by #3 "TLHOTL". Score one more victory for good, thinking man's movies. I guess people don't HATE "WM", they are just indifferent to it. It just goes to show that we at the Razzies are right, these horror movie remakes are weak sauce, just cheap money making scams to get teens who no longer think violence is ugly, unusual, and cruel, but funny, exciting, and enjoyable to watch (these people are freaks who need mental help). Next time, the studios should just re-release the original American horror movies in theaters for a week or two, or English dub or subtitle Asian horror movies. They need to stop wasting money in these times of people losing their jobs and houses on a daily basis. It is just disrespectful to the filmmaking art form. You don't see any authors trying to rewrite "Moby Dick" for the 21st Century, so why is it okay to remake classic films when 9 out of 10 times the remakes are inferior in every way? If it doesn't stop, we might one day see a "Citizen Kane" remake in which Kane becomes rich from owning a "Girls Gone Wild" style Internet website and he tries to make his Kim Kardashian wannabe celebrity type girlfriend famous by giving her a reality TV series, and then it turns out "rosebud" really was just a nickname he had for her womanhood. That is just unaccpectable. I understand people like a fun blockbuster movie that doesn't make you think too hard, but when movies insult your IQ, it's a waste of time and money for both the studios and the movie goers. Until the powers that be change their ways, we at the Razzies will always be here to bring them back down to Earth by pointing out the errors of their ways during the same time that they pat themselves on their backs for the small handfuls of good movies that they made.



You love touting that it is a crime to pump money into a movie like this, because people are losing their jobs and houses... And yet you want to take that money away from people who are putting in an honest day's work. Jim the Electrician works hard for the money he got on the set of "Hollywood Remake" (hypothetical person, not a real movie) If the Studios had said "Nope, we're not going to make these remakes, and instead we'll just re-release 'Hollywood Original'" Jim the Electrician doesn't get paid, and his wife and newborn son get kicked out on the streets.

Sure, the remakes may not be high intellectual art, but people want 'em. Railing against the concept isn't going to make them go away. Automatically dismissing a film because it isn't "original" in the end shows a sort of close-mindedness. And while I do agree that 95% of the remakes may not be great, some of them can be fun, if you watch them in the rate frame of mind.

Also, as far as the whole rewriting of stories goes, can I cite the musical "West Side Story"? West Side Story, is a play that is heavily influenced by Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. As far as the story of Romeo and Juliet goes... a quick look at the Wiki yields this information:

"Romeo and Juliet belongs to a tradition of tragic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_%28love%29" title="Romance love - romances stretching back to antiquity. Its plot is based on an Italian tale, translated into verse as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tragical_History_of_Romeus_and_Juliet" title="The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet - The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Brooke_%28poet%29" title="Arthur Brooke poet - Arthur Brooke in 1562, and retold in prose in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Pleasure" title="Palace of Pleasure" class="mw-redirect - Palace of Pleasure by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Painter" title="William Painter - William Painter in 1582. Shakespeare borrowed heavily from both, but developed supporting characters, particularly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercutio" title="Mercutio - Mercutio and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Paris" title="Count Paris - Paris , in order to expand the plot. Believed to be written between 1591 and 1595, the play was first published in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Quarto" title="First Quarto" class="mw-redirect - quarto version in 1597. This text was of poor quality, and later editions corrected it, bringing it more in line with Shakespeare's original text."

So, it would seem, that Romeo and Juliet, which was the basis for West Side Story, is just a remake of older literary pieces. That would mean, that one of the most well-loved playwrights in history, is nothing but a two bit hack, who tossed away thousands of pounds when he people were living in squalor! How dare he! Man, that Shakespeare was such a hack. Perhaps we can honor him with an honorary Razzie?

Now, much like Christian Bale, I want to say "You're a nice guy" and I mean nothing personal by this, I am just trying to point out, that you might be a little too harsh on the concept of remakes... There has to be at least one remake out there that is a guilty pleasure for you, or that you enjoyed... Somewhere through the years, there had to have been something...

Don't hate me, I really mean nothing I have said as a personal attack. Please don't take anything I say personally. If you are offended by anything I say, I apologize.


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 15 2009 at 4:18pm
At least you guys predicted correctly about RACE TO WITCH MOUNTAIN to be this week's #1 movie at the weekend box office,and how much this movie will make, well, from the weekend's results, it has made $14.6 million. And, please, for once, MWG, don't try to call us the crudest people ever. You may have realized how many of us were offended by hearing that...

-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 16 2009 at 10:57am

Originally posted by CriticalFrank


Now, much like Christian Bale, I want to say "You're a nice guy" and I mean nothing personal by this, I am just trying to point out, that you might be a little too harsh on the concept of remakes... There has to be at least one remake out there that is a guilty pleasure for you, or that you enjoyed... Somewhere through the years, there had to have been something...

Don't hate me, I really mean nothing I have said as a personal attack. Please don't take anything I say personally. If you are offended by anything I say, I apologize.

In truth, Frank, I don't mind you giving me your two cents about movies without having to go the way of "you people are mean" or "I know better, my GPA is 5.3". So thank you for being mature. But what is all comes down to is how you and I view movies.

Now, for the past ten years, I took a high school course in film studies, I was president of my college's film club, I studied and aced classes in theater and creative writing, I've read books about moviemaking, I've watched hours of Turner Classic Movies, the Sundance Channel and IFC, I've written screenplays that I published as novels or had produced into short films, etc. So I tend to view movies as a respected art form.

But for some people, movies are just a form of simple entertainment and nothing more. And as you can see, I view movies as being sacred and these remakes make me flip out much like a devoted Christian would when someone mocks his religion. But even if I can't understand why someone wouldn't boycott any movie that is just H-Wood's raping of classic movies that should be left alone doesn't mean I hate you as a person. So without having to bring ourselves down to name calling and insulting each other's IQ, I accept that we have totally different views on how H-Wood works and we should just let it be.



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 16 2009 at 4:19pm

Originally posted by sportsartist24

At least you guys predicted correctly about RACE TO WITCH MOUNTAIN to be this week's #1 movie at the weekend box office,and how much this movie will make, well, from the weekend's results, it has made $14.6 million. And, please, for once, MWG, don't try to call us the crudest people ever. You may have realized how many of us were offended by hearing that...

Offended? How can you be offended? This idiot just ignores whatever I say, even though it's valid proof. He implies LHOTL is the worst movie ever and that it won't even "break the top 5" and that it'll be "lucky if it does" and it dumbs down things for the audience. Hey, how about the fact that he ignores that this was the most favorable reviewed film last week. What about the fact that he's basically wrong on so many generalizations he has made because it's "just another stupid remake"? He's so ignorant that I can't beliee you're defending him.



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 17 2009 at 12:51am
Originally posted by Michaels

In truth, Frank, I don't mind you giving me your two cents about movies without having to go the way of "you people are mean" or "I know better, my GPA is 5.3". So thank you for being mature. But what is all comes down to is how you and I view movies.

Now, for the past ten years, I took a high school course in film studies, I was president of my college's film club, I studied and aced classes in theater and creative writing, I've read books about moviemaking, I've watched hours of Turner Classic Movies, the Sundance Channel and IFC, I've written screenplays that I published as novels or had produced into short films, etc. So I tend to view movies as a respected art form.

But for some people, movies are just a form of simple entertainment and nothing more. And as you can see, I view movies as being sacred and these remakes make me flip out much like a devoted Christian would when someone mocks his religion. But even if I can't understand why someone wouldn't boycott any movie that is just H-Wood's raping of classic movies that should be left alone doesn't mean I hate you as a person. So without having to bring ourselves down to name calling and insulting each other's IQ, I accept that we have totally different views on how H-Wood works and we should just let it be.



I'm glad I didn't offend, sir. I hate to think that I might have offended by getting a little overly passionate about a topic.

Like you, I love movies. And while it may not seem like it, I do see them as an art, too.

But I'm glad we can agree to disagree on this one. :)


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 17 2009 at 8:15am

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Offended? How can you be offended? This idiot just ignores whatever I say, even though it's valid proof. He implies LHOTL is the worst movie ever and that it won't even "break the top 5" and that it'll be "lucky if it does" and it dumbs down things for the audience. Hey, how about the fact that he ignores that this was the most favorable reviewed film last week. What about the fact that he's basically wrong on so many generalizations he has made because it's "just another stupid remake"? He's so ignorant that I can't beliee you're defending him.

Actually, I never said it was going to be the worst movie ever. At no point did I say "Wow, this will be so bad that it will make "Trolls 2" look like "The Godfather Part 2"." I stated at the very beginning that the world really didn't need yet another horror movie remake like this. "Saw" has the torture porn market covered, we didn't need any more copycats, thank you very much. Sure, it made it into the top 5, but it didn't replace "Watchmen" as #1, "RTWM" did. So we were both right and wrong on certain levels. I can respect Frank for making his case without having to reduce himself to insults. But hey, if you want to keep it up with the name calling and personal attacks, go right ahead. All it proves is that while your GPA might be 5.3, your maturity level is 0.3.



Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 17 2009 at 10:46am
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Offended? How can you be offended? This idiot just ignores whatever I say, even though it's valid proof. He implies LHOTL is the worst movie ever and that it won't even "break the top 5" and that it'll be "lucky if it does" and it dumbs down things for the audience. Hey, how about the fact that he ignores that this was the most favorable reviewed film last week. What about the fact that he's basically wrong on so many generalizations he has made because it's "just another stupid remake"? He's so ignorant that I can't beliee you're defending him.

Well, for one thing, when you called us the crudest people ever, plenty of us were discussing about that, mostly because it was like a personal insult. But I still stand by his side on what he said.



-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 18 2009 at 1:26am
Frank, I don't think people really WANT these re-makes, they're just going because they want to go to a movie, and they already know what they're getting. I can prove my point even, look at the Seltzerberg movies... They've made money, a lot of it, every time, (except for DM) and the whole point was they used imagery people were used to. It's not entirely the "unoriginal" factor that pisses me off, it's the blatant cash grabbing. And as much as it keeps Bob the Builder working, he makes 20k for his one time project, and Michael Bay makes millions and millions, for essentially going out and securing the rights. Bah... I can't think straight right now, I'm wandering, my head is killing me.
Anyway, a remake could be good, but they don't need any more of my money. I'm not rewarding their lack of effort in coming up with something unique.


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 18 2009 at 1:42am
Fair enough. I'm still willing to sift through the crap, looking for the little bits of gold. However, I even refuse to sit through the Seltzerberg style schlock... well, at least I refuse to pay to see it... My little brother wanted to go see Meet the Spartans... Better believe that the little SOB is never going to get to live that one down. I died a little inside that day... I think I can still hear my soul weeping.

However.

Those "movies", are not remakes... those are just hacks sitting in a room saying "remember that one scene in that movie? Let's do a movie with that in there!" Those are cheap, blatant rip-offs. Classifying those in with remakes, are like lumping a pile of bird crap in with a Van Gogh.
 


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: March 18 2009 at 1:33pm
Yes... Rip-offs. Exactly. Now THOOOOSE are definite problems... The core of the RRA problem. (Remake/Ripoff/Adapt, for those who haven't picked up on my clever acronym yet... It's the next "Google it" I tells ya!)


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 12:21am

I can agree that blatant Ripoffs do not have a place in movies. Remakes and adaptations I have very little problem with, as long as they are done with at least some reverence to the source material.

When the remake or adaptation has absolutely no respect for the source material, it leans more towards rip-off...

 



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: wolfee37
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 11:02am

The original was dated and a sh*tty movie to begin with. This is a well acted, well directed movie. I agree with remakes only if...

 

1. The film is dated and/or sucked. Halloween was unessesary despite the fact it was old it was not dated. Hills Have Eyes and Last House were both dated and cheap. And the remakes were better. And horror foregin language films I dont mind because most of the films NO ONE has heard of. All they take is the story of it, why do people care so much? But I hear they are reamking 'The Orphanage' which I am not happy about because 'The Orphanage' was actually a pretty biug filma dn is mainstream. So its kind of weird.

2. Fix the mistakes the original had. If you are going to remake a film, you should try and fix the things that didn;t work and keeop the things that did. Thats what this film did. The original was horribly acted and cheap, and it was just a distgusting movie. This remake was extremly well acted and althugh it was violent and disturbing it wasn't over the top where I find myself getting sick (although I did cringe).

 

All In all I am for remakes as long as its is deserving. Some  one (whose name slipps my mind) said; 'Remakes shoudl be for fims that we got wrong the first time'. I agree. And If you dont agree, well your stuborn cause I know I am right. That may make me sound stuborn but this is just one of those thigs where I am not going to argue cause I am right :P



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 11:59am
Originally posted by wolfee37

The original was dated and a sh*tty movie to begin with. This is a well acted, well directed movie. I agree with remakes only if...

All In all I am for remakes as long as its is deserving. Some  one (whose name slipps my mind) said; 'Remakes shoudl be for fims that we got wrong the first time'. I agree. And If you dont agree, well your stuborn cause I know I am right. That may make me sound stuborn but this is just one of those thigs where I am not going to argue cause I am right :P

Awesome, someone else who doesn't just write off remakes, because the idea is unoriginal. Now, I'm not saying that remakes all work out in the end... I mean, Halloween, like you mentioned just wasn't necessary, the original has held up fairly well over the last couple of decades. The Rob Zombie version in this case does come off as a blatant cash grab. However, I enjoyed this version of "Last House". Perhaps that is because I've never actually seen the original (a problem I hope to rectify soon enough) and perhaps it's because I look a bit of gore... who knows?

That's all I've got to say for now.



-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 3:32pm
Well, I say, if you MUST make remakes, then remake the worst of the worst. Remake the "Plan 9 From Outer Spaces", remake the "Manos: Hands of Fates", remake the "Trolls 2". Why? Because unlike when you remake a good, classic movie, you're doomed to fail. But if you remake the worst movies possible, you can't really go wrong because when compared to the original, the remake will be golden.


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 4:10pm
Or remake a movie that has won a RAZZIE in the first decade, then again, it would still be a whole lot worse, and they've already done that once...

-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 12:23am
Originally posted by Michaels

Well, I say, if you MUST make remakes, then remake the worst of the worst. Remake the "Plan 9 From Outer Spaces", remake the "Manos: Hands of Fates", remake the "Trolls 2". Why? Because unlike when you remake a good, classic movie, you're doomed to fail. But if you remake the worst movies possible, you can't really go wrong because when compared to the original, the remake will be golden.


I bet given enough time, Hollywood could screw up a remake of Manos... You don't give them enough credit. :)


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 2:16pm

Originally posted by CriticalFrank


I bet given enough time, Hollywood could screw up a remake of Manos... You don't give them enough credit. :)

Well, it's not like they have much to work with. Maybe they could at least explain what the hell is happening in the movie because I still have no clue what the original was really all about. All I remember is that there's this guy who living in the middle of nowhere with his servant that has goat legs and he has a bunch of dead women as his harem of wives.

"Plan 9" wasn't much better. There are aliens who wish to make contact with us, but at the same time, don't want us to discover them. WTF?! So of course, they bring our dead back to life, so they can kill us and thus stop us from blowing up the sun. Ummmm, ooookay.



Posted By: CriticalFrank
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 12:38am
Originally posted by Michaels

Well, it's not like they have much to work with. Maybe they could at least explain what the hell is happening in the movie because I still have no clue what the original was really all about. All I remember is that there's this guy who living in the middle of nowhere with his servant that has goat legs and he has a bunch of dead women as his harem of wives.

"Plan 9" wasn't much better. There are aliens who wish to make contact with us, but at the same time, don't want us to discover them. WTF?! So of course, they bring our dead back to life, so they can kill us and thus stop us from blowing up the sun. Ummmm, ooookay.



I think your synopsis is actually better then the movies themselves. It's sad that something like that is possible.


-------------
Life's short and hard, like a body-building elf - Bloodhound Gang


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: January 24 2010 at 11:47am

We have considered many horror remakes for the Double-O-Nine RAZZIES...and besides this, I can't trace any of their source materials back to Asia or outside the United States. Even so, this film has not been suggested for the RAZZIES. I don't think it deserves any either.



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: January 24 2010 at 12:03pm
This trend of remakes making horror movies is not going to end anytime soon, so long as brain dead teens are willing to piss their money away just so they could say that saw (insert title here) in theaters, even if what they saw was vastly inferior to what the original was.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 5:16pm
Just saw the movie and loved it. I love the fact that this film actually went and showed the grittiness of the kills and the highly disturbing rape scene, which makes the realism all the better. Many films, not just horror, shy away from the things presented in this film so I give the movie credit for that. I also loved the performance. The actors were terrific. The only thing I didn't like is that last shot. It felt tacked on but I know why they added that. All in all, a great film with good performances. I almost teared up in some parts. Think of this as a more extreme version of Taken.I also should note that this is anything but a torture porn movie. I thought it would be one as well because of the trailer but it isn't.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 6:22pm
Um, just so I know for sure that my poor old eyes aren't deceiving me, MWG, did I just correctly read that you are giving a movie "credit" for presenting an evidently graphic rape scene?

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 6:25pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Just saw the movie and loved it. I love the fact that this film actually went and showed the grittiness of the kills and the highly disturbing rape scene, which makes the realism all the better. Many films, not just horror, shy away from the things presented in this film so I give the movie credit for that. I also loved the performance. The actors were terrific. The only thing I didn't like is that last shot. It felt tacked on but I know why they added that. All in all, a great film with good performances. I almost teared up in some parts. Think of this as a more extreme version of Taken.I also should note that this is anything but a torture porn movie. I thought it would be one as well because of the trailer but it isn't.
Wow, you are one sick f*** if you're praising a movie for having graphic violence and rape. There's a reason why most movies shy away from such things, it's called ... what is it? Oh yeah, having good taste ... rather than being morbid just to shock people.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 6:32pm
Ok..evidently I did read it correctlyLOL

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 6:43pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Um, just so I know for sure that my poor old eyes aren't deceiving me, MWG, did I just correctly read that you are giving a movie "credit" for presenting an evidently graphic rape scene?

Yes, I did and did you read my reasoning as well or did you just stop right after the moment you read it? I'm sure the original movie stirred controversy as well with the issue of raping a teenage girl. Let me reiterate: It's good to see that this film shows the "reality," if you will. It's unflinching, unapologetic, and painfully realistic, which adds to the justification of what happens in this film. That's the scene where I get teary-eyed. It almost made me cried and it left me disturbed. I'm crediting that the film didn't take "the easy way out" like fading out too early. If you've seen Haneke's Cache, there's this scene where a man slashes his throat, blood spraying through the white walls, yet, the camera stays with the man, dying on the floor, bleeding to his death, while many films would have faded out after he slashed his throat. However, Haneke let the camera linger over what seems like years of the man just lying on the floor.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 6:45pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Wow, you are one sick f*** if you're praising a movie for having graphic violence and rape. There's a reason why most movies shy away from such things, it's called ... what is it? Oh yeah, having good taste ... rather than being morbid just to shock people.

Ok, you can judge me anyway you want. I won't stop you. If you actually read my reasoning, you would find out I praised the film for it's realistic depiction on such things where most films make it seem cartoonish. Like another user said on here, the violence and rape scenes in A Clockwork Orange, although distasteful and highly disturbing, have a reason to be there. There's a reason behind the violence and rape scene on screen. And you seem to have forgotten my review of Halloween II. Let me refresh your memory: I HATED the movie for it's violence because the violence was there just for the sake of it. In here, it's different. The violence and rape scene wasn't here because it's there. There's a reason behind it and the more realistic the film depicts them, the better the moral and themes are presented.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 6:53pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy


Ok, you can judge me anyway you want. I won't stop you. If you actually read my reasoning, you would find out I praised the film for it's realistic depiction on such things where most films make it seem cartoonish. Like another user said on here, the violence and rape scenes in A Clockwork Orange, although distasteful and highly disturbing, have a reason to be there. There's a reason behind the violence and rape scene on screen.
Oh, so it will lead to even more graphic violence. Yeah kid, you're not going to win any one over with your reasoning. But then again, no one agrees with anything you say anyway.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:00pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Oh, so it will lead to even more graphic violence. Yeah kid, you're not going to win any one over with your reasoning. But then again, no one agrees with anything you say anyway.

So you're saying A Clockwork Orange is a bad film for doing the exact same thing you're complaining about? Like I said earlier, you can judge me all you want. I really don't care. It's just that your argument is flawed.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:03pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Yes, I did and did you read my reasoning as well or did you just stop right after the moment you read it? I'm sure the original movie stirred controversy as well with the issue of raping a teenage girl. Let me reiterate: It's good to see that this film shows the "reality," if you will. It's unflinching, unapologetic, and painfully realistic, which adds to the justification of what happens in this film.
So the viewers of the film are generally so intellectually challenged that they are unable to perceive what is going on by reasonable suggestion. It is necessary to actually portray a graphic rape scene? Sorry, that is B.S. and it is also entirely gratuitous. NOTHING positive is accomplished by a presentation of that nature. NOTHING

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:07pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

So the viewers of the film are generally so intellectually challenged that they are unable to perceive what is going on by reasonable suggestion. It is necessary to actually portray a graphic rape scene? Sorry, that is B.S. and it is also entirely gratuitous. NOTHING positive is accomplished by a presentation of that nature. NOTHING

I think we need to stop and agree to disagree. Yes, I don't mind if there are "implications" made in scenes like these. Like I said before, I hated Halloween II because of it's violence just for the sake of it. But let me bring up A Clockwork Orange again. Why do you feel the need to not attack that film as well?


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:07pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

So you're saying A Clockwork Orange is a bad film for doing the exact same thing you're complaining about? Like I said earlier, you can judge me all you want. I really don't care. It's just that your argument is flawed.
You fail to grasp a very critical point. A Clockwork Orange was a pretty grapic presentation for its time, but rather pedestrial by modern standards. That point aside, it used violence to make a point, not to entertain.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:07pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

So the viewers of the film are generally so intellectually challenged that they are unable to perceive what is going on by reasonable suggestion. It is necessary to actually portray a graphic rape scene? Sorry, that is B.S. and it is also entirely gratuitous. NOTHING positive is accomplished by a presentation of that nature. NOTHING
Yeah, that's what I'm talking. That and the fact this MWG runs to the aid of every bad movie out there and defends it (with misinformation and bias) and is pretty much the running gag of the forum, yet keeps coming back for more. 

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:13pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

You fail to grasp a very critical point. A Clockwork Orange was a pretty grapic presentation for its time, but rather pedestrial by modern standards. That point aside, it used violence to make a point, not to entertain.

And did I not just try to explain in the past 5 consecutive posts of mines that the violence in LHOTL was meant to make a point and NOT to entertain? Therefore, this whole argument is now pointless? Where did I say the violence was meant to entertain? Where? I must be blind or something. If any of my posts show any implications of that, then I think it's a misunderstanding.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:20pm
MWG, LHOTL was a throw away horror movie. It was not made to comment on social ills or to warn about the consequences of attempting to deal with certain problems or suggest problems to come. It was made to entertain a particular audience. Allow me to make you a bet...20 years from now, A Clockwork Orange will still be considered a classic, outstanding piece of filmmaking, while LHOTL will be a footnote in books about crappy movies.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:25pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

And did I not just try to explain in the past 5 consecutive posts of mines that the violence in LHOTL was meant to make a point and NOT to entertain? Therefore, this whole argument is now pointless? Where did I say the violence was meant to entertain? Where? I must be blind or something. If any of my posts show any implications of that, then I think it's a misunderstanding.
What point? It's shock value! It's "oh my god, they're raping that girl!", "oh my god, they're bleeding that guy dry! "oh my god, that's girl's boobs are out for no good reason!". These are not social commentries, these are just mindless abuse of of rated R tricks. "Clockwork Orange" was about violence in society. This movie is just more torture porn to please blood crazy nutcases.
 
You're listed on another thread as "You know it's a Razzies movie when moviewizguy likes it", and you're proving that true. Why? Because you think this movie is good for having a rape scene, calling it society commentary when it's entertainment at its lowest! That waiter in "Ferris Bueller" said it best about the young of the nation, "I weep for the future".


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:25pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

MWG, LHOTL was a throw away horror movie. It was not made to comment on social ills or to warn about the consequences of attempting to deal with certain problems or suggest problems to come. It was made to entertain a particular audience. Allow me to make you a bet...20 years from now, A Clockwork Orange will still be considered a classic, outstanding piece of filmmaking, while LHOTL will be a footnote in books about crappy movies.

I'm sure this remake was trying to make the same point The Virgin Spring was trying to make. I saw the film and it presented moral ambiguity and a huge theme on justice. It was really interesting. And I'm sure it's not a "throw away" horror film if Wes Craven himself thought of it to be a good contemporary update as well as landing on Stephen King's top 10 on 2009.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:26pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

MWG, LHOTL was a throw away horror movie. It was not made to comment on social ills or to warn about the consequences of attempting to deal with certain problems or suggest problems to come. It was made to entertain a particular audience. Allow me to make you a bet...20 years from now, A Clockwork Orange will still be considered a classic, outstanding piece of filmmaking, while LHOTL will be a footnote in books about crappy movies.
I'm going to take saturnwatcher up on the bet ... on his side. Now this is a smart movie watcher who knows what a good movie is and doesn't make excuses for Hollywood's crappy movies, remakes, and reboots.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:29pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

What point? It's shock value! It's "oh my god, they're raping that girl!", "oh my god, they're bleeding that guy dry! "oh my god, that's girl's boobs are out for no good reason!". These are not social commentries, these are just mindless abuse of of rated R tricks. "Clockwork Orange" was about violence in society. This movie is just more torture porn to please blood crazy nutcases.

Have you not seen this film or the films this film was based on? There was no scene anywhere NEAR the Saw films. Here's what the original film set out to (The Virgin Spring): "The film contains a number of themes that question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morals - morals , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice - justice , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious - religious beliefs, and was considered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial - controversial when first released due to its infamous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape - rape scene."
I saw the remake, and I found the same themes presented in it, although the religion aspect was thrown away because it wasn't as big of an issue as in the past.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:31pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

I'm going to take saturnwatcher up on the bet ... on his side. Now this is a smart movie watcher who knows what a good movie is and doesn't make excuses for Hollywood's crappy movies, remakes, and reboots.

Ok. Are you happy now? Did you accomplish what you set out to do? Is you mission in life finally succeeded? I have no idea what you were doing in the conversation in the first place because you did not add a single layer of anything interesting but to spark up a feud. Next time, add some comments that actually contribute to the discussion itself and not attack on one's opinions which have nothing to do with the discussion in the first place. Good bye knowing you, kid, but your immaturity astounds me beyond belief.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:33pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

What point? It's shock value! It's "oh my god, they're raping that girl!", "oh my god, they're bleeding that guy dry! "oh my god, that's girl's boobs are out for no good reason!".
Ummm...I'm willing to give that last one a passLOL

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:41pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy


Ok. Are you happy now? Did you accomplish what you set out to do? Is you mission in life finally succeeded? I have no idea what you were doing in the conversation in the first place because you did not add a single layer of anything interesting but to spark up a feud. Next time, add some comments that actually contribute to the discussion itself and not attack on one's opinions which have nothing to do with the discussion in the first place. Good bye knowing you, kid, but your immaturity astounds me beyond belief.
Hey, kid, clearly saturnwatcher and I would have better luck explaining the meaning of life to our pets than convincing you that don't know what you're talking about, and it's hurting your street credit here. So if you want to take every bad movie ever made and pull little "facts" out of thin air about how great they are, go right ahead. In the end, everyone here will be making fun of you for it. Yeah, I'm done with you too, because after reading your posts, I've realized you're no better than these other people who appear out of nowhere and throw poorly spelled hate messages at us for making fun of their bad movies. Have fun living in ignorant bliss in your support of movies made for the lowest common denominator!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 09 2010 at 4:57am
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn


Hey, kid, clearly saturnwatcher and I would have better luck explaining the meaning of life to our pets than convincing you that don't know what you're talking about, and it's hurting your street credit here.

It's just odd that you would bash my opinion on this film when weeks earlier you said to Vits that you respect peoples' opinions. I know what I'm talking about because I have a film by the brilliant Ingmar Bergman to support it. You posted earlier questioning just what was the point of the violence, and then later providing puns and jokes. I don't know if you've seen Wes Craven's version or Bergman's original version of the story but it really doesn't take a genius to find out what was the point. Even the trailer for this film suggested the following: "If bad people hurt someone you love, how far would you go to hurt them back?" So I'm just astounded how much you have a large stick up you you-know-what, when you question the obvious. It's as if you're asking rhetorical questions.

So if you want to take every bad movie ever made and pull little "facts" out of thin air about how great they are, go right ahead.

Whether a film is bad or not is in the eye of the beholder. And no, I don't pull out little "facts" out of thin air because I actually have links to them. The number one source I have is actually watching this film and judging from your posts, you haven't seen this film, or any of the originals, yet, so I'm in disbelief how you can comment on this issue when you haven't seen the film.

In the end, everyone here will be making fun of you for it. Yeah, I'm done with you too, because after reading your posts, I've realized you're no better than these other people who appear out of nowhere and throw poorly spelled hate messages at us for making fun of their bad movies. Have fun living in ignorant bliss in your support of movies made for the lowest common denominator!

You said the following on this link: http://razzies.com/forum/the-alltime-100-berry-worst_topic1764_page6.html - http://razzies.com/forum/the-alltime-100-berry-worst_topic1764_page6.html "Sometimes, it all comes down to a matter of personal taste, I guess." What happened to that? Why am I so special for the center of your ridicule? The question I ask to you is "Why?" Are you trying to achieve a purpose for doing so? Have you benefited from bashing my opinions? Has anyone benifited from it?


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 10 2010 at 7:49am
I'll just say this. You can't compare "Clockwork Orange" to modern torture porn movies. "CO" was a thinking man's movie that was about violence in society. Torture porn movies are all about shock value for teenagers to spend a few bucks on and then forget about a few hours later. So pulling this card everytime you defend a horror movie is a moot point. Having a graphic rape scene doesn't qualify as being a reason why a movie is good. Sure, "Boys Don't Cry" had a rape scene, but it didnt overpower the rest of the movie, which performances stood on its own, while no one seriously went to see this movie for the performances, just what creative ways people were going to be killed off.
 
And as I said before, Vits will eventually admit, "yeah, it's wasn't a great movie". But you on the other hand, will not give up even though an entire message board of people who are more knowlegdable about the movie industry and how it works telling you what the flaws in your arguement are. And it's because of movie goers like you who accept movies like this as quality entertainment that such bad movies exist in the first place. In other words, you're part of the problem, and that is why I (and just about everyone else on the forum) ridicule you.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 10 2010 at 3:20pm
I would point out that CO was not just a movie about violence in society, but it carried a reverse Frankenstein theme: It dared ask whether it might not be just as morally questionable to unmake a monster as to make one. I would challenge MWG to present a thesis on how LHOTL comes close to presenting as many interesting an relevant themes.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 10 2010 at 4:31pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

I'll just say this. You can't compare "Clockwork Orange" to modern torture porn movies.

What you're clearly not understanding is that for the past few posts, I have been repeating and repeating and repeating that this film is not a torture porn film. If it is, then you can call Deliverance, Taken (it even has a torture scene that was re-shot to get a PG-13 rating), CO, etc torture porn films. Nothing in this film, I repeat YET AGAIN, suggests anything CLOSE to being a torture porn film. And YET AGAIN, I have to say if you have actually seen the movie, you'll understand. And I have a good source: The director himself. Iliadis (the director) expressed that he did not want to go the way of "torture porn", which is what he sees most horror films moving toward, but instead show a sense of "urgency" with the parents’ actions.

"CO" was a thinking man's movie that was about violence in society.

It's actually presents an ethical question on whether it's better to "tame" an evil being or leave him be.

Torture porn movies are all about shock value for teenagers to spend a few bucks on and then forget about a few hours later. So pulling this card everytime you defend a horror movie is a moot point.

Ok. We're really getting nowhere. Everytime I try to convince you that this isn't a torture porn film, you ignore what I say and go back to space one.

Sure, "Boys Don't Cry" had a rape scene, but it didnt overpower the rest of the movie, which performances stood on its own, while no one seriously went to see this movie for the performances, just what creative ways people were going to be killed off.

Again, you ignore my posts. In my original post, I said the performances were terrific. *sigh* I'm kinda tired repeating myself. If people actually went to see this movie to see people getting killed creatively, then they must be disappointed because there were no  "creative" deaths in this film. Do you call getting stabbed a creative death scene? Do you call bleeding to death a creative death scene? Do you call getting shot a creative death scene? If you just see this film, you'd noticed the points your bringing up now has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the film.
 
And as I said before, Vits will eventually admit, "yeah, it's wasn't a great movie". But you on the other hand, will not give up even though an entire message board of people who are more knowlegdable about the movie industry and how it works telling you what the flaws in your arguement are.

Oh, as long as he says they're not really great movies, THEN you let it pass, because the world revolves around you, right? As long as people are willing to admit that their opinions are wrong, you'd let their opinions slide, right? I'm gonna shoot myself. You're nowhere near knowledgeable in films than I am. We're both stuck on the same boat. And flaws in my argument? Excuse me? I suggest you read your arguments. They're flawed as hell and filled with holes as big as a truck driving through a wall.

And it's because of movie goers like you who accept movies like this as quality entertainment that such bad movies exist in the first place. In other words, you're part of the problem, and that is why I (and just about everyone else on the forum) ridicule you.

When did I say the following, or any of these variations in my opinion for this film? "OH MY GOD! This film is freaking awesome! The death scenes were soooo creative and it was soooo cool to see people die in creative ways! I jizzed on my pants every time I saw someone get killed by a gun because that is so freaking creative! It's not as if war films or any other action films have done it before! Oh, I also looooooved the rape scene because it was so freaking funny to see that girl suffer on screen!" You're what's wrong in the world.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 10 2010 at 4:51pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

I would point out that CO was not just a movie about violence in society, but it carried a reverse Frankenstein theme: It dared ask whether it might not be just as morally questionable to unmake a monster as to make one.

That's correct. At least you know what you're talking about.

I would challenge MWG to present a thesis on how LHOTL comes close to presenting as many interesting an relevant themes.

The problem is that I never challenged you in the first place when saying this film had as deep of morals and themes as CO. But what I did post posts earlier is that it brought some relevant themes from the original The Virgin Spring to this film, largely ignoring the religious side. One huge relevant theme is that people are capable of doing extreme things. The sceenwriter even had the following to say about the themes in the film: "What would a typical family do in such an extreme scenario? [...] We're asking ourselves through it: 'How are they going to do this? How would we do it?' Then that poses the opportunity to really explore the extreme nature. In terms of Krug - these are evil human beings. Humans are capable of evil sh*t all the time, so it was a chance for me to get into the R-rated version of [these themes]."

So yes, the theme that humans are capable of doing really evil things is still relevant till this day because we see it on the news all of the time. However, the film also leaves a moral ambiguity: The so-called victims in this film commit attrocities in the name of survival that are as violent and as inhumane as the actions of the degenerate forces arrayed against them. It also focuses on the theme of justice, which is always, or mostly, presented in revenge-type films like Death Sentence, Death Wish, The Brave One, Taken, etc.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 10 2010 at 8:49pm
See, but this is my overall arguement with comparing "Clockwork Orange" with torture porn. After all these decades, when people talk of "CO" (besides the infamous holding the eyes wide open scene), what do they talk about? The violence? No. For the most part, they talk about the performances, mainly Malcom McDowell's. Now, do you seriously believe in your heart of hearts that decades from now, ANYONE is going to be talking about the acting in "LHOTL" or "Hostel" or any other number of torture porn movies? No, of course not. They are going to talk about the sex scenes, and the rape scenes, and the bloody deaths, because all of that overpowered the rest of the movie. And I'll even point out that when reviewing the movie, you mentioned the rape scene BEFORE mentioning the performances. I think that's a strong clue that the rape and murder scenes overpowered the performances, and the performances take a back seat to the shock value entertainment. And let's get this out in the air as well, NO ONE goes to see horror movies for the performances, EVERYONE goes just to see what kind of cartoonish deaths the movie makers came up with. Sure, back in the 60s or 70s, people might have gone for the performances, but nowadays, it's just exercises in who can be more overly bloody and broaderline NC-17 rated.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 4:52pm
This is so very pointless.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 4:58pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Now, do you seriously believe in your heart of hearts that decades from now, ANYONE is going to be talking about the acting in "LHOTL" or "Hostel" or any other number of torture porn movies? No, of course not.

I'm sorry, but even The Exorcist won't be talked about because of the acting. It'll be talked about because of the shocking scenes it presented in that time, including a girl turning her head around 360 degrees. I also never argued that people will be talking about the performances.

They are going to talk about the sex scenes, and the rape scenes, and the bloody deaths, because all of that overpowered the rest of the movie.

Because those scenes are the point of the entire film. Read my short "thesis" above.

And I'll even point out that when reviewing the movie, you mentioned the rape scene BEFORE mentioning the performances.

Maybe that's because I have a structure to my reviews? I don't mention performances by any actors in any of my reviews until the last 2 paragraphs or so.

I think that's a strong clue that the rape and murder scenes overpowered the performances, and the performances take a back seat to the shock value entertainment.

Let me see you watch this film and call those scenes entertaining...exactly.

And let's get this out in the air as well, NO ONE goes to see horror movies for the performances, EVERYONE goes just to see what kind of cartoonish deaths the movie makers came up with. Sure, back in the 60s or 70s, people might have gone for the performances, but nowadays, it's just exercises in who can be more overly bloody and broaderline NC-17 rated.

Sure, I'll agree with that. Then many viewers will be surprised that a few horror films actually have something to say, like George A Romero's films and The Mist. Even Drag Me to Hell is a parable.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 5:36pm
Even Drag Me to Hell is a parable
Go for it Burn LOL


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 5:42pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

I'm sorry, but even The Exorcist won't be talked about because of the acting. It'll be talked about because of the shocking scenes it presented in that time, including a girl turning her head around 360 degrees. I also never argued that people will be talking about the performances.
Yeah, but overall, it was up for Oscars. An other it has some crazy shock value scenes, there was ALOT of good acting in between.

Because those scenes are the point of the entire film. Read my short "thesis" above.
Yeah, they are plot points, sure, btu you can easily get the point across and cut away from it. But no, they stay on it. Why? Shock value.

Maybe that's because I have a structure to my reviews? I don't mention performances by any actors in any of my reviews until the last 2 paragraphs or so.
So what you're saying that with every genre movie, critics should review everything that makes the movie a genre movie first, and all other aspects of the movie should be second?

Let me see you watch this film and call those scenes entertaining...exactly.
Well, apparently there are sick f***s out there that did find it entertaining and paid to see it. Probably the same kind of sick f***s who go see "Hostel" and laugh at all the violence.

Sure, I'll agree with that. Then many viewers will be surprised that a few horror films actually have something to say, like George A Romero's films and The Mist. Even Drag Me to Hell is a parable.
Yeah, that's why I have a low opinion of horror movies. It's just cheap jumps and thrills and not much else to them. 


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 5:56pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Yeah, but overall, it was up for Oscars. An other it has some crazy shock value scenes, there was ALOT of good acting in between.

And so did this film. If you read some reviews from the critics, some would say the performances were surprisingly good for a film of this genre and one also mentions how the performances felt like coming from a completely different movie.

Yeah, they are plot points, sure, btu you can easily get the point across and cut away from it. But no, they stay on it. Why? Shock value.

It all comes down to creative decisions. Some directors would fade out early in a disturbing while others would rather have the camera linger.

So what you're saying that with every genre movie, critics should review everything that makes the movie a genre movie first, and all other aspects of the movie should be second?

I never said critics should do anything. I'm only saying that's how I structure my reviews. I need order in my life and the way I structure my reviews is talk about the movie as a whole first, and then go inside with the performances, effects, production design, costume design, soundtrack, etc. It's my personal decision how I structure my reviews.

Well, apparently there are sick f***s out there that did find it entertaining and paid to see it. Probably the same kind of sick f***s who go see "Hostel" and laugh at all the violence.

Well, when I saw Hostel, I was surprised by how much it slowly turned into a black comedy. I went in expecting torture porn but went out smiling because of how the the film shifted its tone to a comedic one. Oh, even Hostel itself presents itself an interesting theme: How people would pay to kill other people. I don't know, but Eli Roth said that he saw an internet ad on that and that was the idea that sparked the rest of the movie.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 5:58pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Go for it Burn LOL

Why are you laughing? Even director Sam Raimi stated that himself. Now look at who made a fool of himself.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 6:09pm
Yes, I've certainly been put in my place. When a hack director like Sam Raimi informs the world that an absolute piece of trash like Drag Me to Hell is a parable, who am I to think he is full of baloney?

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 6:21pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy


And so did this film. If you read some reviews from the critics, some would say the performances were surprisingly good for a film of this genre and one also mentions how the performances felt like coming from a completely different movie.
Clearly not strong enough in comparison.

It all comes down to creative decisions. Some directors would fade out early in a disturbing while others would rather have the camera linger.
And what of someone like a Uwe Boll who would have sex scenes on camera, nudity for not reason, and have animals and kids die on screen. Is that really creative decisions? Doubtful, just shock value.


I never said critics should do anything. I'm only saying that's how I structure my reviews. I need order in my life and the way I structure my reviews is talk about the movie as a whole first, and then go inside with the performances, effects, production design, costume design, soundtrack, etc. It's my personal decision how I structure my reviews.
Well, isn't the acting and the story the main focus of the movie? Everything else is just garnish and presentation that could make or break the movie.

Well, when I saw Hostel, I was surprised by how much it slowly turned into a black comedy. I went in expecting torture porn but went out smiling because of how the the film shifted its tone to a comedic one. Oh, even Hostel itself presents itself an interesting theme: How people would pay to kill other people. I don't know, but Eli Roth said that he saw an internet ad on that and that was the idea that sparked the rest of the movie.
Yeah, but people killing people in graphic detail should not be considered comedy. That is the ulimate in bad taste.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 6:21pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Go for it Burn LOL

Why are you laughing? Even director Sam Raimi stated that himself. Now look at who made a fool of himself.
From his past posts, saturnwatcher seems very against graphic violence in movies. I think that's why he's cheering on my opinion aginst torture porn movies.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 6:23pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Yes, I've certainly been put in my place. When a hack director like Sam Raimi informs the world that an absolute piece of trash like Drag Me to Hell is a parable, who am I to think he is full of baloney?
At least Raimi admits when his movies are s*** that should not be taken seriously. Meanwhile, Michael Bay walks around thinking he's the best thing that happened to Hollywood.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 6:28pm
Point taken...Raimi doesn't take his work all that seriously, and it's obvious.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 11 2010 at 8:27pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Point taken...Raimi doesn't take his work all that seriously, and it's obvious.

The Spider-Man movies, need I say more?


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 12 2010 at 6:26am
Ah c'mon now...how can anyone fail to be thrilled when Toby Maguire spits out, "I'm Thpiderman!"LOL

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 12 2010 at 12:06pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Ah c'mon now...how can anyone fail to be thrilled when Toby Maguire spits out, "I'm Thpiderman!"LOL
I was thinking more along the lines of the "evil" Venom suit making Peter Parker do such evil things ... like comb his hair into emo style, and doing bad white boy dancing! Apparently Raimi was confused if he was filmming "Spider-Man 3", "Dancing With The Stars", or "One Tree Hill".

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 12 2010 at 5:36pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

From his past posts, saturnwatcher seems very against graphic violence in movies. I think that's why he's cheering on my opinion aginst torture porn movies.

But DMTH isn't even a torture porn movie. It was critically successful, getting a 92% on RT.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 12 2010 at 5:40pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Yes, I've certainly been put in my place. When a hack director like Sam Raimi informs the world that an absolute piece of trash like Drag Me to Hell is a parable, who am I to think he is full of baloney?

The fact that this "piece of trash" has a 92% on RT, a site that even you, yourself, use to judge how bad movies are, just shows how unbelievably biased you are towards horror films. Along with the fact that you call Raimi a hack is beyond ridiculous because you can't name one bad movie from him that wasn't critically well received. Yes, even Spider-Man 3 got a Fresh rating on RT so don't give me that. Spider-Man 2 is said to be one of the best superhero movies ever made, and the Evil Dead trilogy is hailed as one of the best horror trilogies ever created.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 12 2010 at 6:34pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

The fact that this "piece of trash" has a 92% on RT, a site that even you, yourself, use to judge how bad movies are, just shows how unbelievably biased you are towards horror films. Along with the fact that you call Raimi a hack is beyond ridiculous because you can't name one bad movie from him that wasn't critically well received. Yes, even Spider-Man 3 got a Fresh rating on RT so don't give me that. Spider-Man 2 is said to be one of the best superhero movies ever made, and the Evil Dead trilogy is hailed as one of the best horror trilogies ever created.
I'm sure "DMTH" being trash is only saturn's opinon, and I'm sure he has his reasons for calling Raimi a hack. However, fans hate "Spider-Man 3". It's a joke of a movie and is the reason why the studios are going to reboot it. Dancing, emo Peter Parker, this is what a great superhero movie is made of?! And "Spider-Man 2" was good at best, but it doesn't hold a candle to "Dark Knight" or "IronMan", and "IronMan 2" is just going to blow it further away.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 12 2010 at 6:40pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

I'm sure "DMTH" being trash is only saturn's opinon, and I'm sure he has his reasons for calling Raimi a hack. However, fans hate "Spider-Man 3". It's a joke of a movie and is the reason why the studios are going to reboot it. Dancing, emo Peter Parker, this is what a great superhero movie is made of?! And "Spider-Man 2" was good at best, but it doesn't hold a candle to "Dark Knight" or "IronMan", and "IronMan 2" is just going to blow it further away.

Well, I actually loved Spider-Man 2. I think it's one of the best superhero movies ever made, up there with TDK.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: March 12 2010 at 8:18pm
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Well, I actually loved Spider-Man 2. I think it's one of the best superhero movies ever made, up there with TDK.

I'm not going to run Spidey 2 into the ground. It's better than most superhero movies, but it's not without its flaws. It's high on the list, but again, it can't top the likes of TDK, IronMan or X-Men 2.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 12 2010 at 9:11pm
The thing is, MWG, sometimes you have to read between the lines a bit. For example, consider the follwing sentence:
 
"I'd much rather get the flu than cancer."
 
 That statement does not, in any way, shape or form suggest that I believe that getting the flu is a good thing.
 
DMTH did get high marks with critics, but a close reading of a lot of the reviews clearly were positive in the sense that the critics were mostly saying, and I paraphrase, "compared to most of the other crap that has been released in the genre lately, this was a notch above." The movie pulled in a whopping $42 million at the box-office, putting it on par with some of Uwe Boll's more successful efforts.
 
As for the Spiderman license, the first two weren't terrible, but isn't really praise... so I hope MWG can resist the temptation to quote me as saying I "loved" them. Allow me to go on record and state clearly, right now, that I did not. The third one as a cinematic terd.
 
Incidentally, Raimi's 2001 film The Gift did not receive a fresh rating at RT, so yes, I can in fact "name one bad film film from him that did not receive a fresh rating." While my term of him as a hack may well be a personal opinion, I really don't have much respect for his work.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 12 2010 at 10:25pm
The thing is, MWG, sometimes you have to read between the lines a bit. For example, consider the follwing sentence:
 
"I'd much rather get the flu than cancer."
 
 That statement does not, in any way, shape or form suggest that I believe that getting the flu is a good thing.
 
DMTH did get high marks with critics, but a close reading of a lot of the reviews clearly were positive in the sense that the critics were mostly saying, and I paraphrase, "compared to most of the other crap that has been released in the genre lately, this was a notch above." The movie pulled in a whopping $42 million at the box-office, putting it on par with some of Uwe Boll's more successful efforts.
 
As for the Spiderman license, the first two weren't terrible, but that isn't really praise... so I hope MWG can resist the temptation to quote me as saying I "loved" them. Allow me to go on record and state clearly, right now, that I did not. The third one as a cinematic terd.
 
Incidentally, Raimi's 2001 film The Gift did not receive a fresh rating at RT, so yes, I can in fact "name one bad film film from him that did not receive a fresh rating." While my term of him as a hack may well be a personal opinion, I really don't have much respect for his work. Considering that a significant amout of Raimi's work has been in the horror genre, there is a very significant difference between praising someone for high standards as established by the genre historically, and praising someone for high standards established by the genre lately.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: March 13 2010 at 7:18am
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

The thing is, MWG, sometimes you have to read between the lines a bit. For example, consider the follwing sentence:
 
"I'd much rather get the flu than cancer."
 
 That statement does not, in any way, shape or form suggest that I believe that getting the flu is a good thing.
 
DMTH did get high marks with critics, but a close reading of a lot of the reviews clearly were positive in the sense that the critics were mostly saying, and I paraphrase, "compared to most of the other crap that has been released in the genre lately, this was a notch above." The movie pulled in a whopping $42 million at the box-office, putting it on par with some of Uwe Boll's more successful efforts.
 
As for the Spiderman license, the first two weren't terrible, but isn't really praise... so I hope MWG can resist the temptation to quote me as saying I "loved" them. Allow me to go on record and state clearly, right now, that I did not. The third one as a cinematic terd.
 
Incidentally, Raimi's 2001 film The Gift did not receive a fresh rating at RT, so yes, I can in fact "name one bad film film from him that did not receive a fresh rating." While my term of him as a hack may well be a personal opinion, I really don't have much respect for his work.

Fair enough. Smile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 12 2011 at 1:11pm
I just saw this,and I was dissapointed to read in the credits that it was a remake because the best part was the originality of the script.But I checked the differences and it has a lot of good new things.
 
It was wrongly marketed.The premise everywhere said "Two parents get back at the people that hurt their daughter".That doesn't happen until the last 1/3 of the movie.It's because that must've been the premise of the original.I read Wes Craven was mad because the studio told him to cut a lot of the original one,so they must've put it in this one and it made this longer.The director should've known that when reading the script.Because of it,and the fact the movie
visually wasn't very scary,I feel he's the weak spot.
 
I give this 6/10.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile



Print Page | Close Window