 |
| PSYCHO 1960 and 1998 |
OVERALL CONCLUSION: I liked them both
Is there such thing as being "too respectful"? Paying too much homage? In my opinion, no. To the rest of the world? Yes. I do not agree with the analysis that the 1998 remake was a shot for shot carbon copy of the original. To me it was clear that the original took place in the 1960's and the remake took place in the 1990's. A modern day version, with modern day topics, technology and ways of dealing with such matters Vs how things were in the 1960's. I think the real problem with the 1998 version was two things. A, some directors should be left alone and Hitchcock is one of them. You can't out do the master, so why try? Secondly, the casting in this one was off. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates didn't work.
 |
| THE RING - 1998 |
"All the best stuff is made in Japan" as the saying goes, but apparently that isn't always true. There are some things that the American's do better and horror is one of them. I laughed my way through RINGU and had trouble sleeping after THE RING. That's not to say that I feel all American films are better than Japanese ones. The 1998 American version of GODZILLA was atrociously lame. The 2000 Japanese version kicked major behind. It was a night and day difference.
 |
| THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 1974 and 2003 |
Let's face it, Tobe Hooper got lucky. There's only one reason TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE became a household name and that was due to a genius marketing strategy, "based on a true story." Without that little tagline, this film would have fallen into the hundreds of other horro films in the 70's and been gone, lost and forgotten about a long time ago. The film is absurd, the script is mundane and the performances are rather difficult to sit through.
In all sense of reality, what TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2003 is, is simply what the original TCM would be if it had a better story, it was better directed and it had better performances. Ever watch a B film that in nearly all categories more or less sucks, but at least it had an interesting concept? Think to yourself, now if done right, that could be a good film? That's essentially what happened here.
It's a shame that this film has been sequel'd and remade to death. I've seen all of the sequels and remakes/reimaginings and TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2003 is the only one that I'll conclude is good. I do enjoy TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 3: LEATHERFACE but that's more due to Tom Everett's performance than it is anything else. The rest of the films frankly bite the big one Uncle Roman.
 |
| MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE 1986 and 1997 |
I find both MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE and TRUCKS to be enjoyable enough to sit through. Neither are going to win any awards with me, but neither bother me. I feel MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE is more of a man vs machine film, full of action and determination Vs TRUCKS which has more of an apocalyptic overtone, full of an accepted fate and depression. An ending of ambiguous unknown against an ending of doom and gloom. If it's worth any consolation I feel TRUCKS is one of Timothy Busfield's best performances.
 |
| VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED 1960 and 1995 |
It amazes me as many times as I've heard that PSYCHO 1998 is a shot for shot remake of PSYCHO 1960, that people don't say the same about VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED. While I can point out the differences between the PSYCHO films, the only difference between VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED 1960 and VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED 1995 is that one is in black and white and the other is in color. I'm not saying that either is a bad film. I enjoyed them both, but other than being a tad more violent, you can play these films side by side at the same time and you're watching the same film. To some that is troublesome and I get that. Why remake a film if you're going to put nothing original into it? I get that. Yet I'd rather have that than for someone to be so original and creative in their direction, that they forget that this was someone else's idea to begin with.
No comments:
Post a Comment