Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by tcrash247 Evil Dead - Really good remake. I'm a huge Evil Dead fan so I was a little cautious with this but they did a great job making it their own while also putting in references from the original. I was surprised with the amount of gore in it, that was very well done too. I got passes for free to a prescreening but I will gladly pay to see it again when it releases.

I'm obviously as well . I might not have to boycott this remake anymore.

^ Why were you boycotting it to begin with?

There is supposed to be a sequel to Army of Darkness coming out sometime in the future according to Raimi. So don't worry, The Chin will return I'm sure.

Spring Breaaaaaaaak

Such an awesome movie.

Originally Posted by moon_knight ^ Why were you boycotting it to begin with?

First, I'm a big fan of the Evil Dead Trilogy and didn't want to see it remade.

Second, I don't like most remakes. They tend to present more style over substance.

Third, no Bruce Campbell as Ash.

I think one of the main reasons I liked it is because they didn't put Ash in it. I think if there was a character named Ash and he cut his hand off and replaced it with a chainsaw yada yada then I would have hated it. They did this remake the right way.

Originally Posted by evildeadjedi First, I'm a big fan of the Evil Dead Trilogy and didn't want to see it remade. Second, I don't like most remakes. They tend to present more style over substance. Third, no Bruce Campbell as Ash.

Just because some remakes suck doesn't mean all of them do. Avoiding a movie just because its remake isn't a very valid reason imo.

"Killer Joe"

Yeah, Matthew McConaughy is ed up in this movie. chuckles. I mean I heard he was a sob in this.

Oh and I'm sure a lot of you here would like to see Gina Gershon play a White trash housewife. chuckle.

Willaim Friedkin directed it. It's not as weird as "Bug" but it does have some scenes.

Originally Posted by evildeadjedi First, I'm a big fan of the Evil Dead Trilogy and didn't want to see it remade. Second, I don't like most remakes. They tend to present more style over substance. Third, no Bruce Campbell as Ash.

I may be wrong but isn't it being remade by the same people who made the originals (Produced by Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi). I could see if you boycotted it if it was made by someone else entirely. Then again there is the George Lucas factor.

Oz, the Great and Powerful - I originally wanted to see it on opening weekend, but couldn't fit it into my schedule so I kind of lost interest in this, but I had some cheap tickets so I went and saw this last night. I loved it. The story wasn't anything spectacular, but the charm was there and the visuals were top-notch. James Franco definitely helped it, but really the rest of the cast was great as well.

Chernobyl diaries 3.75/5 - I really liked this because it had great immersion, made you feel like you were there too. It starts off great and goes downhill, but still stays good enough.

Originally Posted by J7. Chernobyl diaries 3.75/5 - I really liked this because it had great immersion, made you feel like you were there too. It starts off great and goes downhill, but still stays good enough.

I've wanted to blind buy this for a long time but there's never a deal on it. How can a movie hated on by so many hold a $20 price tag?

Originally Posted by moon_knight Just because some remakes suck doesn't mean all of them do. Avoiding a movie just because its remake isn't a very valid reason imo.

From what I've read, it doesn't establish itself as it's own film, but tries to throw in as many homages to the original as possible. It's one of the biggest reasons the premake of The Thing was horrible... It relied too heavily on recreating scenes which happened in Carpenter's version, which then took you out of the film... It didn't have it's own identity, it was too busy waving it's arms in the air saying "We know what you want and here it is!!!"

On top of that, Diablo Cody's writing is extremely one-dimensional. Are people only excited because this movie is full of gore?

Originally Posted by Jodou I've wanted to blind buy this for a long time but there's never a deal on it. How can a movie hated on by so many hold a $20 price tag?

That's weird. If I were you I would rent it instead. Not sure I'd watch it again.

Originally Posted by Vulgarism From what I've read, it doesn't establish itself as it's own film, but tries to throw in as many homages to the original as possible. It's one of the biggest reasons the premake of The Thing was horrible... It relied too heavily on recreating scenes which happened in Carpenter's version, which then took you out of the film... It didn't have it's own identity, it was too busy waving it's arms in the air saying "We know what you want and here it is!!!" On top of that, Diablo Cody's writing is extremely one-dimensional. Are people only excited because this movie is full of gore?

I was a huge fan of the original The Thing, and I found the remake to be excellent. One of the best remakes ever made. It was the same yet just... updated.

Originally Posted by Vulgarism From what I've read, it doesn't establish itself as it's own film, but tries to throw in as many homages to the original as possible. It's one of the biggest reasons the premake of The Thing was horrible... It relied too heavily on recreating scenes which happened in Carpenter's version, which then took you out of the film... It didn't have it's own identity, it was too busy waving it's arms in the air saying "We know what you want and here it is!!!" On top of that, Diablo Cody's writing is extremely one-dimensional. Are people only excited because this movie is full of gore?

I think it does a terrific job of making itself it's own film. Obviously it has some scenes and homages to the original, it's a ing remake. But there's enough in here to stand on it's own. Maybe you should see it before making assumptions based on reviews.

I agree that The Thing prequel was awful, but that's because it was a prequel and not a remake. If it were a remake then of course you can get away with using specific scenes from the original, but a prequel has the task of being new and fresh while setting up for the next movie. So honestly, comparing The Thing and Evil Dead is completely pointless, a prequel and a remake are in no way the same thing.

Originally Posted by moon_knight Just because some remakes suck doesn't mean all of them do. Avoiding a movie just because its remake isn't a very valid reason imo.

Nope.

People also like saying a movie sucks just because it's a remake.

Terrible "The Wolverine" Poster:

Originally Posted by tcrash247 I think it does a terrific job of making itself it's own film. Obviously it has some scenes and homages to the original, it's a ing remake. But there's enough in here to stand on it's own. Maybe you should see it before making assumptions based on reviews.

Oh, if I made assumptions based on reviewS, I'd say I would be in for a treat... But, one of the two people I tend to side with (Devin Faraci) made valid points that I was worried about. From that one sentence write-up, it sounds wonderful. It takes the over-used friends going to the woods for a weekend of partying and sex, and replaces it with something very grounded in reality and intriguing. I am also sure the gore is fantastic, but I've watched enough splatter films and exploitation in my life to need more than that in a film. The marketing also seems to be so up it's own ass that it's completely turned me off from the film... Now, mind you, I know that isn't any credit to any of the talent attached to the film, but rather the production company, but regardless, if you have to go out of your way these days to label yourself as the "best" or "greatest" or even "scariest" film ever, you need to get off your pedestal. This movie was completely unnecessary. It took a film with a little bit of black humor (everybody says that The Evil Dead was completely serious, but they are for the most part, wrong) and turned it into something that your typical teenager will go into and come out saying it is, indeed, the scariest movie ever. I'll eventually watch it, but I'm not going to sit in a theater distracted by the ominous glow of phones tweeting out how scared shitless each attendant is. Bleh.

Originally Posted by moon_knight Just because some remakes suck doesn't mean all of them do. Avoiding a movie just because its remake isn't a very valid reason imo.

There are some exceptional remakes. Say what you will about little character development in Dawn of the Dead, but it took something that had a loud message and shed a lot of the weight to make it a more lean experience. Sure, it tripped over itself a few times, but it worked out so well in the end by bringing a pulse to a dying genre. Plus, The Ring is somewhere in my top twenty, as Verbinski didn't sacrifice the terrifying "what if" scenario to make a movie that over explained itself. Plus, Naomi Watts in that movie...

In The Evil Dead, it was such a shallow film, but it was executed with such a fun atmosphere. You could tell Raimi and Campbell were loving every second they shot. There wasn't much in the way of plot development or even character development, but Ash became such a recognizable character that it spawned not only two sequels, but also a pretty interesting career for Campbell. It's going to be extremely hard to find a character to latch onto like you did with Ash in a remake that seems to be so much style over substance. Again, the idea of going into the woods for an intervention is such a great, fresh take on the genre, but there seems to be a lack of any strong lead or character in the film at all.

Silent House - Pretty impressive and downright mind-blowing that it was all filmed in one take. However, the ending was extremely disappointing and kind of made the rest of the movie seem pointless.

Originally Posted by Tsel Silent House - Pretty impressive and downright mind-blowing that it was all filmed in one take. However, the ending was extremely disappointing and kind of made the rest of the movie seem pointless.

Agreed. The ending completely ruined the movie for me.

I was impressed with Elizabeth Olsen though. Didn't realize she was related to the Olsen twins at first since she doesn't look like a gremlin.