[quote name='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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]
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.
" won't ever be noticed
