The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Remakes of films. Texas Chainsaw, Longest Yard etc.
Pointless exercises in introducing older films to stupid new viewers, usually sticking rappers in to capture that sub-urban demographic.
Well that's fine, I can take em or leave em.
Except for one I've just heard about.
Ready? Ready for the next remake?
The Hitcher.
Now anybody that's seen that film is going to sigh deeply and shake their head. Anybody that hasn't seen it, needs to - trust me on this, go rent it from Blockbuster or buy it, it's cheap now.
Oh but it gets better, ready?
The character of Jim Halsey (C Thomas Howell) is...drumroll...now a woman!
Yep. No doubt some nubile teen who'll be chased through abandoned buildings and getting all sweaty and semi-nude for your enjoyment.
Why?
Why remake this film? Just re-release it for chrissakes.
You cannot come close to the atmosphere of dread and fear of the original.
And you'll not top Rutger Hauer as the Hitcher.
And you can bet your ass there'll be some reason given for him being a maniac, instead of just a relentless force of nature.
Remaking The Hitcher...bah.
Pointless exercises in introducing older films to stupid new viewers, usually sticking rappers in to capture that sub-urban demographic.
Well that's fine, I can take em or leave em.
Except for one I've just heard about.
Ready? Ready for the next remake?
The Hitcher.
Now anybody that's seen that film is going to sigh deeply and shake their head. Anybody that hasn't seen it, needs to - trust me on this, go rent it from Blockbuster or buy it, it's cheap now.
Oh but it gets better, ready?
The character of Jim Halsey (C Thomas Howell) is...drumroll...now a woman!
Yep. No doubt some nubile teen who'll be chased through abandoned buildings and getting all sweaty and semi-nude for your enjoyment.
Why?
Why remake this film? Just re-release it for chrissakes.
You cannot come close to the atmosphere of dread and fear of the original.
And you'll not top Rutger Hauer as the Hitcher.
And you can bet your ass there'll be some reason given for him being a maniac, instead of just a relentless force of nature.
Remaking The Hitcher...bah.
Page:
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> You want a sacrilegious remake? Try this for size. Michael Bay's
> production company, the one that remade Texas Chainsaw and
> Amityville, are remaking...
>
> The Birds.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
they'll just overdo it with loads of cg flocking tricks and totally lose the mystery. the original was great because of it's limitations, their use of sound really added urgency to the panicked feeling of the attacks (same way as Pirahna did) and the fact that it was seemingly random made it more sinister. you can pretty much guarantee the remake will offer some lame reason for it all and then deliver a barrel load of overacted lines implying the birds are all terrorists or something equally crap.
> You want a sacrilegious remake? Try this for size. Michael Bay's
> production company, the one that remade Texas Chainsaw and
> Amityville, are remaking...
>
> The Birds.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
they'll just overdo it with loads of cg flocking tricks and totally lose the mystery. the original was great because of it's limitations, their use of sound really added urgency to the panicked feeling of the attacks (same way as Pirahna did) and the fact that it was seemingly random made it more sinister. you can pretty much guarantee the remake will offer some lame reason for it all and then deliver a barrel load of overacted lines implying the birds are all terrorists or something equally crap.
monkey_man wrote:
> Thanks Mate...
>
> Whhile we're spoiling things:
Not too nice when people deliberately spoil for others huh? ;D ;D ;D
I've seen Oldboy a number of times. The twist floored me the first time.
> Thanks Mate...
>
> Whhile we're spoiling things:
Not too nice when people deliberately spoil for others huh? ;D ;D ;D
I've seen Oldboy a number of times. The twist floored me the first time.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> I'd bet money that Jennifer Leighs equivalent doesn't get ripped apart
> between two trucks.
Thanks Mate...
Whhile we're spoiling things:
*spoilers*
What are the chances of the twist in Hollywood Oldboy being the incest? Or the live octopus eating scene? It's only a few years old, and it's perfect as it is! You don't even need the subtitles if you have half a brain!
> I'd bet money that Jennifer Leighs equivalent doesn't get ripped apart
> between two trucks.
Thanks Mate...
Whhile we're spoiling things:
*spoilers*
What are the chances of the twist in Hollywood Oldboy being the incest? Or the live octopus eating scene? It's only a few years old, and it's perfect as it is! You don't even need the subtitles if you have half a brain!
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> I thought we learned our lesson about remaking Hitchcock after
> Psycho, no?
They had a remak of psycho on BBC2 the other day. I tuned in just in time for the shower scene and tuned right back out again. Atrocious.
> I thought we learned our lesson about remaking Hitchcock after
> Psycho, no?
They had a remak of psycho on BBC2 the other day. I tuned in just in time for the shower scene and tuned right back out again. Atrocious.
Remakes can work. But only, it seems, if a bad movie is remade.
Oceans 11 was a piece of self indulgent cockwad, but the remake was thoroughly good fun (okay, so Oceans 12 fell into the same trap as the original, but what the hey...)
Oceans 11 was a piece of self indulgent cockwad, but the remake was thoroughly good fun (okay, so Oceans 12 fell into the same trap as the original, but what the hey...)
I'd bet money that Jennifer Leighs equivalent doesn't get ripped apart between two trucks.
Well, how about a remake of Oldboy, by the person directing The Fast & The Furious 3? Top that.
What I want to know is why haven't they remade My Fair Lady by setting it in South Central? That'd give me a giggle...
Give it time, and they'll probably start remaking Jeunot films. At which point, I shall be getting arrested for a shooting spree a la Dogma and the Mooby board of directors.
Give it time, and they'll probably start remaking Jeunot films. At which point, I shall be getting arrested for a shooting spree a la Dogma and the Mooby board of directors.
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> "Sure, I'll let you go. All you have to do is repeat 4 words
> after me ... I ... Want ... to ... die."
-------
Exactly. It has very sparse dialogue but what there is works. It's all about mood and atmosphere, the frantic hopelessness from Halsey as he realises this guy is going to kill him, whatever he does and however he tries to escape.
With no reason ever offered as to why. Even Hauer has said that film unsettles him to watch and Thomas Howell says in the documentary on the 2-disc special that he was genuinely frightened of Hauer on and off the set.
It got a lot of flack originally because of the homoerotic undertones between Ryder & Halsey and from the fact it's just plain nasty and doesn't offer an easy way out. No motive offered for why Ryder does what he does, no explanation of his past and no indication of his motives.
Even the ending isn't a standard face-off between hero & villain, Ryder says at the very beginning when Halsey asks
"What do you want?"
"I want you...to stop me"
And audiences simply can't handle not being given everything in a nice package replete with ribbon and bow.
Roger Ebert's review sums up the general feeling of this film to reviewers and standard movie-goers:
"On its own terms, this movie is diseased and corrupt. I would have admired it more if it had found the courage to acknowledge the real relationship it was portraying between Howell and Rutger, but no: It prefers to disguise itself as a violent thriller, and on that level it is reprehensible"
And I promise you, apart from making the Halsey character a female, there will be none of that in the remake.
It'll be some godawful stalk'n slash movie. And the ending won't simply be what it is already, but will be some cliched hunt-through-a-deserted-warehouse finale where she hides and almost gets caught, escapes and wreaks vengeance instead of doing what Halsey does.
There won't be a similar character to Jennifer Jason-Leigh and that character would never, in modern cinema times, meet the same end.
It'll be a ball-less teen horror with nu-metal soundtrack and Nelly or DMX as her boyfriend she calls just before her mobile dies.
You can buy the special edition original for £5, if you haven't seen it then order it today and watch something uniquely nasty and insidious before Hollywood execs gut this flick and leave it out to dry in the desert sun
[URL]http://www.play.com/play247.asp?pa=srmr&page=title&r=R2&title=116684[/URL]
> "Sure, I'll let you go. All you have to do is repeat 4 words
> after me ... I ... Want ... to ... die."
-------
Exactly. It has very sparse dialogue but what there is works. It's all about mood and atmosphere, the frantic hopelessness from Halsey as he realises this guy is going to kill him, whatever he does and however he tries to escape.
With no reason ever offered as to why. Even Hauer has said that film unsettles him to watch and Thomas Howell says in the documentary on the 2-disc special that he was genuinely frightened of Hauer on and off the set.
It got a lot of flack originally because of the homoerotic undertones between Ryder & Halsey and from the fact it's just plain nasty and doesn't offer an easy way out. No motive offered for why Ryder does what he does, no explanation of his past and no indication of his motives.
Even the ending isn't a standard face-off between hero & villain, Ryder says at the very beginning when Halsey asks
"What do you want?"
"I want you...to stop me"
And audiences simply can't handle not being given everything in a nice package replete with ribbon and bow.
Roger Ebert's review sums up the general feeling of this film to reviewers and standard movie-goers:
"On its own terms, this movie is diseased and corrupt. I would have admired it more if it had found the courage to acknowledge the real relationship it was portraying between Howell and Rutger, but no: It prefers to disguise itself as a violent thriller, and on that level it is reprehensible"
And I promise you, apart from making the Halsey character a female, there will be none of that in the remake.
It'll be some godawful stalk'n slash movie. And the ending won't simply be what it is already, but will be some cliched hunt-through-a-deserted-warehouse finale where she hides and almost gets caught, escapes and wreaks vengeance instead of doing what Halsey does.
There won't be a similar character to Jennifer Jason-Leigh and that character would never, in modern cinema times, meet the same end.
It'll be a ball-less teen horror with nu-metal soundtrack and Nelly or DMX as her boyfriend she calls just before her mobile dies.
You can buy the special edition original for £5, if you haven't seen it then order it today and watch something uniquely nasty and insidious before Hollywood execs gut this flick and leave it out to dry in the desert sun
[URL]http://www.play.com/play247.asp?pa=srmr&page=title&r=R2&title=116684[/URL]
Remaking The hitcher is completly retarded, I can understand the Amittyville and TCM remakes simply because they haven't aged particuarly well. But The Hitcher? funk out of here
Oh and people complaining about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It's not actually a remake, it's just a new vision of the original book. Everytime a different version of a Shakespear play comes out, does that mean they're remaking the last film? hell no!
Burton intends the film to sit alongside the original film, not remake it.
Oh and people complaining about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. It's not actually a remake, it's just a new vision of the original book. Everytime a different version of a Shakespear play comes out, does that mean they're remaking the last film? hell no!
Burton intends the film to sit alongside the original film, not remake it.
Page: